FEMINIST DARLING to CULTURAL PARIAH: Nobody is safe - Stay Free 373
Contact Zero Debt USA to see how they can help: https://www.zapmydebt.com/Live at 9am PT / 12pm EST / 5pm BSTJoining me is the journalist and author who fell from the hearts of the mainstream, Naomi Wolf! Once an advisor to Al Gore and Bill Clinton, she was an instrumental voice in the turn of third-wave feminism.Then all of a sudden, the newspapers and journals she had been writing over a decade for had turned on her, and created a hate campaign that led her to be ultimately de-platformed. What happened and what can we learn? See what we uncover as we delve into who really controls the tides of power.She’s also the author of the new book ‘Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith, and Resistance in a New Dark Age’ -https://www.amazon.com/Facing-Beast-Courage-Faith-Resistance/dp/1645022366Support this channel directly here: https://bit.ly/RussellBrand-SupportListen as a podcast: https://podfollow.com/1648125917Check out social medias and more: https://linktr.ee/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 there you awakening wonders of the universe.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
It's an exciting conversation that we are about to have.
Naomi Wolfe, once a darling of the establishment, writer of the seismic and epoch-defining feminist book, The Beauty Myth.
The reason I mention that is because you can use Naomi Wolfe as a kind of barometer of the changes the culture is experiencing, or rather, the changes that the culture is inflicting On everyone else, because if Naomi Wolf is controversial now, to the point of being de-platformed, I don't know, eight times.
If Glenn Greenwald, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, is maligned and marginalized.
If ordinary entertainers, even like, for example, take Jerry Seinfeld, is now sort of controversial, admittedly because of a very particular issue, the conflict in the Middle East and him being a Jewish guy.
It shows you that the culture is becoming, excuse me, my dog's kicking off over there, The culture is itself becoming like a sort of a cannibalizing and peculiar, corrupted institution that prevents communication, that supports and indeed solicits censorship, that facilitates surveillance, and all of these things are covered in the conversation with Naomi.
She's here to talk about her book, Facing the Beast, Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age.
And believe me, by the time you've heard the conversation, the discussion about the pandemic period, censorship, Immigration.
You're going to have a clear idea of why her book's called that.
We'll be with you everywhere for the first 15 minutes.
Then we'll be exclusively on that sweet stream of freedom that we call Rumble.
And remember, coming soon, Russell in residence in Rumble.
I will be in Florida doing a series of very, very special shows with special guests.
Join us for those.
It's not next week, but a week after that.
Not next week, week after that.
Consider becoming an Awakened Wonder then you'll stay up to date with all of our content as well as getting additional exclusive videos like our video on CERN, the CERN which should generate concern, the Hydra Collider and potentially Hellmouth Portal to an interdimensional realm.
It's a pretty good video, you're going to like it.
We meditate every week, we do a Christian book club, you're Love it.
OK, we're going to be with Naomi Wolf now.
We talk about how she went from advising the Clinton campaign and Al Gore to being a very controversial figure.
It will make sense to you when you hear her.
And it will give you some hope, I think, about the possibility of new alliances.
Because when people emerge out of the establishment and become strong anti-establishment voices, I think that is cause for celebration.
And it is in itself rather encouraging.
Here's that conversation now.
Hello Naomi, thank you so much for joining me for this conversation on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
I'm so happy to be here, thank you for having me.
Of course we're here to talk about Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age, your new and terrifyingly titled book.
But firstly, if you'll indulge me, this is the image that came to my mind as I was coming to have this conversation with you.
They say that when trying to understand dark matter, or even discern its existence, they are able to observe how Other particles presumably affected by it have behaved using the analogy that if all of the billiard balls have scattered across the table in this manner there must be some other billiard ball that is
invisible to us, undetectable by us, but nevertheless must be there for these
movements to have happened. And I was wondering if like a journalist like
Chris Hedges or Glenn Greenwald are no longer regarded as champions of legacy
media and if a feminist writer, if that's an appropriate title for you, is
now regarded as a pariah and a comedian and an entertainer like myself has been
marginalized, what is the invisible billiard ball that What is this blob?
What is this entity moving through the culture?
Scattering people that previously would have been darlings of certain aspects of, inverted commas, the liberal establishment.
What are your thoughts of that phenomena, Naomi?
Yeah, it's a great question.
And I love the examples you've chosen, Mr. Brand, because Those are really, you know, all very, we all were establishing figures, right?
We all thought, this is it, you know, we've worked for decades, people know us, we're in the culture, we're part of the culture, we're leaders in the culture, right?
Thoroughly respected, and then in a matter of really moments, you know, blink of an eye, we're all recategorized into kind of cultural outer darkness.
Paradoxically, I mean, the universe is pretty funny, and comical because we're probably all having a bigger
footprint with our audiences now than we did before we were ostracized and sent into outer
darkness.
Um, well, in my case, and probably in your case, though I don't know,
But I'm guessing the other Americans' cases, even though Mr. Greenwald lives in Brazil, the engine was the White House.
two lawsuits by state attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana against the Biden White House
revealed documentation showing that there was a massive, probably continues to this day,
massive censorship and defamation effort by the White House illegally leaning on Twitter,
Facebook, the tech companies, the media, the legacy media to smear us and to de-platform us
and to destroy our reputations around the world.
AI played a role in that.
I didn't understand when I was being de-platformed and smeared the role of AI in journalism, but if you are called something, Mr. Brand, around the world, like a conspiracy theorist or discredited, I'm not sure what your New adjectives are, but mine are conspiracy theorists.
They're only able to do that around the world with AI.
