YOU WERE RIGHT! | CIA In Ukraine, France Vax Law & Alex Jones Predicted THIS - Stay Free #338
https://offers.americanhartfordgold.com/brand/ So far in 2024 there have been a few conspiracy theories that have become conspiracy facts. So today our special is to show you where you were right when the establishment said you were wrong. --💙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 you Awakening Wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle, Gurgle Dot or wherever you download your podcasts these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering miasma of lies and propaganda.
We appreciate you, and we love you.
You're part of our community.
So that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live Rumble Show five days a week.
It's on Monday to Friday.
We decipher the latest news stories, we break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, and if they aren't, Then we critique why they're not and what they are covering.
Every week as well, right?
We do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate.
These things are already up and you can listen to them now.
So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show.
To tune in live, go to rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand.
You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.
Now please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Thanks.
Hello and welcome to this special episode of stay free with Russell Brand
Conspiracy theories to conspiracy facts is a journey our community continually makes.
While we're being lied to we're picking through all of that balderdash that flows in our direction and discerning what is the truth amidst the fiction.
Where is the freedom amidst, excuse me, the friction?
We're going to be talking today about the CIA's involvement in Ukraine, we're going to be talking about France's vaccine law, you're going to love this video, and Alex Jones's predictions and how they are coming to pass.
Now for 15 minutes we'll be freely available but then we'll exclusively be gambling and frolicking in that sweet stream of freedom we call Rumble.
It's worth downloading the app, it's worth clicking the red button in fact to get additional content that we make there, beautiful additional content, Beautiful content, beautiful dogs.
Every single week we do great videos on stuff like Chemtrails, brilliant stuff on the bloody MK Ultras.
You're gonna love it.
Become a member of our community, get the additional content, be part of a movement that opposes injustice and stands up for ordinary people.
Now, the first conspiracy to fact is the CIA have been in Ukraine for 10 years.
They've been meddling in Ukrainian politics for a while now.
They were even involved in that coup.
And yet the legacy media continues to support them.
Should someone scrutinise this subject in a little more detail, we've done it for you.
Here's the news?
No, here's the F in news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
You're welcome.
No, here's the F in news.
If the CIA have had secret spy bases in Ukraine for the last 10 years
and have been engaged in a shadow war, then whatever Putin's invasion of Ukraine is,
it ain't unprovoked, is it?
So why the New York Times changing the story now?
What we're talking about is the New York Times have now admitted, acknowledged that there are CIA bases inside Ukraine and have been for the last 10 years.
And they've been waging a shadow war on Russia from within Ukraine.
And essentially, deep state interests have been in control of Ukraine for the last 10 years, which is, oh, since that 2014 coup, which we've been talking about in independent media, but they've not been talking about in legacy media.
And that's before we talk about NATO's role in exacerbating these conditions and the escalation of conflicts between Russia And Ukraine.
So why are the New York Times telling us now that there are CIA bases in Ukraine and probably biolabs and all the sorts of things that we've been discussing in these spaces for a while and were of course called conspiracy theorists for discussing?
It's evidently true.
So what's the agenda of the legacy media?
Is it as simple as ensuring that funding can continue?
And is it clear now that the legacy media are starting to acknowledge that you cannot completely suppress truth?
You can employ agencies like Logically AI You can have government agencies using proxies to crush dissent and censor, but ultimately, and this is actually pretty good and exciting news, we're too powerful now to be controlled.
I don't mean we, just me and literally you.
I mean the people that occupy these spaces, all of your various resources that you use to formulate your understanding of reality so that you are not subject to the reality that Google and Google and Google AI and the establishment
would have you live with him.
'Cause remember, it's not that long ago that they told you pretty repetitively
and with absolute determination that this was an unprovoked war.
But because of their odd, peculiar amnesia of our times, you may have forgotten that, but they did do that.
Have a look.
The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine.
Without provocation, without justification.
This is an attack which is unprovoked and unjustified attack on Ukraine.
The prayers of the entire world are with the people of Ukraine tonight
as they suffer an unprovoked and unjustified attack.
It's just the ones you've heard already included.
We do have CIA bases within Ukraine and have been waging on a shadow war.
And as you know, NATO have been provoking Russia for years by inviting Ukraine to join NATO since 2008, knowing that that's a red line for Putin.
That can no longer be called an unprovoked attack.
It's a provoked attack.
It's still terrible for the people of Ukraine.
I'm aware and I pray that Ukrainian people are watching this and I pray that they're safe.
Obviously not within Ukraine.
I'm assuming, you know, Let's go elsewhere as refugees due to this terrible war that could be prevented because I bet you wouldn't be so willing to spend your tax dollars funding the perpetuation of a war that is provoked rather than unprovoked.
We'll get into looking at why the legacy media have changed their tune right now but for this moment we can double down on the fact that we can't trust them, we could never trust them.
Why would you ever trust them?
What do you think they are about?
Let's have a look.
Russia commenced its full-scale, unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
President Putin has launched a horrific, unprovoked attack on their country.
That image, so full of pointlessness and lies, is essentially an artwork at this point.
These masks don't work.
We know they don't work.
This war is completely Completely illegitimate.
I shouldn't even really be Prime Minister.
I'm pretending to be all nice and I'm evoking emergency.
I mean, the whole thing.
You could literally go to Broadway in New York City and watch a show and be hit with more truth than watching the news.
We are united in condemning the Kremlin's unprovoked aggression.
And he also actually knows, because that's Jens Stoltenberg from NATO, who's directly been in contact with Putin and going, so what will you do if we... Yeah, that would be a war with it.
No justification apart from the fact that he is a warmonger that wanted to build an empire.
You can't call someone a warmonger when you've done what that man is purported to have done with a piggy.
Putin is the aggressor.
Putin chose this war.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the sign language lady have to sort of retract all of that.
Complete lie.
Biden.
Okay, let's get into some analysis of why the New York Times have chosen this moment to seed a different story.
And by my reckoning, this is comparable to the recent study on coronavirus that does indeed reveal, oh yeah, there are adverse
injuries, oh, there are peculiar cerebral conditions,
oh, we should have perhaps looked at whether or not we need to vaccinate this community or that community,
all stuff that could have been discussed years ago, curiously, before they made all the money.
It's very interesting that the most censored events in history
are the most lied about events in history, and they're not being lied about by conspiracy theorists,
they're being lied about by the establishment and their legacy media attack dogs.
Let's get into this story.
For the past two years, nearly every reference in the US media to the February 2022 invasion
of Ukraine by Russia has been preceded with an obligatory word, "unprovoked".
The public was told that this was a war without cause, that Ukraine was blameless and that the invasion was to be explained entirely in terms of the intentions and psychology of one man.
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Of course, that's why there was so much hysteria about the now famous Tucker Carlson interview, because then you can watch him with your own eyes and you can make your own evaluations about Russian propaganda versus US propaganda.
And you can make decisions about your own tax dollars and your own family and your own military and your own community and your own nation.
But they don't want you making any of those calculations.
However, on the weekend of the second anniversary of the war, the New York Times has 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 by the United States.
The article details long-standing Central Intelligence Agency, CIA of course, operations in Ukraine Why are the New York Times writing this piece now?
sponsored and built up the Ukrainian military intelligence agency, her, using it as a weapon
of spying, assassinations and other provocations directed against Russia for more than a decade.
Why are the New York Times writing this piece now? Why are the New York Times, which are
a mouthpiece and an amplifier of the establishment agenda, choosing this moment to reveal that
the CIA did indeed have bases and assets and engaging provocative activity inside Ukraine,
which means that it can't any longer be referred to as an unprovoked attack?
A provoked attack doesn't mean that, you know, that the Kremlin is Disneyland and that Putin's a great guy or that Ukrainian people aren't being brutalized.
It just means that we have to have an adult conversation rather than propaganda.
The Times writes, Towards the end of 2021, according to a senior European official, Mr Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia's main spy services, who told him that the CIA, together with Britain's MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow.
Does that make sense to you, the idea that British and American intelligence agencies essentially had control of Ukraine?
Does that sort of Ring a bell of truth somewhere in your belly?
