Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 29, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:26:36

“This Is THE END!” Neil Oliver on Trump’s Takedown, Independent Politicians & More - Stay Free #336

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you you
	In this video, you're going to see a video of me.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello there you Awakening Wonders.
	Thanks for joining me for a very special Stay Free with Russell Brand today.
	Whether you're watching this on YouTube Rumble or on Locals, which as you now know is the port of call for all those seeking free speech.
	I hope you will enjoy our guest today.
	It's Neil Oliver.
	You may know Neil Oliver from GB News.
	You may know him as an endlessly ruminating Gaelic influence, lilting and wonderful, reflecting on political and cultural issues Bringing warmth, clarity and common sense to a variety of subjects.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, we'll only be there for the first 15 minutes.
	Then we'll be exclusively available on that sweet stream of freedom that we call Rumble.
	And you might be interested, by the way, while you're there, in this glorious item.
	You get 25% off these all week and we use any revenue we gleam.
	Four.
	Glorious investments into a better future for all of us.
	Thanks for being part of our movement.
	Remember, become an Awakened Wonder.
	You get additional content every single week.
	Okay, time now for our conversation with Neil Oliver, who's... Well, how do we describe him?
	He's the Coast Guy on X. He's written a book about ghosts and where to find them.
	And in our conversation today, we talked about the resignation of the Irish Teoshake.
	Taoiseach!
	Taoiseach!
	And what that means and what it indicates in a collapsing global system where the populations of most nations are rejecting the globalist project.
	We also talked about the ongoing fight between good and evil.
	I mean, it's an astonishing conversation.
	So guys, have a look at this.
	I hope you enjoy it.
	See you in a few seconds.
	Thank you very much, Neil Oliver, for joining us today.
	My pleasure.
	Currently, we're live on Locals with our Awakend community, some of whose questions I will pass on.
	Like, for example, look at this one.
	A freedom referendum.
	Dog toys bring peace, asks Neil.
	What's Neil's comment on a freedom referendum?
	What are they, man of Stirling?
	A freedom referendum?
	Well, I'm not sure quite what's being alluded to there, but in principle, yes, absolutely.
	I, of course, come from, just last week actually, I was in Arbroath, at home of the declaration of Arbroath of 1320, you know, which is famous amongst other things for its sign-off about it being in truth not for glory, nor for riches, nor for honours that we fight, but freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.
	So, how can I stand up as a As a Scot, I'm not saying that all things in defence of freedom are only laudable.
	I love your... So I thank you in favour.
	Yes, I suppose so.
	I wonder what I can tell you is that there will not be a freedom referendum because people would vote for freedom and that would be a tremendous problem.
	Perhaps this question is being asked in light of the recent referenda in our neighbouring nation of Ireland where the people Rejected en masse an attempt to change the language around the role of women and the nature of family, leading ultimately to Leo Varadkar, former Taoiseach of Ireland, resigning.
	I hope I'm saying that right.
	Neil, will you tell me what you think that indicates, the fact that the people of Ireland are rejecting what appears to be an establishment globalist project?
	I think people talk about the death of Woke.
	I suspect Woke will be hard to kill because I think Woke was here before in another guise and even if it were to be done away with now it would reappear.
	I think it's a manifestation of a A part of those with a mind to control and to have too much to do with other people's business.
	But I think it is part of that awakening.
	You obviously talk about awakening wonders and I think more and more people are awake to the ways in which a globalist agenda is out there.
	And that we're being herded and pushed and nudged and messed with psychologically.
	And yeah, I think, is it right, am I right in saying that the numbers, it was a fairly crushing no to the offering in the referendum, 74% I think.
	You know, I think replacing marriage with durable relationships and I think people just felt, why are you, it's that, if it ain't broke don't fix it, why are you messing with things that ought not to be, that ought not to be messed with and don't need to be messed with and it's a fairly stonking, clear answer to the question.
	There's the Taoiseach stepping back from his role, stepping down to spend more time with family.
	He'll be spending more time in a durable relationship with a domestic grouping.
	I wonder, Neil, if you feel that we are Experiencing and enduring a project that appears to be designed to uproot us from our history and our traditions, to break the relationship that we have with our nation, and if not nation for surely that's a construct too, but with our land.
	When we met, when you were kind enough to have me at your home there in Stirling, We talked about the series of towns between the outskirts of Glasgow and where you live in Stirling and how they appeared to be a deliberate attempt, almost architecturally, to banalise the incredible, dramatic Scottish landscape.
	And whether it's through forms of bureaucracy or forms of design, do you get the sense that the culture is trying to Herd us into states of hopelessness, atomised together in desperation, decline and decay, with nothing to reach back to, not even our own ancestors and the weapons of their valour, in order to oppose this ongoing project of banalisation.
	Yes, just the other day, Trudy, my wife and I were in the car travelling through one of those aforementioned towns on the outskirts, and we were talking about the grey, rough-cast render that was applied wholesale across whole swathes of housing in the countryside, and you think, what was the thinking behind, or in the minds of those that decided that that was appropriate?
	It's hard to avoid drawing the conclusion that it was a sense in which people were being told, that's good enough for you.
	You're not here to enjoy yourself.
	Here's a functional box in which to spend your years and raise some or other brood of children.
	And don't be aspiring to anything more than that.
	And it is part of crushing people.
	You and I, we've talked about the way in which we sense the deliberate atomization of people.
	Yeah, I've often got recourse to quoting Eric Hoffer and The True Believer.
	He wrote about the way in which mass movements go about their business.
	He was particularly interested in the mass movements of the 20th century, so fascism, Nazism, communism, and he pointed out they're all exactly the same.
	And that the people recruiting to the Nazi party and the Communist party, they knew that they were all targeting the same kind of person and that it was only a Rizla cigarette paper that separated the kind of people that could just as easily become Nazis, become communists or become fascists or whatever.
	And they were people who were vulnerable to being deracinated, cut away from the roots.
	They were encouraged to... People who were by nature dissatisfied with themselves, I'm keen to take an opportunity to reinvent themselves and these mass movements suggested the ways in which that might be achieved and central always to it was breaking people away from their culture and making people despise or feel contempt for their history.
	That's their own personal history, but also the history of their civilization, the history of their nation.
	People were invited to think that the previous generations and ancestors had only done shameful things that ought not to be repeated.
	Even the present was offered up as something that was sub-optimal, sub-prime, and that prepared those people for being herded towards utopia, which literally means the non-existent place being the future.
	It's always achieved in the same way and even more fundamental than going after history and people's sense of self, sense of culture, sense of heritage.
	They were encouraged to be contemptuous of family ties.
	People were even broken out of families.
	There's always a Mass movements, ideologies, they're always keen to get control of the children.
	You know that old saw about, you know, give me the boy till he's seven and I'll show you the man.
	That's always the intention, that's always the psychological approach, to get in at the family, get the children Indoctrinate the children, make them see that they ought not to be turning to their parents for advice and for direction, but they should be looking to other trusted adults.
	Myrmidons, factotums of the state, are the people to whom they should be listening and confiding in.
	It's always the same.
	It's a recurrent pattern.
	It's not just 20th century, it's much older than that.
	And I think ultimately that Because meaning has been taken away for so many people, from so many people, and that that was a deliberate objective, you know, to take away faith, to take away interest in religion, to take meaning away from people so that they were just commodified and just dots on a spreadsheet and to see themselves as little more than that.
	I think that has come to its logical, absurdum conclusion and people, perhaps as you see evidenced in the Irish referendum, people are saying, no, I do care about family.
	I do care about my community.
	I do care about the wider civilization of which I am a part.
	I see much in my history and in my nation's history to be proud of, from which to take inspiration.
