Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 18, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:06:17

THE BIG FINALE at RNC: LIVE with Dan Bongino, Charlie Kirk & Nigel Farage - SF 411

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So, so
	so so
	Let's see the future.
	Oh In this video, you're going to see the future.
	Hello.
	Welcome to a very special edition of Stay Free with Russell Brand at the RNC.
	Over the course of the next hour, we're going to be joined by a carnival of extraordinary guests.
	But will we ever retain the heights of this moment now with Charlie Kirk, who quite literally is a towering individual.
	Charlie, it's lovely to be with you today.
	Thank you.
	Someone said that I was part of the Nephilim, which is the old giant people that used to Those giants, I think they carried, from what I've read in scripture, they carried on in a saucy way.
	That's correct, yes.
	They made off with the daughters of man.
	In Genesis 5, I believe it says that.
	Maybe earlier, Genesis 3 maybe.
	They were right there in the middle of Genesis.
	That's right.
	Those great towering giants.
	Mate, how have you found this RNC so far and how do you manage the inevitable sort of sense that there are power games and power wrangles and sometimes the sense of the corruption that is tempting for partisan figures, which I figure that you are to a degree, to cast onto opponents but not easily acknowledge when it's happening within your own institution?
	Well look I mean right now we we see the party more unified than ever and I mean as far as You know, myself personally, just trying to stay sane in the midst of all of it.
	You know, it's really amazing, though, to see J.D.
	Vance become vice president last evening was a refutation of the Bush-Cheney warmongering nonsense.
	And seeing that on full display.
	Because the Republican Party was the party of war my entire life.
	Since I was born in 1993.
	The Iraq War, the Afghanistan War.
	And to have someone get on the main stage and say, yeah, we're not going to engage in endless wars.
	And we will use our strength when necessary.
	But the Iraq War was a mistake.
	I mean, that is a recalibration, Russell.
	The likes of which that we could not have predicted, let alone five years ago.
	It is actually a recalibration that goes beyond the party politics of the Republican Party, in a sense a reframing of what the left and the liberal left sees itself as.
	There's no refuting at this point that the military-industrial-complex-dem party is the party of war.
	Nevertheless, I met JD Vance, albeit briefly, and I thought he seemed like a pretty spectacular guy.
	He's wonderful.
	Plus his history and stuff.
	I mean, it's difficult not to get excited by that.
	But I wonder if you too believe for a moment that there was a possibility that RFK might get this sort of unifying position as VP.
	I never thought that was seriously in contention.
	I like RFK a lot.
	I like how many votes he's taken from Democrats right now.
	But I think that he's done some great work with medical freedom, individual autonomy.
	But look, I don't think that was ever probably in serious contention.
	I will say though, I would not be surprised if RFK has a role in the administration.
	I'm going to be pushing for that, by the way.
	I said this on your show previously, and so I've said this to the President, and I'm going to say it again.
	I think that RFK should share a special blue ribbon commission, an actual one, not a fake one, into childhood vaccination schedule.
	I think we have to share a mic, Dan.
	We're in the business of actually... We're trying to get viewers, Dan.
	The last thing we need is you sidling on here.
	We're trying to...
	We're trying to cultivate an audience.
	Brother, man, I'm telling you, you are, like, such an electric personality.
	You got, like, an energy about you, man.
	It's hard to... Right, Charlie?
	I mean... He's infectious.
	Like, you walk in a room and it's like, boom!
	Pow!
	Kicking the balls, man.
	It's freaking amazing.
	Like, where do you get that from?
	I have been accused of being infectious before, but not in precisely that manner, Dan Bongino.
	And I will take that as an extraordinary compliment for you.
	It is, brother.
	I must say, it's been a particular marvel to share this space with you.
	Albeit sometimes distracting, because you yourself are not devoid of incredible presence.
	And if I can just remind you of one thing that you said earlier today, obviously all of us now at this Republican convention are living in the immediate aftermath of this extraordinary historical event that will be unpacked perhaps for generations.
