Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 31, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:59:37

EXPOSED: Who REALLY controls Biden, Google, and Ukraine - Stay Free 376

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	you you
	you Brought to you by Pfizer.
	In this video, you're going to see the future.
	I'm.
	Hello there, you Awakening Wanderers.
	Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
	It was gonna be a Tiny Hat special, but I am not willing to take the abuse on the tiny hat.
	But this, this I'll wear.
	Let me know if you know in the comments what that is a reference to.
	Not just the tiny hat, but oh that I'll wear.
	Now, if you're not awakened yet, I wonder why, excuse me, wow, I'm so awakened I can barely communicate with you.
	If you're not awakened one day yet, become one right now.
	If you click the red button on your screen you can watch locals and join our conversations, additional meditations, our book club and our weird and out there exclusive videos.
	Next week, Russell in residence In Rumble.
	It's the RRR week.
	We're gonna have special guests and we will be live at Rumble's headquarters out there in Sarasota, Florida.
	Maybe we'll be talking to some of Florida's most famous residents.
	So stay tuned for that.
	Now, we know that elected governments aren't really running our so-called democracies.
	However, Who is?
	Someone's got to be running it!
	Today we'll be exposing the deep state like never before, calling to the stage our first witness, congresswoman, insider, sort of superhero looking person if you ask me.
	Here is Tulsi Gabbard talking personally about Where the lawmakers interface with the lawbreakers and the lawbenders.
	It's Tulsi Gabbard on the lobbying industry.
	We'll be talking to her first.
	Also, the former state debt cyber expert, Mike Benz, will be telling us about deep state agencies.
	I love Mike Benz.
	We're going to have Chief Strategist to the White House, Steve Bannon, on centralised and decentralising power.
	We'll be with you on YouTube for about the first 15 minutes.
	Then, where will we be?
	Basking in freedom!
	So we'll show you this bit for nothing but then come over, join us, become an awakened wonder, go deep with this stuff.
	Here now is Tulsi Gabbard talking directly about her experiences with the lobbying industry and just look at how she recalls almost with sort of a nostalgic pang the strangeness of knowing how government really works.
	Something we've known for a little while but it's always good to have insider information, isn't it?
	Let's have a look.
	Having spent a good number of years within the system, do you have anything that you can share with us about the actual practical abilities of a man like Joe Biden?
	Because someone like me, who's just anti-establishment in the most broad and sweeping way, would assume that whoever were in the White House, whether it was a socially capable individual like Barack Obama or George W. Bush, who at the time was kind of regarded, you know, attacked as being a kind of a dope and a joke and stuff like that.
	I wonder how much actual executive power is wielded by a figure like Joe Biden.
	And the recent claim that he speak only in soundbites and do less PR and much short speeches seems to be an indication that they're acknowledging his senescence and cognitive decline.
	What's your feeling about this man who once was a sort of a pretty potent firebrand, albeit a career congressperson and seemingly pretty corrupt in a bunch of ways based on what I've learned.
	He at least seemed cogent.
	How much actual power is that person capable of wielding?
	How can he make decisions?
	How can he direct power?
	He has an incredible amount of power.
	And over time, we've seen how, and this is something that Congress has either allowed to happen or willingly executed, which is an increase of a transfer of power away from the legislative branch and into the executive branch, into the hands of the White House and the President of the United States.
	It's an unfortunate thing because our system of governance, of course, is set up with three co-equal branches of government.
	But on the issue of war and peace, for example, we've seen that the last, uh, we have been in many wars and many conflicts, and yet Congress has not exercised its constitutional responsibility to be the body that actually declares war before that action can take place.
	They've given that over to the president and the executive branch because they don't want to be held responsible for it.
	This administration, the Biden administration, there are certainly challenges.
	There are certainly questions about his state of mind and his ability to be present and focused in the decisions that are being made.
	But ultimately, I hold him responsible.
	I have no doubt about the fact that he is surrounded by people who have They're handing him the note cards and they're shaping the
	agenda.
	We see over and over how they go in and he says one thing and then they come back and
	say, well, no, he didn't actually mean that and say the exact opposite.
	His handlers have a lot of power.
	There's no doubt about it, but he was elected as president of the United States.
	He is making the decision to run for re-election.
	He is the person that we as American voters must hold responsible for the decisions that are being made and the very dangerous consequences of those policies.
	We are continually invited to regard the haunting and ghoulish figure of Donald Trump as a kind
	of reincarnation of the militaristic despotism that blighted the 20th century.
	But it's my belief, Tulsi, that what we are sliding into is a new kind of technological
	dictatorship, a despotism that is kind of, that bears the aesthetic of bureaucracy, that
	owes more to Kafka and to Huxley and Orwell than Hitler or Stalin.
	Through the increasing power of the censorship industrial complex, through the ability to
	shut down protests, through the ability to shut down free speech, smear political dissidents
	and opponents, use the judiciary as a tool of weaponry, shut down the campaigns of active
	political opponents, whether it's through censorship or lawfare.
	Seems to me that the thing that we are being instructed to fear in the form of Donald Trump is already upon us in the form of this technocratic, yet technological, dictatorship.
	It's already arrived.
	Do you feel that?
	Yes.
	Yes, it's more than a feeling.
	It's fact.
	The evidence backs it up, and it's a very intentional, strategic move for the Democrat elite's narrative to be warning the American people, saying crazy things like, if you vote for Donald Trump, if he is allowed to win this election, it'll be the last election the United States ever has.
	That he will be the dictator in chief, painting this dark, bleak picture that you've just outlined when the facts and the evidence show that they have already created this.
	And this is exactly the problem.
	They are weaponizing our public institutions.
	They're using the Department of Justice and law enforcement to go after their major political opponent in Donald Trump, but also going after our fellow Americans.
	You know, when President Biden said, you know, over half the country, I think he said 76 million voters in America are MAGA extremists and they pose this greatest threat, domestic threat to our democracy.
	He painted a target on the backs of tens of millions of Americans who voted against him and for the other guy, voted for Donald Trump.
	And President Biden spoke to the country saying they are the greatest threat we face.