Or do you think that Zelensky is some sort of military genius cum activist campaigner who is Churchill-like leading the charge against Russia, the indefatigable yet evil enemy?
Or do you reckon that what happens is countries like the United States and the UK puppet various nations in order to either win resource or strategic global wars to fulfil an agenda where it wouldn't be popular to go to face-to-face good old-fashioned gloves-off wars with Russia and China and And much like the wars that took place in Vietnam and Korea and Afghanistan and basically all of the wars that have happened since the end of the Second World War, proxy conflicts are being fought for military-industrial complex reasons or strategic reasons and we're just given a narrative up front that stops us going, how do we benefit from this?
Who's funding this stuff?
Am I paying for this war?
Is this unwinnable?
Hey, ain't they a nuclear superpower?
So that those questions are all sort of lost in the miasma of total lies, the New York Times et al propagandise us with images of brutality and suffering in Ukraine, which we should of course be aware of and doing everything we can to prevent, so that they can just get on and get a bunch of funding for Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Boeing.
The Times report demonstrates that this Russian intelligence assessment was absolutely true.
For more than a decade, dating back to 2014, the CIA was building up training and arming Ukrainian intelligence and paramilitary forces that were engaging in assassinations and other provocations against pro-Russian forces in eastern Ukraine, against Russian forces in Crimea, and across the border into Russia itself.
Huh, so that's sort of like there's been a war going on for ages anyway and all that's really happened is they've just reframed what's happening and increased funding.
In a critical passage, the Times writes, As the partnership deepened after 2016, the Ukrainians became impatient with what they considered Washington's undue caution and began staging assassinations and other lethal operations which violated the terms the White House thought the Ukrainians had agreed to.
Infuriated, Officials in Washington threatened to cut off support, but they never did.
In other words, the Ukrainian paramilitary forces, armed, funded, and led by the United States and NATO, were systematically assassinating forces supporting closer relations with Russia.
Ukraine have their own autonomy, they have their own dignity, and of course they have their own sovereignty.
The fact that they have their own attitude to their relationship with Russia, and the fact that they took advantage of an opportunity to escalate tensions, knowing they were backed by a military superpower, is hardly surprising, but it is concerning because it's led to this conflict.
But I suppose ultimately, the United States elite have an agenda to drain and destabilise Russia.
And don't you imagine that the increasing hostility in the South Pacific are about draining and destabilising China?
And isn't it becoming increasingly clear that the country of America is one thing, you, you people, your culture, your country, your beliefs, your values, your Christianity, your tolerance of other religions, all of that stuff is there down here.
And then over here are this set of interests controlling To some degree or another both political parties and ensuring that they can maintain the forever wars that are their lifeblood but sadly the death of literally every other territory in the world and a good many of your own citizens if this mentality continues for much longer.
The newspaper's account begins with the maiden coup of February 2014 when right-wing and neo-Nazi forces backed by the US and European Union overthrew a pro-Russian president and installed a pro-imperialist regime headed by the billionaire Petro Poroshenko.
In a way, there could have been an entirely different trajectory, couldn't there?
There could have been sort of an easier, if still somewhat tense, relationship between Russia and Ukraine that didn't really involve the United States, and therefore didn't require siloing of weapons that were now no longer needed in Afghanistan into this new territory.
A new paradigm was possible, and it seems like it was prevented.
Furthermore, neo-Nazi and right-wing, I mean, if our culture is defining itself by one thing, it's opposition to, oh, these bloody right-wing fascists, I mean, There's barely a mainstream media news program ends about some new person being called a neo-Nazi or a right-wing fascist when it comes to actual people who come out and tell you, do you know what I am?
Please, tell us.
I'm a neo-Nazi.
I'm a new one.
Now, can I have some money to go to war against other people?
Yes, you can, because we don't care about anything except our own agenda.
And yet we will talk about how much we hate Nazis when it's someone like off the news who wears a tie, who's basically a Christian, who doesn't think about race that much because they live in America and they're American.
This coup was the culmination of two decades of imperialist inroads into the former Soviet bloc with the expansion of NATO to include virtually all of Eastern Europe in violation of pledges made to the leaders of the former Soviet Union.
The Times is silent on this earlier history as well as on the role of the CIA in the maiden events.
Why are they silent on those important facts?
Maiden set the stage for a massive escalation of the CIA intervention, as detailed in the Times report.
The intelligence agency played a central role in fuelling conflict between Ukraine and Russia, first as a low-level war against pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, then as a full-scale war after the Russian invasion in February 2022.
Three US administrations were involved, first Obama, then Trump, now Biden.
I'm sure you know by now that what Well, I suppose that indicates is that whoever you vote for, when it comes to significant issues like perpetuating forever wars, you don't really have the right to vote.
That's why independent candidates like Robert Kennedy, who say they will end these wars, and I pray they mean by that all of these wars, ought to be taken very seriously.
According to the Times' account, CIA operations included not only widespread spying, but assisting direct provocations like the assassination of pro-Russian politicians in eastern Ukraine and paramilitary attacks on Russian forces in Crimea.
The Times reported that a Ukrainian unit, the 5th Directorate, was tasked with conducting assassinations, including one in 2016.
in 2016.
After the phones?
So in the end it was television that killed him?
Yep.
Very good that, yeah.
Have you got a battery for an Ericsson?
The CIA soon learned that the assassins were members of the Fifth Directorate, the spy group that received CIA training.
Ukraine's domestic intelligence agency had even handed out commemorative patches to those involved, each one stitched with the word lift, the British term for an elevator.
Oh, as long as you're all having fun, guys, now in this massive, expensive, mad war that you keep lying about and simplifying so you can keep funding it and people stop going, oh, it's really terrible this is happening.
Here, have a patch with Lyft, because we blew out that person, didn't we, in an elevator.
That was a lot of fun.
You guys called it a Lyft?
We've got so much in common.
Why don't we sub-bomb some new countries?
Yeah.
OK, then, old chap.
Cheers.
The report describes another such operation.
A team of Ukrainian agents set up an unmanned shoulder-fired rocket launcher in a building in the occupied territories.
It was directly across from the office of a rebel commander named Mikhail Tolstik, better known as GV.
Using a remote trigger, they fired the launcher as soon as GV entered his office, killing him, according to US and Ukrainian officials.
I mean, it's quite provocative, isn't it?
It's not unprovoked.
Anything that happens after that, again, like Putin, illegal war, terrible, children dying, buildings destroyed, tragedy, devastation, it should stop as soon as possible.
But this is going to annoy someone like Putin, all of this, isn't it?
Since the outbreak of full-scale war, the Ukrainian Hurs extended these assassination operations to the whole territory of Russia.
Again, that's pretty provocative.
Including the killing of Darya Dugina, a leading pro-Putin polemicist in the Russian media and Russian government and military officials.
I mean, seems like designed to irritate him into a bellicose state, which it eventually did with the ongoing attempt to recruit Ukraine into NATO.
The CIA found its Ukrainian allies very useful in collecting vast amounts of data on Russian military and intelligence activity, so much that the Hurt itself could not process it and had to forward the raw data to CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia for analysis.
An earlier, less detailed report on this intelligence collaboration in the Washington Post cited a Ukrainian intelligence official's estimate that 250,000 to 300,000 Russian military intelligence messages were being collected each day.
So, they were spying on Russia to an extraordinary degree.
More funding, more spying, more transgression, more provocation.
So, again, we just watched the news, unprovoked, unprovoked.
Were you spying on us, Fragis?
Yeah.
Did you blow up a geyser?
It was really nice of you, but I was on the news.
Did you get a load of badges done celebrating the brutal assassination of someone with Lyft on it?
We did do that, yes.
We all thought it was jolly good fun back at the office, didn't we?
Yes, we did.
This data was not just related to Ukraine, but concerned Russian intelligence activity all over the world.
Long before the Russian invasion, the CIA was seeking to broaden its attack on Moscow.
The Times reports, So they wanted to establish it everywhere.
A bit like, I suppose, Russia's concern that Ukraine will join NATO, then other border countries will join NATO, then they'd have secret CIA spying bases in them where they would engage in provocative activity and spying missions in an attempt It seems to me, at least, to create one global government, ultimately, controlled by the interests that currently control the United States, the biggest economy and most powerful nation on Earth.