	And what was astonishing was to hear you when people in your audience, our audience, because to a degree we share an audience here as Rumble creators, who have a great appetite for conspiracy.
	And when there are as many anomalies as there evidently were in the events of Butler, there is an appetite for people to be told, this involves deep state conspiracy.
	And I thought the way that you handled that was extremely disciplined and elegant and involved a deployment of journalistic integrity that our collective many detractors would deny that you have.
	Could you just tell me once again, like, what your position on that was, Dan, when people are saying, all these anomalies, the ladder, the going around with a scanner and scoping the place out.
	There must be deep state involvement.
	How come you took such a strong position against that idea?
	Well, for three days now, um, a couple of folks in my chat, and it was limited, but it was a few.
	There were people saying, you know, Dan, you know, why don't you just say it?
	You know, this is an inside job.
	And I, I, you heard me screaming because I said, no.
	I don't know that.
	And I don't say shit I can't back up.
	Could it be an inside job, given this guy?
	Absolutely.
	Do I have evidence to back that up?
	If I did, I'd put it out on my show.
	Russell, listen.
	I am not ever going to be a leftist.
	I'm not going to be Adam Schiff and go on TV.
	Charlie, you saw it.
	I've got evidence of a Russian conspiracy.
	Let's see it, bro!
	Well, I don't really have it, but it's there, I promise.
	I'm never going to do that.
	Listen, I don't trust the government.
	I had a question authority bumper sticker on my car when I was in college.
	I never have.
	I've always been a conservatarian.
	But I only say things on my show that I can back up.
	And suggesting I was somehow like hiding information because I knew it was an inside job is insane.
	If evidence materializes that's the case, I'll put it out.
	But when you burn your integrity with the audience and say shit you can't back up and you put it out on Twitter, look!
	I got evidence.
	And then they click and they realize you're full of shit.
	Your audience goes down and down and down.
	It is important, Russell, not to be first, but to be right.
	And I am only going to say stuff I can back up.
	And if I'm speculating, you will hear me say it.
	This is speculation based on said evidence, but I haven't drawn a conclusion.
	You're only going to get that on the right, not on the left.
	That is an incredible and important point.
	As the Republican movement transitions, presumably from opposition to power, there will be a new degree of rigor Required and many of the things that much of the proselytization, many of the projections and much of the conjecture will now have to be deployed in an administration and that kind of integrity that you're able to deploy as a journalist, as an outsider
	It's going to be important, isn't it, if this is presumably, Charlie, a movement now towards government.
	How do you think Trump will fare if, indeed, he becomes the ultimate authority in American politics?
	First, we have to keep him alive because his safety is not secure, in my personal opinion.
	We have no guarantees the Secret Service, in its current form or fashion, can actually protect his safety.
	And I say this, the Secret Service Director won't even talk to lawmakers, and so we have to keep him alive and J.D.
	Vance alive from now till November and even beyond that.
	And so, but yes, as far as governing goes, I mean, look, this is why the J.D.
	Vance pick is so important, is that back in 2016, there was a backdoor behind Trump for the intel agencies and for the deep state forces to be able to manipulate the government through Mike Pence and through other advisors around Donald Trump.
	That was walled off last night.
	Last night, you saw that Donald Trump's presidency will not have a backdoor to the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Justice, against the wishes of Donald Trump.
	J.D.
	Vance is completely consistent with the worldview of Donald Trump.
	In fact, he is, I think, the most articulate spokesperson of that agenda, especially when it comes to ending these stupid endless wars, putting America first, and exploring American energy, restricting mass migration, and finally questioning some of these stupid trade deals.
	Mike Pence was much more of a neoliberal that was in that position.
	In fact, I'll tell you a true story.
	This was reported on, but people don't know it as well as they should.
	Donald Trump wanted to leave Afghanistan the right way.
	He wanted to get out of Afghanistan.
	It was a campaign promise, a campaign pledge.
	And he didn't want to do it like Joe Biden, leaving $90 billion of equipment.
	But he said, this is too long of a war.
	We must put Americans first.
	Mike Pence assembled a private rehearsal meeting the night before that Donald Trump was going to make the final decision with all of his, um, Secretary of Defense cabinet.