	When you look at the kind of implications that has on our society and you look at the reality that parents are getting arrested for going to Board of Education meetings and standing and very passionately speaking about their child's education or their fear and anger around the fact that their gentleman in Loudoun County in Virginia, where I happen to be today, he stood up and his daughter was sexually assaulted by a boy who claimed to be a girl in the girl's bathroom.
	And instead of the school and the Board of Education actually doing something about it and holding this kid and his family responsible for this, they quietly transferred him to another school without saying anything, without telling the parents of this girl who was sexually assaulted.
	And guess what?
	Within a very short period of time, this boy went on to sexually assault another girl in the girl's bathroom, even as he claimed to be now a girl.
	There are so many examples of how Donald Trump is the face of this figure who is being targeted.
	They are throwing everything but the kitchen sink, trying to tie him up in court, drain him of time and money and resources, smear his character, put out this narrative that they hope will cause voters to turn away from him and throw up their hands and say, well, I guess Joe Biden's the only option.
	But it's also happening.
	It's also happening to Americans who you will likely never know the names of, the consequences of this and the precedent that it sets.
	And you're exactly right.
	It is the elected leaders.
	It is the bureaucrats.
	It is the administrative state, many layers down, who are executing And the dangerous thing is they're doing this in the name of democracy.
	They're telling us we have to do this to save democracy.
	They are so terrified of free people in a free society getting the information wherever we want to get it, discerning that information and making up our own decisions, particularly as it relates to this upcoming election, that they're trying to get Donald Trump off the ballot.
	That over 32 states tried to unilaterally remove Donald Trump from the ballot, so we wouldn't even have the choice to vote for him.
	And their excuse for that is essentially, well, we are trying to save our democracy.
	We are too afraid of voters making the quote-unquote wrong choice in this election that we have to undermine and destroy our democracy in order to save it.
	Save it from who?
	Save it from the American people from actually exercising our freedom.
	That's how twisted their mindset is, and it paints that picture of exactly where we will go as a country if they're allowed to do this and get away with it.
	And it creates that certainty for me and for others paying attention.
	If they're allowed to stay in power, this country that I love, that we love, will be gone.
	It'll be unrecognizable.
	We can't continue to bring you this content without the support of our partners who I openly thank.
	Here's a little message from them now.
	Pay attention.
	Sometimes it can be hard to sleep at night when you've got a lot of pressure and a lot of things to deal with and too many children and a dog that's constantly whining, hustling and bustling leaves you wrestling with sleep.
	Every night can be a battleground with your own restless mind.
	I can drift off only to be woken in the middle of the night by never-ending relentless thinking, stifled creativity, every day plagued with fatigue.
	These are the problems that you will face if you don't sleep properly.
	Dream is clinically shown to improve sleep quality.
	I've seen sleep elixirs promising the moon, and I'm sick of it.
	Dream is different.
	It's like the zen master of sleep aids.
	No gimmicks, just restfulness.
	Dream is a gluten-free, dairy-free, vegan, non-GMO, keto-friendly drink blend with the highest quality sleep-promoting ingredients.
	I wonder if you know which is my favourite flavour?
	See if you can guess.
	I'll tell you in a second.
	The immediate benefits are falling asleep faster, staying asleep, waking up, feeling totally refreshed.
	What an offering!
	If you're a parent like me, finding quality sleep feels like searching for a needle in a haystack.
	Searching for a glistening diamond in a pile of manure.
	DREAM leads you there.
	BEAM's DREAM is clinically shown to improve sleep.
	Click the link below or scan the QR code, use the code BRAND, that's my name, B-R-A-N-D, all caps, to get up to, this is ridiculous really, 35% off.
	BEAM DREAM.
	Go to shopbeam.com forward slash russellbrand, use the code BRAND to shop the exclusive discount for up to 35% off.
	35% off. I like this one.
	Yes, I understand that you're saying that we already face a far greater threat and many
	people point to the four years that Trump has already had in office and his record on
	war and a variety of other issues as indicators that the level of polarisation and hysteria
	...are somewhat unwarranted, at least on the basis of empirical evidence.
	You've referred to the culture war and the significant power and disruption that are caused around a variety of issues.
	You mentioned the issues around gender and how that plays out culturally.
	One thing I thought that was interesting that Trump said when referring to abortion, and this caused a degree of controversy, was that he would leave it to individual states.
	I took that to mean that decentralization and federalism could be part of the solution
	to this increasing polarization, this growing contempt between people on both sides of the
	aisle, even though you are an indicator that those taxonomies are starting to melt with
	positions that previously have been attributed to one party now migrating, the issue of free
	speech, the issue of war being but two of the issues that have altered.
	And they continue to flip and change as protests in the colleges currently around matters in
	the Middle East demonstrate and reflect.
	I wonder, given that it's unlikely that post the November elections, we're unlikely to
	see a happy and gracious succession of power.
	Do you feel that federalism and decentralization may at least in part hold the solution to
	what seem to be pretty seismic problems in your country.
	Yes, I do.
	And it's something that I've seen throughout my time serving in Congress and have understood how destructive it has been and counterproductive at best it's been when you have this big brother, big government overreach into into our lives, into our schools, and into our communities.
	And going back again and looking at the Federalist Papers, looking at the thoughts and the intent behind our country's founder's vision as they crafted our founding documents, it really was.
	Our Constitution speaks to the very real limitations of government, federal government, And it's intent that power be decentralized really to the lowest level possible where people know their communities.
	My home state of Hawaii is vastly different from California or New York or Montana or Texas or Florida.
	Every state has its own unique culture, has its own unique constituency.
	Our communities are best served.
	And best able to impact decisions that are made, important policy decisions that are made when they're made at the lowest level.
	We have this deep loathing that many of us feel for institutional political figures and lawmakers from across the spectrum because of the assumption that they are investing in stocks and shares that they have the ability to regulate and therefore benefit from.
	The assumption that companies like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon wield incredible power over American foreign policy, including the participation in wars that simply wouldn't happen if a more diplomatic perspective were allowed to thrive, or even, let's face it, a more democratic or representative perspective.
	What have you experienced of that?