Replicate that everywhere.
And the only things that are powerful enough to prevent that at the moment are Russia and China.
So let's crack on and destroy them.
Is that basically what's happening?
The head of Russia House, the CIA department overseeing operations against Russia, organised a secret meeting at The Hague.
There, representatives from the CIA, Britain's MI6, the HUR, the Dutch service, a critical intelligence ally, and other agencies agreed to start pooling together more of their intelligence on Russia.
Again, provocation, provocation.
The result was a secret coalition against Russia, and the Ukrainians were vital members of it.
All these activities occurred well before the Russian invasion of February 2022, not to mention the 2014 coup and placing what sounds like a puppet government that was ultimately being controlled by deep state interests.
I don't know what provocation could be, if not that's some of the most provocative stuff I've ever heard.
The outbreak of full-scale war led to even more direct CIA engagement in Ukraine.
CIA agents were the only Americans not covered by the initial evacuation of US government personnel from Ukraine, removing only to Western Ukraine.
They continually briefed the Ukrainians on Russian military plans, including precise details of operations as they were unfolding.
This is, and has always been, a proxy war.
The Nomination of Russia's invasion of Ukraine as the start date seems like the type of narrativisation that's favourable to the interest engaged in these years of provocation after sponsoring a coup and insisting that Ukraine join NATO.
Actions that seem designed to provoke Russia.
So when Russia invaded Ukraine, killing loads of Ukrainian people, causing all that decimation and destruction and all of that criminal and illegal activity, it's because It's because of all of this stuff and because temporarily
Ukrainian interests align with those interests, they're a convenient conduit for the
expression of the power of the establishment.
And when they're no longer a convenient conduit, they will be pretty mercilessly dispatched,
I'd guess.
According to the Times, within weeks the CIA had returned to Kiev and the agency sent in
scores of new officers to help Ukrainians.
The senior US official said of the CIA's sizable presence, "Are they pulling triggers?"
Now, are you able to pull that trigger yourself?
Well, I am in the military, so... Okay, well, pull it now and aim it there.
Well done, that's good.
Any assistance we can give you in this war we're not involved with, you just ask.
Could we have some more money?
Of course you can, yeah.
Some of the CIA officers were deployed to Ukrainian bases.
They reviewed lists of potential Russian targets that the Ukrainians were preparing to strike, comparing the information the Ukrainians had with the U.S.
intelligence to ensure that it was accurate.
In other words, the CIA was helping direct the war, making the U.S.
government a full participant, a co-belligerent in a war with nuclear-armed Russia, despite Biden's claim that the United States was only aiding Ukraine from afar.
And all of this without the American people having the slightest say in the matter.
Don't you sometimes forget that.
Don't you sometimes forget that vital detail that America is men-a-bee, your country was established on those principles.
And I really now see more clearly than ever Mike Benz, the expert in deep state activities analysis, that when people say we have to protect democracy, what they mean are a set of institutions that preserve oligarchical power rather than the electoral process by which ordinary people go, I think I'd like to Not being a nuclear apocalypse.
Because that kind of democracy isn't happening, is it?
The Times account also provides an inadvertent indictment of America's media, as it writes, It's written out like it's telling you.
partnership, many of which are being disclosed by the New York Times for the
first time, have been a closely guarded secret for a decade.
It's written out like it's telling you. Here's the inside scoop.
Taylor Swift's new beauty secrets are avocado on each of her cheekbones.
It's like, we've been using your money to provoke a nuclear superpower into a war, then we've been telling you that it was an unprovoked war.
Oh my god, no wonder she looks so young and fresh!
This is propaganda and lying, and no doubt the New York Times are only revealing this now because it's convenient to another agenda that we'll be revealing later in this brilliant article.
This admission means that these secrets were closely guarded by the Times itself.
So, all the time, hey listen, please don't tell people there have been no clinical trials on this product, just tell them that if they don't use this product, it's irresponsible and kills old people.
You got it boss!
As former editor Bill Keller once observed, freedom of the press means freedom not to publish, and that is a freedom we exercise with some regularity.
Particularly, we might add, when it comes to the crimes of US imperialism.
The Times article is not so much an exposure as a controlled release of information.
Yeah, that's what I figured.
We're starting to spot that now.
As independent media becomes more robust and yet more agile, they have to at points recognise, look, do you know what?
People can no longer be expected to believe this was an entirely unprovoked attack.
There's people going on Joe Rogan, there's Bobby Kennedy out there, people are all the time saying, wait a minute, what about NATO?
What about that agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan?
Oh, well, let's just say whataboutism is a thing.
Yeah, we'll try that for a while.
You can't do whataboutism!
Just shut up or you're helping Trump!
But in the end, we just found out too much.
Too much accumulative and aggregated information.
So in order to, to a degree, keep a sliver of credibility, they're sort of acknowledging, OK, yeah, we provoked this war and we've known about it for ages and the deep state's been inside Ukraine for ages.
But also, there's another agenda to do with getting Republicans to support the ongoing funding of this war rather than withdrawing the funding.
And that's coming in a second.
The US newspaper Record reports that the two authors of the piece, Adam Entis and Michael Schwartz, conducted more than 200 interviews with current and former officials in Ukraine, elsewhere in Europe, and in the United States.
This activity could hardly have taken place without the knowledge, permission, and even encouragement of the CIA, as well as the Zelensky regime and Ukrainian intelligence.
Wow.
As we've been saying for some time, the legacy media works in conjunction with the establishment and Deep State to maintain a particular Reality that we can all be manipulated into believing in so that our behaviour can be controlled so that we can be shut down.
This is a brilliant, brilliant, perfect, beautiful example of that.
In the meantime, a real journalist, Julian Assange, is awaiting the decision on his final appeal against extradition to the United States, where he faces 175 years in prison or even a death sentence.
The crime of Assange and WikiLeaks, which Assange founded, is that they did not obey the rules of bourgeois journalism and did not seek the permission of the military intelligence authorities
before publishing their revelations about US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The efforts of the US State Department to subvert and manipulate governments
and the spying activities of the CIA and National Security Agency.
In short, he released information that was favourable to what you might call
the electorate or the citizens or the subjects or the people of nations like yours
and of mine, in order that we might more discerningly regard our establishment,
including the legacy media who lies to us.
And what happens to people like that is what's happened to Julian Assange.
But there are other examples of how the establishment behaves if you act against their interests.
The exposure of a decade of CIA operations in Ukraine, clearly at the request of the agency itself, appears to be linked to the ongoing conflict within the US ruling elite over what policy to adopt in that war, in the wake of the debacle suffered by the Zelensky regime in last year's offensive, which gained little and suffered colossal losses.
Congressional Republicans have blocked further military and financial aid to Ukraine, effectively declaring that the US must cut its losses there and concentrate on the main enemy, China.
Concentrate on peace?
No.
Different enemy.
Wow.
So this isn't being done in order to, you know, all the news that's fit to print.
This is like all the propaganda that's fit to use to manipulate ongoing forever war so that we can keep the offices open and the lights on.
Although we convey mostly darkness.
This is the most important couple of paragraphs I think in the piece.
Have a listen to this, then you will understand exactly what's going on.
You can use this to argue with people who still believe propaganda.
Check it.
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.
It is 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.
Although some American service personnel are deeply engaged in opposing these wars, as you remember
from the sad self-immolation and death of Aaron Bushnell recently. In so doing, the Times has
revealed its own coverage of the Ukraine war over the past two years to have been nothing more than war
propaganda aimed at using a fraudulent narrative to dragoon the American public to support a predatory
imperialist war of aggression aimed at subjugating and dismantling Russia.
And the only way, I suppose, that you could argue that that's a good thing is if you saw yourself somehow as a subject and ally of this establishment, or at least your own destiny tied to their ongoing success.
In order to believe that, you would have to be in constant fear that both Russia and China have their own imperialist agenda.
And if they're not stopped, thwarted, attacked, drained, and covertly and insidiously dismantled, then you and your way of life will be under threat.
We learned so much from this.
