“Prepare For ‘Black Swan’ Event!” - Ron Paul’s “Very, Very Dangerous” Warning To Tucker - SF #330
Use this link to unlock a 25% discount with promo code BRANDhttps://charlis.beauty/brandOn today’s show we’re covering: Julian Assange’s rumoured plea deal and potential release; Hunter Biden’s explosive congressional hearing; Ron Paul’s warning to Tucker of an upcoming “Black Sawn event”; a new report of the terrifying threat of staggering underpopulation by 2050; and the NYT’s ridiculous Deep State video.Join the awakening wonders community here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportVisit the new merch store: https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-Store--💙Support our channel and become an awakened wonder through Locals:https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-Support WATCH me LIVE weekdays on Rumble:https://bit.ly/russellbrand-rumble Visit the new merch store:https://bit.ly/Stay-Free-Store Follow on social media:X: @rustyrocketsINSTAGRAM: @russellbrandFACEBOOK: @russellbrand
Hello there you Awakening Wonders on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you download your podcasts.
We really appreciate you, our listeners, and want to bring you more content.
We will be delivering a podcast every day, seven days a week, every single day.
You'll get a detailed breakdown of current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, but if they are covering, they're amplifying establishment messages and not telling you the truth.
Once a week we bring you in-depth conversations with guests like Jordan Peterson, RFK Jr, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate and many more.
Now enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Remember, there's an episode every single day to educate and elevate our consciousness together.
Stay free and enjoy the episode.
Whether you are looking at the periphery of these spaces that people have long said that there are interdimensional Beings dabbling in our power structures, or if you stay within the realms of that which is cosigned, consigned, accessible and sayable, people are beginning to believe that a Black Swan event is likely.
I'm quoting of course, let me know if you know in the chat, AwakendWonders over on locals.
Let me know if you know in the chat on Rumble.
Do you know who I'm referring to?
I'm of course referring to Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson, the man some say is the best president that the United States never had, saying that something is happening and I know you feel it too.
I know you feel that there is something in the air, in the words of Phil Collins.
So, we're going to look at a few stories.
We're going to look at the Hunter Biden stuff, that hearing, the impeachment hearing stuff.
We're going to look at the potential that there may be a plea deal available for Julian Assange, although that's something his lawyers are not aware of.
We're going to have a good look at the Supreme Court's handling of the Biden administration's pressure on social media sites.
Now, on YouTube, we'll be there for about the first 15 minutes Or so, and then we will be wading into that sweet stream of freedom, where we will communicate openly and honestly about what we believe.
So if you watch us on YouTube, we'll be there for about 15 minutes, then we're going to migrate, as one day we will all have to, to spaces where free speech is possible.
I tell you, We've got a lot to talk about, like when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests and how that's necessary for journalism these days, but even as a private citizen, an individual like me, albeit one that is, I pray that you see me this way, involved in the independent media and truth movement, a new movement that hopes to oppose this new tendency towards a phrase I heard recently, and let me know if you know where this phrase come from, techno-feudalism.
That what's being created is a top-down system of global government where the rest of us are regarded as digital surface.
Where our biometric data is corralled and controlled.
Is that what we're moving towards?
And what will it be that brings about this Black Swan event?
Will it be war?
Some in the legacy media say that Putin is waging war.
Longing for war.
He's openly planning for war against NATO, says the Telegraph.
That's a British legacy media publication.
Meanwhile on HuffPost, Putin is afraid of war.
Meanwhile, Macron, I'll do him!
I will do Putin!
Why is Macron Why is Macron so obsessed with demonstrating his masculinity?
Could it be anything to do with what Candace Owens is publicly saying?
Or is it just more schoolyard posturing?
Like, you know, I'll fight you Putin, because we've all seen those images of Putin on horseback looking deadly masculine.
The legacy media have caught up to the idea that vitamin D is not a taboo phrase.
Take it!
It's good for you, and an ever-increasing volume of medical research is suggesting specific ways in which vitamin D can help protect against serious conditions.
Oh, well, that's something.
Let me know if you knew that already.
Did you know that already?
I knew about that.
You knew that?
Where did you find out about it?
Did you find out about it from independent media?
Can somebody block those spamming wankers?
Indeed someone can.
Let's get on that right now.
We asked you earlier what you wanted to see and I'll let you know in a minute.
We've just got one more thing to tell you about the Democrats.
Six in ten Democrats believe the COVID-19 pandemic isn't over.
So will the Black Swan event be?
An escalation of war?
Will it be?
Another pandemic?
How are they going to legitimize increasing global power?
Because you know it's going to happen, don't you?
You know it's coming.
It's extraordinary.
We asked you what story you wanted us to lead on, and of course you said Ron Paul's one in a tucker of an upcoming Black Swan, or we asked, Black Sawn event, but you deduced using your collective and individual intellect.
I mean, some people might have seen that and gone, A Black Sawn event?
Well, I'd be interested anyway.
But nevertheless, we're going to cover that in a minute and in some detail too.
Also, we're going to have another look at that, you know that New York Times story, they were saying like why the deep state are fantastic?
This is brilliant because we're beginning to understand now that the New York Times are in a sense a portion of the establishment.
I don't just mean as a legacy media amplifier, No, I mean in so much as they participated in the investigations that led to the arrest to buddy-boy Tashera, or Jack Tashera, as his actual name is, the whistleblower.
And two, they collaborated with the CIA in bringing us the story about CIA bases being in Ukraine for the last 10 years, which is, it seems, another provocation of Putin.
There were all sorts of operations going on that were absolutely fascinating and fantastic.
So we've got some good stories, but first, let's have a look at, you know, well, it's It's a story that won't astonish you.
It's the world's most powerful man wandering about.
Biden wanders off stage after spotting a baby in the crowd.
He says he couldn't resist.
You in the rumble chat can do your own jokes there.
Maybe what might fuel those jokes is this.
Remember this classic of yesteryear?
What I'd say is he's not reading Gordon Locksport's comment in the rumble chat.
Oh man, you know where it's going.
You know where it's going in the Rumble Chat.
Even the Awakened Wonders are not impressed.
Not impressed with that comment.
He ought to be able to read body language, I'd say, a little better.
That baby's body language.
My mind is telling me yes, but my body's telling me no.
It didn't look good, did it, from a body language perspective?
Let's have a look at his latest wanderings before getting into the Assange story, this Black Swan event, New York Times and legacy media in general, but specifically the New York Times being a paid up member of the establishment, doing their bidding, crushing dissent, normalizing their agenda on a daily basis.
But here's Biden's latest wonder.
Look at the medical professional sort of like clocking it.
We have made so much progress together but we know that there is still work to be done which is why we are going to... Excuse me!
Back over here please!
And you know, look, we've been, you've been hearing a lot about TikTok and what a threat TikTok is.
Well that TikTok is, that TikTok threat is entirely Hypothetical!
US intelligence has produced no evidence that the popular social media site has ever coordinated with Beijing.
We have nothing to add, the FBI said, when asked for evidence of TikTok's actual threat.
And based on what Elon Musk said yesterday, if there was FBI evidence, it would have been deleted because they keep deleting all of their files that relate to significant issues.
And remember that when we talk about A country like Russia being sort of anti-democratic and criminal.
Criminal because of their illegal invasions that are eerily similar to state-sponsored invasions conducted by the partners of the United States of America under the flag of your nation but under the agenda of the deep state that the New York Times would tell you are super friendly.
One of the things they always point to is the lack of free press.
Well remember Julian Assange is still not free. Lara Brand, check out anything that you see posted
twice, consider that spam and sort it out for me. Thank you very much. Nice one. So let's
have a look at this story about Assange getting a plea deal. The US is reportedly
considering a plea deal.
Now, as I understand, Assange's lawyers haven't heard from anybody relevant regarding this story.
Let's get into it a little bit.
This is, of course, reporting in the Guardian legacy media outlet that somewhat abandoned Julian Assange in spite of benefiting significantly from much of his reporting.
