All Episodes
Previous Next
March 8, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:21:43
How The 2020 Election Was REALLY Won - Mike Benz’s EXPLOSIVE Revelation - Stay Free #321
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I'm a black man and I could never be a better man. I'm the second to no one, I'm the one I'm gonna rule to. So I'm
looking for this deal. Looking for this deal.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thank you for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand and what a fantastic show it is.
We're talking about the new and emergent wall of silence around COVID as people begin to grapple with and tackle the sad fact that we've been lied to on an astonishing scale.
And to help us to understand that in new and extraordinary terms is Mike Benz.
This is an interview That's going to change the way you understand reality, media, and the deep state in particular.
For the first 15 minutes or so, we will be on YouTube, but then you're gonna have to watch us exclusively on Rumble, but precisely because Mike Benz is dismantling the state before your very eyes.
Let me know, to win a mug, what is the phrase he used to describe the nexus of interest that control the world?
Is it the slab?
Is it the git?
Or is it C, the blob?
You could win a mug if you answer that correctly.
Let us know in both the rumble chat and of course the awakened wonder chat over on locals who've already seen this live and had the ability to ask questions to Mike.
For example, Judy Denmark asked a beautiful, valuable and important question.
And you will get 25% off these mugs when you add them to the basket at the moment.
The reason we're giving away these mugs More or less is because that's what the deep state thinks we are.
So let's get into Mike Benz.
Mike Benz is a former State Department official with responsibilities in formulating and negotiating U.S.
foreign policy on international communications and information technology matters.
He founded FFO as a civil society institution building on his experience in the role of championing digital freedom around the world in the public sector.
You can follow him on X at Mike Benz Cyber.
There's a link in the chat right now for that.
And visit foundationforfreedomonline.com.
There's a link for that as well.
It's an incredible conversation.
We talked about the rigged state, rigged elections, the deep state, the CIA in Ukraine.
You're going to come out of this so smart.
Just let me know what your favorite bit of this is and get ready to get educated.
Okay, without further hullabaloo, here's my conversation with Mike Benz.
We'll only be available on YouTube for a minute because this is just too intoxicating.
Check it out.
Mike, thank you.
Thanks, Russell, for having me.
Mike, your interview with Tucker Carlson has, I think, moved the needle when it comes to understanding the deep state, when it comes to understanding censorship, continuing the important work of Martin Goury, the former CIA analyst and author of the book Revolt of the Public, and helps us to understand that we're living in a moment where global authority is recognizing that their monoculture is under threat and that there is a kind of natural inertia
towards more decentralized power, more communication, more free speech and this surge towards
authoritarianism, even if it's under the auspices of liberal ideas, is a response to the
possibility of true freedom. Does that, broadly speaking, fit your analysis of what's happening on
a macro level, Mike?
Yeah, that's completely it. And it appears through that with a little bit more specificity.
You have basically this foreign policy establishment, is what it's typically referred to in Washington.
These are the elements of our national governments, both in the U.S.
and in the U.K.
and in NATO countries, that are supposed to be foreign-facing to manage the empire, so to speak, but are supposed to be for the benefit of the citizens who live in that country And what they've basically discovered is because of free speech on the internet, they've lost control over the bumper rails around democracy when media was typically controlled or intermediated by the state.
And so now you basically have the foreign policy establishment against domestic populism, which is not a partisan issue.
Left-wing populism and right-wing populism both flank This kind of globalist or neoliberal sort of structure that we're describing.
And so it's really not a partisan issue.
It's not a Republican Democrat thing.
It's kind of a universal human experience now trying to fight against this blob.
I like that you've coined that phrase, the blob, and in many of my conversations lately I've been quoting what you said about democracy, that democracy does not now mean electoral process and representation of the will of the people, it means the protection of a set of institutions.
I wonder if you would Elaborate on that idea as it pertains to, for example, the protection of democracy in Ukraine and the obligation of the American or British taxpayer to not advocate for a diplomatic end to the war in order to protect Ukrainian people, but an ongoing, potentially unwinnable, potentially eventually nuclear war with an indefatigable and difficult to defeat opponent.
How does the use of the term democracy apply here?
Well, that's a perfect example.
I just want to start with one quick clarification.
I wish that I had coined the term, the blob, to describe the foreign policy establishment.
Unfortunately, that distinction goes to President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, who used that term to describe the blob.
And the blob loved the term so much that they now use that term lovingly to describe themselves.
So right now, on my X handle, you can I have a quote from Victoria Newland's husband, since we're about to talk about Ukraine and a lot of the funny business going on over there.
Victoria Newland's husband is Robert Kagan.
One week before the 2020 election, he wrote in Brookings A piece called Respect the Blob.
This was his advice for the next president of the United States one week before the 2020 election.
He wrote, respect the blob, learn from the blob, love the blob.
So this is one of the arch blob monsters whose wife is basically running the show of foreign policy in the you know, the hotbed of Ukraine, who's basically saying, if
you want to have stability in your next presidency, you will love us and do what we say. In
fact, you will learn from us. We are your master, not the other way around, which is really, I think,
quite a profound insight that you can publish that publicly, and few will even bat an eye. But on
the Ukraine situation, you know, Ukraine has not had elections in three years.
They banned elections a year and a half ago.
They banned it again six months ago.
It really is the archetypal example of democracy's redefinition from being a consensus of individuals to a consensus of institutions.
We say that we are, you know, in Ukraine to defend democracy.
Meanwhile, there is no democratic vote.
What we have there are, you know, basically a set of what we call democratic institutions, which is a very, very nasty framing device intended to deceive people about what's really going on.
See, we flood the zone with NGOs and civil society institutions, so-called civil society institutions.
As well as getting hundreds of thousands of people on payroll in order to co-op portions of the region that we are trying to politically control.
So Victoria Nuland herself, you know, I just read the quote from her husband, you know, respect the blob, learn from the blob, love the blob.
Victoria Nuland, when she was the head of the US Embassy in Kiev, ahead of the 2014 coup that was jointly orchestrated by the US and UK governments, Victoria Nuland was on a panel where she publicly discussed how they pumped the State Department, pumped $5 billion into Ukrainian civil society in the run-up to that coup.
So that is, they capacity built a regime change instrument with $5 billion in taxpayer money And that gets distributed to a network of NGOs.
So, for example, there's an entity called the Ukraine Crisis Media Center.
Now, I talked about this just last night on Dan Bongino's show.
We had the biggest stream on the internet going through this, where we discussed the so-called red lines memo.
This was a memo by the democratic institutions of Ukraine.
It was a 60 or 70 undersigned civil society institutions who all got funding either directly from the US State Department, USAID, or CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy, or through the George Soros networks, who's partnered with the State Department and NATO, where one week into Zelensky's election in 2019, They described all the red lines that if he passed them in terms of policy in Ukraine, it would cause so-called political instability, meaning that they would overthrow his government.
He would become as unstable as his predecessors were.
And it was on security issues, financial issues, cultural issues, national identity issues.
If they wanted to change the language laws and allow Russian as a speaking language back in the state, that these 70 plus state department and UK foreign office funded NGO swarms would destabilize the country.
But that's what they mean by democracy.
They mean a consensus of those institutions, not the people who live in Ukraine.
Okay, before the next question, we're going to have to leave YouTube.
So Mike will be paused for a moment.
Remember, you can become an Awakened Wonder and you'll get access to some astonishing deals.
And if you can answer the question I posed correctly in the Rumble stream or in the local stream, you can win one of these entirely for free.
They're 25% off at the moment, as you can see.
Anyway, and if you're answering the question on Rumble, remember to send us your email details so we can organize the delivery of Your prize.
Anyway, people, Awake and Wonders on YouTube, thank you so much for joining us.
Click the link in your description.
Get over to Rumble to watch this important conversation right now.
See you in a second.
Yeah, that's extraordinary.
to learn of more of these peculiar marital partnerships like the one described between
Victoria Nuland and her husband. In our country, Dame Caroline Dainich, who's the head of our
Department of Culture, who demanded successfully actually that YouTube demonetize me, and whose
department has a lot of information on me that even Freedom of Information Act requests have
not yet fully revealed, who also is demonstrated pay groups like Logically AI as proxies to
crush dissent, is similarly married to a man called Mark Lancaster. I don't know if you're
familiar with this story, who operates PsyOps and formerly worked in crushing dissent or opposing
foreign terrorist forces, and whose organizations have similarly been deployed against domestic
populations in the same way as you've described.