We learned that the New York Times suppresses information when it wants to, that they support the agenda of the establishment, that they totally believe in lying and omitting information in order to ensure that the establishment agenda can be met, even when it's a bloody war that's killing Ukrainian people and Russian people.
So you could assume that they might employ similar policies when it comes to the wars in the Middle East and the terrible and tragic deaths that are taking place there.
What this ultimately reveals Is that the legacy media is part of the establishment.
You can't trust anything you read or hear in the legacy media.
You can assume from the get go that what they are doing is either trying to distract you, dumb you down, shut down any possible avenues that are challenging to establishment interest and even if that extends to Claiming that current wars were unprovoked when the truth is they were anything but unprovoked.
And that's not to mitigate, undermine or dilute the tragedy that Ukrainian people are experiencing.
is just to point out that it's been caused by a greedy, avaricious and tyrannical global
establishment that requires war to sustain itself.
Thanks for refusing Fox News.
No.
Here's the fucking news.
We can't bring you this content without the support of our partners and our supporters.
I'm honoured to be bringing you this message.
Is it me or does the future feel more insecure and uncertain?
Wars, pandemics, lies, trickery.
For those of you that are in the United States, there is a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg.
American Heart for Gold makes it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver.
With one phone call, they can have physical gold and silver delivered right to your door or inside a qualifying retirement account like your IRA or 401k.
American Heart for Gold is the highest-rate firm in the United States with an A-plus rating from the BBB, that's the Better Business Bureau, and thousands of satisfied clients right now.
They'll give you up to $10,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order.
This offer, I'm sorry to tell you, is only for customers from the United States of America.
Call 866-505-8315.
That's 866-505-8315.
Or simply text BRAND to 99-88-99.
Then they'll know we sent you.
Get up to $5,000 in silver and protect your future in this crazy, crazy world with some solid, precious metals literally made in stars.
Now let's get back to the content.
We're going to have to leave YouTube right now because their WHO-inspired community guidelines will not permit freedom when it comes to talking about France's vaccine law, dubbed Article Pfizer or Article Liza by some of you wags, so click the link in the description because we're only going to be here for a few more seconds and you deserve and need freedom.
Remember, we got all this glorious merch and every single penny that we make, once our costs are covered, goes to getting junkies, owkies and the broken into treatment so that they can be strong.
and they can participate in this movement with us.
See you in a second, click the link in the description.
Now, France's vaccine laws seem designed to protect Pfizer from themselves
and to not protect us from anything.
But the French are awakening, the French are revolting.
I don't mean that in an offensive way.
The French are standing up to this Orwellian vaccine law.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
[Music]
No, here's the fucking news.
Ah!
Vive la France!
Country of revolution, freedom, wine and pure sexiness.
Although now they're banning, criticizing medications that are recommended by the state, imposing potential prison sentences and 45,000 euro fines.
Ah!
Liberté!
Fraternité!
And just shut your bloody mouth!
Don't for a second think it's possible and plausible to criticise or speak out against medications, and let's face it, it means particularly and specifically recent gene therapies or vaccines or whatever you want to call them in that country, although you probably won't be able to call them anything soon, you certainly will not be able to criticise them.
So what does it mean for the world and for France when laws are passed that seem just It's designed literally to prevent Pfizer's profit margin being negatively impacted.
It's being called Article Pfizer because it sort of seems to literally mean, don't criticise Pfizer, even though it's written in sort of vague language.
Don't anyone criticise any medical measures recommended by the state?
What, like people are going to say, oh, don't take your chemotherapy, love.
Or people are going to say, don't get a pacemaker fitted.
Although ironically, heart disease and cancer are on the rise since around 2019, 2020 type time.
I wonder why these laws are being passed.
Let's get into it.
So firstly, this is a post by Dr Kat Lindley on X. Today, a law was passed in France qualifying any opposition to mRNA LNP injections as a sectarian aberration.
It carries a penalty of up to three years imprisonment and 45,000 euros.
It will not tolerate any criticism of the therapeutic treatments which will be recommended or made obligatory by the state.
Any person who dares to openly criticize these therapies will be liable to fines and imprisonment.
Seems like an astonishing piece of legislature.
So that's what's happening in France, but over in the UK, like Macron in France, we have a globalist leader in Rishi Sunak.
And even if in the next election we change leaders, guess what we're getting?
Another globalist leader!
So perhaps legislation like this will be passed in the UK, and maybe it's coming to the US.
If Canada haven't done it yet, I don't know what they're playing at.
Let's have a look.
Thank you Mr Speaker.
Can the current Prime Minister think of anything he has promoted?
This is Andrew Bridgen who's been talking a lot about excess deaths and complex subjects.
You can see him on our show Stay Free, click the link in the description.
Here he is as usual in Parliament advocating for more stringency and analysis around the pandemic period.
That's all he's asking for and he's treated as a kind of lunatic as a result.
Can the current Prime Minister think of anything he has promoted in partnership with huge businesses as safe and effective which has ultimately harmed the British people?
You hear the murmur of globalism in the background, whether it's in France, whether it's in Canada, whether it's in the UK.
There is an institutional opposition to open conversation around this subject and now legislation to prevent open conversation around this subject.
That's without even recourse to the censorship laws in Ireland, Canada, the UK.
Can you see what's happening?
Or are you just a conspiracy theorist?
And will he use this opportunity to correct that safe and effective statement, or will he choose the same line as Tony Blair?
Sit back, do nothing, and let the misery just continue to pile up?
Prime Minister.
Mr Speaker, to what he was more broadly insinuating, let me be unequivocal from this dispatch box that Covid vaccines are safe.
And in France you can't say anything other than that.
Mr Speaker.
And here is Rishi Sunak on GB News being questioned by a man who says he suffered from vaccine injury, which he wouldn't be able to say in France.
My name is John Watt and I'm one of the Covid vaccine injured in this country.
I want you to look into my eyes real soon, I want you to look at the pain,
the trauma and the regret I have in my eyes.
That person, in case you're not in the British Isles, is a Scottish person behaving in a very Scottish fashion.
Which is to say, emotional and aggressive, full on, and in this instance, correct.
We have been left with no help at all.
Not only am I in here that's vaccine injured, there's another man over there whose life's been ruined by that COVID-19 vaccine.
I know people who have lost legs, amputations.
I know people with heart conditions like myself, Rishi Sunak.
He's so Scottish that this may not remain a verbal altercation for much longer.
And I say this as a man who is married to a Scottish person.
Why have I had to set up a support group in Scotland to look after the people that have been affected by that Covid-19 vaccine?
Why are the people who are in charge, who told us all to do the right thing, have left us all to rot and left me and the thousands and the tens of thousands in this country to rot?
We're actually going to extradite you to France right now.
We were thinking Rwanda, but I think you'd be happier in France.
In Scotland right now, according to the yellow card system, there are over 30,000 people that have had an adverse reaction to that vaccine and 200 deaths.
OK.
John, thank you very much indeed for your question.
Now, John, that's enough, even for GB News.
For you to start doing the right thing, I wish you good night and good health.
You've made a really strong point, John.
Prime Minister.
Yeah, Jon, I'm very sorry to hear about your personal circumstances, and you said someone over here also seems to have suffered by a similar thing.
Now, obviously, I don't know about the individual's situation.
Well, we just told you about it.
So you tiptoe through this little legal nightmare that you're in... We're silenced, Russie.
We're silenced.
Well, I don't... On social media and everything, we are silenced.
We are the most silenced people in this country.
We're silenced in the press because my story in the press... Uh-oh!
There's another one!
...had to go to the government for comment, and they made them take all this stuff out.
Forgive me.
Forgive me both.
Now, look, we don't usually do this on GB News, and it's getting... He will not come back!
And the next one, who's just another version of him from the other party, he won't come here at all.
So please, don't ruin this for us!
Right, OK, I'm going to have to physically come in now.
We've lost the floor.
In a way, that's what democracy in conversation looks like.
People being able to express themselves, being able to express their emotions, being able to confront leaders with difficult truths.
And look at what it's like.
It's unusual, isn't it?
It's unfamiliar.
Rishi Sunak certainly don't seem to like it very much.