	Are there, like, points where you feel like, well, I know this, that this bill's likely to be passed, I should buy some stocks in Lockheed Martin?
	Or are there, like, what's lobbying like on the ground?
	What's it like to get lobbied?
	Is it true there are two lobbyists for every member of Congress?
	And where does the lobbying take place?
	And how does one, what is the prophylactic against lobbying?
	Okay, this is a huge one.
	There's a lot of questions there.
	There are far more than two lobbyists per member of Congress.
	Many, many, many more.
	Many more.
	I couldn't even begin to count.
	One of the first things that happened is every member of Congress, you get elected, you go through what they call orientation briefings.
	And first they happen in a bipartisan sense where you have Democrats and Republicans, you go and sit in a room and, you know, you get a brief on ethics, the ethics rules, you get a brief on, you know, here's how the process works, you get briefs on here's the big issues of the day.
	that you should be somewhat educated on, kind of a 101 introduction.
	And then they break us off into two different places and rooms and buses.
	Democrats go one way, the Republicans go the other way.
	And the briefings that I got as a new Democrat in Congress at the end of 2012, sworn in early 2013, were very much the same as those that my Republican colleagues got in a few distinct ways.
	Number one is, I remember they had a PowerPoint slide up showing how your average day would look.
	And it was shocking to me.
	I got to find that image because I remember capturing a picture with my phone.
	But the predominant amount of time, hours in the day, spent lobbying or spent at fundraisers with lobbyists or on the phone calling lobbyists and asking for money was the majority of the day.
	Really, so the amount of time you spent in your committees doing policy work or on the House floor for votes, On average, let's say it's four or five hours a day.
	The rest of the day you are spending fundraising.
	I went and I saw, okay, go to two different fundraising breakfasts every morning.
	You'll sit around a table with a bunch of lobbyists, and you talk about different issues or whatever, and you leave with a bunch of envelopes with political campaign contributions.
	And then on average, a member of Congress will go and have one or two lunches.
	Same situation.
	And then you'll probably go and have another fundraising dinner on any given day of the week and make sure you go in and pop in and make sure that, you know, get those phone calls to make sure that people show up to the next days of fundraisers.
	And this is how people raise tens of millions of dollars all in the course of a day's work.
	I saw this, I experienced it when I first got there, and I was just like, man, this is wrong.
	I don't like this at all.
	And so I stopped taking any lobbyist contributions and political action committee contributions.
	And I loved it because I saw how my day was completely freed up.
	I was able to focus on my policy work and substantive work in Congress, talking to my constituents in Hawaii.
	But I saw the contrast.
	And one of my friends, who is a lobbyist for a renewable energy industry, She told me, she said, oh, wow, you're not taking any more money from lobbyists?
	I said, no.
	She's like, well, you're obviously never running for any higher office ever again.
	Your political career is done.
	You are where you are and that's it.
	I talked to some grassroots organizers who were working on different issues who came and visited me and they said, oh my gosh, Tulsi, you stopped taking lobbyist money and PAC money.
	You must obviously be running for president.
	And it was just a funny contrast that happened in the course of a couple of days between the Washington insider perception, which is you will never go anywhere in politics unless you take our money.
	And the opposite coming from people who were like, you know, the $5, $10 donations, the small dollar donations to support the candidate that they like going out and knocking on doors and making phone calls, joining the cause of actually bringing about grassroots change.
	And their perception was exactly the opposite.
	Like, Oh, thank God you don't have anything to do with those, those corrupt Washington insiders.
	Uh, it is the power of the people who will prevail.
	I want to talk about the stocks because this is a big one.
	This is a big one.
	To answer your question directly, I never sat there and looked at a vote coming up and saying, hmm, I wonder how Microsoft is going to react to this vote.
	Let me go and buy some Microsoft stock.
	I saw the opposite.
	I went in knowing that perception is reality and I did not do any stock trading at all of any sort for the eight years that I was in Congress.
	Because whether or not they are acting on insider information or it's just some happy coincidence that they buy a million dollars of stock that magically goes up 200% within the next week when a vote is taken, it doesn't really matter because perception is reality.
	Members of Congress, elected leaders are held and should be held to a higher standard and should not be in that position where there's even a perception that you are Acting in your own self-interest.
	So I introduced legislation when I was in Congress that would have prohibited a member of Congress, their spouse, or their senior staff, their chief of staff from trading in any stocks because you have access to information that the public does not have whether you're acting on it or not.
	Perception is reality and it's just wrong.
	It's just wrong.
	Both sides are doing it.
	They're making a lot of money.
	I've seen those memes that people put out that show different members of like what their net worth was when they started and obviously the longer they're there the more wealthy they become and they're no longer really truly representing the interests of the people.
	How did that legislation go?
	What do you think?
	What do you think?
	They're still doing it if that answers your question.
	We're gonna have to leave you now.
	If you're watching this on YouTube, click the link in the description because Mike Benz is coming up.
	Mike Benz will explain to us, like never before, how the deep state operates.
	No one that I've met, certainly, has a deeper and clearer understanding on how deep state architecture meets with NGOs and the cartilage of power.
	Organizations often funded by governments that spy on citizens and facilitate extraordinary global business deals.
	I mean, it's just Mental.
	Things that we think of as just being like normal, like Google.
	Anyway, click the link in the description.
	Okay, let's have a look at Mike Benz, then we'll go over to Steve Bannon.
	Now, Mike Benz, he talks about how the deep state agencies are able to influence and manipulate companies to do their... I mean, I'm going to use the phrase dirty work.
	Google is ubiquitous and seemingly innocuous.
	Even the name Google suggests that nothing nefarious could be happening.
	But when you learn how Google was founded, how it's funded, and what its function might actually be, you'll never look at that sweet little search engine the same way again.
	Here it is.
	Could you talk us through the inception of big tech and social media, because it's impossible to think that anything could be that powerful without the involvement of the powers you describe, how the somewhat innocent Weisner's Wurlitzer has become the Zuckerberg, Zoetrope, or whatever it is we're confronted with now, as big tech co-mingles with this kind of power, and how what you've told us the history, how has it evolved into the technological age and become more powerful?
	Starting perhaps with the relationships between big tech, social media, and the deep state, please.