The US government is reported to be considering a plea deal To offer Julian Assange allowing him to admit to a misdemeanor, but his lawyers say they've yet been given no indication.
Washington intends to change its approach.
The Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday that the U.S.
Justice Department was looking at ways to cut short the long-court battle of the WikiLeaks founder against extradition to the U.S.
on espionage charges for the publication 14 years ago.
Thousands have classified U.S.
documents related to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Those Uh, documents, of course, exposed a good deal of wrongdoing, and remember, the Pentagon cannot prove that it endangered a single U.S.
service personnel.
We reported extensively on the appeal to be gr- the hearing to be granted an appeal, which we've not heard a result of, and I don't know whether that's a positive thing or not.
Presumably it means it's at least being considered.
The report said a plan under consideration would be to drop the current 18 charges under the Espionage Act if Assange pleaded guilty to mishandling classified documents, a misdemeanor offence.
Assange would be able to enter the plea remotely from London, would likely to be free soon after the deal was agreed.
He's already done five years in the UK.
However, Assange's legal team said they're not aware of a change in the prosecution's strategy.
Assange's extradition would be politically difficult for the Biden administration, particularly in an election year.
The previous Democratic administration under Barack Obama ultimately decided not to charge Assange because of fears that doing so would infringe First Amendment rights, guaranteeing freedom of the press.
That hamstringing First Amenders!
That hamstringing First Amendment!
Remember, we have to do the video, the 30 seconds.
Why don't we regulate the time that that happens?
Let's always do it in the first 10 minutes.
Okay, let's have a look at the legacy media in Australia reporting on that.
Lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange say they've been given no indication US authorities are... Basically, I just like watching this guy because I think he talks in an unusual way.
I like it that that news program's logo is a sort of spring, not a letter or a word.
I wouldn't know what to call that show.
And I sort of like the way that this guy talks.
...considering a possible plea deal following a report in the Wall Street Journal.
It says Julian Assange could plead guilty to a reduced charge of mishandling classified information...
To Hunter Biden's congressional hearing relating to Joe Biden's impeachment.
Well, I suppose in this way, haven't we come to accept as normal total corruption?
While we may be beginning to suspect that a Biden impeachment on the basis of granting favours to family members that are beyond the remit of his political position, and yet Use that position as an advantage is a type of corruption.
Isn't it the type of corruption that we're becoming inured to, inoculated from, as if there were a successful vaccine that did what it said on the tin and was not a kind of renegade aluminium cocktail doing God alone knows what.
Isn't it extraordinary that we've come to accept that Nancy Pelosi's ability to profit, seeming ability to profit, from information that she surely must have access to while sitting on regulatory bodies within Congress that oversee what happens on big tech platforms and Paul Pelosi's eventual investments appear to glean information from that source and benefit from it?
That, that's a kind of corruption, isn't it?
I mean, ideally, wouldn't we take money out of politics altogether?
I mean, ideally, wouldn't the business of politics in your country and mine and all nations be built upon the principle of freedom from hypocrisy and corruption?
With service as the highest principle.
So the very fact that the Hunter Biden story sort of, it seems fascinating, but also there's a degree of fear to it because it's just another example of corruption in a corrupt system.
I'm not doubting for a second that Joe Biden's position benefited Hunter Biden's business dealings.
I can't imagine what the hell What he was doing at Burisma, essentially.
What was going on at Burisma that legitimized his position?
Let's just take that one example.
But what Glenn Greenwald's focusing on in particular was the career of AOC,
who at the offset was an individual that I suppose many people would have thought,
wow, this is a person that's a waiter, an ordinary person,
a person that's risen up to be a member of the political class
that will represent ordinary people.
And how she's become a demonstrable acolyte and clear voice for the Pi establishment is astonishing and extraordinary to see.
Look at their passion, look at their vim, look at their vigour.
I believe the fact that he was sitting with me while I was putting together a business deal... Did you witness the president commit a crime?
Is it your testimony today?
Yes.
And what crime do you have you witness?
How much time do I have to go through it?
It is simple.
You name the crime.
Did you watch him steal something?
Corruption statutes, RICO and conspiracy.
What is it?
What is the crime, sir?
You asked me to answer the question.
I answered the question.
RICO, you're obviously not familiar with.
Excuse me, sir.
RICO is not a crime.
It is a category.
What is the crime?
It's a category of crimes that you're then charged with.
You have charges.
You have charges.
Sir, please name... Sir, yes!
Alright, sir, I reclaim my time.
Yes.
Well, it's funny.
In this committee room, everyone's not here.
There's over 80 lawyers that went to law school.
Alright, sir.
I reclaim my time.
I reclaim my time.
I reclaim my time.
I'll leave it.
Mr. Bobalinsky, Mr. Bobalinsky, she's reclaiming her time.
Time is coming back.
You cannot reclaim time.
That is not how time works.
Doesn't this strike you as a theatrical performance rather than a political process?
Isn't there a little too much theory in all of this?
In fact, look at this moment of almost literal commedia dell'arte when a masked Democrat, I think it was Jared Moskovitz, appeared at the hearing making an astonishing point.
South Florida representative Jared Moskowitz wore a Vladimir Putin rubber mask on Capitol Hill Wednesday, accusing Republicans of pushing Russian disinformation.
I just came to thank James Comer for taking all of our intelligence and using it in the committee.
Maybe he can come see the technology in our grocery stores.
That's their reference.
That's a little Tucker joke there, wasn't it?
At the end.
Extraordinary.
...has been critical of GOP efforts to remove President Joe Biden from office.
He wore the mask walking into the house oversight impeachment hearing which centers on allegations Biden benefited from his son Hunter's business deal.
This whole thing's pretty theatrical.
Here is Tony Bobulinski.
Tony Bobulinski gave his transcribed interview on February 28th and lied throughout his testimony.
Here's just one egregious example of Hunter's perjury.
He lied to the committee on important details concerning his money demands and threats to CFC in text messages on July 30th and 31st, 2017.
He leveraged his father's presence next to him in that infamous text to strong-arm CFC to paying Hunter immediately.
Jim Biden also lied extensively throughout his transcribed interview on February 21st and perjured himself.
Now, I watch an event like this and it's fascinating and it's clear to me, at least, that whatever the result of these investigations, there are some dubious relationships going on.
But does this seem to you, too, to be a kind of theatrical distraction from something much deeper, something much more potent and powerful?
When Ron Paul says there will be a Black Swan event, doesn't there seem to be an almost Jungian resonance to that?
Something deeply understood?
Something you've been aware of for a long, long time?
Something we're being ushered towards, whether it's in your country, Whether it's in my country, whether it's in those Nordic lands of Scandinavia where happiness is at an all-time high, whether it's in the country of the United States of America where little rascals gangs conduct real robberies in some nostalgic echo of that which was once pastiche, becoming real, becoming peculiar, that which was once light, becoming dark.
What does Ron Paul mean when he says a black swan event?
Does that make sense to you?
What do you think it's going to be?
Because this is no longer the realm of conjecture and metaphysical conspiracy theory.
We're aware that we're continually provoking a nuclear superpower into increasing conflict.
We're aware That in the volatile region of the Middle East there are atrocities and abominations taking place all around.
We know too of the looming threat of an antagonized China.
Is it going to be a geopolitical military provocation that leads us towards this Black Swan event?
Now that we've had our first taste of a pandemic, an event which Was extraordinary.
Has exposed a good deal of systemic corruption.
An event that appears to have, in some ways, been, if not planned, then certainly rehearsed.
A medication that's been more controversial than any medicine that I can remember, other than those that have rightly been subject to considerable and rigorous inquiry.
Thalidomide, fentanyl, etc.
What is this Black Swan event?
What is it that lurks and looms?
What is it that slouches towards Bethlehem to be born now?
Let's have a look at Ron Paul and then for the rest of the show we're going to look at the New York Times and their celebration of the deep state.
And the legacy media's relationship with the deep state.
And the numerous, anonymous, anodyne-sounding agencies that crush dissent on behalf of the deep state.