And, sir, you raised some very valid points, I'm sure.
What I've got to say is, though, we haven't got you on microphone and, as you know, we've got to get through this.
I'm sure we can raise your points with the Prime Minister at a later date.
When?
When he's not Prime Minister anymore?
But in the meantime, Prime Minister, if you can cover the issue... Yeah, no, I'm very happy to.
Yeah, no, I like stuff like this.
I'm used to having difficult conversations, like sometimes me and the wife talk about how much tax we should pay in this country and how much money Infosys should get from government contracts.
And it can get quite heated sometimes, because sometimes she thinks I should give a bit more.
So there is a vaccine compensation scheme that's in place, as you alluded to, in the NHS.
Obviously, everyone individually will work through their cases.
It's difficult for me to comment on anyone's individual case.
I'm sure you'll appreciate that.
I'm very happy to go and look at the cases, and I'm sure you'll get them to the team here.
Well, there's 30,000 of them, so you better crack on.
I mean, I'm very saddened and shocked to hear that you've been silenced by anybody.
That is surprising to me.
God, I'm saddened to hear that you've been silenced.
It's almost as if we've been using proxy organisations like Logically AI to shut down any dissenting voices to anyone that's critical of vaccines.
It's like we spent loads of money cleansing social media of criticism.
I don't know how the hell this keeps happening.
Why are all these people getting silenced?
It's almost as if we're funding it from your tax money and then pretending to apologise to you on the television.
That's government.
So please do get your details to Stephen and the team and I will happily take that away.
Get to Stephen and the team and we'll deal with that sort of never.
Of course you should be able to speak about your experience, what's happened to you and as I said we have a compensation scheme in place for that and I'll make sure that we're working through that.
We've got a compensation scheme for these 100% safe vaccines.
Doesn't make sense, really, because 100% safe would mean you wouldn't need any compensation.
France!
Viva France!
Stop the questioning!
I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that we are now part of the People's Republic of France.
So maybe zip it.
I think, look, the last thing I'd say is, you know, we went through a pandemic, like everyone else.
Some of us made a lot of money during the pandemic, unlike everybody else.
At the points when it came to the vaccine, those decisions were always taken on the basis of medical advice from our medical experts.
Good, and I suppose you've got the WhatsApp messages, do you?
You deleted them, factory settings, was it?
To tell us, as politicians, who are obviously not doctors.
Oh, and yet many doctors say that these decisions were made by politicians.
It's extraordinary.
You should do more of these forums.
You're good at them.
About how best to roll out the vaccine, what was in the public health interest, the priority order, how that should be done, who should be eligible.
And we got it basically wrong in every single one of those categories.
That was something that the doctors recommended on.
A lot of doctors were silenced and lobbied into silence and sometimes even struck off.
And that's something that we followed.
Now, obviously, if there are individual circumstances which haven't worked out... The phrase, haven't worked out, covers a multitude of sins there.
In particular, people who took that amputation stuff.
Sorry, that hasn't worked out.
Aye, it hasn't worked out!
I got one less ligament when I fucking came here, you fucking banshot!
That hasn't worked out.
That's deaths, blood clots, waste of money, corruption.
Yeah, that really hasn't worked out.
How much money you got in that compensation scheme of yours?
You're gonna need it.
Then that's why we have the compensation scheme in place, and I'll make sure that we follow up on your cases.
If it's not worked out, we've got a compensation scheme again for a 100% safe vaccine, which in itself doesn't really make sense.
But what does make sense these days?
OK, Prime Minister, thank you.
Gents, both of you, do give us your details.
We will get that to the Prime Minister.
And as he said, he will, I'm sure, look at that for you.
In the meantime, let's move on to another question, sir.
OK, so having watched that, would you say there is room for some conversation or no conversation?
Because in France, you are getting no conversation.
And given that this is a globalist issue, no conversation is a problem that could be coming to a country that you live in too.
So here's Brett Weinstein on the topic of France's new legislation.
France has now criminalised objections to the MRNA platform, exposing those targeted to ruinous fines and imprisonment.
It's obvious lunacy and that it's happening in a Western nation should alarm us all.
This madness must be defeated in France, at the WHO, everywhere it arises.
So what exactly is going on in France?
And given there's an obvious requirement for conversation around vaccines, excess deaths, vaccine injuries, social policies during the pandemic, why are laws being passed that would prevent anybody from criticising a government mandated or In an unprecedented move that has sparked widespread debate across France and beyond, the French Parliament has recently passed a law that introduces severe penalties for those opposing mRNA LNP injections or other treatments recommended by the state based on current medical knowledge.
I have to say current medical knowledge, that's in case, oh well it was the current medical knowledge then!
Yeah, well guess what the current medical knowledge is?
Current medical knowledge is this guy's got one less leg than he had this morning.
I'm sick of it, pal!
As of today, criticism of such therapeutic treatments, when deemed obligatory or recommended by the state, could result in up to three years of imprisonment or a fine of 45,000 euros.
This bold legislative step, quickly dubbed Article Pfizer by critics, represents a significant shift in the balance between public health policy and individual freedom of expression.
There's a lot of it about, isn't there?
How often are we seeing government policies leading to repression or suppression of free speech?
Have you noticed in your country?
I certainly have noticed it.
By God, I've noticed it.
In particular, censorship specifically of content we've been making.
The core of the controversy lies in the creation of a new criminal offence targeting individuals who encourage others to withhold from medical treatments that are considered appropriate according to the prevailing medical standards.
They have to always have like an adjective or a caveat because they know that medicine evolves and changes, that is the nature of science, even if there is nothing malfeasant at play.
The law specifically targets the resistance to mRNA treatment, positioning it as a cornerstone in the fight against future pandemics.
This move has been interpreted by many as an anti-democratic manoeuvre stifling any opposition or critique of the state-endorsed medical treatments under the heavy hand of legal penalties.
Remember, the WHO treaty would mean that your country would have to provide 5% of your health budget, that your nation would have to abide by WHO regulations, which just The past of the law came with minimal debate within the parliament, a fact that has only fuelled the outrage among its detractors.
Critics argue that the law not only undermines the democratic process by limiting the scope of public discourse on health policy, but also prejudges alternative medicine and potential whistleblowers who may have valid concerns About mRNA technology or other treatments.
I mean, certainly it seems, doesn't it, that there are at least some valid concerns, or are there none?
Should there be a law that prevents those concerns being communicated?
Is that what you've learned in the pandemic period?
Do you know what I've learned in the pandemic period?
Dissent should continue to be shut down.
Expert opinion should continue to be censored.
Authorities should be further centralised in the favour of governments and corporations.
Is that the message of the pandemic period?
Because that ain't the message that I received.
Labelled Article Pfizer, the law is seen as emblematic of a broader trend towards increasing state control over public health narratives and personal health choices.
The nickname itself, referencing one of the major pharmaceutical companies behind the development of mRNA vaccine technology, hints at the perceived alignment between government policy and the interests of Big Pharma.
What?
No, I never noticed.
Raising questions about the influence of pharmaceutical companies on health policy.
Furthermore, the timing and urgency of the law's enactment, with warnings of an imminent next pandemic and the positioning of mRNA technology as the sole solution, adds layers of complexity to the debate.
The law raises critical questions about where the line should be drawn between preventing harmful misinformation and preserving the right to free speech and open debate on medical treatments.
As France steps into uncharted territory with the enactment of this law, the international community watches closely.
The implications of such a legal framework extend beyond the borders of France, potentially setting a precedent for how governments around the world might seek to regulate public discourse on health and medical treatments in the future.
In conclusion, the recent enactment of the law penalising opposition to state-recommended mRNA treatment in France Marks a significant moment in the ongoing discussion about the role of government in regulating health policy and preserving public safety.
While intended to combat misinformation and protect public health, the law's critics see it as a concerning move towards limiting free speech and privileging certain medical treatments over others.
As the world continues to navigate the complexities of public health in an ever-evolving landscape, the debate over Article Pfizer Serves as a point and reminder of the tensions between collective safety and individual rights.
It also demonstrates that there can be no financial ties between political figures and organisations and corporations of that size and scale that you don't want when laws like this are being passed.