	At the time it was Mad Dog Mattis and he had Rex Tillerson and Mike Pence had assembled the entire team and they, he said, I'll play Donald Trump.
	Let's rehearse how this meeting is going to go.
	I never heard them.
	Oh no, and Mike Pence was like, here's what Trump's gonna say, and then you guys say this next, and then you guys say this next.
	Manipulating.
	So Trump walks into this meeting with his cabinet, having everyone there rehearsed of move A, move B, move C, move D.
	I'm very disappointed in particular at Mad Dog Malice, who with a name like that, you'd think you'd be able to rely on.
	Now, what about, like, hey, Dan, you know that clip that's going around everywhere of Chuck Schumer saying, if you transgress against the deep state... Six ways to Sunday.
	You better run!
	That was mid-January 2017.
	All right, Charlie, we're all aware of your position on the spectrum.
	OK, all right.
	Don't... Calm down, Charlie, you great data receptacle.
	All right.
	But it is good.
	It's an incredible ability, isn't it, that Charlie has.
	I'm really seeing people's essence here.
	He's a talented radio guy.
	I know.
	He's very talented.
	I mean, he's gifted.
	I mean, he's extraordinary.
	Sometimes he beats me in the podcast charts.
	I'm very... We're capitalists, right?
	Yeah, we're very competitive.
	I sent him a text.
	I'm like, you gonna be sick tomorrow or something?
	So I put your ass down a few spots.
	Don't start any conspiracy theories on this show.
	We're here only for evidence-based information.
	Even though you've said what you said, presumably about an ongoing fealty to the men and women that serve in the services with which you have long been associated, that you don't want to involve in conjecture, that is dispiriting, harmful and And plainly untrue for people that dedicate their lives to what they believe in.
	What do you feel it means when someone like Chuck Schumer says, if you mess with a deep state, as Charlie remembered, as he probably does everything that's been said in this conversation, probably if we dropped a box of matches, Charlie would know how many there were on the floor without counting them.
	I wonder what you think about the Chuck Schumer thing.
	What does he mean?
	And is this, when people talk about the deep state and the power of the deep state, and when Trump said the first time around, drain the swamp, do you think that in invective like that, there is a real fear in that?
	Is this something you can speculate on without transgressing the views that you articulated so well earlier?
	Yeah, having worked in the Secret Service, we were never gatherers of intelligence.
	And it's for an obvious reason.
	If I'm protecting Charlie, and say he's the president of some country somewhere, he doesn't want us gathering intelligence.
	He's not going to let us protect him.
	He's going to say, hey, keep your distance.
	I don't want you hearing my conversations.
	But what we do is we consume intelligence.
	Because if I am protecting Charlie or Russell or whatever, I'm going to get the CIA and others to give us a brief and say, hey, I can't say this publicly, but here's what's happening with Russell, the threat level behind the scenes.
	So being a 12-year consumer of the highest levels of intelligence, yes, the deep state is real.
	And I want to give a hat tip here.
	One of the best commentators out there, I know you know him, is Mike Benz.
	You ever want commentary on him?
	He's just the best.
	But he explains this better than anyone.
	I wrote this in a couple of books.
	The deep state has been basically at war with the American political system for a long time.
	And it's not just the standard players like, you know, people in the CIA or whatever.
	Some, not all of course, but they work through various carve-outs and entities, NGOs, non-governmental
	organizations, and those are the people where there's a lot of influence.
	Matter of fact, if you look at what happened in Ukraine pre-war, you know, you'll find out that
	it's just a quick example of how the deep state works.
	There was a pro-European side of Ukraine and a pro-Russia side.
	Pretty simple.
	A versus B. One side wanted one thing, one side wanted the other thing.
	So what they did is a bunch of non-governmental organizations on the ground went and hired former bureaucrats and former politicians who were old members of the state.
	That's why I don't like the term Deep State.
	I call it, you know, it's more like the blob, like Benz calls it, because they're not all state actors.