	And I think maybe that deracination and breaking people away from love of place, love of country, love of the past, is actually a double-edged sword.
	And people are now saying, no, I require more than just to be a dot.
	On a spreadsheet, there is meaning and it starts with family and community.
	Now, if you're watching us on YouTube, we're about to leave.
	Have a look at that.
	That's the countdown.
	So, before you go, I want to tell you, become an Awakened Wonder.
	You get one month free by using the code GODISGREAT.
	You will be supporting our movement.
	You will be joining us on an incredible adventure.
	You get an additional exclusive video every single week.
	Plus, you would have seen Neil Oliver and had the opportunity to put a question to him.
	Let's go back to Neil.
	If you're watching us on YouTube, click the link in the description and join us on There does seem to be, desperate though our times appear to be on occasion, an awakening and a resistance.
	I wonder how significant the ontological component that you're describing now is, that while we can acknowledge together that there appears to be a centralising
	force, disabling community, diminishing family, further empowering corporatism
	and globalism, normalising censorship, creating a relationship between us
	and the state where we are asked to see ourselves as neglected children,
	not only children but sort of hopeless and unwanted infants, not treasured
	children in the sense that one might imagine a relationship with an all-loving
	father or a nourishing mother in a sacred sense as well as a familial
	sense, but rejected children, abandoned children.
	I wonder Neil, how important you believe it to be that we have a kind of... I don't want to say words like supernatural or paranormal or occultist connection, but certainly what I want to say is there is something beyond rationalism that we are reaching to.
	Particularly when I note that in mainstream media spaces there is much hysteria posing as rationalism.
	I'll give you some examples.
	The hysteria around Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump's been president for four years, so if you want to know what Donald Trump's likely to do, look at what happened last time he was president, and they are trying to amplify the threat of Donald Trump to ludicrous levels while waging wars across the world, fetishizing the use of the word bloodbath while ignoring a literal and actual bloodbath in the Middle East.
	And there are further examples of this hysteria, the demand that they ought be able to censor our modern social media spaces in order to protect us from misinformation, even though in particular with the current Supreme Court's likely ruling that the government should be allowed to continue to pressure social media companies, not to mention the TikTok ban that I know you're interested in.
	The pressure that they were applying during the pandemic period was not only unwarranted, unconstitutional against the First Amendment, it was downright wrong anyway.
	The information they were censoring would have been information that could have been beneficial to a good many people.
	This hysteria, this attempt to make religious the irrational in some way, to fetishize ideas around identity, perhaps is an unconscious acknowledgement that some important space has been ceded.
	So amidst all that Great jumble sale of information I just heaved your way.
	Do you think you could address this hysteria and the need for any resistance and opposition movement to somehow honour, acknowledge and practice sanctity in their response to this attempt to turn us all into little data points as you have previously said?
	I think the hysteria is just a manifestation, a demonstration of the fact that that controlling, globalist, centralist entity, however you might want to visualize it, is contemplating its own defeat.
	They know that they've been rumbled.
	They know that a lot of people, perhaps I would think it's becoming too many people, have seen the little wizard behind the curtain, you know, revealed by the little dog tugging at it.
	You know, that that Wizard of Oz imagery.
	I think that's what we're seeing.
	As you rightly point out, the fact that Donald Trump, the way that Donald Trump is still somehow being portrayed as to blame for everything that's going on in America when he is not the president and hasn't been the president for, you know, getting on for four years now.
	They still talk as though he is.
	That he's exerting a baleful influence as though he is actually occupying the White House, which he isn't.
	And you're right, the fact that they got hysterical when he used the idiom bloodbath in relation to promising to put up trading sanctions on the sale of cars coming across the southern border.
	It's so perverse that they would get excited about his use of bloodbath as though he was going to exterminate everyone the moment he was elected.
	When there are bloodbaths happening in Ukraine, a bloodbath happening in Gaza, it's obscene.
	To not countenance and acknowledge that bloodletting while getting, you know, flecking at the corners of their mouths about Donald Trump just using a turn of phrase.
	You know, it's half a million dead and counting in Ukraine.
	After a couple of years.
	Not to mention the children.
	I was seeing something published by UNICEF in the last couple of weeks detailing the trauma that's been inflicted upon Ukrainian children.
	So many of them have fled the chaos alone.
	So many of them have been orphaned.
	They're going through all the sorts of trauma that you would associate with children growing up in a war zone.
	And that's before we come to what's happening to the thousands of children killed in Gaza and many more orphaned, exposed to the human traffickers and all of the rest of it.
	And in that context, mainstream media in the States would get so excited about the former President of the United States using the word bloodbath, which is a common turn of phrase, and when considered in the context in which he used it was absolutely harmless.
	But as I say, to come back to my original point, I think it all demonstrates an unravelling.
	And central to it, I feel increasingly that what people are feeling is a realisation that there is a meaning to life.
	That life does have meaning, that they've had obscured, that the powers that be have seen to it that they accept that somehow there is no meaning to life.
	And people are increasingly pushing back against that.
	The letters that you talk about that come my way, with or without addresses, The vast majority of them talk about the fight between good and evil, the fight between light and dark, and they invoke God or a transcendent entity in whom they have always had faith or, on account of the last few years, have discovered faith or rediscovered faith.
	It's very strong and that kind of thinking, that kind of talk is surely anathema to that globalist entity that you talk about that above all else wanted people to feel that they were alone.
	Alone.
	And people are increasingly finding comfort in a belief or a rediscovered belief in something more and something else, which is meaning.
	Meaning in life.
	And I think, you know, people turning again and re-acknowledging the importance of family and the importance of community and opening themselves to faith and belief in there being something more than just the material and the physical.
	That is the sunlight that will cause the vampires ranged against us to spontaneously combust.
	They can't exist in the face of that.
	And I take great solace from it.
	You know it's been like for me the last few years have been like the five stages of grief you know that you know there's that initial disbelief and denial and then you know the bargaining and then finally you come to some you make some kind of peace with with the grief and I think that's what has happened and what I have realized and what many people have realized that where I thought this might be solved quickly you know the boys will be home for Christmas a quick battle and we'll have overturned it I've got beyond that and realized that this is a generational challenge And I have settled into that and I think a lot of people have settled into it and realised that the situation in which we find ourselves has been decades or longer in coming.
	At least decades in coming at us.
	And it's going to take at least as long for those of us who want something else, something more, to reassert ourselves.
	But I have settled into that and I take comfort from the acceptance that this is going to be a long haul.
	But I think a lot of us know where it is that we're going.
	And we have already laid the foundation upon which we can build.
	Do you think then, Neil, that, for example, the election of George Galloway in Rochdale, on a mandate mostly, it seems at least, based on what George Galloway is saying, of opposition to the massacre in Gaza and do you think that the emergence of figures as diverse and intriguing as Vivek Ramaswamy in America and Bobby Kennedy there who just a couple of years ago was largely dismissed and derided as a anti-vax extremist
	suggests that even in the political institutions that are most closely guarded and conserved there are distinct and idiosyncratic voices emerging and to a degree succeeding, whilst for them to be
	anything in nations like ours, you know, Scotland, England, the United States of America,
	there would have to be, one would assume, new forms of alliance, that there would have to,
	one might imagine, be a pledge or at least an intention towards decentralization if such
	diverse figures, some of whom appear to be traditional and conservative, some of whom appear to
	be social, you know, are 20th century socialist types.
	If there's to be new types of alliances derived from the periphery, then there would have to be an undergirding that was broad.
	In order to accommodate all of these, in some cases, quite not only distinct but fragmented and even oppositional factions.
	And just a comment on something that you said before you get into whether or not these independent political movements are cause for celebration or at least optimism in spite of what you've said of this being a generational challenge.