	Perfect.
	Yes.
	So let's get to the origins of Google.
	So, you know, there's a funny story about the Internet, because when you're referring to big tech, we're talking about the big tech Internet companies, primarily here, you know, so like Google.
	And, you know, they're all based on the Internet.
	And the Internet was created by the American military in order to manage the American empire.
	It was created by DARPA in the 1960s in order to digitize and be able to quickly share within the military All of the social science research that was being funded by the Eisenhower administration and the Kennedy administration to be able to do anthropological and social science research, the reams of academic work that the military was paying academics to produce on foreign populations who were posing insurgency concerns to U.S.
	installed dictators in different regions or to U.S.
	managed governments.
	After we had begun to territorially acquire all these different countries during the Cold War.
	There were student revolts on college campuses in the 1960s against the Internet, before
	the Internet even went private.
	Because the Internet, the World Wide Web, the private Internet that all of us use,
	was not debuted until 1991, December 1990. But even in the 1960s, people realized that the
	computer was an instrument of U.S.
	statecraft.
	In fact, during these sort of anti-Vietnam protests at MIT, you can even look for this if you run a search for this on your favorite search engine, they were revolting against what they called the Octoputer.
	The idea that the computer and this DARPA-funded internet was going to be used as a world-spanning octopus power for the military to control other countries, other countries that student groups were accusing of being subject to U.S.
	imperialism.
	Now, what happened was in 1991, the World Wide Web rolls out and DARPA turns over the internet to the National Science Foundation and projects that through a bunch of universities to make it publicly available for commercial use.
	But the other side of this is that it was being used for soft power projection.
	See, at the start, when I was describing Wisner's Wurlitzer, The CIA created a bunch of proprietary media organizations like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia.
	These were all...
	Radio and then television programming that would project U.S.
	media and also pay media organizations within foreign countries to produce pro-U.S.
	propaganda.
	And that was a very easy thing to do when there were only a couple of different radio frequencies available in that country, or that country wasn't producing its own native content, its own native TV content.
	As other countries caught up to us in the other modalities of media, soft power, you know, competition, the promise of the new internet for the State Department, the military, and the CIA was that this would be sort of like a new radio, a new TV, a new Voice of America, a new channel where America had first mover advantage because it was all the American internet.
	And so, right away, as soon as the internet came out, DARPA commissioned a program called the Massive Digital Data Systems Program.
	And the Massive Digital Data Systems Program was a joint project of the NSA and the CIA in order to track how, quote, birds of a feather flock together online.
	And their goal was to create what they refer to as a early warning political radar system to be able to track how political groups around the world were rising and falling and how they were congregating together.
	On the Internet, because in web 1.0, you had you had web forums and you had.
	You had these static web pages, and so you could track what groups in country X were accessing or maintaining these websites, and you could use that to draw a network map of an entire political movement that you either wanted to run CIA support to, or you wanted the CIA to crush through counterinsurgency.
	And part of this involved tracking search results through the early search engines that were created to be able to navigate this new Internet.
	And this is where Google comes into the picture.
	In 1995, Larry Page and Sergey Brin are PhD students at Stanford, and their PhD is being sponsored, essentially, by DARPA.
	They had a DARPA grant to do this search engine aggregation work.
	And that DARPA grant meant that they were reporting to their grant administrator, which was ultimately the CIA and the NSA.
	They would then take this work that they got the CIA-NSA grant to do to form a company called Google in 1998.
	So right from the outset, Google was a military and CIA and statecraft, you know, Let's say dual-use technology, shall we say.
	And even all of Google's first-mover advantages were based on this.
	Google quickly came out with very innovative product sets, like Google Maps.
	You know, a sort of first-of-its-kind ability to be able to just plug in an address and know how to get there, or go anywhere on Earth and zoom in on it.
	Well, Google didn't just, you know, brainiacs sitting in a garage, you know, come up with the code for that.
	They got Google Maps by purchasing the CIA's keyhole satellite software.
	So, it was the CIA's spy satellite software that is the only reason Google got Google Maps.
	How Google's global operations work is based on this as well.
	So one of the reasons that censorship set in across Google search results and across YouTube is because of a fundamental restructuring of how Google operated beginning after the 2016 US presidential election.
	Started a little bit before that with the story of a guy named Jared Cohen.
	Jared Cohen.
	So let's just take a step back and look at the history of social media.
	You had Facebook in 2004, YouTube in 2005, Twitter in 2006, Smartphone in 2007.
	In 2007, a young kid named Jared Cohen arrives at the inner sanctum of the State Department, a place called the Policy Planning Staff.
	As I mentioned in my sort of opening salvo, the iceberg of American diplomacy has overt
	policies and strategies from the State Department and covert from the CIA.
	They together form a united front of U.S. diplomacy, which means the dirty tricks from
	the covert side have to be constantly synchronized with the overt actions of the State Department.
	If you're trying to regime change the country's government, the State Department has to know
	that and know exactly what's going on when they send a delegation to that foreign country's
	government for their demands or what they want.
	That synchronization process happens at the policy planning staff.
	That's that inner cell within the State Department that coordinates the CIA and the State Department.
	And this is a place that's normally occupied by the sort of wise old men, 50, 60, 70 year old, you know, fuddy-duddies.
	Jared Cohen got there at about the age 25, 26.
	Young kid, but he was brought on by the Bush administration because he had created something called movements.org and he was embedded basically from his late teen years into the highly volatile youth movements that were being essentially sponsored by the by the CIA in Middle East North Africa in these conflict zones.
	And because it's so important He was brought in as essentially a young guy who's hip to what the kids are doing these days so that that could be folded into American statecraft for how best to exploit those young people.
	And what Jared Cohen did is he gets in around 2006-2007 and he looks around at these older guys and he says, What are we doing formulating CIA activities out of U.S.
	embassies or U.S.
	consulates or CIA station houses?
	All the groups we want to mobilize are on Facebook, they're on Twitter, they're on YouTube.
	We need a doctrine of digital statecraft.
	Statecraft 2.0 To be able to run intelligence operations using social media.
	And this became the absolute talk of the town of Washington and he became an overnight celebrity with this concept.