	And what they'll do is, these are people who have contacts in the state and use them and leverage them, but are on the outside getting paid so they have none of the accountability.
	So Russell, the deep state, you have the worst of both worlds.
	You have people with connections inside the government to make your life, your life, and my life miserable, but they have none of the, in fact, accountability where we can get them fired because they did something outside of their governmental role.
	That's really what the deep state is, and Ben just gloriously explains it in every video.
	Yeah, he's so articulate, Mike Benz.
	The manner in which he's able to reference accurate data and portray the kind of corruption and kind of an international level of dread is an ability that's almost comparable to yours, Charlie, as a receptacle of information, holding it all together.
	One of the things you were saying just before Dan graced us with his incredible presence, Still basking in somewhat, was that the Republican Party is more united than it's ever been.
	So there are no obstacles, you know, outside of the kind of nefarious things to which have been alluded and have recently been experienced to the assent of Donald Trump.
	How do you imagine this time around the ascendant political power of Trump will contend with the kind of state power, deep state power, blob power, I'll use whatever term you want, once in office?
	Yeah, so the second term is going to be a lot different than the first.
	First of all, personnel is policy and there are some really great people that are going to be going into this government.
	Secondly, J.D.
	Vance is going to be a keeping the eyes on the federal government every single day when President Trump might be ...handling higher level type of diplomatic issues.
	Look, President Trump's agenda day one is going to be securing the border, ending the war in Ukraine, ending the war in Gaza, and making sure that we have our commitment to Israel.
	That's like the first week or two.
	Under the current though, we need to build a government, put cabinet secretaries in,
	and also we have a looming list of like 50 or 60 immediate reforms and firings that need to happen.
	There's a reform called Schedule F that allows you to fire federal employees at will, but there's
	also a 1960s-era act that allows the President of the United States, it's the President Reassignment Act.
	I'm getting the name wrong, but it's something of that sort that essentially allows, if there's duplication in government, the president can merge agencies or officials together.
	No one knows this exists.
	Vivek told me about this, and I went and did all the research on it.
	It's amazing.
	So, for example, if there is duplicative type of work happening in the federal government, in the Department of Education and also maybe in the Department of Interior or Department of Interior, Department of Energy, you can then merge government agencies together and effectively sunset and end
	them.
	Now it'll be challenged in court but it's pretty clear that the executive
	branch has far more power than people realize and there needs to be an immediate message if President
	Trump were to win and take office in the first couple of weeks that every bureaucrat is worried that they might be
	next.
	That there needs to be volleys and salvos of firings and terminations.
	And this needs to continue for quite some time.
	And then, yeah, look, again, it comes down to the human beings that actually execute the policy as well.
	Do you know that... Thank you very much.
	That was so beautifully explained, but I'd expect nothing less from you, Charlie.
	You're an astonishing man.
	Now, listen, we have to leave YouTube right now, so if you're watching us on YouTube, there's a link in the description.
	Click that, join us on Rumble.
	After all, we are Rumble creators.
	They're free of us.
	And we need you to join us there, because, well, Dan, who knows what further illuminations await us from that direction.
	Charlie could be turning verbal pirouettes at any moment now.
	And I get the sense that there's information that these two men are not willing to tell me while we're still on a platform like YouTube that regulates in the manner that it does.
	He's a member of the TNI and is ultimately part of the systems that constrain our freedom.
	Click the link in the description and join us in that sweet stream of freedom that we call Rumble with some of the best.
	Now we're here on Rumble.
	Oh god, I can relax.
	I can unwind.
	Should we take our tops off?
	Wait, now I can talk about the vaccine.
	Now, my favourite one was the third booster.
	That's when I started to feel very, very powerful indeed.
	Hey, I've got to do an ad read, Charlie.
	I'm imagining that if I do anything wrong, Dan, step in.
	I'm watching.
	This is for 1775.
	1775.
	I'll track us back.
	Wow!
	Why?
	Why didn't anyone check that sloped roof?
	Who threw this?
	Why was the perimeter not cleared?
	For God's sake, stay alert!
	The sort of thing we're trying to shut down, isn't it?