And the necessity that we not only remain informed and educated, but that we awaken on some profound level.
That we are able to transcend the traps that are even now being laid.
Let's have a look at this Black Swan event first of all, then we'll get into it.
I think we're reaching this point where some sudden thing is going to happen.
I believe in that theory of the black swan.
Yes.
It's going to pop up and it's not going to be controllable.
But people, you ask, what can they do?
I think the most important thing is understand what's going on.
It's education.
That's why I happen to have a homeschooling program, and I try to teach this stuff early, because you can't change it.
You can't go in and say, okay, you want $50 an hour?
We can't do that, but we'll have a compromise with the other people.
We'll just give you $32 per hour, you know, guaranteed.
That kind of nonsense.
You have to be able to You know, tell them what they have to do.
One is to protect the body, one is to protect your will.
But when I go through this, when people really want to know some details and I get a little more in detail, I say, but really, really the most important thing you do is study and understand what's going on Because if you come away from that and you're able to accumulate a lot and get by and you have your guns and you have stored food and all that, it's not going to work.
You have to understand what's happening.
You have to know it's This is a Blackron event.
A lot of you are saying that destabilizing the population through what you refer to as the migrant crisis.
A lot of you are referring to potential escalating wars and pandemics.
In a minute, We'll be looking at the New York Times' celebration of the deep state where they attempt to normalize and to be fair of course there are many people that work at new deep state type agencies.
They're of course human beings.
I'm not suggesting there's a men in black scenario where they're pulled down from the stars and from the sky somewhere but If you're normalizing someone who works at the FDA, you better mention some of the concerns of the last few years.
You better mention the revolving door between the FDA and Moderna.
You better mention many people's cynicism, outright skepticism and rage around events in the pandemic and the failure to report on subjects as diverse as adverse events and If you're watching us on YouTube, we're going to be there for another couple of minutes and I'm going to need you to click the link in the description and join us in the stream of freedom where we can speak a little more clearly and a little more deeply about the matters that may come to define our lives in the coming years.
Let's let Ron, dear Ron though, have his final words.
Yes.
it's very very dangerous and that's why I love to see smaller units of government.
Anything that hints, that says they're springing up an idea in our states to
act like they ought to act. Yes. And they're starting to, you know, they're
starting to get more independent. Smaller units of government.
Decreased centralised power.
Less authoritarianism.
What trends are you observing?
Are you observing centralisation?
Authoritarianism?
Are you observing a decrease in your personal liberty that's apparently for your safety and security?
And who sets the table for this increasing authoritarianism?
Why it's the legacy media, of course, It's those blue chip brands like the New York Times that will call any dissenting voice a conspiracy theorist that will come down hard in favour of the CIA or the FDA or NATO.
Any of those organisations.
The New York Times has gone so far in a new modern media landscape to mimic the former content of groups like Vice and make Kind of folksy, homey, homespun, accessible, Casey Nasdaq style.
Hey, aren't the deep state great style video?
Let's get into it.
If you're watching us on YouTube right now, you've got to click the link in the description and join us in this sweet stream of freedom.
Remember, we've got some incredible items.
Start the countdown, guys.
We've got some incredible items to convey your way if you want them.
Why?
There's the adorable pink beanie.
It could have so much meaning, couldn't it?
It could be just something to pop on top of your dome to show that you're awakened yet, or it could be, remember what those campaigners were wearing a few years ago in your nation?
Remember, you get additional content if you become an Awakened Wonder.
We make exclusive videos every week on a variety of subjects, often conspiracy theories, and you join us live with our fantastic guests.
Neil Oliver, he's on Rumble tomorrow, but you could have joined him live yesterday.
Click the link!
Join us!
Now, Let's have a look at how the New York Times handle the tricky job of making people love, I don't know, the CIA and the FBI.
I mean, remember, we're living at a time now where many people are deeply cynical about Big Pharma, deeply cynical about the...
Intentions and agenda of the health industry, but they are happy to create and then leap upon a bandwagon of undeserved enthusiasm for the deep state.
This is going to astonish you.
And before we begin, I want to remind you that when Jack Teixeira, the whistleblower, was arrested, the New York Times participated in the investigation and almost the arrest of a whistleblower, a man who's now of course in prison.
When it came to reporting on CIA bases in the Ukraine, the New York Times admitted it was a story
they'd known about for some time but only reported on it with the complicity of the deep state. So
let me know in the chat why you think they are shilling for the deep state, propagandizing the
deep state, normalizing the deep state, and of course condemning anyone who has any questions about the
deep state. Let's have a look.
I will totally obliterate the deep state.
I will fire— Donald Trump is obsessed with the Deep State.
The Deep State— Deep State— The Deep State is destroying our nation.
Either the Deep State destroys America, or we destroy the Deep State.
And many Republicans are widening his paranoia.
Consider this, the New York Times know that you're not watching this video unless it comes via a conduit like this one.
That tells me that they know now that even their own audience Their own viewers, their own readers have doubts about the deep state.
This message is spreading.
This message of massive distrust of institutions is becoming immersive and powerful.
Remember how you felt during the pandemic when you had your suspicions about the medications and the measures that were being taken and the peculiar three-letter organizations that were being granted unprecedented authority?
Well, look at what's transpired in the intervening years.
You were right.
You were right about the medications.
You were right about the measures.
You were right about the profits.
You were right about the redactions.
You were right about the lies.
And now, even the people that watch the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC are beginning to awaken.
So when the Black Swan event comes, many, many people might be ready for it and might be ready to resist.
...a cabal of security agents to... ...the sick political class that hates our country.
If elected, Trump's vowed to gut the federal government.
...reinstate the Schedule F executive order and, quote, fire rogue bureaucrats.
But who are these bureaucrats and what may...
Who are these lovable bureaucrats?
How about a sideways look at some of those unsung heroes?
The Deep State!
Just remember what's going on in the world right now, what the CIA's role has been in the escalation of the conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and how the New York Times has reported, or rather, Not reported on that.
Consider still the New York Times position on a journalist like Julian Assange who as yet remains incarcerated.
Consider that even Bobby Kennedy, I mean even Bobby Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy is an out there guy, is saying that the CIA, the FBI, they should be dismantled.
That many of the figures that have arisen in spaces like this one, Vivek Ramaswamy, say that the CIA should be disbanded, you should get rid of the FBI.
That these organizations no longer can claim to work for the people, they work for the establishment, for the blob, as many would call them, ensuring that you remain unawakened.
And look at how the New York Times, and believe me, there are comparable organizations in our nation that cooperate with the government.
That corroborate the government's lies.
Organizations and agencies funded by your government that observe dissenting voices, that track information on dissenting voices, that participate and even coordinate takedowns on dissenting voices.
How do I know that?
Personal experience and because of Freedom of Information Act requests that even now are dazzling and you're gonna have to wait and see those revelations as they come.
Makes them so dangerous.
We needed answers, so we took a trip across America.
In 100 yards, take the exit.
In search of the people behind this threatening entity.
The lovely old deep... I mean, of course there's human beings.
Like, have you seen that film that's out at the moment, Zone of Interest, where it takes, like, Herman Hesse, or... I think it's Herman Hesse, isn't it?
A very sort of... Rudolf Hesse.
Yeah, not Herman Hesse, the writer of Siddhartha, a brilliant and kindly gentleman.
Where it takes Rudolf Hesse, who is a senior Nazi working and at and overseeing Auschwitz and shows how he was able to live a normal life in the shadow of death, destruction and indeed genocide and, you know, live the normal life.
If you were to focus on the normal, ordinary details of a Nazi or a genocidal lunatic, you would find Flavors of humanity amidst them.
I'm certainly not comparing these, you know, essentially bureaucrats.
There's a bureaucratic component to the CIA.
Martin Goury worked for the CIA as an analyst and it's his brilliant book, The Revolt of the Public, that we continually turn to when understanding how they've got into such a mess because independent media and social media spaces mean they cannot control the narrative anymore because we're all connected.
That's why they're working so hard to control these spaces.