	He was considered so valuable to not just the Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice, the Secretary of State there, as a Republican appointee, but his work was considered so vital.
	The CIA's use of social media.
	That he was kept over by the Democrats when Barack Obama won the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State.
	This is extremely unusual in Washington, let me tell you, when a political appointee is kept over from the next administration.
	And so he then was effectively credited with starting the Arab Spring, which was a State Department and CIA sponsored series of Facebook and Twitter revolutions stretching from Tunisia to Egypt, which were said to be the sort of high point of digital democracy when when.
	Hashtags and Facebook groups were used to coordinate tens of millions of people to take to the streets to overthrow governments that were deemed to be hostile to U.S.
	interests.
	At that point, Jared Cohen could have done anything.
	He was voted by Time magazine as one of the most powerful, top 50 most powerful people in Washington at the age of 30.
	But he left in the heat of all that.
	People were saying, this kid's going to be president one day.
	He could have done anything.
	But he goes over and basically stuns the Beltway crowd by moving in 2010 to a tiny little one-person non-profit within a mid-sized tech company called Google.
	At the time in 2010, Google was only ranked number 120 by market cap.
	They were not even a top 100 sized company in 2010.
	He was poached by Google, as the story goes, in order to sit in a room all day, stare at a white wall, and think by himself about all the creative ways that Google could use its proprietary data and resources to solve complex geopolitical problems.
	Julian Assange would later term this moment, term this transition, the moment that Google became the shadow State Department.
	And this came out in Stratford documents and Wikileaks when, you know, basically CIA contractors were openly speculating that Jared Cohen's move from policy planning staff at State to Google was a way to synchronize what the CIA was doing with Google resources.
	Now, this becomes very important to the Internet censorship story because this one person think tank, Google Ideas, would later be rebranded Google Jigsaw.
	And Google jigsaw was initially doing sort of a lot of free speech tech work such so that dissident groups being backed by the CIA and State Department would be able to freely proliferate their media influence in regions where there's state control over media like Iran or like Egypt.
	But in 2016, Google Jigsaw took on a new power for censorship.
	Censorship of political movements that were giving rise to political, you know, to leaders like Donald Trump in the U.S., also on the left-wing populist side, like Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K., who were NATO-skeptical, all the different populist parties in Europe, in India, in Pakistan, in Japan, and so Google Jigsaw became this kind of CIA-intermediated censorship octopus, and it created what was essentially the world's first retail, what I call weapons of mass deletion, AI censorship superpowers to be able to scan and ban tens of millions of posts
	We can't continue to bring you this work and wear these type of hats without the support of our sponsors.
	something called perspective, which rates every post essentially on the
	internet by a toxicity score that can be used to automatically throttle it from
	from public view.
	We can't continue to bring you this work and wear these type of hats
	without the support of our sponsors. Here's a message from one now.
	Debt causes stress.
	I've been in debt in my life and it's very stressful.
	I recognise that.
	PDS Debt has customised options for anyone struggling with credit cards, personal loans, collections or medical bills.
	PDS Debt provides options that consolidate your debts into one low monthly payment.
	I wonder if my life would have been easier had I had access to PDS Debt.
	PDS Debt is a top-rated company on Google with an A-plus rating on the BBB.
	I imagine that it might be a good solution to consolidate debts rather than having diffuse, confusing debts.
	PDS Debt cares about helping you get out of debt.
	Check out reviews, see how many mention PDS Debt employees by name.
	It's incredible.
	Get free debt analysis right now at pdsdebt.com slash brand.
	It only takes 30 seconds.
	That's pdsdebt.com slash brand.
	pdsdebt.com slash brand.
	There's a lot more there, but I'll just pause.
	Jesus Christ, Jared.
	I mean, Mike, there's a lot there.
	I feel like you're going to get killed.
	That's my main response.
	My first response is you're going to be killed and you're going to get us all killed because that's too cogent and too clear and too plain.
	Thanks very much.
	OK.
	So, what I feel is that you've actually, you yourself, have provided what I asked for.
	The cartilage that demonstrates how the anatomy of the deep state not only is connected but is able to coherently move as a single And something like, as you described, the transition of Jared Cohen from working for successive administrations, where he's working with figures like Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton, right into sitting in a room staring at a wall like some extraordinary mystic.
	In fact, it's beyond a revolving door, isn't it, at that point?
	There is no door.
	It's just one single, well as you say, blob.
	Now you've given me a pretty cohesive understanding and you've helped me to understand things like how when Lee Fang did some journalism on how myself and Greenwald and the guys at Greyzone are being subject to attacks by a CIA carve-out Operating out of Ukraine, like apparently independent Ukrainian media, that when you look into it the funding comes from the CIA.
	But now this has become so, so sophisticated and diffuse, sort of molecular I suppose is a way of describing it.
	Like yeah, like you say, a blob is good because it just It fills spaces, it moves around, it's difficult to locate a centre and I know that you could unpack a great deal there but I wanted to pivot slightly because you've helped me to understand to a degree the inception of those agencies, how they intersect with big tech in particular, internet and social media companies, search engines and in essence how that data, because I remember reading once in Legacy Media Mike,
	There was this magical moment after 9- there was a sort of, prior to 9-11, there was a moment where censorship, where people were like, internet privacy is a thing, but after 9-11, it's like, hey, we need that data to track terrorists.
	And Google sort of realized, oh, wow, we've got all of this information.
	And I recognize that that's probably some sort of counter narrative to sort of mask the fact that what's clearly happened from the point where the, you know, the proprietors and founders were PhD students, they were involved with the CIA.
	There's no way that anything of that scale, anything of that influence and power was ever beyond the purview and remit of the type of power that we're describing.
	Another thing I want to touch on, even though it's tangential, of course pick up anything that's been inspired by my response to your last announcement, was When people say like the, just take a few examples, that George Soros and Bill Gates are like actually evil, like you know with Bill Gates I can, I've got my own understanding, the significance of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, their influence over something like the WHO, their investment in vaccines, their acquisition of farmland, their misadventures in India and on the continent of Africa, when it comes to agriculture, their promotion of
	Synthetic foods, their odd intrusion into areas of legislature, health policy that doesn't seem right.