And so we and we also know that millions and millions of dollars went from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and then the U.S.
government, probably the U.K.
government as well, directly to legacy media to quote overcome vaccine hesitancy.
And that went to the BBC, millions to the BBC.
Millions to The Guardian, millions to NPR, The New York Times, and so on.
So that's some of the invisible billiard ball, in my understanding.
Yes it's extraordinary that it's in a way as old and almost as hokey as good old-fashioned corporate interest leaning into media outlets a relationship that's evidently native and embedded rather than novel but it's interesting that you mentioned this The period of these twin rising entities, the ability of AI to impose simultaneous censorship and surveillance, and I guess those two ideas are necessarily interlinked, and the period of the pandemic, I feel that
It's an epochal event in terms of nothing after it is quite the same as before it, even though perhaps in a way nothing especially unique happened during that period, merely the amplification of existing trends.
Before we move into that catalytic event, I wonder if you might tell us, for those who don't know, a little about something we alluded to in our first Rather grand question that involved dark matter and billiard balls, that you were like a much-fated, adored and admired feminist author that the beauty myth would have been seen at the very vanguard of feminism and might have had you sort of loathed by, you know, what I'm guessing here, sort of like conservative American Republican type figures that might align around ideas that sort of currently define libertarianism.
That you were an advisor, I understand, to Bill Clinton and Al Gore.
I mean, you are someone that is at the heart, cherished heart of the establishment, and in a way, a figure of the kind of liberal left that I would have unthinkingly regarded myself as a part of.
A kind of champagne socialist, albeit a sober one.
A kind of anti-establishment lefty that's been through Hollywood.
I wonder if you can talk us through the stations on the cross of going from being an advisor to Al Gore and Bill Clinton to being someone who, you know, like pre-regular your Wikipedia page is updated to ensure no one removes the term conspiracy theorist, which I know appears just above supporter of Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, as if those two figures are somehow like bogeymen of some conspiracy.
Right.
Well, yes, it was a fun life, wasn't it?
I mean, it was very comfortable in the arms of the champagne liberal left.
It was a dramatic departure.
So just for the record, I didn't advise Bill Clinton directly, I advised his campaign, and I did advise Al Gore directly and advised his campaign.
But you're right, I was, you know, deep in the heart of the establishment.
I was part of the establishment.
That's part of, thank God, that's part of how I understood very early what the establishment was up to with the pandemic.
Because I know how they operate, and I know that they can do pretty much anything amoral or murderous because their self-regard is so strong.
Because they can rationalize, because they have so much disrespect for the lives and autonomy of quote-unquote ordinary people.
But how did it happen for me?
Do you mean with the Stations of the Cross, with my ejection from that world?
It's very simple, it's very ironic.
I've been known, for those of your audience who may not be familiar with my work, I became a legacy media figure for 35 years after I wrote a book called The Beauty Myth, and all of my books Until recently, it's been about women's issues, and specifically sexual and reproductive health issues for women, as well as civil rights issues for everybody.
And that was my beat.
It wasn't new.
Like, I broke the story about silicone breast implants being dangerous.
You know, I've covered thalidomide.
I've covered estrogen levels being too high in birth control pills.
I've covered anorexia and bulimia, women's health issues.
So, on one specific day, In June of 2021, I tweeted that women were starting to report, and this is eyewitness, women's eyewitness reports of their own bodies, right?
Which, that is for a journalist, no better initial source, primary source report from an eyewitness.
That they were having menstrual dysregulation and sometimes serious menstrual problems upon receiving the mRNA injection.
So I literally tweeted that that was happening and that it required more investigation.
Literally what I've been doing for 35 years.
Overnight, there was this furore in the media, including publications, Mr. Brand, that I've written for for decades.
Like The Guardian.
I was a columnist at The Guardian.
Like The Sunday Times of London.
I was a columnist at The Sunday Times.
You know, on and on and on.
And also, overnight, I was deplatformed from all the social media platforms.
And as I mentioned, my Wikipedia bio changed overnight in a uniform way, as you mentioned, with conspiracy theorists at the top.
You know, all my honors, Rhodes Scholar, Defill from Oxford, you know, pushed way down.
And every weird thing anyone had ever said about me was surfaced to the top, making me look like a crazy person.
And then I just became non-person in the legacy media.
My editors wouldn't let me, you know, they just ignored me, silenced me, but over and over, impressively, in a way, to me, when I was mentioned, it was as a crazy ghost, you know?
And meanwhile, I continued to report this story into 2022, 2023, when Under my company's daily cloud and news sites, Aegis, 3,250 scientific and medical volunteers convened to read through the Pfizer documents.
We broke story after story after story out of 450,000 documents released under court order
that were internal Pfizer documents, showing that indeed, that first tweet of mine
was the start of a massive story with catastrophic impacts for humanity.
In the Pfizer documents, the centerpiece was how to destroy human reproduction.
And so when the White House de-platformed me, they already knew because Pfizer was giving the FDA
and the CDC these reports, that Pfizer had made charts, spreadsheets
of women having, in their trials, in their studies, having horrific menstrual problems, agonizing problems,
bleeding every day, bleeding twice a month, passing tissue, hemorrhaging.
Disabling problems by the tens of thousands in each subject line on these charts.
They knew they were destroying women reproductively and the Pfizer documents show exactly how they destroyed women and men reproductively.
And now fast forward, predictably, we're looking at a 13 to 20 percent drop in live births in Western Europe and North America.
So that's why I got silenced.
We have to stop this conversation here because it's becoming too controversial and it would be, I suppose, prone to the kind of censorship that we know goes on in legacy media spaces.
And whilst Google once might have been considered an avant-garde plucky outsider, that's hardly the truth now.