	I wonder if what you're saying, and it seems that you are, is that the spiritual perspective, individual faith, Religion, different types of spiritual experience and dedication and devotion are not only anathema to materialist, rationalist, globalist, corporatist power, but an antidote to it.
	That those values, that if we transcend self-centeredness, we are at least somewhat inured to the tethering that they're able to latch on us and use to maneuver and control us.
	So it's another big question.
	Yes, I think because... I think here's why that matters.
	The materialists, the globalists, would have us believe that everything is the work of man and everything can... humankind and therefore everything can be adjusted, touched, interfered with and made anew.
	Anathema to that is the idea that there is something fundamental that is transcendent, that is in an untouchable realm.
	And people long ago, and for good reason, accepted that the law came from somewhere untouchable.
	And for that reason, it was untouchable.
	And so certain things about right to life and right to freedom were not gifts from fellow human beings.
	They were these inalienable rights that had come down to us from on high, and they couldn't be messed with.
	And materialists don't like, globalists don't like the idea of there being anything that people might place their trust in that they, the materialists, cannot grab and mould in their own image.
	So people cleaving unto the idea that there's something that can't be touched, something inviolable, which is the source of truth, Now, that can sound like the woo-woo to people raised in a profoundly secular materialist culture, but you can tell, you can intuit from what people are saying increasingly, that more and more people are seeing the wisdom of that.
	Why it's so important to accept that some things just can't be touched.
	Your freedom cannot be touched.
	It's not a gift from your fellow human beings.
	It's just your inalienable right.
	And I think that's why, you know, therein lies part of the solution to all of this.
	You were talking to, you know, to move on to that, you know, you're talking about Vivek Ramaswamy and Robert Kennedy Jr.
	and George Galloway here at home, And how all of them, each in their own way, has been derided or dismissed by the mainstream.
	You know, we've been invited to think that each and all of them are cranky and strange in some way.
	But the fact that those people are being portrayed in that way is yet more evidence of the threat that they pose.
	Now, I don't agree with all of anything that's coming from any of those individuals.
	You know, I've got my, you know, Robert Kennedy Jr.
	I don't agree.
	I don't agree with what he has had to say about climate.
	I don't agree with his, you know, the stance that he's taken about Israel and Gaza.
	I don't I don't appreciate the hard line stance he's taken there, that everything that Israel does in response is justified and right.
	I don't agree with him on that.
	George Galloway.
	I mean, politically, I was a student in Glasgow in the 80s when George Galloway was the constituency MP, my constituency MP, and I didn't see myself as having much, if anything, in common with him because he's a traditional socialist, old Labour, you know, street fighting politician of the sort that don't really exist anymore.
	He's the last of his line.
	He's like King Cole on Skull Island.
	There's only one of them left.
	But he stands for something.
	When he speaks, even if I don't agree with him, I think he means it.
	I believe that he means what he says.
	And that has incredible power.
	Because the Rishi Sunaks and the Keir Starmers and others who are so forgettable, I can't even think of their names, Ed Davey and the like, they just say words.
	They just say things that the latest focus group has suggested might play well with the electorate.
	George Galloway's not like that.
	And also, I've spoken to George Galloway, you know, in real life, in private life, and I get from him that he's rooted in family.
	He is also a man of faith.
	He believes in traditional values.
	I don't agree with his collectivism.
	I know that he's a big champion of China.
	He would have locked down in Britain in the way that China locked down in China.
	George Galloway advocated for that.
	There are many ways in which I don't agree with him.
	But when he speaks, he speaks like a man.
	He speaks like a real grown-up man with opinions that he's prepared to stand and fight for.
	And that alone just makes them something credible.
	You disagree with them by all means, but you know that you're disagreeing or agreeing with something and someone who's authentic.
	These individuals stand out like gemstones in the bedrock.
	You know, these immovable, hard things that you can align yourself to or believe or support or not, but they are what they seem to be.
	When even technology appears to be delivering yet more, affording more power to tyranny,
	it's difficult, and with the myth of progressivism, and I don't mean cultural progressivism,
	I mean the idea that there is a trajectory of progress that our kind are improving.
	We were once like apes, and then it was the Bronze Age, and et cetera,
	and now look at us, we can fly to the moon, although we don't go back.
	When that myth starts to collapse and fall apart, Neil, when it seems that we are in a constant loop of nostalgia
	when it comes to the culture, whether it's my own young children
	listening to the Spice Girls, Elton John headlining at Glastonbury, you get the idea that Marx's edict,
	The end times would be characterized by parody, pastiche and a sort of a lack of real novelty.
	Is it concerning to you that it's the arcane and the traditional that is starting to seem appealing, whether that's Nativism, whether that's, you know, the kind of what we've already discussed about the rejection of the, you know, the changing of the language in the Irish constitution, or whether it's a sort of, you know, speaking more personally, my sense that Christianity is something that I have to explore, embrace, require, surrender to, and indeed that we
	Or consider models of social models that are predicated on localism rather than globalism.
	Does it concern you that there isn't a kind of some sort of progressive new Scientology style or SOMA induced vision that we're heading towards?
	Do you see there as being a distinction between a loop of cultural nostalgia and a longing for tradition?
	If there is something eternal, would it not by its nature be permanent and therefore validate tradition?
	I'm asking, I suppose, because without some plain vision, and no one's offering one, what is it that we are aspiring towards?
	And are you concerned in any way about tradition appearing to present at least some of the antidote to these odd times?
	I'm not concerned.
	I think it's inevitable.
	At the same time, I'm very cynical about almost everything at the moment.
	When it comes to the success of George Galloway and Rochdale, and when it comes to the gravitational pull that's forming around people like Robert Kennedy Jr.
	and Vivek Ramaswamy and others, I am fundamentally cynical about the political sphere.
	I think that is such a toxic place now.
	It's almost the case that a demonstrated ability to survive, far less to thrive, in that ecosystem makes me suspicious about the nature of the person.
	Because that is such a toxic world.
	And if you're really making a go of it, that by definition makes me wonder about other aspects of what must be true of that person.
	And I believe that the solutions that we're seeking will come from the culture, upstream, and getting a grip again on education rather than the indoctrination of our children.
	And affecting the culture positively.
	Reclaiming words.
	You know, I'm very distressed about the way in which words are being snatched out from under our noses.
	Such that, well, you know, to want freedom to speak is being recast as far right.
	How can that be?
	And the people that talk about democracy are the very people who in the United States are trying to make sure that there's only one person on the ballot, and yet simultaneously talking about the war in Ukraine being a war to defend democracy in a country where there is no democracy.
	Words are being snatched from us.
	Even basics like woman, being an adult human female born that way, is being redefined for us.
	And to talk about freedom is to be some kind of extremist.
	But am I worried that Interest in and love of tradition?
	Are seeing some kind of renaissance?
	No.
	Am I troubled that people are discovering faith?
	Spirituality?
	No, not in the least.
	Not only because I'm normally finding that I'm agreeing with and finding common ground with people and then discovering that at the same time they've opened themselves up once more or for the first time to an idea like faith.
	That's not their opening gambit.
	That's not how they come at me.
	I'm finding common ground with those people first, and then it turns out that there's this kind of recurrent strand, there's this common denominator, that these people are simultaneously reconnecting with an idea like faith.
	And I'm not troubled by that at all.
	And the word that's really being taken from us, with the most extreme irony, is truth.
	The idea of malinformation, I would say, is the very peak of the pyramid of the nonsense, where malinformation is that which they describe as being, well, it's factual, but it's inconvenient.
	It's inconvenient truth and so it's somehow to be taken control of and taken away.
	So what they're actually saying there is that they're confessing an intention to take away the truth when it doesn't work for them.