Any sense that it could be advantageous to Pfizer's bottom line or Pfizer's agenda.
You also don't want to feel the sense that there's a globalist agenda in which individual nations pilot particular pieces of legislation before they become immersive, ubiquitous and total, as seems to be the case with various censorship laws around the world, and now in this one, the further oppression of free speech, in order to achieve what goal?
There's so much misinformation about chemotherapy or heart tablets or asthma inhalers that people just start abandoning them.
Has there ever been a medical emergency of this variety ever before?
Do you ever recall like a huge movement opposing successful medical treatments?
Of course there have always been people that are critical, cynical, sceptical and enquiring around vaccines, and if you look at some of the information available in those quarters, it certainly is interesting to review, shall we say.
But the idea that the state, given their relationship with global corporations, has only your interests in mind In order to protect you, we're going to find you and imprison you.
Oh, thank you very much, monsieur.
Doesn't make sense, does it?
And having seen that bit of footage of dear globalist Rishi Sunak pilloried by members of the British public, how do you imagine the globalists regard open conversation about these subjects?
If there are indeed 30,000 adverse events to discuss in the UK, is an open conversation what the establishment wants, or do they want total control of the narrative?
Why don't you look at the last couple of years and decipher yourself?
What do groups that censor online social media discourse really care about?
And to whose benefit is that being directed?
The censorship of important and significant voices like Jay Bhattacharya.
What is that about?
Protecting you?
Or is it about controlling a narrative?
What we've learned, in particular, in the ongoing discourse between Senator Rand Paul and Anthony Fauci about measures and suggestions and steps that were taken in the early pandemic period that might have been avoided and that were potentially not legitimate and certainly not successful.
Do you feel that what should happen now is a raft of law should be passed around the world to make it illegal for people to question and criticise?
Or do you think that we should be heading in almost exactly the opposite direction?
Certainly there's a need for discussion, even as the possibility for discussion is being foreclosed.
[Music]
No.
Here's the fucking news.
Alex Jones has become something of a soothsayer, hasn't he?
You know that Alex Jones says crazy stuff, but hey, it's a crazy world.
Let's look at some of the times that Alex Jones has been ahead of the curve.
What does that tell us about news reporting right now?
What does it tell us about shamanism?
What does it tell us about the necessity to awakening to new narratives and yet remaining circumspect and awake?
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Thank you for choosing Fox News.
Where's the news?
No, here's the effing news.
New York City are deploying the National Guard, effectively militarizing their streets
and especially their subways.
So is this about citizen safety or is it, as Alex Jones warns, the piloting of martial law?
You will be aware now that New York City, that most liberal of metropolises, has militarised its law forces by putting the National Guard on the subway.
Now, New York City is no doubt in a time of crisis, evidently and apparently connected to the issue of migration.
But is this sudden appearance of military personnel on the New York subways really about protecting the citizenry, or is it more insidious than that?
Are we beginning to experience the piloting and grooming of a population to get us ready for militarized streets?
For many years now, we've seen anti-protest laws, militarization of the police, police cars that used to be like, nee-nah, nee-nah, Skyelectrics, Dukes of Hazzard, good old-fashioned fun, have become like tanks now.
Why has that happened?
When did that become necessary?
Is it necessary in your neighborhood?
And if rising crime is a problem in your neighborhood, What exactly is causing it?
Do you trust the people that have the power behind the barrel of the gun or not?
Let's have a look at Alex Jones's perspective.
You'll be well aware that Alex Jones's perspective will be around centralised authoritarianism, global conspiracies and piloting, but having just lived through the last five years, It does seem that we have been subject, whether it was some of the events around the pandemic or recent censorship laws across the world, to the piloting of ideas in certain territories in order to normalise them.
I'm talking about the freezing of bank balances, closing down of people's social media, using government proxies to censor, dissenting voices, lockdowns, internment camps, arresting people for things they've said on the internet, imprisoning people for things they've said on the internet.
And while the time that we're talking about Donald Trump and how bad he is for democracy, is democracy, even under the auspices of actual Democrat rule, becoming more and more authoritarian?
Let's start with Alex Jones, then we'll get into what we think is happening together.
Tonight, a new approach to keep subway riders safe.
Guns!
Guns aiming at your face.
The new way.
The army threatening to kill you if you step out of line.
Look how compliant the news always is.
Look, don't say that this is terrifying.
Don't start saying the military are on the subway now.
That's a clear indication that whatever your political perspective, things have gone terribly wrong.
Say instead, new way to keep you safe.
New way to help you go to sleep at night.
A firm punch right in the jaw.
Bag checks and beefed up security with members of the National Guard.
Beefed up?
Like it's nutritious?
It's like a bone broth made out of a gun pointed at you by the state.
Night night!
As CBS 2's Naveen Dhaliwal reports, the plan comes on the same day as another attack on a conductor.
So, you know, attacks on conductors, gotta bring in the army, so... With riders on edge, the governor is putting a plan in place that includes cameras in conductor cabs and more cops on the platforms.
At Grand Central Terminal Wednesday evening, bag checks were underway.
It seems to me that in order to protect the legitimizing, raising authority, Indeed, there's such a sort of raging debate in your country about guns and gun ownership and gun laws.
And all it seems to amount to, really, is not whether or not there are guns, but who's allowed to have them.
And we now know that the state doesn't want to discuss their guns.
What about the dangers and threats of those guns?
What about the many people that are killed in friendly fires, in wars?
Perhaps all we're talking about in politics is who has the right to kill.
As tackling subway safety is now at the top of the list for city and state officials.
These brazen, heinous attacks On our subway system.
On our democracy by me.
What?
No, sorry.
I mean on our subway by someone who's not me have got to be met by everyone's got guns now that works for me.
You don't work for me?
No guns.
You work for me?
Guns.
Simple.
Really?
Huh?
Will not be tolerated.
This was a stern message from the governor.
It is a stern message.
It's a stern, very aggressive message.
It's an authoritarian message.
It's not stern, it's authoritarian.
It will not be tolerated.
I don't care about your past.
I don't care about your social conditions.
I don't care about your mental health.
I don't care if there's been a fentanyl crisis.
I don't care if America's breaking down.
I don't care if you're delirious with doubt and you can't feel God in your heart anymore because you're surrounded by lies and treachery.
All I care about is do as you're told or we'll kill you.
I mean, what is the message?
After several attacks in the transit system in the past week, these attacks prompting the governor to deploy a thousand members of the National Guard.
Look, that's the news doing the job of propaganda.
These attacks prompting the governor?
I don't know.
I bet if you had the time to look at the data, you'd go, how many attacks are there each year since 1970 in New York on staff members?
And then you'd have to look at a variety of factors.
Poverty, inequality of wealth, mental illness, some government support.
There's so many vital components.
When the solution is always, we're going to take some more power because of this, there's a really nasty cuff going around.
In conclusion, we're going to take a lot more power.
There's a really nasty Putin going around.
So in conclusion, we're going to take a lot more power.
There's some really nasty truckers going around.
So in conclusion, we're going to take a lot more power.
Is the answer always going to be, you're going to take a lot more power?
There's a lot of people saying on the internet that we're taking too much power.
So we're going to be taking a lot more power and censoring those people.
OK, and the threat is Donald Trump how?
And police to subway systems across New York City.
What they're doing checking bags to make sure explosive or illegal weapons aren't entering our subway system.
I think it's rather offensive to all of us as human beings that Eric Adams being a person of color will be framed I think both of those things are great.
How fantastic.
Let's have a diverse and representative but above all else fair and equal and truly representative society where you don't centralise authority.
I'm getting rather tired of the idea that equality and fairness means highlighting programmes of representation in order to mask increasing authoritarianism.
I agree with equality and particularly when it comes to matters around gender and sex but above all Wealth and power.
City officials say each week, NYPD bag screening teams will be at 136 stations.
That's about a third of the stations in the system.
New York City's Civil Liberties Union calling it heavy-handed.
But heavy-handed really means, like, ooh, oh, no, boss, there's another person was wrote to a bus conductor.
Boom!
Like that heavy-handed means that you're not even actually in control of the weight of your power.