This is astonishing.
This is an astonishing attempt Meet Scott Bellamy.
I am a Mission Manager in the Planetarium Missions Program Office.
He drives a Nissan Titan 4x4.
He's loved Star Trek since he was a kid.
He's a regular guy!
Hannah Arendt's masterpiece, The Banality of Evil, focuses precisely on this.
I'm not suggesting that this lovely guy with all his wonks and lanyards and bits and bobs is anything other than a perfectly likeable bureaucrat.
Why would he be anything else?
The fact is is that the CIA is an extraordinary and nebulous organisation where there's probably no one individual that has any understanding or appreciation of exactly what's going on there.
But I'll tell you what I believe is going on there.
They're controlling the media, they're infiltrating social media, they're managing legacy media, they're ensuring that stories don't reach you that would make you non-compliant and disobedient.
Am I wrong?
The very fact that there's people that... Look at this lady!
She works in the corridors cleaning with a mop!
She's lovable!
She's fa... Here's a car parking attendant!
He works in the lot.
He's a lovable guy.
He's got two kids at home.
Of course people are ultimately beautiful.
That is the great promise that the spiritual life offers us.
And even if you're just a humanitarian or a materialist, you know that everybody has beauty in them.
If you don't believe that, then what hope is there for any of us?
But the New York Times going out of its way to say, look at the Donald Trump's out of his mind thinking that the deep states are a threat to democracy.
Of course he's a threat to democracy.
Why are we in a war, or at least a proxy war now, defending Ukrainian democracy when they don't have elections, when they jail dissenters, Gonzalo Lira, died in prison, American journalist, When they've centralised all of their media, when they're doing deals with BlackRock and JPMorgan, that's the democracy that your tax dollars are supporting?
No wonder the New York Times is working so hard to ensure that you remain compliant.
And all the chattering classes and Manhattan folks, did you see that piece about the Deep State?
Oh my God, give me a break.
People talking about the Deep State.
The Deep State's lovely.
It's just that guy who likes Star Trek.
Well, the Deep State planned to murder Julian Assange.
That's a fact.
So there's your friendly Julian Assange.
Of course, it wasn't this lovely guy in his blue t-shirt, but the head of the CIA admitted it publicly.
So the Deep State is not your friend.
Of course, I have a favorite character.
It's either Captain Kirk or Mr. Spock.
And he may have quite literally saved the planet from annihilation.
Potentially.
This is RodicaFox.
I am the Assistant Administrator for Water at the Environmental Protection Agency.
She loves pilates, making salads... She's taking her shoes off under the desk.
I'm not arguing with their perspective that that lady is nice or that man is nice.
I completely agree with that.
I'm saying that part of what propaganda does is it...
Amplifies irrelevant detail to distract you from the fact that even that Environmental Protection Agency, let's look at what their role was in the East Palestine train crash.
How did they respond to that?
But given that the environment is meant to be a significant issue, what kind of agenda do they have?
How does it function?
How does it ensure that the needs of ordinary people are met and not compromised by a globalist agenda to use Climate change, which, whether you believe it's a real threat or not, is doubtlessly being used by globalist elites to impose measures that will curtail the freedom of individuals.
No one's suggesting that those 15-minute cities will affect people that live on their own private archipelagos with underground bunkers.
They've got their own 15-minute bunkers while they're suggesting that you live in 15-minute cities.
And watching the Taylor Swift Eras tour on TV with her family.
Uh, I think we're all pretty 1989.
Oh, and she led an operation to- Can we use her?
Isn't her voice a little high?
No, no, that's really good because that, you know, it makes her kind of ridiculous, doesn't it?
Nobody can imagine that this person is some kind of deep throat figure that's handing over important information or shutting down freedom.
No, no, it's good, it's good.
Make our drinking water lead-free in 10 years.
That's why your tax dollars pay experts like Radhika and Scott.
Important work like this is happening all over America.
From helping two million victims of the opioid crisis... Ah, let's spend a few seconds on how we got into that opioid crisis.
What was the negligence of the state?
What was the institutionalized corruption?
What was the relationship between big pharma and family doctors who've been further impaired since the pandemic era?
How was it that just one family and one organization, the Sacklers and Purdue, were demonized when this was a situation that should have told us once and for all, never trust the pharmaceutical industry.
They'll kill you if there's a dollar in it.
Well, there's a lesson that wasn't learned early enough.
There's a lesson that we could have done with in 2019.
To engineering major breakthroughs in nuclear fusion and helping make hearing aids affordable for 30 million people.
Well, hear this!
What the hell went on in that pandemic?
Why the hell are there people from the FDA working at Moderna right now?
What's going on?
What's the 650 million deal that's been done in the UK with AstraZeneca while there are cases going on that suggest that maybe people died as a result of that product?
Is your hearing aid still working?
Yep.
The deep state is hard at work making America great.
Amazing, fantastic, the absolute balls of them.
But we should not be surprised that the New York Times participate in a project like that because you know how they participated in the arrest of Jack Teixeira.
Was he a whistleblower?
Should he be regarded as a hero?
Was he really just a bit of a kid bragging in a chat room about sensitive information?
Certainly the New York Times participated in the takedown that has led to his incarceration.
In April, the New York Times publicly identified the individual who allegedly leaked Pentagon documents exposing U.S.
government lies about the Ukraine war leading to his arrest.
The Times, working with the state-funded propaganda clearinghouse Bellingcat, you guys all heard of that right, publicly revealed the identity of Jack Tashera, or as we call him, Buddy Boy Texera, for no reason at all, because it certainly isn't his actual name.
A 21 year old, if you've ever seen pictures of this guy, he looks like about 9.
21 year old Air National Guard member.
We won't find many stories on Aaron Bushnell, will you?
Whose image and video has been scraped from the internet, and who do you think's Facilitating that.
Who do you think's doing the hard, expensive work of cleaning up the internet of a story where a service person and member set fire to himself in protest of an American... Well, if it does not call it an American conflict, but a conflict that would not be taking place without American arms.
Is that a fair description?
Let me know in the chat.
Let.
Me.
Know.
In the chat.
NATO troops are on the ground in Ukraine.
This takes the complicity of the U.S.
media in the crimes of U.S.
imperialism to an entirely new level.
It has become an active co-partner with the government in preventing the development of an informed public opinion that could place restraints on the preparation, conduct and escalation of war.
That's what the legacy media has to do.
For the Times to publicly take actions that led directly to the arrest of a source of information vital to the public interest marks a milestone in the degeneration of the American press into an appendage of the state.
Anyone with information exposing criminal wrongdoing by the government cannot go to the New York Times, Washington Post or other major US media outlets for fear of simply being handed over to the police or FBI.
And remember, too, the story about Ukraine, the CIA bases inside Ukraine that have been there for 10 years, involved and engaging in acts of provocation against Russia.
The history of that conflict is complicated.
Certainly, though, the 2014 coup was a significant moment.
Certainly the breach of pledges not to impede on former Soviet territories is significant, and no doubt Putin's own imperialist agenda is a factor worth considering, but the legacy media have got that angle covered.
And if what you seek and what you desire is peace, don't you have an obligation to report on significant details like the fact that Boris Johnson, then Prime Minister of the UK, scuppered a provisional deal between Zelensky and Putin, was it two years ago now?
Let me know in the chat, fellas!
Let's have a look at that story now.
So, on the weekend of the second anniversary of the war, the New York Times published a lengthy article revealing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022 was instigated by a systematic and widespread campaign of military intelligence aggression on the part of the United States.
The article details long-standing Central Intelligence Agency operations in Ukraine, in which the agency sponsored and built up the Ukrainian Military Intelligence Agency, HER, using it as a weapon of spying, assassination, and provocation directed against Russia from on the decade.
The Times article, check this out, this is the bit that's important.
...is not so much an exposure as a controlled release of information.
The U.S.
newspaper of record reports that the two authors of the piece, Adam Entis and Michael Schwarz, conducted more than 200 interviews with current and former officials in Ukraine, elsewhere in Europe, and in the States.