They cut their content in accordance with WHO guidelines, even while the WHO Attempt to supplant democracy in your country.
You know about that treaty by now, I'm sure.
So click the link in the description to see the answer to that question.
You've only got a few seconds.
Click the link.
Join us over there.
This is brilliant.
The immigration bit is going to blow your mind.
Yes, that is why you got silenced, because what you were doing was providing empirical evidence and credible journalism in an area where if credible journalism and empirical evidence are extracted, what remains sounds like, forgive the word, hysterical conspiratorial conjecture.
And it's because I, you know, I, because of the kind of spaces that I occupy, I'm aware of the, you know, this is about population control.
This is about reducing birth rates.
These kind of ideas exist in, um, You know, I'm sure you're aware in online spaces, sometimes adjacent to, not theories necessarily, hypotheses and notions that are kind of a little unappealing and unattractive.
So the more we have people that are able to, by doing what they've always done, demonstrate that something Curious took place around 2019 and the subsequent years.
I'm fascinated to learn that, of course, what you've always done is taken first-person accounts from women about their health, the impact that the culture and social conditioning and sociology and unchallenged assumptions have on female identity and female physical and mental wellness.
Then you continue to do that and just say, oh wow, this product, you know, but suddenly what it makes me question is what role were you playing either unconsciously or certainly without knowing?
In the establishment prior to that.
It's easy for me as a Hollywood person to recognize, because I imagine it's much more overt and obvious.
If you're like me, come from the UK, you go into Hollywood, you enter into this machine.
This is your agent, this is your lawyer, this is your PR, this is the this.
And they do that to every person who they think that might make money.
and some people make billions, some people make millions, some people make nothing.
And you're just a commodity, you're an object moving into a machine,
and then when you're no longer suitable for that machine, it dispatches with you, dispenses with you.
And so I wonder, obviously, in spite of the fact that I would,
I wonder what has changed, because I would have thought
that the work you did previously was actually valuable and had a lot of integrity
and was important and interesting ideas about the assumptions we make about beauty
and the sort of the incarceration of women in sort of ideas around beauty.
But oddly, the...
Cultural spaces shifted significantly around feminism particularly mostly I suppose in relation to ideas around gender and in particular transgender ideas and your style of journalism in particular as a result of what you've explained became untenable and verboten and What does that suggest to you?
Does it make you question the value of the work you were doing up to that point?
Does it make you question the credibility of the work you were doing up to that point?
One of my mates once said, sorry for going on, one of my mates once said, you know, you see a billboard of yourself on Sunset Boulevard and you think you're a real big shot, but that's just a side effect of someone else making money out of you.
And also I sometimes think when figures emerge, whether it's Steven Pinker or Yuval Noah Harari, these fated intellectuals, I now get the sense that there is some sort of, if not shadowy committee, some blob, some force, that's like, that intellectual's useful.
Those ideas, push those ideas around materialism, push those ideas around atheism, or whatever it happens to be.
So I just wonder if you have a feeling about how you were utilised prior to banishment, if we can use those terms.
Yeah, well, you're going right to causes, Mr. Branch, and I think you're right.
I don't question the value of the work I did, because I think part of why I had to be taken off the chessboard, and by the way, the kind of trying to get The chessboard actually predated the pandemic to 2019, but it was predictable.
If there's going to be a massive assault on the human species' ability to reproduce, who is going to reliably and credibly speak out against it or break the news to people?
You know, it's a handful of people at the platform that I had, and so if you were planning this rollout, and we know that with event 21-201, I think it was planned, you know, I will take me off the chessboard in that case, as well as other people who might be willing to raise the alarm.
But let me speak to your question, such a good one, about the production culture.
I And also, I want to say, I didn't want to believe it was a depopulation effort.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
I go right to the evidence.
But being a political consultant in the past led me to reason backward with evidence.
And your initial analogy about the bowling balls is a really good one.
Political consultants know that history is manufactured.
Right, you're in the rooms in which plans are made to tell a story, to get a population to believe a thing that will then allow them to act en masse or allow action to be done to them.
So as a result of having been in those rooms, I do look at history or current events and think who benefits Where's the, you know, where's the money going?
And then I reasoned backward to who put that in place.
And that's a very good way to figure out what's going on.
Because you know that the stories are usually manufactured.
And that's why the term conspiracy theorist is such a red herring and such a kind of toxic term.
Because I've been in the rooms where the pinnacles of power deploy themselves in the population.
And literally, it is a conspiracy, you know, every time, in the sense that it's powerful people getting together with no press release, often with no paper trail at all.
It's very important not to have a paper trail in many of these meetings, because you don't want to be subpoenaed.
You don't want evidence.
Things are done verbally often.
You know, you don't make an announcement.
You don't tell the press.
And then the plan is executed.
I don't know what you call that, if not a conspiracy theory or conspiracy.
It's the technical definition of conspiracy.
So I really hope people drop this term conspiracy theory and use their critical reasoning all
the time, but go back to old-fashioned journalism and old-fashioned critical thinking in which
you're allowed to have a hypothesis.
And when the evidence confirms your hypothesis, then it's confirmed.
Otherwise, we're being kind of gaslit into never having a hypothesis or never reasoning backwards from events.
All right, leaving that aside, I do now agree and believe that a lot of culture is manufactured.
And I do agree with you that you and I were probably kind of allowed to surface in the ways that we did.
I wouldn't say necessarily for nefarious—well, yeah, for kind of big-picture chessboard reasons of which we were unaware, the same way we were taken down or, you know, the attempts were made to take us down in a way beyond normal criticism, right?