	And in that wider context where everything is sort of shimmering before our eyes and nothing has any substance, including most of what most of the people in authority say, People will automatically and instinctively leave for something solid.
	And as it turns out, ironically, it's the invisible and it's the transcendent that people are finding to be the anchor.
	Or the true north by which they might navigate.
	And that says something.
	We've been sold so many paper tigers.
	We've been sold so much nonsense.
	People have finally had their fill of it.
	And they're looking for something honest and truthful that they can trust.
	And that is, in many cases, is the simplest things like family and community.
	And for others, it's faith, which is by definition, invisible and intangible.
	The idea that you would find something concrete in the ineffable is fascinating and obviously an interesting accompaniment to finding plasticity in language and atrophy in institutions.
	When an ongoing advocacy for war is seen as the only way towards peace, when a term like malinformation springs into existence, when you can no longer comfortably even describe demonstrable biological realities without fear of it being utilized against you, usually with the pretext that someone is somewhere is being protected by it, you recognize that there is something ulterior and concerning
	moving beneath the surface and you're right, this reach for the invisible seems somehow inevitable and you know in a
	way actually likely to succeed.
	I was thinking of a, you know, in a sense of somewhat lowbrow but to me fascinating story, the ongoing controversy and
	curiosity around Kate Middleton.
	And I feel that in a sense you can read there the way that traditional institutions are unable to navigate modern
	media spaces, even the idea that a photoshopped image would be released
	and with the assumption that it would not be unravelled and exposed,
	leads to a set of questions about the...
	The value of those institutions in a context where there is continual reinvention in order to claim that we are progressing.
	Now when we talk about tradition when it comes to family and when it comes to community, how does that apply when we look at institutions like the monarchy that are becoming it seems to me Evidently irrelevant, and the way that they are kind of collapsing, to me, mirrors the institutional collapse of democratic institutions in the United States.
	Like you said, Neil, the hysteria and panic is coming from their burgeoning realisation that the jig is up, that they can no longer sustain power in the way that they have previously done.
	Because it's falling apart and even their own attempts to sustain it are contributing further to its decline and to our lack of trust.
	So do you think that there is something fascinating about the Kate Middleton story?
	I'm not asking you to sort of endlessly speculate on what might really be happening, but I feel that it's telling us something and it's somewhat comparable to the sort of live cut and pasting that happens around something like the bloodbath story where we know we're just being shown a fragment of reality and invited to believe in something that's not really there.
	We're haunted, and now we're going into Neil Oliver territory, we're haunted by digital ghosts in real time with the suspicion that there's actually nothing there, nothing but phantoms to once again evoke your The thing that, where I do think that there's something worth paying attention to in the Royal story is how incredibly badly it seems to be being handled by an entity with all of the resources in the world at its disposal.
	Such that that photograph, which is apparently I mean, I would never have noticed that, you know, that I'll be honest, if someone had if I had glanced at flicking through a newspaper and I had seen that photograph, I wouldn't have noticed that there was a lack of alignment on.
	I don't subject images to that kind of scrutiny.
	So that would have.
	Oh, there she is.
	That would have passed me by.
	But that something so cack-handed, once it was pointed out to me, was attempted, makes you think, surely that has to have been intentional.
	You couldn't have an organisation like The Firm, which is the sharp edge of The Establishment, couldn't have done something so cack-handed inadvertently.
	They must have known that they would be rumbled.
	So you end up disappearing into this maze of, oh, and if so, what does that mean?
	What are they trying to tell us?
	And that opens you up to all that thing.
	Is there imagery in here?
	Is it a cry for help?
	So that's, as I say, the fact that they're handling, or they appear to be handling a situation so monumentally badly, is worthy of scrutiny.
	And I thought at the time when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II died, to me, that was the end.
	I mean, I thought there's no way, you know, there's no way they're coming back from this.
	She'd been there for longer than any of us, beyond the very oldest of our centenarians.
	She was, she'd always been there.
	She was as constant as, You know, Ben Nevis or, you know, Nelson's Column.
	She'd just always been part of the landscape.
	And once she was gone, I thought, oh, that's it.
	The game's a bogey for the royal family.
	And so it has proven to be.
	She was an impossible, not that she was an impossible act to follow, but you just can't, you just cannot, you just cannot move on from her.
	And I thought, right, that one way or another, the monarchy's over.
	And I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, because elected heads of state fill me with even more dread than something as odd and anachronist as a monarch.
	And I think in principle, actually, there are good grounds for thinking that a constitutional monarch is actually, in the scheme of heads of state, it's actually quite valid.
	If it's properly executed.
	But then again, I don't think under Charles III it is being properly executed.
	They're making a mess of that as well.
	So I think, I think inevitably the monarchy is crumbling before us.
	But you know, there's ancient historical antecedents for all of this.
	You know, in Polybius's idea of anicyclosis, you know, you start out with a good monarch.
	But the children of the monarch are not necessarily as useful, as effective.
	And so that decays into power by the aristocracy.
	And then the first generation of aristocracy is all right, but their sons and daughters are a bit spoiled and a bit ineffectual.
	So you get the oligarchy.
	which is just the rich, the rule by the rich.
	And then the people decide that they don't like that, so they replace it with the democracy.
	And then democracy decays and becomes the mob, and then you get the rise of the demagogue, And then the people don't like the reality of the demagogue either, and he is overthrown and you get a good king.
	So that's that cycle.
	And so watching the demise of Queen Elizabeth II and her replacement with something that is just subprime, there's an inevitability that we are reaching the end, I think, of the monarchy in the United Kingdom.
	And all of the reasons for thinking that are there in the utterly tack-handed way in which whatever is the truth about Princess Catherine Middleton and so on, whatever is the truth of that human being, that fellow traveller, The way in which it's being so botched in the public eye says that's an institution that's run its course.
	Yes, I agree with your analysis that the death of Queen Elizabeth was, that was the curtain really.
	Perhaps in the same way that we could look at the fall of the Berlin Wall as being a kind of a physical indicator that a particular era has ended and obviously the culture didn't miss that.
	But the economic collapse in 2008 and the 9-11 attacks, now that we live in this, I'm talking globally, in this state of perpetual crisis, and these crises seem to somehow benefit elites, it seems that what's Actually being communicated, I don't mean deliberately, but unconsciously, is that the systems themselves require radical re-evaluation.
	That there needs to be sort of a kind of a shamanic and intuitive address when it comes to our systems.
	And when you say that, you know, the constitutional monarchy, or excuse me, or a monarchy of some description, could have a kind of validity, It seems to me that the investigation we might undertake is to look once again at what the point of a nation state is and who benefits from that and what tools, memes, narratives and themes are used to sustain the invincibility of the idea that people should be
	Worded together in nations of 60 or 300 million people or billions of people in order to facilitate what?
	And this idea as well, Neil, that in reaching for tradition and embracing the ineffable, we might truly look at what it is we're trying to form here.
	What is it that we really lose if we say, well, shall we look then at... There's nothing in our history and our deep anthropology that suggests that we should centralise power to that degree.
	There's nothing to suggest that it's beneficial to the majority.
	No, absolutely.
	I think centralised anything is always bad.
	Centralised control of food, centralised anything.
	You just end up with piles of corpses.
	That's demonstrably the case.
	I listen to your show all the time and you talk about and you're an advocate for decisions being made at a local level where people can see them.
	And I absolutely agree with that.
	I think people understand themselves as parts of smaller units.
	Family first, then maybe a wider community, whatever.
	You can really only have meaningful relationships, I think it's with perhaps 200 people, which equates to what would have been anthropologically a tribe.
	And beyond that, you know, the idea that you've got 10,000 Facebook chums is just nonsense, because you cannot, as a human being, you can't meaningfully relate to 10,000 people.
	So people do understand themselves in small groups.