This activity could hardly have taken place without the knowledge, permission, and even encouragement of the CIA.
Oh, one wonder why they're so friendly and upbeat about the deep state.
As well as the Zelensky regime and Ukrainian intelligence.
By reporting the virtual control of the Ukrainian regime by the US military intelligence apparatus, the Times is seeking to pressure the Republicans to support the war funding.
So even there, there's an agenda that's sort of slightly off.
Key, nefarious, insidious, I suppose is the correct word, in order to get Republican support for further funding for that war.
They say, well, look, you know, we're involved in this thing.
It's American jobs.
Who's going to run all these bases?
It's arguing that this money is not going to a foreign government in a foreign war thousands of miles from US borders, but to a subcontractor of American imperialism waging an American war In which US personnel are deeply and directly engaged.
That's some fascinating news.
That's the way that the legacy media operates.
This is where the cartilage is of the interconnection between the state, private organizations crushing dissent online, you're aware of that, state intervention and intercession into our communications, and a globalist agenda that could lead to the very Black Swan event that Ron Paul is talking about.
Okay, guys, we're going to have a little look at, in fact, I want to let you know about something about our partners.
Then we're going to look at the Supreme Court thing that's going on at the moment.
It's absolutely fantastic, fascinating, and you'll love it.
Then we've got some really great stories about Real life little rascals.
They're kids conducting bank robberies.
You may have noticed that I get pretty passionate when it comes to what I'm reporting about.
Why?
That's simply testosterone that's still in my blood because when I cleanse my skin I use the products of Charlize.
Charlize is run by a woman called Charlene, a good damn fine Christian woman over in your country who's herself been subject to Biden administration intervention.
By using her fantastic products that make you look younger, you are sticking one to the man.
These products are fantastic and you know we need partners like Charlize because we are under constant attack.
Now this cleanser is free from toxins in a way that other cosmetics are not.
They've got stuff called phthalates in them.
If you're a man and you care about reproduction and the downstairs swimmers, this is the product you should be using because a lot of facial cleansers, especially cheap ones, are full of toxins and phthalates That can potentially reduce your testosterone, can potentially be introducing phthalates into your system, affecting your reproductive health.
This is a daily facial cleanser.
In there, aloe vera.
Delicious.
Oat beta-glucan.
Organic citrus peel oils.
Your skin is otherwise being bombarded with harmful elements that can wreak havoc on your complexion.
Strip away your skin's natural oils.
Chemicals, by the way, don't just stay on the surface.
They seep into your body, create chronic illnesses.
That's why you should do what I do, and choose Charlize, and experience the difference for yourself.
Whatever you are, this is a product for you to try.
It's a lovely gift, but I use it myself, and you can tell me in the chat.
I can take it.
Facial, you dirty dog, you know Canadian beaver fever, but that is not what I meant when I said facial.
Grow up.
You can get 25% off this so please go charlies.beauty forward slash brand get yourself some of these products and let our partners know that our work here is reaching people and is effective as well as making yourself beautiful and potent because we are being censored you are being censored and any attempts to prevent censorship are of course being seriously and severely within the Supreme Court.
It seems that they're likely to reject an effort to limit the federal government
from pressuring social media companies.
So how are government, big tech, and big academia working so hard right now to silence you?
Wouldn't you like someone just to do a deep dive into this and explain it to you?
We're gonna do that.
Then we're gonna come back, we're gonna have some fun together,
we're gonna look at tumbling population levels, we're gonna have a laugh about some bank robberies
being done by kids, and we are gonna give you an opportunity
to get one month free in our movement as a member of our community,
opposing the forces that we talk about regularly.
Here's the news.
No, baby.
Here's the F in news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Good day.
No.
Here's the F in news.
The Supreme Court are probably going to reject an attempt to limit how much the federal government
can pressure social media when it comes to censorship.
So how are big government, big tech and big academia teaming up to silence you?
For a minute it seemed like the conduct of the government during the pandemic period was to be scrutinized and ultimately condemned by the Supreme Court but of course that's not going to happen.
Sometimes you hear about the Supreme Court seeming to reject the use of the judiciary as a weapon but Ultimately, I suppose, it's an institution that's within American government and therefore largely supportive of centralized powers.
It's not ultimately a system that's going to empower people to start overthrowing stuff and creating new systems of government, is it?
Because how would it?
How could it?
How could that work?
So, let's have a look Let's look at this story together, how it's being reported on the legacy media, and then let's look at at least three components of the censorship industrial complex.
Notably, the state and the government, and even though this is a Republican-sponsored endeavour, look at how it's being quashed.
Then let's look at big tech companies and how they've become more compliant and the manoeuvring they're having to do to remain in the favourable conditions that they need to be in, particularly in your country, America.
And finally, let's look at how big academia functions in this The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on social media censorship claims against the government.
The court seemed likely to reject a bid by two GOP-led states to restrict the federal government from urging social media companies to restrict misleading posts or disinformation on their platforms, unless there is a threat of retribution.
At issue, Republican AGs of Missouri and Louisiana brought that case along with several individuals who claimed that platforms like Facebook suppressed their views against vaccines and lockdowns during the pandemic at the government's demand.
The court voiced more sympathy with the administration's defense during yesterday's arguments across a broad spectrum of those justices.
The justices questioned whether any plaintiffs suffered harms that gave them a right to sue, and they expressed So they are saying that the government will be able to continue to pressure social media companies, even though we know now that there was a lot of true information that was censored.
Even though we know now that we live in a curated reality where Google, for example, can amplify particular stories and news feeds, where you can be censored and shut down, where true information can be excluded.
Essentially, we are in a continual 360 programming simulation that now seems less likely than ever to be penetrated by alternative sources of information.
So that's pretty significant, particularly if you're aware of the recent story that the New York Times published saying, the Deep State are great, they're just people like you and me, which is a kind of inversion of that film Zone of Interest, sort of saying, well, he just lived next to the Auschwitz.
It was alright, really, rather than, this is a bizarre concoction, something that we shouldn't accommodate and put up with.
It's treating Facebook and these other platforms like they're subordinates.
Would you do that to the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or the Associated Press or any other big newspaper or wire service?
You wouldn't have to.
They are eagerly on board with the projects of the establishment and have functioned perhaps for their entire history as vassals of the establishment, social media, because of its chaotic expanse.
For a moment, and perhaps still in some beautiful dream, could be a place where truth, sometimes inadvertently, can reach large numbers of people.
It certainly makes us disobedient and less compliant when you can feel and sense immediate pushback on any propagandist endeavour.
But what What this Supreme Court ruling or likely ruling means is
that the government will be able to continue to pressure social media sites to censor and
control information.
And that's in addition to all these additional measures that we're seeing around the world.
New AI bills in the EU, the New York Times telling us that the deep state are great,
hate speech laws in Ireland, whatever Canada are passing this week, who knows, our country,
the UK with their online safety bill.
All of these tools are essentially the hands that mould our understanding of reality.
And any attempt to get him hands off my version of reality is being strongly resisted.
I was merely persuading you to censor this information.
Would you mind awfully censoring all that information?
Remember Elon Musk has revealed that the FBI had some device that after two weeks Eliminates and deletes, obliterating all of their interactions with X. Like when he revealed all that, what was then known as the Twitter files information, it was like, oh, the FBI have been getting involved and saying, hey, you should censor that, you should amplify that.
Well, in addition, those interactions have been deleted now.
That's also illegal.
You can't delete information like that.
That's against Freedom of Information Act request law.
You're not supposed to do that.
Justice Jackson?
So my biggest concern is that your view has the first That's really weird.
This is an ex-post from Glenn Greenwald.
KBJ doubles down.
My biggest concern is that your view has the First Amendment hamstringing the government in a significant way.
As he says, that is quite literally the entire point of the First Amendment, the entire Bill of Rights.
The point of the Bill of Rights is to ensure that big government doesn't encroach into the individual freedom of In this case, Americans, but some brilliant principles are found there.