Let's face it, like there were, you know, highly sophisticated deployments of opinion in social media and commentators in both of our cases trying to discredit us.
I think that in my case, my work happened to fit a big picture attack on the family
and kind of fetishization of female autonomy and kind of critique of femininity, right?
Traditional femininity that played into the hands of these kind of invisible globalists
whose final kind of effort to destroy the family, destroy love, destroy sexuality, destroy
seduction, destroy women in particular, has reached its fruition.
So I think I was an unwitting asset.
My husband was in the intelligence community for many decades and he's kind of taught me
that often people don't know they're being used, right?
They don't know they're useful.
They have good intentions.
They're good scholars or good business people or good whatever, but they are serving an agenda of which they are unaware.
They're being promoted in ways in which they were unaware, and honestly, you know, my career was kind of Boom!
Out of thin air.
I was 26 years old.
I was everywhere.
I was so famous.
And then for 35 years, I was so famous.
You know, book after book after book.
And you know, I'm talented.
I'm a good writer.
I'm a good researcher.
But in retrospect, there was a lot that was probably not organic about that because I think these people needed a face for For versions of feminism that then became horribly monstrosized.
I didn't do it, but I probably inadvertently set the stage for it.
Which is what we've got now, where young women think it's selfish to have babies, or that it's objectifying themselves to wear a dress, or that they should never be nice to men because that's serving the patriarchy.
And now, you know, we've got this catastrophic drop.
It's successful Heterosexual marriages, successful relationships between men and women.
I never intended that.
That wasn't part of my feminism.
But I think that I may have been kind of ushered in to kind of prepare the way for many distortions of a kind of girl power message.
Without our sponsors, we're little more than plucky outsiders, mere ducklings in the giddying rapids of the stream of life.
Here's a message from our sponsors now.
Debt can bring sleepless nights.
Insanely high interest credit card loans and repayments are very difficult to make.
Almost impossible.
There is a way out though.
There is a way to be free from the debt trap.
You've heard me talk about this trap.
Now here's a solution.
The organization that used to be known as Pivotal Debt Solutions are now known as Zero Debt USA and they have an aggressive Whoa, new strategy to end debt faster.
Zero Debt USA cut or eliminate interest.
They help you owe less and get rid of all of the letters, threatening phone calls, all that stuff.
They find solutions to end your debt permanently.
Talk to Zero Debt USA for free to find out how fast they can help you get out of debt and into some sensible financial management.
Visit zapmydebt.com.
That's zapmydebt.com.
Zapmydebt.com.
Thank you.
God, that's very brilliant and incredibly, what do I want to say,
open-minded and spiritually agile to consider that because I like to insist that I'm brilliant.
And all this has happened because I'm brilliant.
But like you can see the utility, I'm thinking about what role I performed in the function,
kind of a revivification of the idea of hedonism, a kind of sexually charged androgyny,
a trivialization of promiscuity.
There was so many things.
It was in also as well, there were kind of preemptive moments, Naomi,
where I sensed the culture was toxic in the places that most claimed to be pure.
When I, you know, in the new ecclesiastical models, in the new media church, and ultimately I could only be heading towards that most Pious of organisations here, The Guardian, because I remember when I first sort of spoke out about politics, which was so sort of, I don't know, vernacular and casual.
I went on Jeremy Paxman's show Newsnight, which is a sort of a UK version of 60 Minutes
or something with a hard-hitting journalist who kind of defined the space in this country
for a while.
He was the one that would take down politicians with aggressive interviews and demand they
told the truth.
And on that show once, I said I'd never voted and I would never vote and no one I'd grow
up with votes because everyone just almost institutionally regards politics as some irrelevant
bagatelle that's not for them and doesn't make any difference to their lives.
And it caused such consternation and outrage.
But I could tell because social media was not where it is now, but there was enough
going on to recognize when you'd hit a nerve that I was onto something and fool that I
was.
I thought it was actually sort of about me because of my aforementioned tendencies towards
self-regard.
But what I subsequently noted is that in It was organizations that you would regard as liberal that were the most ferocious, that were the most cruel, that were the most threatened, and it's revealing, it's revealing that you perform a function in the culture when you are not useful for that function anymore, you have to be dispensed with.
What's particularly interesting about your journey is in a sense you're You were always doing the same thing but somehow the wind changed and you were a different role was required.
I've heard it said before that the motivating idea behind many of these cultural movements
is a kind of, gosh, is a kind of a god slayer mentality that at its heart wants to remove
all possibility of a universal principle and to place self, self, the most sort of, the
ugly incarnation of what self might be in a kind of deified role, practically a deity
in so much as it ordains reality and there is no principle to countenance or obstruct
or overrule the idea that what you want, i.e.
the expression of your petty and trivial selfish desires, ought never be met with, diluted by, challenged by, or limited by ideas like community, grace, kindness, beauty, love, sacrifice.
All these ideas are just cast out and instead of them this, I have to say, rather demonic idea of self-fulfillment and I can see why I as a sort of
the little addict that I you know to some degree still am but God knows I'm working on it
like as a sort of a great Aurea Boris of consuming would be a useful celebrity let's
say in the way that perhaps some of your brilliant writing was temporarily useful. If I
can say for a moment one of the things I liked while looking at Wikipedia and having to
If I can say for a moment, one of the things I liked while looking at Wikipedia and having
to scan through the bits where it says you're a conspiracy theorist and not to be trusted,
scan through the bits where it says you're a conspiracy theorist and not to be trusted I like
I like it that you once spoke out about some of those ISIS beheading videos and the quote
it that you once or spoke out about some of those ISIS beheading videos and like the quote that's you
know in all fairness given on the Wikipedia page suggests that you were applying a level of
that's, in all fairness given, on the Wikipedia page suggests that you were applying a level
of journalistic integrity that remains important and necessary.