	I'm absolutely against collective power.
	And I think we're seeing another way in which we're seeing the That experiment, that ideological experiment that's been being pushed for a hundred years or more, the way in which we can see that it's coming, reluctantly or not, whether they realize it or not, that it's coming to the end, is the way in which the wars that we're looking at at the moment are just being prosecuted for money.
	You know, a hundred years ago when men and boys were sold the lie of the Great War, the war to end all wars, that there was a, you know, dolce et decorum est and all of the rest of it, that time has absolutely passed and we can see in Ukraine That a war was caused there and is being prosecuted there to press an ideology that's really just predicated upon profit and control.
	And more and more people can see that.
	I think something final is happening right before our eyes in the way that the proxy war in Ukraine is being prosecuted.
	You know, Cormac McCarthy in Blood Meridian said something about, you know, war was always here.
	The ultimate, before man was, war waited for him.
	The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.
	And we are the human species, we are the ultimate practitioners of war.
	But now the ultimate manifestation of war is there in front of us.
	And it's not about freedom, and it's not about democracy, and it's not about achieving some kind of Betterment for most people.
	It's just grubby, ugly, grasping and questing after profit and power.
	Power over people.
	And people can't believe in it.
	People don't believe in it.
	And what's been exposed there, that naked materialism, that anti-humanness that's been made manifest in the unfolding of the war in Ukraine, is going to be, if it hasn't already been, a great part in exposing to people that This ideology that we've had imposed upon us in recent decades, it's coming to the end.
	And like any big, dangerous animal, it's going to be at its most dangerous when it's fatally wounded.
	It's going to thrash about and cause a great deal of hurt as it falls to its final death.
	But I think inevitably we are seeing the end of an experiment, and we're seeing it there.
	It's manifesting itself in all sorts of ways, and the desperation that's there, the stealing of language, the notions of malinformation, censorship, closing people down just for being dissenting voices, the prosecution of the war in Ukraine, the fact that People are already talking about selling beachfront property in Gaza for the wealthy.
	People are already saying that once we get rid of these pesky Palestinians, we can redevelop this as desirable beachfront property.
	The naked materialism, consumerism, the anti-human-ness of it, it's laid bare for all to see.
	It's going to be messy.
	It's going to be uncomfortable.
	It's a paradigm shift.
	We're seeing the end of one way of understanding, I don't know, the texture of reality, and something else is going to have to take shape and crystallise to take its place.
	Yes, I think when you say that it is the texture of reality itself, you're onto something.
	And the fact that we are excavating the inevitable and looking for solutions perhaps holds a significant Key, Neil, and perhaps some indicators of what the true nature of the power we're currently experiencing and suffering under is exposed to within that analytic.
	I know there are a lot of esoteric figures that have long believed that what we are dealing with is something dark, supernatural, and occultist, that it's not merely the pursuit of power, although it's in materialism that many of the most plain symptoms, of course, can be observed When one's common sense appraisal on hearing that Vladimir Putin is being provoked into escalating tensions is equal to the best analysis of academics, i.e.
	don't provoke a nuclear superpower into a potential nuclear war, we'll all die, it's impossible to believe that they can't have understood that.
	And therefore, as with your Middleton example a little earlier, It makes you wonder if they have even considered the possibility that for some a post-apocalyptic future might be favourable for those that can hunker and bunker and commune and communicate in protected domes and underground spaces.
	There are worse things to consider than nuclear war.
	Smarter people than me have said that it seemed highly likely The people who have been tasked with the final, with the denouement, with the final execution of a grand plan, let's say it's been a hundred years in the making, are just not up to the job.
	In that anacyclosis idea, the people that conceived of the idea, whenever it was conceived, Set it in train, laid the foundations for it, and told the next generation of their successors what to do with it.
	And then it's been handed on again.
	And it's been handed on and handed on.
	And now a generation that is tasked with the responsibility of finishing the job, it's not their idea.
	They don't have belief in it.
	They possibly don't even care about it.
	They've just inherited a responsibility to finish something and their hearts aren't in it.
	And so it's possible in that context that we might have to save these people from themselves as well as saving ourselves from them.
	There is an ineptitude and perhaps as well an entitlement That we're looking at the generation, or the elite, that are tasked with finishing the job.
	It's not their idea.
	Their hearts aren't in it.
	And they don't have the skill and the drive to execute it.
	And therefore we have to save them as well as each other.
	Almost.
	Neil, thank you for reaching a compassionate conclusion even when it comes to potentially offering salvation to interdimensional entities that are governing us into endless decline.
	It's always a joy to speak with you and share the treasure of your company and I hope I get to do it soon once again in the environs of that magnificent castle near which you can be found simply with a stick man and a pen and a good intention.
	Thank you so much Neil Oliver.
	Thank you Russell Brand.
	I hope you enjoyed that conversation.
	Remember, you could have joined us live on Locals3.
	If you want more of Neil Oliver, and who doesn't, frankly, you can see him on GB News in the UK.
	You can find him on X at the Coast Guy in his new book, Hauntings, a book of ghosts, and where to find them is out now.
	Hey, why not consider this artifact?
	Would it not make your wardrobe a little more illuminating, exciting?
	You get 25% off this week.
	Remember, join us on Locals Become an Awakened Wonder to get more content.
	And now for a look at a story that the legacy media would only fleetingly allude to, told to you in vivid Technicolor.
	Here's the news.
	No, here's the effing news.
	The democrats have deployed an army of lawyers to bring down independent candidates.
	Meanwhile they're backed by more billionaires than Donald Trump.
	So how can the Dems and their legacy media amplifiers continue to vilify not only Trump but anyone that opposes Joe Biden and not just admit that this is already a dictatorship?
	We must protect democracy because democracy is that thing where you vote for Joe Biden.
	And not Donald Trump of course because he's a monster.
	Why we amplify the flaws of Donald Trump on an almost daily basis.
	He did this, he said that, he's in this court case, he committed this offence.
	Donald Trump is so continually vilified you have to work hard mentally to try to have your own opinion on that subject.
	Here's a good control group though if you're trying to understand establishment mentality to external or even internal challenges.
	Look at how they're beginning to talk about Bobby Kennedy now that he's regarded as a real threat and a potential stealer of Democrat Party votes.
	Even Cornel West, the Green Party, anybody who poses a threat to the Democratic establishment will now potentially be targeted by the Democrats' army of lawyers and the legacy media attack dogs have already begun to take down anybody who could prevent Joe Biden having his presumed second term.
	People throughout the independent media space are asking who really runs the White House.
	You heard Tulsi Gabbard say it can't be Joe Biden, can it?
	Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not in office right now, but they still continue to wield immense power in influencing the decisions that are being made.
	So today we're looking at the armament of the Democratic Party with lawyers to bring down independent candidates and the tactics that are used to bring down anyone but Biden.
	And we'll show you exactly why they're scared of Bobby Kennedy, what it is he says that has them so terrified.
	First of all, we'll look at Jen Psaki, former White House press secretary, now MSNBC talk show host, and note how, with constrained hysteria, she attacks Bobby Kennedy, assumes that Bobby Kennedy would be bad for America, assumes that the only plausible, possible, beneficial outcome is a victory for the Democratic Party, never seeming to reflect for even a moment that this could be misguided.
	What has democracy become if you have to work this hard to prevent people contemplating and considering anyone other than a candidate who seems to be edging us closer and closer to Armageddon on several fronts.
	These third party candidates are a huge, huge, huge problem, and there's a number of them.
	Shouldn't be regarded as a problem in a democracy, should it?
	Variety in consumerism is regarded as a good thing.
	Oh, look at all these different breakfast cereals.
	In politics, you can have this little old man.
	That's it!