	I have a bit of an understanding when it comes to Bill Gates.
	Extraordinary that he's another person that's, you know, a tech giant and a tech entrepreneur and a billionaire and a philanthropist.
	I wonder, with George Soros, He was one of those figures I don't know much about, except when he's attacked people say, hey that's anti-semitic and it's conspiracy theory, I understand that he's a Jewish man.
	But pretty recently I heard that when the Clinton Foundation were over in Haiti, ostensibly helping Haiti in a way that in retrospect looks pretty clumsy, we're here to help you!
	Please get your help off of us!
	And like the money was spent in all sorts of weird clumsy ways and even when you see video footage of a sort of a younger sleeker Hillary Clinton leading George Soros peculiarly through the wreckage of Haiti even though that's before many of their subsequent disasters You feel like, what's going on?
	Why is this guy there?
	What's happening?
	So can you explain to us, when we, these figures that, you know, the defenders of, say there's nothing to worry about when it comes to Bill Gates, he's just a nice dude.
	Or George Soros, there's no problem there.
	I mean, I've heard, for example, that George Soros benefits in some way from the conflict between Ukraine and Russia with regard to oil.
	But I don't understand that.
	And I wonder if you could help me to understand it, please, Mike.
	Let's tie all this together with a comment that I think came from one of the questions on your locals at the start of this, which was, who does the blob work for?
	I forget how you teed that up in the beginning, but I almost think of it, you know, like that Austin Powers scene where he goes, who does number two work for?
	That's a good scene, man.
	That's one of my favorite scenes.
	You show that turd who's boss.
	Now you're using... Right, good.
	We're on familiar territory.
	Mike Myers comedy.
	I feel at home.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Hit me, man.
	Right.
	Because that's actually a great way to look at this because the execution arm of This transatlantic foreign policy blob is the State Department, the CIA, and the DOD, and its swarm army of tens of thousands of paid assets in the media and in the civil society and university realm and things like this.
	But they are essentially number two, if you will, working for a class above them who they have a revolving door relationship with, and which is really where people in government make their money and do favors for in order to make their own careers and be
	able to have their own, you know, put their own kids through private school education and
	really join an elite class.
	And that is what I call the corporate and financial donor and drafter class.
	You might think of as a co-investor class. And before I delve into this, I'll start with a
	quick analogy from what I just mentioned with Jared Cohen, who I mentioned, you know, started
	at this, you know, started embedded in essentially CIA hot zones, organizing student groups, and then
	worked directly at the center of synchronizing CIA and State Department color revolutions on
	social media, then went directly to, you know, to Thank you.
	Google's essentially CIA branch, but what did Jared Cohen just do a few short years ago moved over from Google jigsaw to the macro economic, basically asset management branch of Goldman Sachs.
	He is now one of the highest ranking officials at Goldman Sachs.
	And so so he essentially, as you mentioned, you sort of referred him as a sort of mystic, you know, he wasn't just like a mystic, you know, sitting in a room staring at a white wall.
	He was a CIA back channel, a State Department back channel.
	Well, what he's essentially doing at Goldman Sachs is he's not a mystic, you know, forecasting what's what's going to rise and fall.
	In terms of economies or assets to invest in around the world, because he's got this State Department CIA back channel, he allows Goldman Sachs to do what's essentially insider trading at the most macro level.
	If you know that the military or the State Department or the CIA is going to overthrow a government or privatize an industry, You know, a trillion dollar industry in Venezuela or Ukraine that's owned by the state government, but now it's going to be privatized.
	So if you're an early investor in that, your investment is going to go to the moon.
	You have this corporate and financial overclass where there's a revolving door.
	Let's take a step back.
	What do I mean by donor and drafter class?
	Let's start with the term draft, drafting.
	In a bike race, the ideal strategy is not to be out in front.
	Even if you're the fastest racer, you don't want to be out in the lead in a bike race.
	You are bearing the brunt of the full force of the wind, which slows down your traction.
	You need to exert more work.
	In corporate terms, that is killing your profits if you're out in front.
	The ideal strategy in a bike race is to be right behind the person in front so that they do the work cutting the wind and you efficiently, with a much less amount of energy, get the same place and then you overtake that person at the end.
	And so what corporations do, and by proxy their financial equity and debt holders do, is they draft behind the blob, the government side of the blob.
	They draft behind the DoD, the War Department, the Pentagon.
	They draft behind... So, for example, when the military moves into Ukraine, they draft behind that.
	When the State Department goes in and threatens sanctions on a country so that it changes its terms of private enterprise or changes its labor laws to make it cheaper for... They draft behind the State Department.
	If the CIA is incubating a new emerging leadership class in a country who is going to be favorable to ExxonMobil there or Walmart there, Or an agriculture company there or a tech company there they draft behind that and they also serve as as co investors or donors into those projects because oftentimes it's not enough for just to have.
	US funded allocations to fund a war project or a foreign assistance project.
	Like for example, in Ukraine, there's a big issue about how much funding is enough to
	actually support Ukraine.
	So part of what the State Department does is they go around to get co-investors in the
	project in the region so that Microsoft or Google will sort of like co-fund it and provide
	a top up to get the amount of money needed to do this initiative.
	And actually a great example of this is something like DIA, the DIA app in Ukraine.
	This is something that I think the Grayzone, as you mentioned, published a lot about.
	This is this digital ID system in Ukraine that Zelensky has made essentially mandatory for all Ukrainian people and it ties their digital identity to their bank account.
	It's basically the ultimate way to be able to manage a civilization, and it was created by USAID.
	USAID is the major funding organization that straddles the line between the State Department and the CIA.
	It essentially serves as an above-board, public-facing State Department adjacency That funnels the money that is used by the CIA.
	Essentially, when something gets USAID funding, it becomes an asset for our covert diplomacy.
	And so USAID funded the creation of this app in a partnership with Google, Visa, and American Express, I believe, were the two transaction companies.
	So Ukraine doesn't have its own sort of sophisticated IT architecture.