Are you aware of the quote I'm talking about, Naomi, and the story that I'm talking about?
I am, but I can't confirm anything that Wikipedia quotes because, you know, it's so long ago and a lot of it doesn't sound like me.
But anyway, what I did say, and I'll stick to it, is that those ISIS beheading videos were simply not verified.
I wasn't saying they weren't true.
I wasn't saying they were not true.
I was saying they were from a single source.
And I'm an old-fashioned journalist who was trained that if it's just one source, and it's not a confirmed source, it's not fact yet.
You need two confirmed sources for something to go on the record journalistically.
That's really important, as it turns out that I recognized that drumbeat at that time as we've got to invade Syria, we've got to invade Syria, we've got to invade Syria, the Western powers have to, and there were all these atrocity stories, true or not true, we didn't know, and then it turns out that most of them came from One source, which turned out to be a corrupted source with ties to the intelligence agency.
So I was right to question it.
Of course, no one ever goes back and adds to Wikipedia, you know, and Naomi was right to make sure that these sources were confirmed before we sent soldiers to fight dirty wars, you know, dirty undeclared wars.
No one listened to me.
They sent soldiers to fight dirty undeclared wars and people got killed in Syria.
But always, especially knowing the history.
I mean, I have a really good education, you know, thank God.
And over and over again, when people, when Rich people want to make money off of conflict.
They will drum up atrocity stories to get governments to go along, to get populations to be fired up with war fever.
You know, World War I, World War II, the Crimean War.
I mean, you can go back to as far back as there's been kind of modern media or modernism, and you see these This wave of atrocity stories preceding, okay, fine, we'll go to war, we'll send our usually working class or, you know, lower middle class sons, more recently sons and daughters, to fight and die for Richmond's dirty wars where people make lots of money or other interests are served.
So that's just always what I was warning people, you know, and you've got that with the Yellow Cake story with going, You know, going into Iraq, going into Afghanistan, you've got this pattern over and over and over, and people really need to be sophisticated readers of media now, which is what I was trying to teach them to be, to understand that you need to question the sourcing for every shock horror story you're being told by the government, by the media, because if you don't have two good sources,
You need to be suspicious.
And the last three or four years, Mr. Brand, of the pandemic are such a great example of that.
All these horrifying, terrifying stories turned out to be predicated on lies and nonsense.
And if people had raised more questions earlier about the sourcing or things like the COVID map that the Office of National Statistics in Britain was showing on every major news site in England to drive people into lockdowns and, you know, not seeing their neighbors, not having a cup of tea with their neighbors in their garden, businesses closing, you know, forced, coerced injections, essentially, that are now killing and sterilizing and disabling British people.
Um, you know, if they'd asked the questions I asked at the Office of National Statistics, where can we see the data sets?
There are no data sets.
They don't make the data sets public.
You can't see them.
They were doing things like holding back the machine counting over holidays and weekends in Britain.
So as to create an artificial spike, if you had Christmas with Grandma, oh look, you've infected Grandma, Grandma's gonna die now.
That was totally fake!
And no one in Britain realized it at the time, and the media was completely conflicted.
Yes, it's astonishing that even when reporting on or inquiring about something as evidently barbaric as the beheading of service personnel or embassy workers or whoever it was, that it's worth inquiring as to where the information has
come from and in the case that we were referring to is coming from an organization
called CITE which as you said is government funded and now it's commonly understood that
numerous apparently independent organizations receive funding from CIA cutouts and then
state funded organizations like the BBC as you said received significant funding from groups
who had an interest at least in propagating and popularizing COVID injection or mRNA
injection uptake and because of, I I wonder what I feel and in a sense I'm referring back to my earlier question about what is this invisible force that is moving in the culture.
Partly what I sense we are tackling Naomi is that in our hands now we have the ability to communicate and challenge assumptions so quickly and so effectively through social media and
particularly how independent media and independent journalism might deploy that technology and
what might be implicit politically from that, the kind of political movements and social
movements that might be born of the type of consensus and type of clarity, transparency and
consensus that could be born of that.
We are seeing, but it is disguising itself, the real-time opposition and attempt to constrict,
control and And break down what would otherwise be, it seems to me at least, a momentum towards decentralization, more liberty, greater communication, transparency, clarity, ability for self-governance, ability for demonopolization, immediate intercommunication, new alliances.
As that potential is felt, what we're witnessing is the creation of new categories like misinformation, malinformation, disinformation, manufacture of surveillance, legitimization of different types of social credit score, and citizen management techniques, and I would say kind of smoke bombs continually being dropped in the culture that
might mean that when any two human beings meet, they enter into that pact or that what
could be a good faith interaction with loaded with "Oh, I wonder what this person thinks
about trans issues. I wonder what they think about racial issues. Is this person an opponent of
mine?" They're sort of creating of an insidious mistrust at the most basic social level. I
guess that wasn't a question, that was an announcement.
Forgive me.
I suppose what we could pursue is that when you talked about the legitimisation of war, we are, I think, seeing now with both the Ukraine-Russia conflict and escalating events in the Middle East, the potential for dissent and the difficulty in creating a sense of broad domestic uh support for those kind of conflicts um do do you think
that do you agree with that assessment do you think it's becoming harder for america to be
involved in wars that that um don't directly affect american people um well there's definitely a i mean
first of all i want to say i agree with you that there's a systematic effort um because of the
I mean, first of all, I want to say I agree with you that there's a systematic effort
because of the implications of the internet and other forms of communication
implications of the internet and other forms of communication in allowing us to be empowered with
in allowing us to be empowered with knowledge from a grassroots level up and create new institutions
that can bypass the gatekeepers.