	If you look at RFK Jr., it's the name recognition issue, as Tom was just talking about.
	That's all it is.
	He's got the name Kennedy.
	It's not that people are disillusioned, disenchanted, that trust in every single institution is beginning to break down.
	The deep state, the government itself, the legacy media, big pharma, the judiciary, the constant warmongering.
	It's just that this person happens to be called Kennedy.
	It's not that Bobby Kennedy wants a full reckoning for the pharmaceutical industry, has called out the corruption and bureaucracy within the health regulatory bodies that were supposed to be protecting and helping American people in a massive health care crisis over the last few years.
	I know our audience.
	So I know a lot of you are very pro-Trump.
	I know basically all of you hate the establishment.
	I know loads of you will have questions about Bobby Kennedy, particularly if his running mate is to be someone that has former affiliations with an organisation as large as Google and Alphabet, even if it's only through marriage.
	But there's no question that to the establishment, Bobby Kennedy is being regarded and literally here described as a threat.
	And know that they are unwilling to talk about what he stands for and what he's manifesting.
	manifesto is.
	And there are still states in this country, obviously, I mean, Georgia is one of them,
	I will name, where the Kennedy name is beloved, right?
	Where people may just not still, where they may just not know a lot about the fact that
	he is an anti-vaxxer who's a conspiracy theorist.
	They don't know that yet.
	Just as simple as that.
	He's an anti-vaxxer who's a conspiracy theorist.
	If you've spent any time listening to Bobby Kennedy you will know that he's not an anti-vaxxer.
	He says in fact that vaccines can be very helpful in certain medical situations and that he simply has questions about events over the last few years and he has campaigned for a long time around issues connected to vaccines in childhood.
	The idea that he can just be as he was then dismissed As an anti-vaxxer and as a conspiracy theorist tells you more about the legacy media than it tells you about Bobby Kennedy.
	They don't want you listening to Bobby Kennedy.
	They don't want you considering independent candidates.
	It's clear what they want.
	They want you just to shut up and vote for Joe Biden.
	On Morning Joe they plainly said as much.
	Just vote for Joe Biden!
	Shut up!
	Stop asking questions!
	Stop thinking!
	Stop criticizing us!
	There is an aggressive effort that the the campaign has been working with the Democratic National
	Committee on to run on this.
	But it needs to be broad.
	People need to be shouting it from the rooftops because this is one of the biggest threats
	to Joe Biden being reelected is these third party candidates.
	If you look at Michigan, Mika, and I know Senator Alyssa Slotkin is going to be on later.
	I almost called her senator.
	Congresswoman Alyssa Slotkin is going to be on later.
	Michigan is a state where RFK, I think, is polling at 10%, right?
	And so this is a place where Joe Biden needs to win.
	A moment of consternation across the board of pundits there, because, of course, also significant in Michigan is that Biden received 100,000 uncommitted votes.
	Explicitly, it is said, in protest against the Democrats stance and Biden's in particular, with regard to various wars, in particular, Israel's And as usual, the focus continues to be this is your only option.
	This is your only route.
	Even with Democrat voters turning away from Biden, the only focus is don't let them have an alternative.
	Don't let them even consider Bobby Kennedy.
	And the last thing they need in a swing state like Michigan is a candidate like Bobby Kennedy taking away significant votes, leading to a Trump victory.
	So now the campaign begins in earnest, not only anti-Trump, anti anyone else but Biden.
	And yet it's still somehow a democracy.
	And RFK Jr.
	is making a real threat to that, so it's good we're talking about it.
	It is a real threat.
	Look at Mike, he's actually shaking it.
	Oh, I can't believe this.
	I can't believe we're actually gonna have to have some principles and listen to people and stop arming the world.
	Oh, this is terrible, so terrible.
	Why won't they just shut up and do as they're told?
	They're aware of it, but more needs to be done and more people need to be talking about it and aware.
	As you can see, the establishment is panicking.
	Here's how they intend to deal with that panic.
	Not by making their party more amenable to American voters.
	Not by looking to bring about ceasefires instead of arming the world.
	Not by improving the lives of ordinary Americans and recognising that half the country at least are hugely dissatisfied.
	No, what they're doing is arming up with lawyers and ensuring that you've got no option but Biden.
	An army of lawyers aims to challenge the steadily advancing ballot access efforts of independent candidates who Democrats fear could peel votes away in swing states.
	The Democratic Party, increasingly alarmed by the potential for third party candidates to swing the election to former President Donald Trump, has put together a new team of lawyers aimed at tracking the threat, especially in key battleground states.
	The effort comes as challengers, including the independent candidates Robert F Kennedy Jr and Cornel West, plus groups like No Labels as well as the Green Party, have ramped up their push to qualify for state ballots ahead of critical deadlines in the spring and summer.
	When it comes to Trump, They will always use ideas like, oh, he is a misogynist and he is a racist, he is a criminal.
	Then when it's Bobby Kennedy, oh, well, he's an anti-vaxxer and he's a conspiracy theorist.
	With Cornel West, what's it now?
	Oh, we don't like his haircut.
	What are they saying about the Green Party?
	Oh, no labels.
	But what the agenda is, is to dismiss anyone but Biden.
	How long before we acknowledge that what we have is not only a technocracy, the rule of law by an aristocratic class, note the influence ongoing of the Obama and Clinton families on the Democrat Party machinery, what you actually have is a dictatorship.
	A dictatorship means you vote for this.
	That's it.
	Or you have no options at all.
	The legal offensive will be aided by a communications team dedicated to countering candidates who Democrats fear could play spoiler to Mr Biden.
	It amounts to a kind of legal whack-a-mole, a state-by-state counterinsurgency plan ahead of an election that could hinge on just a few thousand votes in swing states.
	In the last two weeks, major articles published in the media have spelled out the Democratic Party's plan to block, to the extent possible, any third party or independent candidates from appearing on the ballot this November.
	They literally don't want you to have the option to vote because it's a democracy and the reason we can't have Trump is on day one he'll declare himself a dictator and it'll be tyranny.
	But look at what they're doing.
	This is actually not democratic.
	Not having debates, not acknowledging the 100,000 uncommitted votes in Michigan.
	This is already, do you not see, a type of banalised dictatorship as opposed to a militaristic, fascistic one.
	The media reports employ the language of a military offensive, referring to the all-out war the party is preparing the Army of Lawyers.
	It is mobilising the state-by-state counterinsurgency plan that it is implementing.
	Interesting language, all-out war, army of lawyers, counter-insurgency plan.
	Note that when Donald Trump used the phrase bloodbath there was hysteria, pearl-clutching and panic.
	And now third-party candidates are regarded as a threat.
	The language is militaristic.
	The legitimization of the military on the subways in New York is being normalized.
	What it appears that we are preparing for It's a state of continual threat, panic and fear where the only people that know what's best for us are these establishment figures.
	Isn't it possible that you could be saying, well it'd be good if Cornel West gets some influence and Bobby Kennedy has to somehow be accommodated?
	Do you know what?
	Maybe we should be looking at our electoral colleges and ballot systems so that we can have a more representative system of democracy.
	Obviously, given that we are so interested in diversity, diversity of opinion, diversity of views, wow, maybe we could have it so that the electorate are involved in not only the presidential election, but the entire cabinet.
	Maybe we could review all of our systems.
	No, they're so certain that the outcome must be Joe Biden, that it must be the ongoing hegemony, a democratic party that represents plainly a billionaire class must continue to ascend Unassailed.
	That's why the language of war is being used, because it is a war.
	It's a war against, ironically, democracy.
	In a country of 330 million people, the financial oligarchy demands that ballot access be restricted to their corporate dominated parties.
	The extreme contempt for basic democratic principles is glaring.