So whilst these institutions are what the Synecdoche democracy now represents, it is a truly global phenomenon.
Do you know much about Caroline Dynadge or indeed Mark Lancaster?
And do you see similar themes in the USA and UK when it comes to crushing dissent, control and controlling public discourse?
Totally similar themes.
It's uncanny, actually.
This is what's referred to as the Transatlantic Alliance.
You know, the U.S.
State Department and the U.K.
Foreign Office, the There's almost no daylight between them.
And in fact, one of the favorite tricks for U.S.
citizens to be censored by the U.S.
State Department or by the U.S.
Pentagon, which is supposed to be foreign-facing, is for the State Department and the Pentagon to sign contracts or give grants to British censorship organizations.
So almost all of the major U.S.
censorship heavyweights have connections to the City of London.
So, you know, the Atlanta council, for example, which has seven CIA directors on its board,
annual funding from the Pentagon, the State Department, and CIA cutouts like the National Endowment for Democracy,
you know, is London-based.
You have, you know, you have the Center for Countering Digital Hate, London-based.
You have the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, London-based.
And every time these domestic censorship institutions, when you look up the chain,
they are either US or British intelligence, US or British diplomacy, or US or British, you know,
military, defense.
So it's either defense, diplomacy, or intelligence.
None of those are supposed to be impacting domestic citizens in either the U.S.
or Britain, but they do because the foreign policy establishment needs the money and it needs the mandate of the people who live here.
So we have a military doctrine here in the U.S.
that we've you know, observed for decades around the four sort of
theaters of war. There's the so-called strategic, the tactical, the logistical, and the political.
These are four ways to win or lose a war, you know, basically your grand strategy, your tactics,
where you're going to attack, the logistical, what kind of supplies, and how you get the
supply lines all lined up so that you can pull off the tactics to achieve the strategy. But
the fourth category is referred to as the political theater of war, which is that you can
win or lose a war simply by swaying the hearts and minds of the people who live in the target
country to support or oppose the war.
So, for example, the military establishment, you know, still to this day maintains in large part that we lost in Vietnam, the US, not because we lost on the battlefield or we lost strategically or logistically, but because we lost politically And the hearts and minds of the people who lived in the U.S.
decided to defund the Vietnam War and decided to basically scale back the legal mandate for the military to operate there.
And when George Bush rose to power and did basically the Gulf Wars of the 1990s, there was that famous quote of, by God, we kicked Vietnam syndrome.
This new jurisdiction of the BLOB, of the Foreign Policy Establishment, to specifically target domestic citizens to make sure that they cannot vote against the priorities of the Foreign Policy Establishment, has completely inverted our grand conception of what democracy has meant since the French Revolution.
Because what they're essentially saying is, listen, we're going to let you guys decide amongst yourselves about what kind of tax policy you want to have, you know, or if you want a stop sign on your local street corner.
But when it comes to foreign policy, you, the people of the homeland, are basically subjects of this foreign policy overclass.
It's very similar to the way Second World governments are often structured, where there's a hybrid government structure.
Pakistan's a great example of this.
There's a democratically elected Prime Minister.
But there's a military and intelligence side of the government who controls all foreign policy formally.
And when the Prime Minister attempts to change the foreign policy of the country, as Imran Khan did, they will get couped out of office by the military.
And this is essentially what we're living through right now, both in the US, in the UK, and throughout NATO.
And, you know, this is one of these things where if it's not stopped immediately, This, you know, this is a cancer that will metastasize to the heart and lungs and it's very hard to see a way out of it with another few years of maturity.
You've helped me once again understand the true nature of these intersectional institutions, that it is the function of the media to ensure that in terms of public opinion there is a degree of legitimacy for the ongoing, non-consensual, undemocratic foreign policy of the military, industrial, Complex in order to ensure that another Vietnam does not occur.
When we begin to learn more and more about the true history of the Ukraine-Russia conflict it becomes more and more difficult to support the war financially and the idea that we have no There is no mandate and we have no access to policy even
though we fund those wars.
Is it astonishing to hear that it's ultimately similar to countries that we might regard
somewhat derisorily like Pakistan?
Like we say, oh Pakistan is a different post-colonial nation.
But actually we have very similar institutions.
Victoria Newland, this is a question from a member of our community, Judy Denmark.
They're watching us now.
These are our supporters, our most important and most beloved audience.
Judy Denmark asks, Mike, what is your opinion of the impact of Victoria Newland's resignation?
Is it itself an indication of a change of policy, that the people are understanding these issues in a different way, or is it just sort of a coincidence?
Yeah, so thanks for that question.
Yeah, there's I can't see through the fog of war of this.
I have basically three sort of speculative senses, but with not a particularly high confidence, you know, interval in any particular one, but I'll run through them.
So number one is, you know, you did just have this scandal where the German government was caught plotting to bomb the main bridge into Crimea.
The German government would not do something like that without the approval of the U.S.
State Department, and this is a major international scandal where it would be a major, major escalation of the war directly by NATO against Russia.
There may be some people who need to fall on grenades in order for the U.S.
State Department to say, well, that was a bad idea by a bad apple, so to speak.
I don't think they're going to go that far with with Victoria Nuland, but the timing of that is quite interesting.
The second one is, you know, I've been maintaining for some time that ultimately a military-to-military skirmish of NATO against Russia is simply not going to work out well for NATO because of the logistics of it all.
You know, the U.S.
having to ship fighter jets and tanks 5,000 miles across an ocean, having to deal with the logistical nightmare of You know, funding and supporting a proxy state, you know, as far as you can get on the world map from the homeland versus Russia.
It's basically an adjunct of their own territory in terms of it being right on the border.
But you have the situation where the military affairs in the country have turned very sour for the optimistic hopes that NATO had even a year ago and territory continues to fall.
I think three new towns just fell last week.
And I think ultimately a ceasefire, something like the Minsk Accords that were struck after the 2014 Crimea annexation, are going to have to be signed by NATO in order to stop the bleeding, so to speak, of territory continuing to fall.
And I think at that point what you're going to have is less statecraft and more intelligence work.
So I always describe the blob as being the State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon all moving as one, and they're completely interchangeable.
Whenever you see the State Department, that means the CIA and the Pentagon are there, you just don't see them yet.
If the CIA is there, that means the State Department and Pentagon are there, you just don't see them yet.
It all moves through something called the interagency process.
They never separate from each other.
But they play different roles, and what we just saw last week with the New York Times CIA story is very interesting.
The New York Times published a story about these 12 CIA bases on the outer rim of the Ukrainian border.
Now, this was not declassified intelligence, right?
This is not publicly accessible.
These 200 plus interviews the New York Times conducted were on a top secret CIA base, one of the 12 in Ukraine,
which means the CIA had to have invited them in and cleared them through security.
This was a CIA story that was given to the New York Times for the specific purpose of getting Republicans
to fund more CIA activity.
The New York Times even specifically targeted Mike Johnson and the Republicans in the House of Representatives
who are holding up a 60 to $100 billion new infusion of taxpayer cash into Ukraine.
So this was a selectively leaked story of highly, highly classified intelligence by the CIA
in order to manipulate the votes of our legislature in order to provide more funding to the CIA.
Now, I think that part of that story in emphasizing the critical importance of these CIA bases
is that we will be moving from a...
a pentagon state department overt statecraft role in ukraine into much more of a clandestine small wars operation you know of the type that was done in nicaragua and iran contra and uh and so i think victoria newland's role may actually be less salient and i would where she goes next is going to tell this story if she goes over to someplace like the atlantic council which is seven cia directors on it that means that you know she'll be coordinating the cia aspect of of those political affairs so you know it's We should be paying attention to her next landing strip.
That will clear the fog of war, I think.
When the New York Times facilitate a CIA leak, acknowledging within the text of that article,
which we covered here on our channel, that it's information that they, to a degree,
had information on previously, but only revealed at the point that the CIA sanctioned it,
does that show yet more explicitly the role of the legacy media in amplifying
or normalizing the message of the state, or indeed, in this instance, the blob?