	The State Department, using its diplomacy arm, has now made mandatory the use of a system that Google profits from because it runs the architecture of DIA, and that Visa and American Express profit from because they process all the commercial transactions of now every citizen in Ukraine.
	So you now have a locked-in Government-backed cartel over every single person in Ukraine for both, you know, Amex and Google.
	And so this becomes a very powerful now when you look at who actually sits on the board of these CIA interstitial.
	So like let's take an example something called the National Endowment for Democracy is a classic example of this.
	So, in my first salvo here, I talked about how Wisner's Wurlitzer in the era of CIA control
	over media 1.0 was 1947 to 1975-1976, which is when the CIA would directly co-opt media
	organizations. And then this sort of went down in flames when it all came out in public hearings in
	in the Church Committee and Pike Committee hearings in 1975-1976.
	President Jimmy Carter, when he won as a Democrat in 1976, promised to put an end to that.
	He fired 30% of the CIA's operations branch in a single night and basically kneecapped the ability for the CIA to do this work directly.
	Reagan comes into office in 1980 and wants to revive the, you know, sort of full poisonous fang power of the CIA, but doesn't have the bipartisan support to ram this through Congress.
	And so Reagan's CIA director, Bill Colby, approaches the Reagan's Attorney General, the head of the Justice Department, and says, It was a it was a disaster when when media groups around the world were seen as being paid as funded by the CIA.
	So but what we can do though is if we set up a national endowment for democracy promotion and have that be.
	Formerly firewalled off from the CIA so that it looks like it's just coming from a public endowment.
	Actually, it's not even public, a private endowment.
	Then we'll be able to have the same capacities we had from the 1940s to the 1970s, but there won't be CIA fingerprints on it.
	We'll just intermediate.
	We'll just back channel with the heads of the National Endowment for Democracy.
	And so there was a back and forth between the CIA director Bill Colby and And the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time, where they came up with the structure that there would be a formal firewall, the National Endowment for Democracy would be a private, non-governmental organization, but that as long as there was Senate Intelligence Committee consent to it, the CIA would effectively direct their operations.
	And by the way, They're a private, non-governmental organization, but they're under the direct oversight of the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees.
	They're a CIA cutout managed by the State Department.
	Now, the MED, if you look at who's on its board, it's the directors of all these companies.
	Their board of directors for the National Endowment for Democracy has members of the Officers and Directors of Google, Officers and Directors of Amex and Visa, Officers and Directors of Exxon and Chevron.
	A great example of this, actually, is in the run-up to the 2014 Maidan coup, the CIA State Department-sponsored overthrow of the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
	Whether you agree with that or not, them's just the facts.
	Victoria Nuland actually gave that speech about how they successfully orchestrated this using $5 billion, $5 billion with a B, in State Department and USAID subsidies to the right-wing, right-sector groups in Ukraine who did this.
	She gave that speech bragging about that $5 million in U.S.
	financial sponsorship of the coup right at a conference that was right in front of Sponsored by Chevron, ExxonMobil, and Shell.
	And by the way, those are the exact companies who had invested in the oil and gas space in Ukraine.
	Chevron had signed in 2013 a $10 billion, again with a B, $10 billion partnership with Naftogaz, the Ukrainian state gas giant, which accounts for Overwhelming majority of Ukraine's national economic sector.
	Shell had signed a $10 billion, again, a matching $10 billion partnership with Naftogaz in Ukraine, again, with a B. So Halliburton had signed a deal with the Ukrainian government's Naftogaz in order to do all the oil and gas refining of the oil and gas base there.
	You know who held the rights to the Black Sea shale resources that were basically that were destroyed when Russia annexed Crimea,
	all the shale rights in the Black Sea Basin there, it was Burisma.
	Burisma.
	And you know who was on the, not only was Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma, but
	Hunter Biden himself was on the chairman's advisory board of the NDI, the National Democrat
	You know what the NDI is?
	That's the DNC branch of the NED, which is the CIA cutout created so that the CIA could run money without it having the formal fingerprints of the CIA during the CIA 2.0 restructuring.
	So Hunter Biden on the board of the CIA cutout, That CIA cutout, having on its board all the oil and gas co-investors, were then marshalling the CIA and the DOD, i.e.
	U.S.
	taxpayer funding, in order to prop up their investments in the region.
	And this same blueprint is replicated everywhere.
	And virtually every multinational corporation on Earth is playing this game and has to play this game to compete with others who are playing it.
	Steve Bannon is one of the most controversial political figures of the last 20 or 30 years.
	Was he the mastermind and architect of Trump's rise to power?
	Is he the true brain of the rise of the alt-right?
	And is it possible, if you're speaking to someone whose views are amenably so extreme, to find common ground?
	Well, perhaps if we talk about decentralising power, there is a possibility.
	Let's have a little conversation with Steve Bannon about how power operates, how it could operate, and indeed how it even should operate.
	Will you tell me, Steve, where you think populism is heading?
	If you think the left-right... I heard you once say at the Oxford Union that the future would belong to populism.
	Do you still believe that there's a chance of either left-wing or right-wing populism?
	Or do you feel that a different ideology is about to assert itself?
	And over the course of our conversation, I hope to get into all of those areas of which you have personal professional experience.
	I would say that if you go back and look at the Oxford Union speech, that was a pretty good call.
	Probably because the day was several years later, and it's right-wing populism and left-wing populism.
	I think the reason is that the oligarchs that particularly control the West, uh have been so over the top in their greed uh in their incompetence their greed and their incompetence that people are rising up all over you see that whether it's the collapse of the tory party in england the rise of uh alternatives for deutschland and germany the rise of the right in latin america central america and obviously the trump movement in the united states i think it's a combination of their greed and their incompetence the elites
	Have failed us and they failed themselves and it's a populist takeover and it's going to be determined whether it be right-wing populism or left-wing populism.
	Yes, it is.
	And there yet remains a further alternative.
	I've heard you use the phrase techno-feudalism, and I think that's what many people, wherever they find themselves culturally or politically, fear, is that we're being guided, manipulated, maneuvered, in fact, into a new form of globalism where technological power is utilized to control consciousness, our understanding of the public sphere.
	To manipulate consent and communication.