The government is meant to be a unit and system of service, not a system of control.
And even as I say that out loud, it's obviously bloody ridiculous because otherwise none of this stuff will be happening.
None of these things would be top secret.
We wouldn't feel like we're in the middle of a sort of an advanced agenda to centralise global power and prohibit us from accessing the information required to even argue against this increasingly, seemingly inevitable process.
I mean, what would you have the government do?
I've heard you say a couple times that the government can post its own speech, but in my hypothetical, you know, kids, this is not safe, don't do it, is not going to get it done.
It's not like the government's a victim in some way.
Poor old government, just trying to get on and censor people and protect and serve.
That's not the view anymore.
There's also some strange language around children there.
I'm trying to work out what the dynamic is and I suppose what the dynamic continually is, is to present the exploitation of powerful institutions as their kind of weary attempts to protect and help us and Donald Trump and Elon Musk and Tucker Carlson or whoever it is this week are getting in the way of the government's attempt to just help us to death!
And so I guess Some might say that the government actually has a duty to take steps to protect the citizens of this country, and you seem to be suggesting that that duty cannot manifest itself in the government encouraging... That's amazing.
I don't want to hurt you, but you're making me hurt you.
They have a duty to sort of override our freedom.
Some people would say that even if you're wrong about something, you should have the right to be wrong.
There are certain rules and regulations that most of us appreciate and understand to the degree where they could almost be regarded as universal.
Don't harm other people, don't take other people's property.
The kind of things that we all have a sort of sense of as being moral and ethical values, which could of course be limitlessly debated.
But what we don't really need is a government usurping our own individual will, kind of colonizing our minds and controlling our realities, and then sort of asking for a payment.
Like, can we have half your money?
We don't need 50% of everything you've earned.
What for?
Well, all of that oppressing we've done is not cheap.
Or even pressuring platforms to take down harmful information.
So, can you help me?
Because I'm really worried about that.
Because you've got the First Amendment operating in an environment of threatening circumstances from the government's perspective, and you're saying that the government can't interact with the source of those problems.
All of this prevarication and entervisigating around the idea of how much pressure or whatever euphemism they want to use to imply pressure and control is extracting a very important piece of information.
This pertains to the coronavirus period where they were censoring information in retrospect and proved to be true.
They were censoring stuff like what about natural immunity, vitamin D, Have you got any concerns about vaccinating during a pandemic?
Hey, what if there are any adverse side effects?
Have they had a long enough clinical trial period to determine whether or not this might cause various other conditions or even death?
There are so many of those questions are entirely legitimate.
They're acting like the findings of the pandemic period was right.
See?
We told you that we should have been censoring all that stuff.
Lockdowns were effective.
Social distancing wasn't arbitrary.
Masks definitely worked.
There's no way we should have just been shielding elderly vulnerable people.
Very effective, wasn't it?
All these medications on young people.
Definitely no side effects.
No weird mad profits for Pfizer and Moderna.
Definitely aren't legal cases now with Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca.
So they're continuing, even though the body of evidence is, they were wrong to have done it.
They've lost the argument and now they're trying to double down on the control.
And of course that's not a coincidence, that's why.
Because now they're worried, oh no look, what happened was is people were telling the truth at the time that we were incorrect and that will continue to happen.
Whether it's wars or the next time we try to say everyone get in your house for, I don't know, is it a solar flare?
Is it a cyber attack?
Is it a terrorist attack?
Is it another pandemic?
Whatever it will be that is used to legitimise the next bold gambit to steal away control
of your life, they want to ensure that people online going "wait a minute, this doesn't
seem right" are silenced because like last time, here's a bold prediction, those people
will be right.
Not the government, not the FBI, not the CIA, and while the New York Times are saying "hey
they're just regular guys, this person comes from a blue collar background" that's not
Literally, truly, not important.
Giving power to unelected officials who remain in power no matter what administration seizes the throne for a moment only to implement the exact same agenda is not a system of government that any of us should be accepting.
And we know that now, so they're just going to censor the conversation that we're all having.
The justices seem skeptical of the idea that by alerting social media companies to disinformation, the government was somehow coercing them.
They didn't see the evidence for that, and they said there should be a place for government officials to go to platforms and talk about harmful content, as long as they weren't, again, using their powers to coerce these companies, because that would violate the First Amendment.
But the justices weren't seeing that.
Hey, look, hi, I'm just here to have a bit of a chat.
Oh, where do you work?
I'm just a, you know, just a regular guy, works for the FBI.
Oh, well, cool, cool.
Anyway, I was just wondering if you'd send us out all of this information that doesn't lead to vast profits for pharmaceutical companies and the ability to regulate.
And I won't use any of my power.
I want you to think about my idiosyncrasies and Quirks as an individual, not the fact that I'm an agent of the state that can control and shut you down and can demand taxes and can use law to control, criminalize and kill you, actually, if it comes to it.
They're not your friend.
The system is not your friend.
This is oppression and tyranny as always presented as sort of normal and helpful.
The repercussions of a ruling could be far-reaching as the nation heads into a contentious election.
We expect a ruling on the case sometime in June.
That's significant as well because obviously they are anticipating the requirement to control and censor information in the build-up to the next election in the event that they can't put Donald Trump in jail.
Now whether or not you believe Donald Trump is the solution to a nation's ills or not, the fact is the establishment seem hell-bent on controlling and imprisoning Donald Trump and Even more significantly, in my view, the constituency that he represents of hugely dissatisfied people that are rejecting the neoliberal project and demanding freedom, be closer to home, and with that at least I agree with them entirely.
Let's have a look at a legacy media take on this just in case we start thinking that the government's out to oppress us and we need that realisation somehow diluted by our friends in the legacy media.
The Supreme Court seems prepared to reject a Republican-led effort to sharply limit the federal government from pressuring social media companies to remove harmful posts and misinformation from their platforms.
A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum, from here to here, The ideological expressed concern about hamstringing White House officials and other federal employees from communicating with tech giants about posts the government deems problematic that are related to public health, national security and elections, among other topics,
Think of your life, you know, you're a person, aren't you?
You love people, you're worried, you've got concerns and doubts and fears about, I don't know, getting older and the world and all that.
So you sometimes sort of just go, do you know what's getting me down?
It's that I'm worried that the White House are hamstrung in their ability to pressure social media when it comes to matters of public health.
Why can't the government just get in there?
What they're actually talking about there is the ability of the government to censor social media.
Let's forget that their relationship with most social media platforms is so convivial.
It amounts to propaganda, really, anyway.
They're slowly working out, oh my God, this is a resource where things can somewhat organically take shape and present entirely new economic, media, and ideological spaces.
We've seen it with NAFTA, Arab Spring, Trump.
Brexit, whatever, but now what they're working out is, look, as long as we've got favourable relationships and a bunch of contracts with Amazon and Google and elsewhere, we can exert some control over these platforms.
That's what they're working out, but they clearly want to be able to immediately have boots on the ground, as it were, agents in the offices of these places just pretending to be their mates.
Oh, shouldn't reach for another one really.
It's like they're all just mates having a chat rather than the government censoring you.
The First Amendment prevents the government from censoring speech and punishing people for expressing different views.
Bloody thing.
But the Biden administration says officials are entitled to share information, participate in public debate and urge action as long as their requests are not accompanied by threats.
Well, to be fair, I didn't threaten people.
I said, remove all of those posts from those doctors and Stanford scientists saying that there is no proof that this inhibits transmission.
I just asked them to do that and we shamed them and stopped their fun.
But I didn't threaten them.
I didn't threaten them.
That wasn't a threat.
That was a promise.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned during a meeting in Seoul on Monday of a flood of falsehoods that suffocate serious civic debate.
Oh, serious civic debate.
No more falsehoods flooding that.
Social media and artificial intelligence, he said, created an accelerant for disinformation.