	There are concerns in the Democratic Party that giving people more choices on the ballot is more likely to hurt Mr Biden than New York Times writes, an argument befitting of a dictatorship.
	The Times quotes Robert Lenhardt, an outside lawyer for the Democrats, as stating that the effort to limit ballot access is meant to ensure that the people who are on the ballot have legitimate bases of support, by which he means the backing of the corporate financial oligarchy When it comes to the campaigning there, the extraordinary language of war, when it comes to the business of elections, bland legalese that masks the fact that what they mean is we only want people on that ballot box that we already own.
	Now whatever your own Attitude is to Donald Trump, whether you love him or loathe him.
	Isn't it more likely, now that we know their ire extends beyond Trump and into essentially anyone who isn't Biden, and Biden is just an avatar of establishment power, that it's not the moral and ethical critiques of Trump that are important, it's the fact that he is not owned in the same way that these candidates are.
	Indeed, there you have it.
	They want to remove from the ballot anyone that is not corporately backed, that doesn't have the right basis, the right funding.
	A Pew Research poll conducted in 2022 found that the disdain for the Democrats and the Republicans is as high as it has been in more than two decades of polling.
	Under these conditions, the Democrats' lawyer tells the Times, it is necessary to prevent voters from having more choice on the ballot.
	That is, the ability to vote for candidates they actually support.
	That seems like an extraordinary game to be involved in.
	So the way that Jen Psaki dismisses, you know, voters don't know yet that he's a conspiracy theorist.
	So we're going to tell you he's a conspiracy theorist.
	Don't even think about voting.
	In fact, if he's not correctly corporately backed, so no wonder he has to have a VP with strong financial ties, because otherwise he's going to get nixed, shut down, shut out by an establishment that won't allow those kind of voices.
	It's clear that the game is rigged and the sort of magnetism, magnitude and gravity of that game pulls everything in a particular direction.
	It is not broadly understood, including by workers in the United States, how deeply undemocratic the American electoral system actually is.
	The number of signatures third parties are required to gather in some states is colossal.
	219,403 in California.
	145,040 in Florida.
	119,403 in California, 145,040 in Florida,
	113,151 in Texas, 82,452 in North Carolina,
	45,000 in New York, 43,000 in Arizona,
	36,944 in Indiana.
	and a 25,000 in Illinois, at least they rounded it to a normal number,
	23,737 in Oregon, and at least 10,000 in Massachusetts, Missouri, Maryland,
	Michigan, Nevada, South Carolina, and Colorado.
	Collectively, independent candidates and third parties would have to gather over 900,000 signatures
	to get on the ballot in every state and Washington, D.C.
	Doesn't seem like that's there to protect and help you, does it?
	It seems like that's there to ensure that you've already filtered out anyone who's a potential threat.
	Like, by the time you're on that ballot, we're fine with you.
	Furthermore, in order to overcome the Democrats and Republicans' ruthless challenges to the signatures collected, third parties are compelled to gather at least 50% more than the official requirement, or roughly 1.5 million signatures nationally.
	And in addition to that hard rule, we're making it a bit harder for no reason other than we can!
	Another 50% more signatures!
	Great!
	Democracy!
	Woo!
	In contrast, getting on the ballot nationally in Russia, constantly denounced by the American media as the most authoritarian and undemocratic country in the world, requires the gathering of 100,000 signatures.
	In our country, you know, sometimes it'll come up, the WHO treaty, if you want it debated before they get the right to impose laws on your country in lockdown, 100,000 signatures on this petition online, and then we might debate it in Parliament.
	You don't need to thank us.
	You're welcome for the democracy.
	Look how they just continually got their thumb on the scale all the time.
	I just saw you putting your finger on the scale.
	I didn't.
	And if you start to find a way to sort of work it in spite of the thumb on the scale, they're just elbowing the scale now.
	I didn't put my finger in the scale.
	Despite repeated and expensive court challenges by third parties, state and US Supreme Court decisions have frequently upheld anti-democratic ballot access laws or ruled in such a narrow fashion that legislatures were allowed to rewrite laws to achieve the same effect.
	Beyond the ballot access laws themselves, the state and the media are set up to maintain the institutional control of the Democrats and Republicans.
	This has been accompanied by other anti-democratic measures such as the escalating campaign of internet censorship.
	And I also think that shows you the threat of independent media because suddenly now,
	relatively cheaply, you can get name recognition, popularity, you can campaign broadly and widely,
	not going door to door, printing leaflets, all the stuff that would be required to get
	an enormous number of signatures.
	They've realised, oh my god, they're going to be able to cheaply gain popularity.
	Quick, shut this down, introduce censorship laws, start finding new terms like hate speech,
	anti-vaxxers, medical misinformation.
	Do whatever you need to do to shut down anyone who might turn up in our little party where
	we all get to tell everyone what to do and what not to do.
	That's plainly what's happening, isn't it?
	The present effort of the Democrats to thwart third party and independent campaigns marks
	a vast acceleration of this process.
	Democrats assert, of course, that their anti-democratic conspiracies are necessary to stop Trump and the Republicans.
	This is a cynical fraud.
	Thank the Lord we can bring you this content because of the support of our sponsors.
	Support them if you can.
	Today I want to talk to you about Fielder Greens.
	It's the healthiest thing I do every day.
	And I want you on this journey with me, side by side.
	It's literally one scoop a day.
	It tastes great.
	My favorite is the original flavor, and it's completely improved my life.
	This is nutrition, the way that nature intended, in a scoop.
	Here's what I noticed since I started taking field of greens.
	Way more energy over the course of the day.
	Sleeping better at night, like a baby.
	As you know, they're truculent and difficult at nighttime, so I sleep better than one.
	Healthier hair and skin.
	It helps with my digestion.
	My stomach feels better.
	I feel better overall, and I think healthier and stronger.
	Fielder Greens is radically different.
	Each organic fruit and vegetable was medically chosen to support the heart and vital organ health.
	I trust Fielder Greens to keep me healthy.
	I promise you're going to love this product, but if for any reason you don't, they'll give you 100% money back guarantee.
	Now listen, I've got you 15% off your first order, plus free rush shipping.
	Visit BrickHouseRussell.com and use promo code brand.
	That's promo code brand at BrickHouseRussell.com.
	They'll know I sent you.
	Okay, let's get back to the story.
	The defence of democratic rights is impossible without addressing the root cause of dictatorship, the staggering concentration of wealth in the hands of the capitalist oligarchy.
	The number of billionaires in the US has risen from 614 to 737 over the past four years.
	Coinciding with the four years of the COVID-19 pandemic, their combined wealth has nearly doubled, up 88% over that period.
	Since Biden became president, with all of the fanfare and rhetoric around fairness and diversity, the number of billionaires has sharply increased and their accumulative wealth has sharply increased even more.
	I'll put my shoulder out a joint trying to tell you how unequal, unfair and how unjust it is.
	All the while they're telling you, you have to vote for us because otherwise, you know, Trump and that would be a dictatorship.
	It's already A dictatorship.
	Don't you see, don't you understand yet, that people just prefer someone who is inherently anti-establishment just in their manner, rather than continuing to put up with what on some gut level we all know is disgusting corruption.
	The oligarchic character of American capitalism infects every institution of the state, the courts and the media,
	and it dominates the entire 2024 presidential election.
	Billionaires sustain both of the two capitalist parties competing for their favour in the 2024 presidential
	election.
	Trump's support among the billionaires is actually weaker than Biden's,
	in large part because he's regarded as unreliable on key questions of foreign policy,
	above all, the US-NATO war against Russia over Ukraine.
	The Wall Street backing for the presidential ticket of Biden and Kamala Harris is broader, reflecting the transformation of the Democratic Party over the past three decades into the principal party of the Stock Exchange and major banks.