And isn't that the perfect description of how globalist, elitist power masquerading as American patriotic power, whether it's in foreign wars or on the most beautiful city in America, some would argue, New York City, and the imposition of authority, all in order, as usual, to help people.
Like stop and frisk, ripping a page straight out of a Giuliani playbook, We had to, really, because the pages were stuck together.
I'd like to take a note.
Every time a demon of the liberal elites have their ideas borrowed and utilized by those same liberal elites, Donald Trump is the worst thing that could ever happen.
That's why that wall he's building that we mocked him for is still being built.
That's why those cages that we condemned him for are still there and were, in fact, actually put there by Barack Obama.
Giuliani, that pervert, lunatic, maniac son of a bitch, actually had some pretty good ideas when it came to protecting Train conductors, which is now something we care about now that we can have armed military on the show.
I didn't used to care about Giuliani when he was just being in Borat, but now his ideas could really be used to control ordinary people.
I like that guy.
In addition to the bag checks, the governor's plan includes amending state law to ban repeat offenders.
Every single one of these bullet points will amount to more power for the state, a greater ability to arrest and control.
Installing cameras in each conductor's cabin, Mental health, Adriana, you get the idea.
Mental health.
You know, we'll put something on Instagram.
There'll be a hashtag.
Everyone's gonna feel a whole lot better.
And if they don't...
Now, a perspective from the other side of the aisle, to put it mildly, Alex Jones.
Alex Jones has been a guest on our show and Alex Jones will be a guest on our show again.
As you know, I consider Alex Jones to be a kind of shamanic force in politics.
Of course, he occasionally says things that are pretty crazy.
Hey, who doesn't?
But when it comes to the issue of piloting authoritarian measures and perhaps even martial law, Alex Jones is a voice that's perhaps important.
Let's have a look at what he's saying on this subject.
When I was cutting my teeth 29 years ago on air, Bill Clinton had just been in office for a year or so and it was confirmed, the military was warning, it was coming out, they were leaking classified documents that now are all basically admitted and have been publicly rolled out against the public to
Incrementally bring in martial law.
So they went from this being secret under Clinton, and then with Bush, yeah, it's mainly for Al Qaeda, but it's also for domestic groups.
And then you're asking, well, what's this really all about?
And then you start to realize it's part of a long-term process of just getting the military, the police, the public ready for this.
So here's what's happening.
We're not going to have UN troops one day, or Russian troops like Red Dawn, and you're in Colorado and all of a sudden parachutes come down and you've got Russian troops shooting at you.
It'll be our own troops, but they'll be made up of people that have been tested for decades, going through the training, going along with attacking their own people.
And now the troops are being deployed and searching everyone's bags.
Like, how can you not be affected by that image?
That's armed military personnel on the subway being normalized.
I am quite sympathetic to this perspective, given what I've witnessed and experienced in the last few years.
And indeed, Jones is showing he's working out an incremental increase in these tactics and techniques.
Over several administrations.
Isn't that indeed the domestic heart of what globalism means?
That regardless of who you vote for, you've got deep state interests that have an agenda that spans various administrations.
And those administrations will focus on hot button cultural topics.
Meanwhile, the projects of war and social control will continue.
And even beyond the physical representation of military presence on the street, which is terrifying, we know and often discuss how techniques designed to track and control dissidents abroad Specifically, literally, groups like ISIS are now deployed.
Once you've seen armed military personnel conducting bag checks on a subway in New York City, when there isn't a war happening or anything remotely like it domestically across America, then you have to acknowledge that that is something that is significant.
And quite a lot of power and time and propaganda has to be invested in saying that someone like Alex Jones is hysteric.
And due to his, let's call it his presentational style, he does make that kind of analysis in some circles.
Quite credible.
But let's not forget what we're looking at.
We're looking at armed troops on the subway in New York.
There's not been a terror attack.
There's not been a terror attack.
We're not in the middle of COVID.
It's just being normalized.
Without a warrant, all these decades of preparation for martial law, and that's what this is, is here.
It's interesting.
Bags being searched without a warrant by troops is a pretty significant step to normalise, particularly in a city like New York.
Often when I talk about piloting, I mean Australia, internment camps, trucker protests and the evocation of the Emergencies Act in Canada, the freezing of bank accounts in Canada and Ukraine.
New York City, that's a bold move.
But I suppose the fact is, is broadly, compliance has become allied to opposition to Trump.
That's what it means.
Like, if you are opposed to liberal democracy, and liberal democracy now means war in Gaza, it means war against Russia, it means being compliant when it comes to medical suggestions that come from the state, all ideas that in the 60s, when the heroes were people like Malcolm X, Excellent, you wouldn't have thought.
One thing you want to be is obedient when Pfizer says jump you say how high and oh I'm not sure I'll be able to because my heart hurts.
Now authoritarianism has become somehow allied to liberalism and the idea that military force and military intelligence is turned against a domestic population has become normalized.
We know from personal experience now that Agencies, deep state agencies and proxies funded by the state that were used as intelligence assets to oppose terrorists, as they were then called, perhaps understandably, in various Middle Eastern wars and subsequent disputes, are now deployed against domestic populations.
That's a fact in your country, in mine, across the world.
So, in essence, what we're witnessing is we, the domestic population of these nations, are regarded as the enemy.
And that doesn't take brilliant analysis, actually, because just watch the Oscars.
You know, Trump, he's in there.
That's 50% of the population.
That's 50% of the population, and that includes black people, Hispanics, significant numbers of women.
It's not just, oh, mega.
You know, it's not that.
It isn't that.
And by the way, you're allowed to be that if that's what you are.
All of you have the right to be who you are.
But they have to create the climate first for martial law and civil emergency to sell us on it, the angrier world that Klaus Schwab talks about.
Yeah, it's an important point that the occupying force are there as protectors.
And actually, that's not a new idea.
The English or British occupation of Northern Ireland begins as we're here to protect, I think initially, forgive me, Catholics in Northern Ireland.
It just became normalised.
I know there's a long and complex history between our two separate nations, but often the introduction of the military is portrayed as for safety and security and protection.
And I think that probably happens in the sort of I say the whole world must learn of our peaceful ways.
peacekeeping force. Actually, if that piece of language was introduced when I was a little
older and a little better educated I'd have gone "peacekeeping force?" That doesn't seem
like the way you get peace.
I say the whole world must learn of our peaceful ways. By force.
This is not right-wing peace of writing, by the way.
In this journalism, Donald Trump is criticised for his attempts to deploy the National Guard during the uprisings that came from George Floyd's murder.
So this is not apolitical, this is political, but it's political from the side that you would not have expected.
That, for me, increases its validity and is precisely the type of discourse that we must engage in.
If you find yourself either side of that line, you're being controlled.
The mobilisation of 2,000 city and state police and National Guard troops in New York City on the pretext of fighting crime in the vast subway system is a demonstration of the reactionary character of the Democratic Party.
Last month, New York City's Democratic Mayor Eric Adams announced he would deploy 1,000 New York Police Department cops in the subway system after a law and order campaign by the city's We now know that that's the relationship between the media and the state.
of violent attacks against subway riders and transit workers, which, knowing what I know now
about how the media operates, were possibly written in conjunction with the people that
introduced this law. It would be, "Hey, we got these stories, we got these stories, we'll give
you access to this story, we'll give you this interview, we'll give you this access, we'll give
you this tax break, we'll give you this." We now know that that's the relationship between the
media and the state. Do you think that the X-Files was the first time Deep State were embedded within
a media organisation?
Let me know in the chat.
On Wednesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul, also a Democrat, announced she was redeploying 750 National Guard troops already in New York City, as well as 250 state troopers and police of the Metropolitan Transport Authority, MTA, the state agency that runs the subways to increase the number of uniformed personnel patrolling subway stations and riding trains.
I remember when I was a kid, I used to hear people talk about, you know, You know, you want to see more bobbies, that's the word in our country, bobbies on the street.
But the image there is just sort of a member of the police force on a bicycle.
And again, this might just be where I am in my own personal evolution.
It seems like a rather pleasant idea, a member of the police force, again that word, that is working for the community.