Principal deputy solicitor General Brian Fletcher, representing the Biden administration, said government officials have longstanding authority to use the bully pulpit I don't think this should happen.
persuade. The lower court ruling, he said, would prevent thousands of government officials,
including FBI agents and presidential aides, from addressing threats to national security
and public health. I don't think this should happen. If I had a vote, if it was me and
sort of 12 of you, we'd go, yeah, that's good. That's what we want. Stop them doing that.
The initial ruling in the lawsuit came from a conservative district court judge in Louisiana
who said that the Biden administration appeared to have operated the most massive attack,
good band, against free speech. Well, that's not good. In United States history.
The court's order barred thousands of federal employees from improperly influencing tech companies to remove certain content.
The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit narrowed the decision to a smaller set of government officials and agencies, including the Surgeon General's Office, the White House, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the FBI.
A three-judge panel of the appeals court said the White House probably coerced the platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences.
Doesn't seem right, does it, that that's how they operate?
The panel also found that the White House significantly encouraged the platform's decisions by commandeering their decision-making process, both in violation of the First Amendment.
So it's actually outrageous when you hear it described like that, and the sort of thing that should absolutely be stamped out.
And the fact that, like, the Supreme Court judge is saying, I'm a bit worried that we're hamstrung by this First Amendment.
It's a bit of a shame that we can't just, you know, condemn people without trial and throw them in jail and create gulags and put chips under people's skin.
We're really hamstrung by that.
In October, the Supreme Court intervened and allowed the Biden administration to resume communications with social media companies while the litigation continued.
So they're still literally doing it right now.
That's how the world works.
Now we know.
Brilliant.
One of the Republicans who's been leading the opposition to the Biden administration's ability to coerce and pressure in the way that's been described Here's the Congressman Jim Jordan.
This is an article by him about how academia also plays into these spaces and the formulation of these ideals and this type of censorship and control.
After Elon Musk bought Twitter, we began to see just how much the government had been using the company to censor speech online.
Journalists such as Matt Taibbi and Michael Schellenberger published internal Twitter documents showing that the government was deeply involved in Twitter's content moderation decisions.
Musk even called Twitter a crime scene.
Since then, the Select Subcommittee has obtained direct evidence showing how the government coerced and colluded with Facebook, YouTube, Amazon, universities and others to deliberately censor certain viewpoints.
For example, we uncovered how the Biden White House directly pressured Facebook and YouTube
to take down posts with which the White House disagreed, including true information, memes
and other content that did not violate the company's content moderation policies.
Of those listed, I would say true information is the most troubling because when you consider
that Supreme Court justice saying, "We're hamstrung, we're hamstrung."
This is because they were wrong.
They were wrong.
What they were saying was wrong.
What they were doing was wrong.
And you're trying to make it right somehow.
This is ridiculous.
And while this piece is of course by a Republican politician and therefore partisan, it's irrelevant really because Mark Zuckerberg himself admitted, I think with Lex Friedman, that they had censored true information on Facebook because the government Asked them to.
Kind of establishment on that you know asked for a bunch of things to be censored that in retrospect ended up being more debatable or true.
So I don't know how much more information we need on this subject.
The censorship was so bad that Facebook's President of Global Affairs Nick Clegg, the former Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, what a coincidence, protested to the Biden White House To no avail, that the White House's demands represented a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US.
Like, free expression is just like a tradition, like wearing a hat, or pancake day, something that might be seen as a quaint custom, rather than a pretty important value, actually.
Internal emails show that the social media giants caved and changed their policies to censor more Americans' free speech because Facebook and YouTube needed to maintain a good relationship with the White House for other important policy decisions, like breaking up Facebook and Alphabet because they are monopolies and have the power to control information and censor.
And the government said, you want to carry on doing that, you better bloody well censor what we ask you to.
And they said, all right then.
So that's that put into the colloquial language of normal people.
There's a word for that.
Coercion.
And another word, corruption.
But the Biden administration's censorship campaign didn't end with social media.
The White House even tried to censor books.
The Select Subcommittee released internal Amazon emails in which company personnel, when preparing for an upcoming meeting with the Biden White House, asked, is the admin asking us to remove books?
Or are they more concerned about search results, order, or both?
Ultimately, Amazon appears to have changed its policies because of White House pressure, censoring books, questioning vaccines by enabling a feature called Do Not Promote.
What could be more un-American than the federal government telling a private company what books it can sell?
I suppose it reveals that all of this Let's talk of free trade and commerce and free market.
It's a bit of a smokescreen, really, for just a way of continuing to profiteer and control certain cultural spaces.
Meanwhile, centralized power continues unchallenged.
I'm imagining one of the books they'll be referring to is Bobby Kennedy's book, which was top of the New York Times bestseller list for some time, a book detailing the corruption of Anthony Fauci, the career of Anthony Fauci, the many peculiar decisions he's made and money he's made.
And that book, the New York Times just didn't have a number one for 10 weeks.
It was just that number just had a space next to it.
So that's what the New York Times, who will tell you what great guys the Deep State are, because they work for the Deep State, they're essentially part of the Deep State, whether it's arresting poor old buddy boy Teixeira, or conveniently releasing stories about CIA bases being in Ukraine for the last 10 years in order to facilitate Republican support for a bill that's perpetuating an unwinnable war.
So the idea that the legacy media is in any position to report objectively on this stuff is ridiculous also.
Big government and big tech weren't alone in this censorship enterprise.
Big academia was intricately involved too.
The Select Subcommittee uncovered emails showing that Stanford University set up something called the Election Integrity Partnership in the summer of 2020.
That name will tell you exactly what it's doing.
No, you don't need that speech.
No, you don't need those jokes.
This partnership submitted thousands of posts directly to Big Tech to be censored in the lead up to the 2020 election.
Including true information, jokes, and even speech by members of Congress.
No, you don't need that speech. No, you don't need those jokes. You don't need that information.
Bloody hell.
As concerning as all this is, what comes next is even scarier.
The government has now turned its attention to supercharging the censorship process by funding the development of AI-powered tools to do it at scale.
We've been telling you about this for a while and we've been subject to it as well at the hands of government proxies, who I won't name anymore because I think they scan our videos to find their name and de-amplify them, but you can look for those videos and they're really worth watching.
The Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government's latest report revealed how the National Science Foundation issued multi-million dollar grants to university and non-profit research teams to develop AI-powered censorship and propaganda tools to combat alleged misinformation.
One NSF-funded research team said the quiet part out loud when it told NSF that its AI-powered tool could help social media platforms more comprehensively enforce their misinformation policies and thus externalize the difficult responsibility of censorship.
We could get them to do it for us!
For us!
Non-public documents also reveal the condescending way the censors privately talk about Americans, particularly military families, the elderly, rural and indigenous communities, and Americans who hold the Bible and the Constitution as sacred.
Oh my God.
Don't usually expect that as well on a person who just don't like you.
That's why that bill didn't pass in Ireland recently, because people are beginning to understand that the elites do not like them, not one bit, and people would rather reach back to a tradition that at least has some sort of value, like, I don't know, God and religion, than Believe in these new made-up agendas that are entirely about disempowering people and pretending it's about kindness.
We've made incredible progress fighting government-induced censorship over the past year.
We owe tremendous gratitude to the many Democrats, progressive journalists and other left-of-centre witnesses who have bravely been willing to testify in front of the select subcommittee, even when facing baseless personal attacks from Democrats on the subcommittee.
If we lose our freedom of speech, our other cherished First Amendment rights to practice our faith, to publish and report, to assemble peacefully, and to petition our government, are vulnerable too.
And I would say that, actually, that it's not hysterical to imagine that next in line are precisely those rights.
In fact, if you look at them, you know, the right to assemble peacefully, that's kind of under attack.
There's lots of new protest laws, petition our government.
Like, they don't care, do they, really, what you say?
Like, when democracy even explicitly is, if you don't vote for this one person, you are voting for tyranny, that is conversely obviously already tyranny because you've only got one option according to them.
When that's coupled with the kind of authoritarianism that they're not acknowledging, the warmongering that they're not acknowledging, what exactly is this sacred thing that they are protecting?
What is it?