For sure, it's a race right now, right?
It's a race against time.
As these grassroots efforts grow and proliferate, we make new institutions.
The bad guys are definitely trying in very scary ways.
I mean, I worry about Britain and Europe, you know, Western Europe all the time.
Very scary ways to cut that off.
And the race is toward, as you say, central bank digital currency, social credit scores, you know, hate speech laws in Ireland, in France, you know, Britain, the cradle of free speech, the cradle of democracy.
Having shocking restrictions on speech, I'm actually due to either appear or be live-streamed on June 11th at one of your courts because Ofcom, your media watchdog, has taken action against Mark Stein.
A commentator whose show appeared in Britain on GBTV, as I understand, because I had told Mark Stein about what was in the Pfizer documents.
And so Britain got to hear about the reproductive damage in the Pfizer documents, all cracked down on him and his show.
And, you know, this is, this is Britain.
And we didn't, in the complaint, it doesn't say Dr. Wolf said anything that wasn't true.
It said what she said could cause distress and offense.
So that's the state of free speech in Britain right now.
You know, you have to defend it in a court of law against the government, essentially.
But having said all of that, There is an effort to divide us for sure.
And so to the United States and the effort to get the U.S.
to support war, people are seeing, these things are all related, people are seeing in Western Europe and in the United States the impact of the globalist effort to shatter our cultures with mass illegal immigration.
From many places around the world that don't have a memory or a history of democracy, women's equality, and civil rights.
And I am the daughter of an immigrant, granddaughter of immigrants.
I believe in legal immigration.
This is not a racist thing I'm saying, but you can't have a democracy with open borders.
You can't have a democracy in which non-citizens You know, flood into the country against the laws.
Can't.
It's not possible by definition.
And so, and you can't have a culture if the people are coming in from so many different places so quickly that they can't get acculturated to what it means to be American or what it means to be British or what it means to be French.
And that is, again, not a racist thing to say.
Cultures are precious, right?
And Western cultures are also precious.
I'm not saying they're, you know, better in every way than every other culture, but Liberty, democracy, human rights, these took centuries to develop as a social consensus in the West, and intentionally the globalists are flooding my country and your country with people from Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, no history or memory of democracy, and these injections are killing and disabling the people who do have those memories so that, as Ed Dowd says,
You know, who's bringing forth these data sets of people being disabled and dying, wait five years, and you're going to have a completely different demographic with a different institutional memory in Western Europe and North America, in which the globalists can just roll out their neo-feudalism because the people who remember democracy, freedom of speech, human rights, women's rights, equality, accountability, transparency, will be gone or too sick to fight.
All right, so in America what this goes to is nationalism, right?
And in Western Europe as well.
We've been taught, especially people like you and me who've lived on the adorable left, we've been taught that nationalism is a dirty word and that you shouldn't love your country and you shouldn't say, you know, being British is great or being American is great.
But that was a trick.
Nationalism can be very, very beautiful.
It can also be turned to negative ends, of course, like anything.
But there is a resurgence of patriotism and nationalism in America.
And our founding fathers did say, don't get enmeshed in foreign wars.
Take care of yourselves first.
Don't become the world's police, essentially.
So absolutely, we're looking in the U.S.
at 12 to 16 million people having illegally come in over our borders They're mostly fighting each man.
They're mostly being positioned in staging areas around the country, in group housing, given every kind of support and benefit.
And we're really worried about this being a military operation, right?
And same thing's happening in Western Europe.
And we're looking at our veterans waiting six months to get an appointment.
We're looking at our own kids having pathetic educational opportunities, joblessness, and we're really thinking, OK, enough of this.
I mean, that's why Trump is doing so well.
You know, we're going to take care of ourselves.
We're going to close our borders.
We're going to look after our own people.
It's not our war, right?
We have our own war to fight at home.
And I think that's happening in Western Europe as well.
And it's the rise of the right wing parties.
But if the alternative to the right-wing parties is kind of the EU suspending all of your autonomy and rights as subject peoples with no accountability, which it turns out is what the EU is all about, unelected Diplomats deciding what happens in your country, and you get no say in your community, no say, no real democracy at all.
I'm not surprised that right-wing nationalist entities are rising up, and a lot of them are making a lot of sense.
It's fascinating and terrifying what you were saying and when earlier on you indicated that you would with your own journalism work backwards to try to calculate what the various motivations might be and who benefits from certain policies or ideas and I feel that When we what we're discussing is control and the ability to manage citizens creating various areas of potential discourse that you cannot discuss is a very useful way along with the category of conspiracy theorist of preventing even speculation
on a subject as potentially explosive as that which you have just outlined, which is a controversial
subject on online spaces, replacement theory, and yet further to observe that these are
mostly males, which is something that people have commonly observed about immigration.
And I suppose the more neutral, shall we say, if you can even use a word like neutral now,
a take on that would be, well, those are the people that would come looking for opportunities
for work.
Go on.
I'm sorry, am I interrupting?
No, it's... A bit, but like, you're so interesting.
I'd rather, like, it's not often I say that I'd rather listen to you than myself, but I'll say it today, I would rather listen to you, but just let me finish the thought, but please pick up on that, that what I've just said is inaccurate in terms of, oh, the assumption will be an economic or social economic one.
That not being able to talk about immigration and culture and nationalism and whether there's another version of nationalism.
At the time of Brexit, a friend of mine whose opinion I really value, the filmmaker Adam Curtis, said, you know, why was there never a, inverted commas, left-wing take on Brexit?