But now, just think about how it feels to you as a person when you're on the subway and you see people with machine guns.
Do you feel, do you feel inside yourself, that's good, That's good that that's happening.
I feel more safe.
Now, I don't know what else might make you feel unsafe.
I don't know who you are or where you're from or how you've been coached and trained.
Maybe a group of young people with their hoods up makes you feel bad.
Maybe a group of drunk men in suits makes you feel bad.
Maybe people wearing religious attire of some denomination makes you feel bad.
But one thing I can say with some certainty is granting further and further authority to a group invested in war and control will not be good for any of us, regardless of our outward accoutrements.
The troops are currently operating out of Fort Hamilton in Brooklyn as part of Joint Task Force Empire Shield.
I mean, that's not good, is it?
Joint Task Force Empire Shield.
I mean, they're telling you what they're up to.
What are you doing?
We're shielding the Empire.
And what if I don't agree with the Empire?
Well, I mean, I could put it in a number of ways, but how about, well, I don't know.
Okay, so that event increased authority, increased spying, increased surveillance, increased war, and we all agreed it was a good thing to do, didn't we?
Except for the millions of people who marched against that war against Iraq, which, by the way, happened anyway, of course.
We all agreed that it was necessary because we were under threat.
So what's happening now?
We are under threat, right, from MAGA Trump on one side or immigrants on the other side, so we'd better get the Military on the streets.
They regularly patrol in the Grand Central Station, the Port Authority and a few other transportation hubs wearing camouflaged uniforms and equipped with automatic rifles but not engaging with the population.
Now the soldiers will take on the role of supplement in the NYPD, helping with random searches of bags and backpacks and other police activity.
They will also move deeper into the subway system Appearing at more of its 472 stations and riding trains.
Like, this is not CBGBs, New York Dolls, Ramones, Bowie, Warhol, Blondie, New York City.
Let's get on it.
Yeah, we're free.
If I lived in New York right now, I'd be... I'd be frightened.
I've lived in New York before.
If I lived in New York and they militarised the Underground, I'd think it's time to get out.
And we'll be seeing this, I predict, and actually Alex Jones has predicted already, with a good degree more experience and research than we're able to deploy, that we're going to be seeing this more often.
And the good thing about it is we'll know, won't we?
Because they won't just suddenly do it and say it's to pick up sweet wrappers, although God, you know, maybe they do that in Singapore.
They will say it's to protect you.
So watch out for that.
Now you know what to watch out for.
HOKL announced other oppressive measures, including the installation of cameras in every subway car and in the cabs used by drives and conductors.
The Democrats in the state legislature will introduce a bill to bar anyone convicted of a crime of violence on the subways from using the transit system for three years, effectively barring them from living and working in the city, where only the wealthy and upper middle class can go about their daily lives without riding the subway.
Again, this is like hate law stuff, isn't it?
Well, you can't blame us.
If someone's committed a violent crime in a subway, then it's sensible to ban them.
If you commit a crime against one of our workers, one of our personnel, we have a duty to protect them, and we cannot let you ride the subway.
Except, what if they didn't?
And what was the provocation?
And under whose authority?
And who trusts the judiciary now anyway?
And who trusts the military?
And who trusts the police force?
Even the military don't trust the military.
They're setting themselves on fire.
They're living on the brink of poverty while still serving.
There are 40,000 of them homeless right now.
If I see someone in a military uniform, I don't know whether I let them check my bag or flip them a buck.
The terms hate and terror are being more widely used.
To appropriately categorise groups in ways that means that they can be penalised, controlled, criminalised or shut down.
You've all seen videos of a mentally ill kid being dragged out by the police for saying something off-key in public.
You know, wasn't that long ago, oh Tourette's, they've got Tourette's, oh yeah.
They're using this authority in whatever way is convenient.
A terrorist now and for some time has been someone that the centralised authority has a problem with.
An individual or group whose intentions are adversarial to the state.
Now the problem is all of our intentions ought be adversarial to the state because the state Good, because that was terrible!
That was an insurrection!
Primarily domestic order in order to continue to facilitate that.
Secondarily, and other than that, I don't know, putting on things like the Oscars, I
don't know what the other role is.
January 6th, protest as a terrorist.
Good, because that was terrible.
That was an insurrection.
And pro-Palestine, protest as a terrorist.
Well good, because you know those people, they're not like us.
Oh, so are you not noticing the crucial fact that wherever you might feel on the political
spectrum our culture offers us, you can be regarded as a terrorist if you're a nuisance.
Statistics collected in recent years show that the campaign to whip up fears of violence on the subways has no basis in fact... Oh good, right, I mentioned earlier that there'd probably be information available on the amount of attacks that take place.
Here's some information.
Get ready.
NYPD figures showed a 2.6% decrease in subway crime in 2023 compared to 2022, although there was a jump in January 2024 compared to the same month last year.
Probably because they registered statistics differently because they knew they were about to introduce these laws, a cynic might assert, in conjunction with a spate of stories released in high profile and compliant media outlets.
Hey, let me know in the chat if you agree.
According to a separate analysis by the MTA and the New York Times, oh right, yeah, that vast template of opinion, The New York Times, "Violent crimes occur at a rate of
between one and two per million subway rides."
Quick! Get the army down here!
Once every million or two subway rides, there could be a crime!
Well, are there any areas in culture where there's continual crime?
There are.
Do you wanna sort that out?
But a few violent incidents, the knifing of a subway driver, the shooting of a passenger in Brooklyn, have been sensationalised by the media and capitalist politicians of both parties.
Hochul did not conceal the political motives behind her announcement of the troop redeployment.
I'm also going to demonstrate that Democrats fight crime as well, she told MSNBC on Thursday.
This narrative that Republicans have said and hijacked the story that we're soft on crime, that we defund the police.
No.
Not only do we defund the police, we defund and yet still use the military on the subway.
There you go.
Get down there and search bags.
And when you've finished your tour, there's a sleeping bag for you.
Go sleep down there.
The New York Civil Liberties Union said, Instead, a sweeping surveillance state was being established.
One of the key episodes in Trump's preparation of his attempted political coup on January 6th, 2021.
Do with, remember Aaron Bushnall, just a little while ago scrubbed from the internet.
Instead, a sweeping surveillance state was being established.
One of the key episodes in Trump's preparation of his attempted political coup on January 6th,
2021 - you can let me know whether or not you agree that that's what that was - was his threat
to invoke the Insurrection Act during the summer of 2020 and send the military into major American
cities to suppress popular demonstrations against police violence sparked by the murder of George Floyd.
Now a Democratic governor is deploying troops in the largest American city on an equally bogus pretext.
Doesn't matter whether you are at a Black Lives Matter protest or a pro-Trump MAGA protest.
In the end, if you get in their way, you're a terrorist.
You have more in common with one another than you have in common with the media or political systems that are attempting continually to divide you.
It is impossible for the US ruling elite to carry out this policy democratically.
It requires a frontal assault on the democratic rights of the working class and the build-up of the repressive forces over the capitalist state.
So by the time that new measures are introduced that are unpopular, whether it's the increase of war or the increase of authoritarianism, the sight of the military on the streets and transport facilities of major metropolises will be normal and accepted.
Look at the people already just breezing past armed guards on a subway as if it ain't no thing.
Perhaps thinking to themselves, this will protect me from immigrants.
Perhaps thinking to themselves, this will protect me from BLM protesters.
Perhaps thinking to themselves, this will protect me from January 6th insurrectionists.
Whatever they need to put in your mind, To make you more compliant they're willing to put there.
That's why we are very determined, most determined, to put into your heart a spirit of real individual sovereignty and collective representation so that we may oppose this authoritarianism together.
No, here's the fucking news!
Okay, thank you for joining us for this episode.
On Friday, we'll be looking at... The Culture War.
You should join us on Locals.
If you use the code GODISGREAT, you get a month free.
You will get early access to interviews.
You'll be able to join our weekly book club.
Meditate with us every week and get a free exclusive video every week.
Remember, Lee DeBeans is already with us.
Brooke and Ross is already with us.
Kuzaku808 and so many more have joined us.
See you on Friday, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