And does it point to hypocrisy in journalism and legacy media when it comes to
the current Julian Assange issue, where he is awaiting extradition,
and the recent jailing as a result of a plea bargain, I understand, of your man Teixeira, the young kid there,
the 22-year-old, who's just, I think, copped a 16-year sentence in your country,
but for revealing information that isn't sanctioned by the state.
What does this show about the relationship of the legacy media?
With the blob, in particular this New York Times story in relation to the persecution under the Espionage Act of Assange and others, and the recent story of Jack Teixeira.
Right.
What it shows is a favoritism on the part of the intelligence community to partner with media conduits who will serve as amplifiers for the priorities of the blob.
The Assange example is right on.
If the New York Times had published this without the approval and without the glowing positive reviews of the CIA wanting them to do it, that's the difference between a Pulitzer Prize story and 100 years in prison.
It's unbelievable how much our precepts around freedom of the press have fallen just in the past decade, but this is again because of how politically threatened they are by freedom of speech on the internet.
I think that Julian Assange did not anticipate that the rules of... Because we have the Pentagon Papers in this country.
We just talked about the Vietnam War.
and how that was basically lost in the political realm because people told their, you know,
we're seeing their kids coming home in body bags, said we want to stop funding this war,
we want to stop military operations in a place that's 8,000 miles away from us,
we want to put our own homeland interests before that of the empire. And part of that
was politically made feasible because of the free and open press, you know, because the press was
covering the casualties of the war. And because there were things like the Pentagon Papers,
where there were, you know, where there was leaked classified information about how bad the war was
And in this case, you know, it's sort of the flip side of that.
And I think Michael Schellenberger and others have covered, you know, how the blob itself has internally reoriented to say that they would not do the Pentagon Papers over again today.
That in the modern environment, it is not ethical for a journalist to simply publish leaks that they've obtained legally because it would undermine, you know, the sensitive priorities of the state.
That's completely flipped now, and what checks and balances there were on the Blob's power in the 1960s and 70s, as limited as they were then, are almost completely gone now.
But just one last thing on this is, you know, how much grief did Tucker Carlson get just a month ago when he did the Vladimir Putin interview?
Because Putin had denied interviews to people like Christina Amanpour and CNN, and we were told that only foreign authoritarian dictators will selectively give, you know, interviews Well, do you think the Central Intelligence Agency would have invited Tucker Carlson onto the base in order to have those 200?
This wasn't a general all-access media invite to a highly classified CIA base on the outer rim of Ukraine.
They hand-picked the New York Times.
Who was, by the way, the star of the show of Operation Mockingbird from the 1950s to the 1970s with the Sulzberger family when the CIA had 10 to 12 designated editor spots to be able to write CIA scripts for the New York Times.
I mean, this is just the classic pass-through relationship.
We were told only foreign authoritarians do that, that picking winners and losers to make sure there's glowing review of that.
And this is not just a foreign authority.
This is our own taxpayer money.
They're asking for a hundred billion more after 200 billion.
It'll probably be a trillion by the time we're done.
We can't even ask our own state how they're spending the money unless it moves through the 37th leg of a CIA centipede in the form of the New York Times.
Do you feel that the reason that we're seeing new hate speech laws in Canada that appear to be designed to generate legitimized censorship in the A country of Ireland, in my country, the UK, proposed within the EU precisely because independent media has the capacity to continually stymie and attack these conventional, traditional legacy media outlets and their ongoing and traditional propagandist propensities.
Is that what this censorship industrial complex is really about?
The fact that it's now impossible to control these stories?
For example, the New York Times CIA deal that you've just outlined for us is already in these kind of circles understood to be a propagandist endeavour.
Something like the Nord Stream pipeline was immediately debunked when it was claimed that it was an act of Russian sabotage.
That the pace and agility of independent media means that legacy media can no longer dominate these spaces with state-sanctioned propaganda and dissenting voices are facing, usually at the hand of government-funded proxies like Logically AI and some of the other groups that you've talked about, precisely because they have the potential to mobilize and inform a population to the point where they become unmanageable.
That's exactly it.
And in fact, the US government, as well as their counterparts in London, have a framework that they refer to as the whole-of-society framework.
The whole-of-society counter-misinformation or counter-disinformation.
By the way, it has nothing to do with countering.
Missing disinformation has to do with censoring misinformation.
So you can just think of it as the whole society censorship network.
And what this refers to is conjoining four different categories of institutions within a society, the government institutions, the private sector institutions, like the platforms and firms like logically AI.
Civil society institutions, these are the universities, NGOs, non-profits, foundations, activists.
And the fourth category is media institutions.
So government, private sector, civil society, and media.
Those four categories all moving as basically fused into the nucleus of a single cell so that they can move as a whole of society apparatus and they can all lend their own resources to that censorship apparatus.
So I watched as this was all being constructed from 2017 to 2020 and it was fascinating because the media was always invited to these consensus building meetings with this whole society model.
So you have the Department of Homeland Security here in the U.S.
which had a cyber censorship center called CISA.
You had the heads of the trusted safety teams at Twitter and Facebook and YouTube invited You had, you know, the major sort of CIA cutouts in the civil society area, like the Stanford-Irwin Observatory or the Atlantic Council.
And then you had hand-selected journalists, often from the national security or the intelligence bureaus, of the Washington Post, the New York Times, NPR, CBS.
And they would be consensus building the ideal mechanisms for domestic censorship To make sure that all four categories of those institutions are on board.
Now, much of this is available just on my foundation's website at foundationforfreedomonline.com.
If you just go to my Twitter and you just type in Whole of Society, you'll see compilation videos I've done on all this, as well as links to all the source documents and receipts.
But the media was very much on board, not just because of preserving their access media.
That is, the New York Times has access to the CIA.
Tucker Carlson does not.
This is because of this decades-old favors-for-favors relationship.
But it's not just about that.
At the time, their business model was also threatened by alternative media.
The fact is people prefer authenticity in the news.
The rise of independent voices such as yourself, Russell, and the fact that you were targeted by the British government so directly is probably the best testament to how effective and important you are.
The fact is, one small voice multiplied by millions in terms of subscribership is better content and more trustworthy content than corporate-filtered suit-and-tie news, so to speak.
People have come to trust their own peers, the people that they've known personally, who express themselves online.
And the credibility, frankly, of alternative journalism over mainstream access journalism.
And because of that, the business models of the media institutions themselves were very, very deeply threatened coming into 2017 after the Brexit vote in 2016 after the US presidential election in the US.
At the time, it was perceived that mainstream media might completely dissolve because all of these alternative media institutions were fast rising.
They were making tens of millions of dollars in ad revenue.
This was before the advent of the adpocalypse, so to speak, on YouTube and of the rise of these censorship mercenary firms like NewsGuard.
NewsGuard is supposed to be this news credibility rating agency and it's supposed to be about Well, who's on the board of NewsGuard?
Michael V. Hayden, the former head of the CIA, the NSA, and a four-star general.
So, just mainstream, you know, credible journalists raiding other journalists to make sure that
the advertising revenue doesn't go to fake news sites.
Well, who's on the board of NewsGuard?
Michael V. Hayden, the former head of the CIA, the NSA, and a four-star general.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the former head of NATO.
Rick Stengel, the former head of the Global Engagement Center at the State Department,
who described himself as Obama's propagandist in chief.
That's the segment of the State Department, which coordinates directly with the media.
So this is basically the dark heart of modern Operation Mockingbird at the State Department.
And then you have Tom Ridge, the former head of DHS.
So you have, you know, who's raiding news agencies to deprive them of $2.6 billion in programmatic ad revenue every year as we speak?
Oh, it's not just these two humble little journalists who did it.
It's the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the head of the National Security Agency, four-star military general, the head of NATO, the head of the State Department's Propaganda Center, and the head of the Department of Homeland Security.
So, I mean, it is the blob monster's parasitic control, you know, with a little patina of a front company calling itself, you know, calling itself media.
That's unbelievable.
With this amount of deep state leverage applied through various agencies, why is it still necessary to manipulate the outcome of elections, specifically the 2020 election?