Why was it only regarded as a nationalistic issue and a racist and immigration,
rather than what's plainly emotionally taking place is a sense that we are not in control,
that there's a professional metropolitan class that don't care about ordinary people,
that talk about them disparagingly, that are always looking for opportunities to vilify them
while creating policies that directly affect them, that are not taking into account the economic impact
of, for example, and most obviously, immigration.
So I'm interested also in the idea that as the various sort of members
of what would have once been the intelligentsia, glitterati, or whatever category I once belonged to,
are sort of bumped off by the sort of the cancelling and deplatforming culture.
There's this potential new consensus that might say, you know, the unthinkable, unsayable heresy that, wow, if you are interested in democracy, maybe you have an obligation to vote for Trump rather than Biden because this sort of banalizing, bureaucratic, Huxley-esque, nightmarish, aggregating, accumulating control in order to protect you for your safety and convenience vision of politics is more terrifying than the rather Sort of caricatured 20th century atavism of a strongman.
That's not so fucking frightening as what's being proposed and what's being moved towards.
So I wonder if you could pick up on my misconception and mischaracterisation of the nature of this immigration around gender and working age and unpack some of that other stuff.
Yeah, no, I wasn't saying that you're wrong.
I was saying people who say, oh, it's normal to have military-age men with military haircuts, whose clothing all seems to come from the same place, who all have the physique of soldiers, pour into your country and mine.
That is not normal.
Again, I've read a ton of history.
I know the history of my own family's waves of immigration to the United States.
And I've been in conflict areas and refugee camps around the world, and I've seen, you know, refugees.
They don't look like this.
They come in families.
Or, like my grandpa, they wait six years and work.
To bring their families in legally so that they can be Americans or British or, you know, whatever it is they want to be.
They, you know, if you look at people pouring in, I'll stick to my country because I haven't looked at the streams of immigrants into Britain or Western Europe as carefully, but in our country, the people who are flowing in, there are no disabled people.
There are no elders, like none, right?
There are pretty much No babies.
There are childbearing age women.
Everyone's very fit.
They don't carry luggage.
They are having, and I did original reporting on this and wrote this story, there's a three-country staging area south of the United States that the combination of the UN and our own State Department has put together to solicit support Feed, shepherd, ferry, transition, and then bus and fly these millions of people of military age and military demeanor to certain incredibly sensitive areas around the country
O'Hare Airport in Chicago, Boston Logan in Boston, and then to house them, which has never happened before in the history of U.S.
immigration.
Not my grandparents, not my dad, never did the government give anyone from anywhere, let alone descendants of enslaved people in our country, free group housing in barracks-type accommodations.
And that's what you're seeing in the United States.
And again, my husband is a former military intelligence, and he points out that these newcomers march in cadence, and they stand at parade rest, and there seems to be, like, officers from whom they're taking direction, if you analyze the videos of people coming in.
So, it's incredibly concerning because if it's the UN doing it, which it is, and the State Department, then what you've got is, again, reasoning backward.
Reasoning backward it looks like an invasion, right?
Reasoning backward is like, look at what happened on October 7th.
And please let me know if our video and audio are fine because you're not moving.
But what happened on October 7th in Britain is that the southern border of Israel... I'm sorry, let me say it again.
What happened on October 7th in Israel is that a handful of terrorists Crossed the southern border and brought a whole country to its knees, changed the outcome of Middle East history, took hostages in a heartbeat, and the ripple effects provoked a terrible, terrible loss of life in Gaza.
And there's conflict in the area again.
Well, imagine what could happen in Britain or in America in a heartbeat if, you know, of these 19 million people, 12 to 19 million people, if a handful are terrorists or a handful are military.
And J.J.
Carroll, my husband Brian O'Shea's co-host for his podcast about this, is a former border agent.
He said that terrorist-aligned individuals who used to be interrogated by the FBI and deported
are just being waved through and strategically positioned around the country.
Well, at a signal, these people could create a mass hostage situation
that could bring America to its knees, or Britain to its knees.
So it's a catastrophic national security threat.
And I've been to countries where there's militias and cartels and no rule of law.
And that's what we're seeing in America right now.
The police are being told to stand down.
The newcomers are being encouraged to become police.
They're being encouraged to become healthcare workers.
And so what you're getting is what we do in other countries, which is the creation of a A class of people who have no allegiance to the United States, who are not citizens, who broke the law to get here, who are being promoted and empowered above the level of Americans, given arms, given authority, who are basically creating a fifth column from within, you know, bit by bit by bit, to subjugate our country.
We're going to be hard to subjugate because we're armed, but Britain and Western Europe are not going to be hard to subjugate.
Because you don't have arms, you don't even have representational democracy.
Oh no!
That was, I suppose, while you were unpacking that terrifying theory, I sort of felt myself caught up by a realization that I had had previously during the pandemic period, that the driving idea behind the pandemic already had a simple moral problem built into it in so much as we were invited to lock down our whole countries to take this medication because why why because life is sacred because we love one another and we care about one another and we must protect people and i remember thinking
That's not how we run the country.
That's not the guiding principle.
And similarly, with regard to the arguments for not even questioning or discussing immigration, The idea is human life is sacred we have to protect people and particularly for like you know as we've returned to many times over the course of our conversation the former denizens of liberal spaces we would think well you know America because of their imperialist misadventure across the world my country because of its history of invading and devastating and pillaging
Nations across the world, we have an obligation and a duty to support the ravaged lands and displaced people harmed by, you know, not our personal, but by our nation's historic abuses of those territories.