All of their censorship, all of their authoritarianism, their endless intervention, their warmongering around the world.
This is our way of life, our traditions.
You know that they laugh at American families that are rural, that believe in God, that believe in the Constitution.
They laugh at that.
They think it's ridiculous.
They think you're ridiculous.
We know that now.
They think that your values are laughable, they think that your rights are laughable, and that's why what will happen in the No.
Supreme Court is the government will be allowed to continue to censor people
just on the off chance we will start connecting with one another and rejecting
their increasingly evident tyranny. But that's just what I think why don't you let me know
what you think in the chat. See you in a second.
Thank you for accusing Fox News of a crime.
No, he's the fucking news!
Thank you.
We asked for your comments and you bloody well gave them to us, didn't ya?
You gave them to us, didn't ya?
Things like, the deep state's like grandma, just trying to help and protect you.
That's Sir Teres's comment.
Tolson718, the government is the source of disinformation.
Sorry about that, that's my dog bothering me.
Duckclouds, Orwellianindeed, S.O.
Blue, do that FBI accent again.
What one?
Which one?
I will.
I will do it if you tell me what it is.
By God, I'll do it.
If you need entertaining, I'll entertain them.
What do you want to see next?
Do you want to see Russell Brand for British Ambassador to America?
I'll take it.
Do you want to see a story about, you know, Elon and Don Lemon and all of that.
Do you want to see a story about underpopulation, which is actually pretty terrifying?
Do you want to see some little cute adorable children robbing a bank?
So you can either say Don Lemon gay, One, underpopulation.
Two, adorable little children robbing a bank.
Three, it's up to you, that's what, it's you, it's up to you to decide.
Not C, A Miller, 12-14, it was numbers, not letters.
You've got to communicate in a language that, there's Bear, Bear's there, you've got to communicate with us in a language we understand.
We've already been on two, three, all of ya, little cute bank robber babies.
Who doesn't want to see cute little bank robber babies?
In your country, America, there used to be a show called Little Rascals.
You know that, don't you?
Alfalfa, lovable, little scamp kids.
Weren't they adorable?
Well, it's happening in real life now.
It's really funny, because there's news reporting it.
They keep trying to balance, like, making it like The Little Rascals, but they're going, it's not actually like The Little Rascals, because these kids robbed a bank, and The Little Rascals would never have done that.
That's actually quite... Don't rob banks, kids.
How many more times?
You're grounded!
Yeah, good luck rounding me, you son of a bitch!
I'm fully armed!
Who doesn't remember the Little Rascals?
The mischief-making gang was a staple of- Everyone don't remember now because it was ages ago.
It was ages and ages ago.
I think they tried to revive it a bit, didn't they?
In a sort of a Home Alone, Macaulay Culkin, let's milk that kid for a few more hours type way.
But Little Rascals, weren't it like the 50s?
Weren't it like ages ago?
I mean, is there literally anyone in this chat who saw Little Rascals when it was happening?
That's why they have to keep establishing context the whole time about Little Rascals.
In a way they would never establish context if they were saying that Donald Trump used the phrase bloodbath to describe tariffs he might impose on the industry and what the lack of those tariffs might mean to the car industry were the tariffs not imposed because the Biden administration got a second term.
They're not going to give you that context.
When it comes to the little rascals, there's context up the wazoo.
Children's television in the 50s and remains a popular pop culture phenomenon today.
Now the name is actually being used by the FBI to describe a trio of kid bank robbers.
As Stephen Fabian reports, one is just 11 years old.
It's funny 'cause they're on the brink of sort of glamorizing it,
and also sort of suggesting that it's quite cute, but also they did, they actually did rob a bank.
They're being called the Little Rascals Bank Robbers.
The FBI says these kids, ages 11, 12, and 16... There are those numbers, in case you don't know what numbers are.
These adorable scams, they're like Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, but in real life, robbing a bank.
What's the crime of robbing a bank to the crime of a new bank opening?
Banks are shutting down everywhere.
Have you seen a bank like with a teller in the last 50 years?
Everything's done at an AVM.
They want to put chips under my skin!
Just pulled off a bank heist during spring break from school.
Spring break!
Now give me your fucking money.
Authorities say the boys passed a threatening note to the teller at a Wells Fargo bank in Houston.
We want Richby.
Give us rascals your money.
Houston.
Then they ran off with an undisclosed amount of cash.
Even the FBI was taken aback.
Recognize these little rascals?
Believe it or not, they... Let's do it so the FBI are trying to do it as a joke.
That's not their job.
Recognize these little rascals?
They're real life Dennis the Menaces.
He just robbed a bank.
Now we're all in a jam!
The Little Rascals was the classic black and white comedy series that generations of Americans have enjoyed.
Stop adding context!
If you haven't, since the beginning of this news report, gleaned who the Little Rascals are, they've told you so many times, haven't they?
Now some real-life Little Rascals have done a real-life bankrob.
I still don't even actually know if they did that bankrob.
They're probably innocent, these kids.
Cops say after the Wells Fargo photos were released, the parents of two of the youngsters came forward and turned their sons in.
Snitches got stitches, mom.
Calling them the little rascals, gang.
Nothing light-hearted about this crime.
It's extraordinary really because when I think about the financial crimes that the likes of, well not necessarily Wells Fargo specifically, but in 2008 there were some considerable financial crimes that were practiced across entire communities, vast swathes of America were impoverished And still are impoverished to this day.
Indeed, ultimately, these will be poor children carrying out that.
I bet they're not rich kids, ultimately.
I'm not seeking to suggest, in the way that this news report does, that the crime of robbing a bank is trivial.
I'm suggesting the context in which crime takes place is significant.
When you impoverish and deracinate an entire population, crime is inevitable.
I know that from experience.
I spoke to former FBI investigator Bill Daley.
If police were to get into the bank, no matter how young a perpetrator might be, and if they pose a threat to them, something bad could happen.
All three juveniles have been charged with robbery by threat.
That's the news, these little bastards.
Well, guys, we're going to wrap it up right now.
Now, we're going to do another 10 minutes over on Locals with our AwakendWonder community.
On our AwakendWonder community, we provide additional content, a different exclusive video every single week, plus we do competitions.
For example, all you have to tell us to win this T-shirt that I'm holding right now in front of my face is, can you name one, just one of the little rascals, those adorable little darlings, and you will get We've got a variety of fantastic products, including this and this.
First one to answer in the Awaken Wonder chat, you get those things.
Plus, we do interviews, like we've got some fantastic interviews coming up soon.
Steve Bannon, we've got a variety of people coming on the show.
Dana White, they're all coming on the show.
Every single one of them.
Spanky, Buckwheat, Toma, Dana, then some people talking mad shit coming out, Alfalfa.
You're doing well over there, but I can't give you it.
Some of those names.
I'm pretty sure that Spunky is not a little rascal.
So to win that stuff, become an Awakened Wonder.
We're going to do another 10 minutes over there.
You get our long COVID video.
Long COVID's been debunked now.
That was made up, obviously.
All right, you Awakened Wonders, join us over there.
We're back on the show tomorrow with a fantastic interview with Neil Oliver.
Is that right?
Neil Oliver tomorrow?
He's going to be on.
It's going to be fantastic.
I want to welcome our new members like Freedom Hunter 2022, Swindidge, Thomas Magic Words.
See those names skating across the screen?
Fearless Fred, Tony Clark 95.
Welcome all you guys.
If you're an Awakened Wonder, we're going to do some more, so stay there.
Get over there.
Click the link in the... We'll post the link in the chat right now, but get over to Locals and enjoy that little bastard and knob cheese.
We're not little...
We're not rascals.
Wanky!
Bullmeat!
There was not one called Bullmeat.
I'm not even reading that one out.
Spanky was not... There was not one called Spanky.
There was not one called Grover.
There was not one called Baldfucker.
Listen, I'm getting sick of this.
I am getting... He was the main rascal.
You're out of control.
Get over onto Locals now.
We'll have a little bit of fun together.
Together.
See you later.
See you tomorrow.
Not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