What evidence is there that this election was rigged and do you think comparable electoral manoeuvring takes place in countries Like ours.
Is that too a global practice?
And why is it necessary if you can manipulate true power in the manner that you've described?
Well, the manipulation of that power without these new techniques that we saw around the 2020 election, such as mass censorship, using AI censorship technology and these complex partnerships between the government and the private sector to censor all dissent.
Before that was rolled out, you had this very diminished ability, actually, because the conduits for the intelligence world, the conduits for the blob, were all badly weakened.
When the media lost so much of its credibility in the UK during the rise of the Brexit movement, Nigel Farage basically rose to power in large part on the back of YouTube.
It was his viral speeches saying that Herman Van Rompuy looked like a low-grade bank clerk.
It was the same way that Ben Shapiro became popular initially, with these slam-dunk contests on YouTube that drove his popularity.
But that offset You know, the traditional conduits for, you know, the traditional cutouts of the blob class in terms of being able to control hearts and minds.
So, you know, it's not a perfect power.
It is fallible when the soft power projection mechanisms start to falter or lose credibility or lose funding.
And as you know, as we saw the rise of social media actually undermined The revenue models of third-party websites like the New York Times used to be a free site.
They had to move to a subscription model because people were accessing so much New York Times directly on Facebook and not reading, not going to the third-party site, not making it their home page, so to speak.
And so it's changed the business models of the news.
And so we've had to now support these these media institutions through government partnerships.
That's been a big story of what's happened in the US, UK and Canada.
But, you know, essentially what we're describing here in 2020 is the is the control over perceptions of legitimacy.
So.
But before the whole of government, you know, we describe the whole society censorship alliance, you know, the full term is whole society, whole of government, which refers to not just those four categories, government, private sector, civil society and media, but whole of government, meaning every agency within the federal government has to lend whatever resources it can in order to help that censorship alliance.
So here in the US, it's not just the Department of Homeland Security anymore, it's the Department of State, it's the Pentagon, it's the Department of Justice, it's the FBI, it's the National Science Foundation, It's HHS and CDC on COVID censorship issues.
In the 2020 election, they were very concerned when mail-in ballots became the main... When it was decided that mail-in ballots were going to be a universal thing in the COVID era, and that Democrats were going to disproportionately vote using mail-in ballots, there became an anticipated crisis of legitimacy where Joe Biden, to win the election, In an unprecedented way that, you know, that they called the red mirage, blue shift phenomenon, which was this idea that red mirage would mean that Donald Trump would win on November 8th, 2016 or November 3rd, I guess it was.
And this will be a red, it would look like, like Republicans had won, but it would actually be a mirage because it would shift blue in the days that followed as mail-in ballots were counted.
Now this again, The blob has a license, you know, I refer to them also as the Department of Dirty Tricks because they have a license to rig elections around the world.
In fact, they sort of have a mandate to do that.
This is one of the things that the CIA was created to do in 1948 when we renamed the Department of War to the Department of Defense and basically moved into this sort of political control mechanism rather than military occupation.
Things that, when we wanted to orchestrate a regime change or overthrow a government, but didn't want to claim responsibility for doing so, we developed this intelligence capacity to do it.
And this is, you know, this is the quote, the line from Taken, you know, the very special set of skills that the blob has, which is manipulating foreign, don't take my word for it, by the way, if you run a search on my Twitter for James Woolsey, the former CIA director, he was on Laura Ingraham on Fox News, bragging about this capacity just a few years ago.
But we do this in every plot of dirt around the world.
I mean, this is what the State Department does.
We have a desk for every region and every country within that region,
there's going to be a preferred political party and there's going to be an opposition party that we oppose.
And whether or not we do stabilization or destabilization of that regime
just basically depends on the winners and losers we picked at the electoral level there.
Now coming back to the 2020 election here in the US, one of the most important things to do when you're orchestrating a color revolution is to fuel sentiments of illegitimacy.
See, people will not... There's two ways to overthrow a government.
The first way, the classical way, is a military coup.
This is where the State Department or the Pentagon or the CIA will work with a certain quotient.
They'll try to achieve a quorum of military generals or sometimes ex-military generals within a country.
And because the military controls the guns and has the tanks, they can basically take over the parliament building and they can quell the street protests
and have a sort of crisis moment that once they consolidate that,
eventually things will return to ordinary governance, but it will be the preferred political candidate
of the military.
Now, this is what happened, I should add, just to some extent, this looks like 2014 Ukraine
in a certain respect, in the sense that when we overthrew Viktor Yanukovych,
who was the democratically elected president of Ukraine in 2014,
The next president, Yatsenyuk, was not voted on by the Ukrainian people.
He was selected.
Now, there were future elections after Yatsenyuk.
Zelensky was elected.
But you basically have this military top-down, you know, a coup is one way.
And that was the classical way But after World War II, we started to perfect this technique of color revolutions, which is a bottom-up way, which is when the CIA or the State Department or the Pentagon will work with the unions in the country.
We'll be able to fuel the hundreds of NGOs and civil society institutions.
We'll capture the media institutions.
And so it manifests itself as a sort of rent-a-riot, you know, where these spontaneous protests calling for democracy in the streets and these people will surround the parliament building, you know, it sort of looks like what we're told January 6th was supposed to be.
And in order to get all these people out on the streets, in addition to getting a huge portion of them on payroll, you need to fuel sentiments of illegitimacy.
And so control over public perceptions of the legitimacy of a government is rule number one in terms of how to dial up or dial down a regime change.
And they were very, very concerned that the only path to victory that Joe Biden had in 2020 would rely on a technique and a very novel thing.
We'd never had universal mass mail-in ballots.
in this country with no signature verification checks or any of it. We'd never had that in this
country. And they knew the only path to victory was through this Red Mirage Blue Shift event.
And so they knew that if there was not pre-censorship of the ability to challenge
the perceived legitimacy of a Red Mirage Blue Shift event, that there would be a crisis in
this country around the perceptions of the legitimacy of the Joe Biden government. And
it's very expensive to manage people who have lost faith in the legitimacy of their government.
This is counterinsurgency 101.
I know I'm taking a while here, but I'll bring it home.
What the U.S.
government did under Trump's nose, because at the Department of Homeland Security coordinating this, was an Atlantic Council And I'm not making this partisan.
This applies just as well to Democrats as to Republicans.
But you had this alliance between the neoconservative foreign policy establishment, Blob Right, and the mainstream Democrat Party, who is mostly captured at this point after Occupy Wall Street, by the foreign policy establishment.
So you had this basically neocon, never Trump, You know, conservative Department of Homeland Security, who back-channeled to create this vast censorship apparatus.
It's called the Election Integrity Partnership, was one of their top partners on this.
They wrote a 292-page tell-all memo.
And you can read, you know, I wrote a 10,000-word report with 25 embedded videos with all their confession notes to how they did this.
But what they did is they ingested 860 million tweets uh in that in that run-up to the 2020 election and uh and designated 22 million of those tweets as uh as being misinformation terms of service violations around a new policy that they that they forced the tech companies under threat of government breakup and of crisis PR to adopt put de-legitimization
So, if you were censored, if you thought it was a little funny, if you were on the toilet seat on a Thursday at 9.30 p.m.
and said, hey, it's a little weird that mail-in ballots are going out to everybody.
Do we have any checks and balances on whether that's actually a safe and reliable form of voting?
You are now committing a cyber attack on U.S.
critical infrastructure, according to the Department of Homeland Security in the U.S.
Because you were undermining the perceived legitimacy.
You were delegitimizing a future Red Mirage, Blue Shift event.
And the EIP folks, on their own videos hosted by the Atlantic Council, on the Atlantic Council's own YouTube page, and again, the Atlantic Council has seven CIA directors on its board and gets annual funding from the Pentagon and State Department.
They bragged about how they got the tech companies to adopt this delegitimization term.
They said none of them would have done it without our pressure.
And what we did is we threatened them using our allies in government.
They faced huge regulatory stakes if they didn't do what we told them to do.
And then we put them all in a grid and we basically threatened them with crisis PR which would result in advertiser boycotts if they did not adopt this best-in-class censorship provision to stop any tweet or YouTube video or Facebook post that delegitimized mail-in ballots five to seven months before the election even happened.