And yet, of course, We seldom see in the way our democracies, is the word I'll use I suppose for now, are run, that the type of compassion being invited, demanded, summonsed, used to shut down and censor and control conversation in both the pandemic period and with regard to this issue, which I know is a very contentious one that we're discussing now, the reason to not talk about it is because you don't talk about that, you bloody racist, you know, it's like it's...
Yes, and I don't see that kind of compassion elsewhere.
I don't see it when, you know, even now while there are trials in the United Kingdom around, for example, AstraZeneca and other sort of vaccine injuries, the legal costs are being funded by the taxpayer, any payouts will be funded by the taxpayer, the development of the vaccines similarly, it It just feels like a racket, Naomi, and discussing the racket has to be censored because otherwise people would start realising it's a racket.
Yeah, I mean, you've said things that are really important.
There's, and again, AI can really do this now at a scale beyond human beings, but why do we have a sense, if we're polite people in liberal circles, that you cannot talk about immigration?
And I've spent many years in Europe and in Britain, especially, and I remember getting into horrible fights when Brexit was being discussed because I had, with my British friends, I was a graduate student in Britain because
I had looked for the digital database of EU laws, as well as British law, and I found that it's very hard to know what the laws are in Britain, or how to affect bills that are being debated to become law, or even find them in the past, right?
And in the EU, it's literally impossible.
You literally cannot find what's being presented for debate in the European Union Parliament,
let alone affect it.
You can't lobby.
And that's when I found out that you really aren't a democracy, that they're going to
take away your rights if you join the European Union, and that you barely have rights in
Britain because most people really don't know how to stop a bill, how to affect legislation.
They shut off the avenues for civic engagement in Britain.
It's kind of a sham.
It's not quite as much of a sham as in Europe, but it is difficult.
And I remember having horrible fights with some of my favorite people and really being called a racist because I was warning if you Stay in the EU, you won't have any ability.
You won't be a democracy.
The system isn't red tape.
That's the fake discourse.
It's run by bureaucrats in Brussels, which you can't really understand, but it's all fine, because it's a metademocracy.
No, it's not a metademocracy.
It's straight-out fascism.
And what they did is so clever, Mr. Brandt, because for decades, The EU looks so good.
It's like free museums and childcare and, you know, be nice to gay people and, you know, free education.
It's so nice, right?
You're like, what's wrong with this?
This is paradise.
And Europe really was paradise.
But what was clear to me, even when it looked so good, is that this, once I found out about the legislative non-existence process, is that they could pull a string and it would all collapse in absolute tyranny on the people of Europe.
And that's what we're seeing now.
There is no democratic superstructure.
Look at people, you know, rioting in France or in Italy or in Ireland against immigration.
They have no legislative Leverage at all!
All they can do is riot, which isn't very effective, honestly.
I mean, it's better than nothing.
But they need to take back the legislative process.
It's so serious.
But I was called a racist.
And so where I was going with this is...
Give them kind of taboo areas, right, around the issue of immigration or other things you're not supposed to discuss, like raising questions about the injection.
That's what people have to get in the habit of looking for.
Why is there a number of censorship?
Why am I scared to raise something?
If you're scared to talk about something, There's a story there.
There's an agenda there.
We didn't used to be scared of talking about things in a liberal democracy like Britain and America.
We were supposed to.
That was our job as citizens and as media.
So I really hope people take that with them, that that's the tell.
If there's a number of shame around a certain subject, it becomes a third rail.
You've got to talk about it.
Well Naomi, it seems somewhat impertinent to ask what the reasoning is behind the title of your book, Facing the Beast, Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age, which prior to talking to you, I wondered if it might be Cassandra-ish, hyperbolic, but having spoken to you for an hour, It's pretty clear what we're discussing and it's also clear what's required in order to oppose it.
I'm very excited to receive and read your book.
There's a link in the description if you want to order a copy of it and yeah, I'll be reading it.
Naomi, it's been so fascinating to speak with you.
I found it really, really rather gripping and exciting.
Thank you.
Thank you for having me.
Take care.
I hope you enjoyed that conversation with Naomi Wolf.
Remember, you can get her new book, Facing the Beast, Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age by clicking the link that we're posting now in the chat.
I'm excited to read it myself, as I think I made pretty clear.
Next week, we've got some incredibly special shows coming up.
Monday, we are talking about the march to global war.
Are we on the precipice?
You're going to love this show.
That's Monday's show.
On Wednesday, My favourite thing.
Conspiracy theory to conspiracy fact.
We talked about that a lot with Naomi just now, didn't we?
Yesterday's conspiracy is today's news.
Think about the number of times during the pandemic period and around subjects such as war and censorship, you've been told, that's a conspiracy theory, you're nuts, you're out of your mind.
We now know that generating fear and self-censorship in those areas is one way of controlling the conversation.
And on Friday's show, we'll be talking about the deep state.
Part of that will be formed with a conversation with Mike Benz that you're gonna Absolutely love, and the reason there's only three shows next week is I'm taking some time off to prepare for Russell in residence at Rumble.
We'll be talking to Chris Pavlovsky, the CEO of Rumble, and a lot more guests in that space, and a lot more guests in that state, if you know what I mean.
Consider becoming an Awake and Wonder to get all of our additional content.
Remember, we've got an amazing video on CERN and some of the conspiracy theories around it, as well as the quite complex facts of what they're actually doing there explicitly.
Not to say that they're not trying to open a hell mouth.
Nothing would surprise me anymore.
Welcome to our new members, people who have joined our Locals community, PissedPatriot82, RealNoAgendaOG, MidnightProJDog7070, and Micham.
Join us next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different, free, very special shows.