	Billionaires and oligarchs And the financial industry want Joe Biden and Kamala Harris in office, not Donald Trump, because Donald Trump might, perhaps will say, I don't want that wall anymore.
	It's unnecessary.
	His values might be different.
	His principles might be different.
	He's regarded as unreliable.
	So when you see all these liberals is the word we're supposed to use to describe them.
	On MSNBC and CNN and elsewhere saying Kamala Harris or in the talk show hosts late at night, oh, you know, Trump, what a monster.
	They're doing the work of billionaires and Wall Street and the financial industry.
	They're still trying to maintain a kind of, hey, we're against the establishment.
	We're the voices helping people from diverse backgrounds and minorities and poor people.
	They're not doing that work.
	They're using that to distract you from the fact, whether they know it or not, from the fact that they are doing the bidding of an oligarchical class that includes Wall Street and more billionaires.
	Because the billionaires, they're afraid that Donald Trump might just go, we're not doing that war anymore, I don't like it.
	It's extraordinary, isn't it?
	The moral compass has been corrupted, it's stringing around all over the place, and the only way we're going to know what true North is, is by looking at the map of reality ourselves.
	While the corporate media describes Biden going out on the campaign trail, the reality is quite different.
	Biden's face-to-face contact is almost entirely with big campaign donors and his real focus during the spring and summer will be to gather the financial resources required to mount a massive media barrage in the months leading up to the November the 5th vote.
	Even though he like presents himself as, you know, Corn Pops adversary and Irish and ordinary and friends of steel workers.
	When it comes to the crunch time, and the crunch time is the period leading up to the election, he will be, as he was in the last election, spending his time with Wall Street donors, corporate donors and the establishment because As we know, that's who they work for and there's no plans to change that.
	So Trump will be vilified.
	Bobby Kennedy will be vilified.
	Cornel West if he presents a threat.
	Marianne Williamson.
	Forget all these voices.
	Forget all these people.
	Forget you.
	Forget everything except telling you the only democracy that matters is the democratic right to vote for one person.
	In many cases, particularly on trips to non-competitive states like California, the Democrats dispense with any pretense of public campaigning and simply address their real constituency in the financial oligarchy.
	Last week, even in tightly contested Michigan, Biden did not appear in public because of fears of counter-demonstrators protesting the US-backed genocide in Gaza, which I suppose is an indication that it's a party that has no morality, that doesn't really care about anything except for profit and perpetuating a globalist agenda, even if that agenda means tens of thousands of deaths.
	Indeed, in February, over 100,000 people voted uncommitted in the Michigan Democratic primary to send a message to President Biden over his unconditional support for Israel.
	100,000 votes could make a big difference in the November presidential election since Michigan is a swing state.
	But headed into the full campaign, there are two main components of the Democratic Party strategy, piling up financial resources and suppressing efforts to place third party candidates on the ballot.
	So what are the Democratic Party really about?
	Who are they for?
	Who funds them?
	And what business are they engaged in right now?
	It seems that they're engaged in perpetuating war, representing billionaires, ensuring that the media continues to amplify their message and eliminating competition until all you have is one candidate and the idea that what you're voting for is democracy.
	Trump, we can't have that that guy, Bobby Kennedy can't have that guy, anybody else
	can't have them. What you have got is the preferred candidate of the financial industry,
	of the globalists and the billionaires and the legacy media are telling you that what you're doing
	is somehow fighting corruption, fighting tyranny, fighting fascism. That's how out of touch
	with reality it's become.
	Let's look at Bobby Kennedy for just a moment and see how he talks and what he represents
	to see perhaps why they're so frightened of him.
	When I was a kid, a typical pediatrician would see one case of diabetes in his entire career.
	Juvenile diabetes.
	Today, one out of every three kids who walks through his door has either pre-diabetic or diabetic.
	Something's wrong.
	And nobody's saying, why is this happening?
	And we know why it's happening.
	It's high fructose corn syrup.
	And it's, you know, glyphosate and neonicotinoids and atrazine and all the other crap that is in our food.
	We're not feeding people.
	We're poisoning them.
	This is a mental health issue.
	The depression, the anxiety, all of this stuff.
	The autoimmune diseases that our kids are now ubiquitous and that generate.
	Kids are not supposed to be sick like that.
	They're not supposed to be complaining of brain fog.
	They're not supposed to be on adderall and butyral inhalers and you know, insulin and all this other stuff that that is not
	what children are supposed to look like.
	And they don't look like that anywhere else in the world.
	Only here.
	We have the highest chronic disease rate on earth.
	And we're being mass poisoned by our food.
	During COVID, we had 16% of the COVID deaths in the United States of America.
	We only have 4.2% of the world's population.
	We had the worst record of any country on earth.
	I don't know why people are getting awards for this.
	Because whatever they did was wrong.
	But CDC says, well, the reason it's not our fault, it wasn't mismanagement of COVID, it's because we have the sickest people on earth in this country.
	The fattest people on earth, the sickest people on earth are here.
	And they said the average person, this is what CDC says, the average person who died from COVID had 3.8 chronic diseases.
	So they had diabetes, they had obesity, they had asthma, and they had one other thing.
	Isn't it strange that a government that's lobbied by Big Food and receives donations from Big Food is unwilling to talk about the points that Bobby Kennedy raised there?
	and COVID just stepped on their fingers, you know, and dropped them.
	Isn't it strange that a government that's lobbied by Big Food and receives donations from Big Food
	is unwilling to talk about the points that Bobby Kennedy raised there?
	That COVID caused so much death, not because of even vaccines.
	Doesn't go near that subject, does it?
	Because it was a sick, unwell population anyway because of a lack of exercise, poor diet, potentially poor medications, that the people that were dying of COVID, as we all know now, were elderly or sick or had comorbidities.
	Isn't it odd now After there seems to be a war on Andrew Huberman and Joe Rogan or anyone that's saying stuff like, why don't you get healthy and fit and stop eating this disgusting processed food that's giving you diabetes and cancer?
	Why don't the legacy media focus on that?
	Why are they calling Bobby Kennedy a conspiracy theorist?
	Well, because who pays for their advertising?
	Big Pharma, Big Food, they're part of the same world and where interest converges you don't need conspiracy.
	Who told us that?
	The great George Carlin.
	You don't need a formal conspiracy.
	So you better believe that Bobby Kennedy's a threat.
	You're a threat.
	Anyone that gives you a different outlet other than Joe Biden's a threat.
	They're on the same country clubs, they have like interests, they don't need to call a
	meeting, they know what's good for them.
	So you better believe that Bobby Kennedy's a threat.
	You're a threat.
	Anyone that gives you a different outlet other than Joe Biden's a threat.
	Trump's a threat.
	I'm a threat.
	Social media's a threat.
	Bobby Kennedy is certainly a threat because he's up there not spouting conspiracy theories but cold hard facts about an America that keeps its population sick and stupid and fat and the last thing it wants is you waking up and becoming a serious opponent of their cozy little two-party system.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the chat.
	See you in a second.
	No.
	Here's the fucking news.
	Join us next week for free specials!
	Monday we're talking about World War 3, Wednesday we're talking about from Conspiracy Theory to Conspiracy Fact and on Friday we're talking about the Culture War.
	Three very special episodes next week because we're having some time off and these episodes have been specially prepared for you to enjoy.
	Remember, click the red button to become a member of our community to join us for weekly meditations, solutions to the problem, Acquire real estate to establish a new community as well as an exclusive video every single week.
	I'd like to welcome our new members Nicole Monique 888, Piety Pure, KJO, Spanner70 and Helen Wes.
	Join us next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.
	Many switching, switch on, switch off.
	Many switching, switch on, switch off.
	Many switching,

▲