So the people in charge of administering the election pre-censored the ability to challenge a funky result around the election.
It's putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
By God!
With that level of control being asserted, does it not become an immediate necessity that with the same vehemence we oppose the blob and this apparatus of global power?
And are we not even seeing already, with the emergence of figures as distinct as Vivek
Ramaswamy and Bobby Kennedy and the electoral victory in the UK of George Galloway and the
emergence of independent politics of both, or politicians at least, of both the left
and right, the ability to oppose this power?
And is it likely, as Martin Gurry said, that we will likely see alliances between political interests that are across the side of the presumed divide between peripheral figures from across the political spectrum?
Is that likely?
Is it possible?
Is that a significant threat to the type of interest that you are so articulately and elaborately Describing and is it one that has to be deployed almost immediately to oppose the advances in various forms of this extraordinary machine?
I think it certainly is, and the issue is around forming that Big Tent coalition is it runs straight into the Blob's worst fear, which is something that they will derisively, insultingly refer to sometimes as the Red-Brown Alliance.
This is this idea that neoliberalism is opposed by fascism on its right and communism on its left.
This was really how the Blob got its license to do dirty tricks was in overthrowing governments that were alternatively right-wing nationalists or that were left-wing socialist communists.
Now, it just so happened in both cases, they were doing it for the same,
self-serving financial reasons, that is right-wing populist
or right-wing nationalist governments tend to box out the sort of globalist economic class
in order to preserve their own heritage or national identity.
We see this in places like Hungary and left-wing communist or left-wing socialist countries
tend to box out neoliberal corporations and financial class investors
because they want the state industries held in trust for the people through their own governments.
We see this in places like Venezuela and in Chile in the 1970s and whatnot.
And so the very special set of skills of of seeking the CIA or seeking British intelligence or seeking the State Department diplomatic and defense spheres on domestic political affairs.
is very specifically hyper-targeted at those two groups, the left-wing and right-wing populist groups.
And so when those two come together, you'll see this if you search for a term called red-brown alliance, you'll see all these kind of state department NGOs openly talking about their fear of this kind of political merger.
But you know, the problem is, we're living through an era of every time we get more and more popular with this message, they keep raising the stakes.
And what they might do to preempt that.
You might say, because they fear it most, that means that's exactly the thing that should be done because we're basically being occupied.
We can't even decide our own affairs because they consider our own votes to be a threat to democracy and their job is to neutralize threats to democracy.
But the problem is this new elevation of sicking the prosecutors on people when they start losing in the polls and start losing in the press is a very new thing.
This did happen in the World War II era.
It happened a little bit in the anti-communism era from the Cold War, but it has been fully deployed now.
Donald Trump is currently facing 700 years in prison, 91 felony charges.
If Robert Kennedy were to be winning in the polls in all seven major swing states, Even in New York Times polls being up five points
in a general vote, I would not be surprised in the slightest
if suddenly a parade of felonies fell on his head as well.
What we're seeing right now is this technique that was actually deployed in Ukraine.
If you recall, the original Joe Biden scandal in Ukraine before the Burisma, Hunter Biden scandals fell,
there was a bribery scandal where Joe Biden, when he was vice president running President Obama's
foreign policy in Ukraine, basically extorted the Ukrainian government saying
that they would not get a billion dollars in aid.
They had 24 hours to commit to fire the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, there, who was investigating Burisma.
And so, this ability to control prosecutors in order to control politics is something that the CIA and, again, Joe Biden, before he was vice president and running foreign policy for Obama on Ukraine, was known as Mr. Foreign Policy in Washington.
He had served 30 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
That's the committee that oversees the State Department.
And again, every time you see the State Department, that means the CIA is there.
You just don't see it yet.
So Joe Biden was knee-deep in intelligence work for 30 years, and he was personally extorting the Ukrainian government to make sure that the hand-picked prosecutors were in charge here.
Just as you see these sort of George Soros-funded prosecutors being the ones who are litigating, not just President Trump, but also all of his top lawyers, you know,
Rudy Giuliani, Jeff Clark, you know, 20 lawyers in the Georgia situation. So what we're up
against right now is a continual escalation of the stakes where simply winning by persuasion, I mean, that's
all you can call for.
But you almost have to pray for mercy at a certain point that they won't simply do a counterintelligence type work here and just arrest everybody who tries to vote against them.
It's just something we need to be sensitive to.
With an event like the self-incendiary protest of Aaron Bushnell, the American service personnel member who set himself on fire, in particular in protest of events in Gaza, but I see it in a sense as a disjunct between even the military themselves and somewhat understandably given the poor conditions under which many active military service members live, let alone the 40,000 homeless vets in the United States.
I'm astonished that that event was able to be so successfully removed, scrubbed as it were, from social media.
Do you think that these interests, these various proxies that operate on behalf of the government, are able to censor, control and eliminate events like that?
Events that have the kind of symbolic power to sway a nation's interest, to even perhaps help the general public to awaken to Mass, if not disobedience, certainly loss of faith in, for example, this current administration.
Is it interesting how that event has been?
I'm speaking from personal experience.
We did a story on it on YouTube.
They went, this is adult content.
They slowed it right down.
And I've just noticed, it was in fact a member of our team here who runs our content, Gareth, who says, you can't find that image anywhere already.
And I know from personal experiences, like trying to get Freedom of Information Act requests, how the online spaces can be expensively managed.
It's expensive, but possible to almost completely eliminate information from the internet.
Do you think this is an example of that happening?
I don't have any information about the Bushnell situation in particular, but that capacity absolutely not just exists, but it's capacity built by the U.S.
and British governments.
It's something they refer to as RRUs, Rapid Response Units.
These are a phalanx, an NGO swarm to be able to monitor emerging narratives on any number
of sensitive policy issues, and in particular around national security and Ukraine matters.
In fact, the Department of Homeland Security here in the U.S., the very agency that partnered
to censor the 2020 election and partnered with outside groups
to censor the COVID-19 pandemic, had a, you know, came out in the Chuck Rassley House Oversight Committee PDFs
that were disclosed around the time of the Disinformation Governance Board,
if you remember the Nina Jankovic affair, that the Department
of Homeland Security had moved beyond just election misinformation and beyond simply, you know,
public health misinformation, but actually into misinformation about Ukraine
and about the war effort in Ukraine.
And so the fact that you had these government documents as early as 2021, which was before the conflict even broke out, right?
That conflict With Russia broke out in 2022, but in 2021, the Department of Homeland Security had internal files around basically working with outside groups to stop people from undermining public faith and legitimacy.
Because if you remember, the 2019 impeachment of Trump was because they alleged that he was threatening to withhold military support.
Because at the time, the CIA and the State Department and the Pentagon were backing the coup government in Ukraine to militarily reconquer the breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine.
In eastern Ukraine, who had declared themselves independent, this is kind of the precursor to the 2022 Russian invasion, was the fact that the US was actually invading eastern Ukraine before Russia was.
The US-backed Kiev forces had killed 15,000 ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine trying to take back the Donbass.
But the fact is, when President Trump was evaluating that military support, You had a Pentagon CIA-led impeachment of the president simply for even thinking about it, right?
It was the Vindman brothers at the Pentagon level, and it was Eric C. Morella at the CIA, who have now all rotated into the Carnegie Endowment, which is the exact NGO where Bill Burns led.
Bill Burns is the current CIA director.
So you have this CIA hotbed who wanted to make sure that domestic support and domestic dollars kept flowing for the war in Ukraine before there even was a war.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
I'd love to talk to you endlessly and in a way own you, but you should have your own podcast.
There's no doubt about it.
You should be doing your own show.
It's absolutely fantastic what you're doing and I'm privileged to get the benefit of your insights and eloquence.
Thank you, sir.
Russell, you are a singular voice.
The work you are doing is mission critical for anyone who loves freedom on planet Earth.
I continue to be very deeply inspired by everything you're doing and would love to talk again soon.
Let's text each other after this, because I've got some questions to ask you, as you might imagine.
Thanks, Mike.
Well, I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Mike Benz.
You can follow him on X at MikeBenzCyber or visit his FFFO, I think it's called that, Foundation for Freedom Online.