	Can you tell me what you mean by techno-feudalism, how it relates to globalism, and who sits at the top of that baronial class in this model of feudalism?
	Well, if you go back even to the Oxford speech, I tell, I'm kind of calling out Younger people who have had a tendency just to vote for progressive neoliberalism, right, and really be led by the cultural side, that you're nothing but Russian serfs.
	You're the equivalent of Russian serfs.
	You don't own anything and you're not going to own anything.
	The triad that controls the deal is really what I call the easy money overlords of Wall Street or the City of London or Frankfurt or Tokyo, Shanghai, but particularly the City of London and Wall Street.
	Then you have the corporatists Both the American corporatists, but also the multinational corporatists.
	And on top of that, you've got what I call the sociopathic tech overlords.
	And right now, we basically have passed, I think, late-stage capitalism, what I would call finance capitalism.
	I think you saw that.
	That was kind of the collapse in 2008.
	And you've seen the rise since then of what I call techno-feudalism, which is now we're basically going back to almost the Middle Ages in a feudal society where you're a digital serf, Right.
	You're essentially not going to own your own content.
	You don't own your own digital self.
	You're going to kind of labor away.
	And as long as you don't come off of the being an indentured servant or being a serf, you can get along.
	But once you stray outside this and you saw a perfect example, and I think it was one of your great awakenings was during the pandemic of what you saw about what public health officials did and kind of the combination of big tech working with with big government and, of course, the biopharmaceutical industrial complex.
	That was a perfect example of techno-feudalism, and unless we start to break this by a democratic means, that means the ballot box and people getting very focused on after you have victories of how you start to take apart these apparatuses, then I think this world is really headed to a new dark age.
	You're right to a degree, Steve, that the pandemic period elicited and stirred in me, as well as obviously millions of people, a kind of awakening.
	Prior to that, I'd always been anti-establishment and had assumed that the position of the left was also anti-establishment, that the left was about free speech.
	The left was about opposing corruption and power.
	The left was about opposing war and empowering ordinary individuals, wherever we're from, Britain, France, your country, any of the African nations, to stand up and oppose tyranny, globalism, elitism, Clearly what's changed in the last few years, and I can't help but consider you to be a significant architect in this transition, is what you refer to as economic nativism has become the default position of the working class or blue-collar populations in America.
	When you talk of economic nativism, Steve, is that at odds with where I've elsewhere heard you talk about Catholicism, Christianity, subsidiarity, and ideas that are plainly, literally, both in terms of their nomenclature, but plainly their ideology, derived from spiritual ideas.
	How do these two opposing ideas sit together?
	Economic nativism, which, as the name would suggest, is about economics, and the idea that there is something we are aspiring to, that we are people of spirit, that there are values that transcend materialism and materialism in all its forms.
	There are the restrictions that rationalism necessarily... I can see your answers ready, Steve.
	I'm watching your body language, but I'm just gonna keep Talking!
	So tell me, ultimately, aren't you saying, let the market sort shit out, I don't really care about the Christianity, or are there real ideals behind this?
	No, I think, look, we're in a spiritual war, and I'm a Catholic, you know, Roman Catholic, Irish Catholic, and I'm, you know, as I try to be as close to my faith as possible, but obviously we're all imperfect instruments, I do believe in a form of that the United States is the New Jerusalem, and the United States is particularly endowed with a relationship to divine providence. I think we've had a very providential
	history. The economic nativism or nationalism is that I believe that strongly, though
	still the best system we have is the Westphalian system. The nation state was, as you know, was
	created a couple of hundred years ago, and that that sets it out into national units.
	And it's still until we come up with something different, it's still the best way for
	the working class and the middle class to have a shot. If some have what I call subsidiarity
	of through a grassroots effort trying to control to the best of their ability that
	national entity. Nationalism is to for the political leaders and the economic leaders to
	put the well-being of the citizen first, whatever that nation is, to put their economic well-being
	first.
	And so it'd be economic nationalism.
	You would put forward a program of either tariffs or bringing manufacturing jobs back.
	A little bit of this we saw in Brexit.
	It was very imperfect.
	And I think the way Boris Johnson and the Tories implemented it was very imperfect.
	But you've seen this with the Trump program to try to confront China, but most importantly, confront China's financiers, which are in the United States.
	Private equity firms, hedge funds, Wall Street, to force them to a series of tariffs and economic confrontations to start to bring manufacturing jobs, particularly high value-added manufacturing jobs, back to the United States.
	So I would say economic nationalism is in the material realm, and of course Christian nationalism or these more spiritual yearnings are in the spiritual realm.
	And I do think we're in a spiritual war.
	I think at the end of the day this is a spiritual war between the forces of light and the forces of darkness.
	Thank you for joining me for our Deep State Spectacular.
	I hope you feel a little better educated on how the deep state operates now.
	Now we've got a special week coming up.
	In fact it's two special weeks or a fortnight as we say in the UK.
	It's Russell in residence at Rumble.
	It's the triple R. We'll be joined by special guests in Florida as we stream live from Rumble HQ.
	We'll be talking to Chris Pavlovsky and other significant figures in the free speech movement, as well as other broadcasters and streamers in the Rumble space.
	Click the red button, become an awakened wonder.
	Join us for additional content, additional exclusive videos.
	For example, we get into biblical prophecy.
	For example, we're going to talk about whatever conspiracy theory you fancy learning about.
	And if you want to join our book club, we're nearly finished now on mere Christianity.
	We meditate every single week and you get early access to interviews, often posing your questions to our contributors.
	Also, when Russell is in residence at Rumble, you'll get all sorts of behind-the-scenes filming.
	You'll see how they're pulling the strings at that place.
	How does it really work?
	What does Don Trump Jr.
	do there?
	What's going on with Crowder Bongino?
	Do you I mean it!
	All of that will be brought to you live in the next two weeks.
	Russell in residence at Rumble as well as some very, very special conversations.
	I'd like to welcome some of our new members like Jeff100, HoldOnToMe, TeaPartyMan, SixStringGunslinger, I'm gonna miss that guy, and DogTX.
	So, see you next week in Florida for Russell in residence at Rumble.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.

▲