Yeah, that makes sense.
There's a link in the description.
Remember to get 25% off one of these babies.
Click the link in the description.
Let's post that now.
Let's post that now.
And, you know, why not?
Why not have a mug?
After all, that's what they think we are.
Now there are an increasing number of British MPs criticizing the wall of silence around adverse events when it comes to the pandemic and the measures taken, let's just call it what it was, the vaccines, that were introduced in order to ameliorate the supposed threat.
The health secretary is being urged to release data that may link COVID vaccines to excess deaths.
Apparently the pharmaceutical companies already have access to this information so You know, they do know something that we don't because they're given access to information that we're not.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Is data that proves a connection between Covid shots and excess deaths being suppressed by the
British government even though that information has already been given to big pharma companies?
They wouldn't do that, would they?
It seems like data may already exist that demonstrates that there is, in fact, a connection between excess deaths, which in our country have just changed the way of measuring.
Guess what?
It makes it less excess deaths.
That's surprising, isn't it?
And the treatments that were available, indeed, quite heavily advocated for during the pandemic period.
Now, this information exists.
It's already with pharmaceutical companies.
But they're saying, astonishingly, we can't reveal that data because of people's anonymity or whatever excuse.
They're coming up with some reason why they can give it.
To Moderna, with whom they have some interesting deals.
They can give it to Pfizer, with whom they have some interesting deals.
But they can't give it to you.
I mean, you only fund everything.
You only fund the government.
You only funded these vaccines.
You are the people that are suffering as a result, if indeed there is a connection.
And I'm certainly not saying it's concrete.
Yeah, that there is.
But you are not allowed the information.
Note how similar this is to the advocation for ongoing censorship.
What position does it put you in?
The position of a child or an idiot?
We have to censor this information.
We have to keep back this information to what?
Protect you?
To protect your children?
To protect your elderly?
When there's been a COVID inquiry in this country that fell somewhat That's very interesting.
That's the silver bullet.
That's why people are getting shut down for dissent.
That's why Moderna are spying on people.
That's why government-funded departments are spying on people.
that appeared before that rather tepid inquiry had information that perhaps connected COVID
medications and excess deaths. That's the silver bullet.
That's why people are getting shut down for dissent. That's why Moderna are spying on people. That's
why government-funded departments are spying on people. And that's why we're going to talk
about this story now, particularly given that they're advocating that all of us take yearly mRNA
shots now, that it replaces the flu shot.
Let's have a look at how the legacy media are reporting around these issues and plainly
demonstrating that they don't have your interests at heart.
They, in fact, work for the very same interests that keep this information for you.
We should be demanding this information.
Well, the Food and Drug Administration today proposing to make COVID shots a lot more like the annual flu shot, simplifying the process.
Yeah, simplifying it so they can do it every year, so they can charge you for it continually, like the pharmaceutical industry requires you to be on drugs for as long as possible.
They want wars that last forever and drugs that work as long as you take them every day for the rest of your life.
Can you believe that the pharmaceutical industry has not been exposed to a reckoning after the opioid crisis?
Like Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family are still in some kind of version of business after half a million people have died as a result of their product when they consumed To one shot a year.
prior to the release of those drugs.
When they concealed information and mitigated it through the entire investigative process,
that shows you how the system worked.
The pandemic wasn't particularly unique, it was just big.
And in its vastness, it showed us how these institutions and systems operate.
That's the challenges they're dealing with now.
Too many people have been exposed to the truth and too many people, oddly,
are also being exposed to myocarditis.
To one shot a year, the FDA will decide on Thursday whether to go forward with the idea.
So wait, should we go forward on this new idea that means that every year we'll earn this money.
Well, let's just talk through how you make your money again.
You know these companies, uh-huh, uh-huh, they give you your money.
What, so if we keep them happy, keep going, then they'll keep us happy, that's right.
And if we said, no, we're not doing this, there's no need, in fact, there are reasons to be very concerned.
In fact, there's data that's being suppressed right now that might reveal that it was evenly, that, that, that, that, that, that is exactly the line we don't want you going down.
Oh, oh, I get it.
So I just approve the, you just approve the drug.
And at the same time, researchers are working on a new flu shot that will be a lot more like a COVID shot.
Even the fellow off the news is confused.
It'll be a lot more like a COVID shot, which means that it might.
No, that can't be right.
Let me.
Nope.
It is going to be more like a COVID shot, but no.
Hey, don't shoot the messenger.
And please don't mandate those medications for the messenger either.
Yikes!
Ursula Perry with how new technology is working its way into old vaccine protections.
The COVID pandemic required scientists to move fast.
Certainly did.
Lightning speed.
They're not working so fast at releasing the data, let me tell you.
Right, okay.
Vaccines for sale.
Vaccines for sale.
Get your vaccines.
AstraZeneca, Moderna, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson.
Don't talk about that one much anymore, do they?
Get your vaccines.
Hey, these vaccines, I'm worried if there's a... Oh, well, we'll just have to do some research on that.
They can work at a variety of speeds.
Bringing vaccine technology that have been studied for years, but not approved front and center.
Studied for years, but not approved.
Hmm.
I've been studying this for years and I just can't approve it.
And why is that?
And I think that when the world had an urgent need for vaccines, when SARS-CoV-2 virus hit that causes COVID, then it became an opportunity to test this new approach to vaccine development.
It suddenly did.
Business is booming, baby.
Traditional vaccines put a weakened germ into our bodies, but mRNA shots like the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines teach cells to make a protein.
It teaches cells, like it's Sesame Street level, once again, the infantilisation of the audience.
What is a vaccine?
And does it have to be a shot?
And will I still need to wear my mask?
I think above all else, they want us in these states of fear and desire, like a child, banalised, confused and baffled, not like sort of astute, empowered individuals that demand freedom, demand control.
Don't hand that over to authoritarian institutions because they're planning to protect you under Yeah, there seems to be some downside though.
We can just encode it for anything.
Could you encode it to stop causing myocarditis?
it. Researchers take that MRNA template and can encode it for the flu or other infectious
diseases.
Yeah, there seems to be some downside though. We can just encode it for anything. Can you
encode it to stop causing myocarditis?
That is the one thing we can't do.
It would also make it easier to tweak during flu season.
Tweak, tweak!
The MRNA vaccine for the flu is currently being studied and we can have the results
as soon as March.
Hooray!
Meantime other studies are underway on other vaccines for other diseases including Lyme disease, rabies, HIV and even Zika.
It seems like they've got the technology now and they're trying to apply it in as many markets as possible in order to make money rather than what's supposed to be the stated goal of the health industry, making people healthy.
In Australia, where during the pandemic, authoritarian measures were piloted in a way that seemed very, very surprising at the time, the pendulum is swinging back the other way.
They're having to sort of admit that they shouldn't have mandated vaccines, that their lockdown measures were ineffective, and various other admissions and concessions have subsequently been made.
Indeed, we are entering into the pandemic reckoning period, but I suppose the media are collaborating, ensuring it doesn't seem like a reckoning.
They're trying to make it seem sort of normal and inoffensive.
There's been a bombshell ruling in favour of Queensland's frontline workers who took their bosses to court fighting against COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
The decision means directives ordering police and paramedics to get the jab were unlawful and had no power.
They were just telling us what to do with no right at all.
Take these vaccines I tell you, take them!
That's not the law of a country, they tried to change what the relationship was.
In fact many people think that was kind of the point of the pandemic period, was to alter the dynamic between the govern and the governing to one of authoritarianism and just obedience.
And through their propaganda and campaigning they achieved that to a large degree.
Because if you can get people on side, if you get people on You're irresponsible!
You're not wearing a mask!
You killed my granddad!
If you can get people out of their minds with fear, which is understandable given the conditions, then suddenly people are willing to accept authority.
That is why we have to demand free speech.
That's why you have to sort of remain a little bit calmer.
They sobbed and cheered inside court and even louder out.
Yeah, how does everyone feel?
Excellent, I think.
I think that speaks volumes for how my clients feel about the decision.
Notice that those people aren't spontaneously fainting and having heart attacks.
Dozens of police officers and paramedics challenged Queensland's COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Oh those enemies of the state!
Whither go they now?
All those people who were saying we should shame them!
Paramedics!
The very fabric of society!
You can find a way of adoring those people whether you're left or right or You know what I hate?
Paramedics going around rescuing people in life and death situations.
These are the people that, to some degree, were brave enough to go, I don't think that's right.
And they're medical professionals as well.
What?
It migrates?
No, no, no, no.
That doesn't sound right.
And now they've been vindicated.
Arguing they should never have been forced to choose between getting the jab and keeping their jobs.
Today, they won.
You know, I've been a long time coming after being stood down without pay for two years.
There you go, just sacked nurse.
Look at how those issues are leveraged.
Like, you know, support the NHS, which is our health service in this country, support the troops, support the police, or defund them.
Like, how these people are used as kind of symbols and like, they were just sacking them.
In our country, people are going hysterical about nurses and doctors.
They're painting rainbows, not even joking.
There's rainbows on people's windows.
Hey!
They were doing dances everywhere.
Do you remember that?
People were banging pots and pans on their doorsteps.
Meanwhile, were you doing exactly what you were told?
Well, as a medical professional, I've got some concerns about that.
You're fired, mate, is what you are.
Can I have a drawing of a rainbow?
Yeah.
In fact, I'm going to use a rainbow pen to tell you where to go.
Right off.
There you go.
There's your fucking rainbow.
No pot of gold at the end of it, though.
The Queensland Health in particular ruling could now open a door to lawsuits from other sacked workers in other industries.
Uh oh!
Also other territories.
Maybe people in America and Canada and Ireland and all across Europe.
Not so much in Africa because for some reason, and I think it was money, they didn't mandate vaccines or even provide vaccines in many African nations to the same degree.
What an extraordinary coincidence.
That is an argument that might potentially be open.
to other employees who were dispused as a result of a vaccine mandate.
34,000 people in New York, all across America.
Let me know your personal stories in the comments and chats.
I know it happened to you.
Oh, well, you wouldn't do it.
I didn't do it.
I did do it and I regret it.
All of that stuff.
Let us know.
Keep your voice going because you're being vindicated.
Welcome back.
Well, Queensland Supreme Court has ruled that the COVID-19 vaccine mandates for emergency services were unlawful.
Now it's time to take your poppers and enjoy some Australian sexy news.
Here to explain is today's medical expert, Dr Nick Coatsworth.
Doc, good morning to you.
This is pretty extraordinary, isn't it?
Can you walk us through the ruling?
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.
Guy's actually admitting that he made a mistake in endorsing vaccine mandates.
He doesn't go so far as to say that vaccines themselves may have been deleterious or have had some negative impact but perhaps because he hasn't seen the data because the data is not being released except to pharmaceutical companies.
What this ruling does is it calls into question the basis upon which those mandates were put in and it does so because the Queensland Police Commissioner by law had to examine the impact on human rights and it was clear through this case and the evidence which I read yesterday That she did no such thing.
She didn't give any regard to the human rights implications of these vaccine mandates.
Oh, if only people had brought that up at the beginning of the entire pandemic period.
Yeah, they did, didn't they?
Everyone was.
Isn't this a violation of our human rights?
Are you sure that this is not going to cause more harm than it solves?
What about The subsidiary and tangential issues that may arise from lockdowns and what about potential unanticipated side effects caused by these new experimental medications.
All legitimate questions, all questions that were asked, all questions that were censored.
And so they were declared unlawful under section 58 of the Queensland Human Rights Act.
As you know, this caused so much conjecture and angst at the time, right?
So what does it actually mean now for those frontline workers who made this complaint?
It could mean a number of things.
It could mean that some of them get their jobs back.
It could open the way for civil proceedings and damages.
It could mean that people lose trust in all of their systems of government and institutions and we get a kind of uprising where workers, people that are committed, people that are nurses, firefighters, police officials, even the military start to turn against their own institutions and align with populations of their countries, recognising that we have more in common with one another than the institutions that govern us.
But you won't report on that, will you?
against the governments with human rights acts which are Queensland ACT and Victoria but importantly I think it opens all the decisions that we as senior health officials as senior police and ambulance officials made I say this guy's a good guy.
He's taken responsibility for it.
That exactly was required, isn't it?
Look, sorry, have you seen anyone else do that?
Have you seen Joe Biden do that?
Have you seen Anthony Fauci do that?
Have you seen anyone in the UK do that?
Have you seen anyone in Canada do that?
Have you seen anyone go, sorry, even when Justin Trudeau's talking about that emergency act, he's like, I'd do it again.
I am absolutely, absolutely serene and confident that I made the right choice.
They love their authority.
They love their power.
They dress it up in an haircut and tell you that it's there to help you.
Did we have regard to Australians' human rights when we made those decisions, and to what extent did we balance those decisions against human rights?
And I think going forward, that's probably the most important thing of these decisions, and I think there's going to be more of them.
Victoria needs to keep an eye on this then.
The guy on the left is just sort of like, wait a minute, I've been reporting on this stuff for years.
The whole thing's a total blag.
We can't trust them.
We started internment camps during that period.
What about Don Lemon?
A-world CNN in America there.
That's ridiculous.
Wait a minute, didn't the British government employ a load of Moderna scientists and British government agents to go and work for Moderna immediately after this?
Hey!
Well, Victoria certainly does.
I mean, there must be cases going on down there.
And I think that if we're going to have human rights acts and they're supposed to be protective of people's rights, well, we do have to have regard for them.
You can't just, like, ignore them as soon as it's inconvenient, like everyone in the world bloody well did.
You know, we have a human rights commissioner, a federal human rights commissioner, who was unfortunately quite silent during the pandemic on some of these issues.
Well, have you got to say human rights conditioner?
Do you know that koalas carry chlamydia?
Yes, I do.
Stop telling me that.
It doesn't matter if the majority of the population goes along with it.
Human Rights Acts are there to protect the minority who may have very good reasons or beliefs.
I don't know if they would have got much airplay when you go back to the circumstances, but... Wait a minute, we were censoring that sort of stuff because we were discussing it here in the office and you told me I couldn't say it.
But 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 it wrong?
Australian News, you're a big boy, come on, let's fight.
Yes, I think we did get that wrong.
We can't keep bringing you this groundbreaking, revolutionary, heartwarming content without your love, dedication and devotion and without the support of our sponsors.
Can you believe that January is almost over?
How's them New Year's resolutions going?
I can't bother with all that, it's difficult.
Mine was easy.
Of course, as always, it's to focus on well-being and overthrowing the establishment.
Now, we all know the foundation of well-being is a good night's sleep, and throwing over the establishment means a willingness to absorb a lot of flack.
So if I could just do one thing to improve my sleep and overall well-being, it is taking the number one mineral for that.
Do you know what it is?
It also helps me personally on so many levels, I can't even describe it.
Do you know the mineral?
It sounds like an X-Man.
Magnesium.
Actually, I'm talking about the magnesium breakthrough by Bioptimizers.
The seven different forms of magnesium in this supplement are involved in over 300 enzymatic reactions in the body.
Pretty much every function in your body gets upgraded when you take magnesium, from the quality of your sleep, to your brain function, to your metabolism.
Stress levels will decrease.
And let's face it, even if your 2024 resolution was to oppose this odd globalist regime, it's not going to hurt you to be healthy in order to achieve those goals.
Because you're going to need quality sleep.
You're going to have to be able to manage your stress if you're confronting the globalists.
That's a fact, isn't it?
So, do yourself a favour and make Magnesium Breakthrough part of your daily routine this year so you can get the vitality you need to conquer your dreams and the global elites.
Go to buyoptimisers.com forward slash brand now and enter the promo code brand to get 10% off any order.
Again, that's buyoptimisers.com forward slash brand now.
Let's get back to bringing them down.
And I think you can say hindsight is 20-20, but Carl, hindsight gives us foresight.
And if we have another pandemic, we should think long and hard whether mandates for vaccines are justified.
Yes, indeed.
If we have another pandemic, we should think long and hard.
And we should certainly demand that all data be released that could help us to establish whether or not there is a link between those medications and excess deaths Which seem to be spiralling across the world.
Oddly, except in territories where they didn't have access to those medications because they couldn't afford them.
The literal irony.
Let's get into it.
British MPs and peers have accused the Health Secretary of withholding data that could link the COVID vaccine to excess deaths and criticised a wall of silence on the topic.
Why would they ever want to keep back data that could establish a link between the vaccines and excess deaths?
Let me know in the chat.
A cross party group has written to Victoria Atkins to sound the alarm about the growing public and profound Oh, don't worry about that.
What we can do is we can change the way we measure excess deaths until there aren't any and then everyone can shut up.
Ministers have blamed the rise in excess deaths on record NHS, our health service,
waiting lists and the pandemic backlog.
But the parliamentarians, Congress, are demanding to be shown the underlying data
to support the government's assertion that there is no evidence linking excess deaths
to the vaccines for COVID-19.
Yeah, if there is no link, you'll have no trouble just giving us all the evidence, right?
Because the evidence will show that there is no link.
And yet, you've given it to the pharmaceutical industry, but you're not revealing it in the COVID-19 inquiry, and you've not revealed it yet.
Curiously, you are manipulating the figures around excess deaths.
What if we recorded it, you know, but we didn't include all these deaths that have been caused by who knows what?
If those data do indeed exist, please share them.
If thorough investigations have already ruled out such a link, please share the relevant reports, their letter says.
There is no place here for blind faith.
No, blind faith isn't how science works.
Although blindness has also shown up, like cancer, and heart disease, and all sorts of other conditions.
The group of 21 MPs and peers from four parties have written to the Health Secretary and the Department of Health and Social Care, as well as the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, and the UK Health Security Agency, UKHSA, to request the data.
And I've been writing to those agencies to request data as well, because it seems they've spent a lot of their resources monitoring dissenting voices in this time, and are now spending their resources not revealing data that could establish That data was about a surprise birthday party for you!
For your birthday!
And you've spoiled it!
need to establish no link between excess deaths and COVID-19.
When they keep the data what does it make you think? Oh yeah no this data must be so
brilliant that we'll all get so whoop-dee-doo and excited. That data was about a surprise birthday party
for you for your birthday and you've spoiled it you're just like your Pfizer.
They believe potentially critical data which maps the date of people's Covid vaccine doses to the date of their deaths have been released to the pharmaceutical companies but not put into the public domain.
Doesn't that tell you everything you know about how power operates these days?
This information has already, they suspect it's not proven, been given to pharmaceutical companies but it's not being given to you.
How curious!
That they chose this time to reimagine and manipulate the recording of excess deaths, which took the figure down from 30,000 excess deaths, which is extraordinary, you better believe that would have been on a ticker tape at the height of the pandemic, to 11,000 deaths.
Even using their new magical maths, they can't eliminate the fact that an extraordinary number of excess deaths have occurred.
Also they're not releasing this information.
What could that be?
And also the COVID-19 inquiry has been suspended until after the election so we can get another bunch of stooges in who similarly will protect establishment interests instead of looking out for your interests.
I suppose the positive thing to point out is is there is a cross-party group of MPs that are asking these questions and those are the kind of politicians, indeed public figures, that we should be supporting and thank God for them.
The MPs argue that the data should be released on the same anonymized basis that it was shared with the pharmaceutical groups, and there seems to be no credible reason why that should not be done immediately.
That presumably means that they're saying, we can't release this data because of the anonymity.
Meanwhile, Tony Blair's globalist group are advocating for the mass sale of data to data companies, private health data.
They don't care about your anonymity.
They don't care about your safety.
They care about protecting big business globalist interests.
Am I being cynical?
Let me know in the chat.
They add, we warn that by withholding official data that could help reassure the public, the DHSC, the UKHSA and the MHRA are now fueling concerns and hesitancy about public health messaging.
Questions about these trends, however, have to date been met by a relative wall of silence from your organisations and other public health officials.
Remember at the height of the opioid crisis, remember how they delayed the information, Remember how hard it was to campaign for the release of that data to expose the dangers of fentanyl and other comparable drugs?
If they will permit half a million people to die in an opioid crisis, do you imagine they've had some radical change of heart and now put your interests above the interests of the pharmaceutical industry?
And if you do imagine that, how do you imagine it?
Because they won't release the data that objectively demonstrates that there is no connection.
Why would that be?
Just keep asking that question.
Why would they conceal that data?
The letter was organised by the all-party parliamentary group, APPG, on pandemic response and recovery, and the campaign group, Us for Them.
Like, they've had to start a special group within Parliament called Us for Them.
It's like, well, hold on, aren't we meant to be representing ordinary people?
Yeah.
They've had to start a subgroup that does the job that the whole thing's meant to do.
That's what it's meant to do.
Congress, Parliament, all these institutions, they work for us and we go, oh yeah, I'm a bit worried about this.
Get in there and tell everyone and have a chat about it and sort it out, will ya?
That's what they're meant to do.
They have to remind themselves and start a breakaway, like, splinter group to do what they were supposed to do in the first place!
It's like someone at MTV breaking out and going, oh my god, look, we're supposed to be showing pop videos on here.
That's what this men are doing!
Its signatories include the Conservative MPs Miriam Cates, Danny Kruger, Philip Davies and Karl McCartney, as well as the Labour MP, Graham Stringer, who sits on the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
The leader of Reform UK has committed his party to a public inquiry into excess deaths and alleged Covid vaccine harms.
Richard Tice says there was a serious problem with thousands more people dying than expected and suggested the side effects of coronavirus jabs could be responsible.
The Office for National Statistics, ONS, has been accused of overestimating excess deaths in the first year of the Covid pandemic.
The statistics body announced last week that it was updating its methodology for calculating excess deaths to include current death rates, as well as the growing and aging population.
A change that many experts said was long overdue.
Oh, you know what this is?
This is a long overdue, broad problem, nothing to do with 2019 and 2020.
That's why we're just going to keep that data all nice and protected.
Because it's nothing to... These two things are not connected.
That's why we've got to protect the data.
And by some other coincidence, we're changing the way we measure deaths.
All these coincidences coming out of the back of a great big global coincidence where authority benefited, big pharma benefited, the right to censor, authoritarianism benefited.
It's all just one big wealth transfer, more authority, more globalization coincidence.
So why don't you just shut up?
But academics from the University of Oxford warn the new modelling revealed a major drop in expected deaths in 2020, making it appear that far more people had died than normal during the first year of the pandemic.
A DHSC spokesman said, we are committed to data transparency,
seems like it, and publish a wide range of data on excess mortality.
The data sets published are kept under constant review and we change them according to what we're told.
I added the last bit.
But you know, sometimes I'd like to just modulate things A bit like the National Office of Statistics.
A wide variety of factors can contribute to excess mortality each year and we work closely with the MHRA and the UK HSA, who won't release their data, to analyse significant trends without looking at their data and adjust public health interventions where appropriate.
Without looking at the data.
All of this can be done by giving the data to Big Pharma but not giving it To you.
So who do they work for really?
Let's do it again slowly, see if we can spot any patterns.
They've given the data to Big Pharma, they won't give the data to you.
Hmm.
Is there a pattern emerging here?
Is there a truth making itself known to us that we cannot trust these institutions?
Is there something significant that it takes a breakaway group of politicians to act according to the principles that democracy is actually founded on?
That's the foundational principle.
A breakaway group of McDonald's restauranteurs are serving hamburgers.
No.
Think about it.
They're telling you, they're letting you know they can't cope anymore.
They're praying for this uprising.
They're praying for this awakening.
And that's why we're so happy to be participating in it with you.
But that's just what I think. Let me know what you think in the chat.
See you in a second.
Thanks for refusing Fox News.
No, here's the fucking news.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
We've got Alex Berenson on the show next Friday, a brilliant, informative and fantastic journalist.
If you want to be part of our live community, become an Awakened Wonder.
Take advantage of the fact that we do, every single week, a meditation, readings, spontaneous conversations, plus an exclusive video this week on the Great Replacement Theory.
Is it a theory or is it a reality?
I'd like to welcome our new members, GGUK, Retav, The Chester, with a free instead of an E, Director Higgins, Al by Day, uh oh, that could be scary, uh, all of you are welcome.
You can get access to all of this content, all of these live interviews.
Join us next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, if you can, stay free.
▲
Export Selection