	Okay, so this is 1775.
	As you know, this is a Rumble-affiliated brand.
	Charlie, have you been drinking 1775 coffee?
	It's terrific stuff.
	It's pretty magical and uplifting.
	Dan, you're never off duty, are you?
	No, I'm always working.
	Every single time.
	You need to relax.
	I know I can't.
	I can't.
	I'm a New Yorker.
	We're going to go into deep prayer.
	Charlie suggested a Bible reading.
	Dan got me on the thing of having coffee later in the morning, not immediately.
	Yes, you've got to wait 90 minutes.
	Your Breka podcast got me on that.
	Yes, Gary Breka.
	You can't drink it right away.
	90 minutes.
	And it tastes better, too.
	I've heard that.
	And longer shelf life in your system.
	Go to bed, then get up.
	90 minutes after that, get yourself some 1775 coffee.
	You know this is celebrating a revolutionary event that was very, very detrimental to the health of my country.
	As you know, Old Millie, it led to a revolution that I think, in retrospect, was a mistake.
	But if you use the code RNC, you will get 40% off your first order of... It's delicious stuff.
	It is delicious.
	That is so incredibly sincere.
	It is delicious, isn't it?
	Oh, it's amazing, yeah.
	I mean, sometimes I ingest it nasally, Charlie, just to... That's perfect for you.
	Cut out the middleman for heaven's sake.
	I would expect that.
	Dan, do you want me to leave you for a minute over there just to sort of deal with some stuff?
	No, no, no.
	I'm always doing showbiz.
	I have a FOMO thing.
	Fear of missing out.
	I do.
	Charlie, you ever get that on the show?
	Like you feel like I'm going to miss a story or an angle?
	All the time.
	Well, I mean, there's no news going on right now.
	I know.
	Listen, as a content creator, Russell, here's my biggest fear.
	My shows are live, every day, four hours a day.
	I'm proudest of the fact, you know, knock on wood or whatever, that despite having a Fox show, a radio show, and a TV show, I can tell you with a straight face, I'm yet to have gotten caught on the air.
	Where someone says something, I go, you know what?
	I just don't know.
	It could happen.
	I obviously don't know everything or even close to it.
	But as a content creator, you damn well, it's your responsibility for the audience to know what everything is.
	The face act, the save act, all that stuff.
	So I always have this FOMO, like I'm gonna miss out, you know?
	So, did you hear what Trump just said?
	And if I don't hear it, like, what's the point of listening to me?
	I screwed you over.
	So, you know, it's a responsibility, man.
	What is driving that in you, Dan?
	And how do you connect it to the... I'm a little crazy, brother.
	Yeah, yeah, clearly there's a sort of an energy.
	I'm a little nuts.
	I'm normal and sane.
	I got the crazy eyes.
	You're crazy.
	He's crazy.
	I'm bringing some rationalism to this conversation.
	You are.
	Russell Brand is the sanest person.
	I'm actually the shortest person on this couch today, too, which is freaking bananas.
	That never happens.
	I'm 6'1".
	And Charlie's like seven feet tall.
	Charlie's not even the same species.
	Charlie's legs are longer.
	Nephilim.
	We've been over this.
	Nephilim.
	He's part of the Nephilim.
	He's a biblical character.
	He's literally from scripture.
	He strode right out of Genesis and into our lives and broken our hearts.
	That's Charlie Kirk, everyone.
	You know, that kind of dedication and devotion that you had in your previous incarnation as working for the security services, do you feel that level of devotion and dedication as a Rumble creator?
	Is it something that you obsess about, making sure that you have the accurate information, the correct information, and the information available immediately?
	Is it something you're very devoted to?
	You know, I think I get it from my father.
	You know, obviously we're, yeah, I'm not getting into social psychology, but we're all social models, right?
	We model what we see around us.
	You know, you look at old Bandura work and stuff like that.
	And I grew up around my dad.
	You know, my father was a plumber and a building inspector, and he worked his way up.
	He ran the entire buildings department.
	And he had an apartment out in Long Island, was connected to his house.
	So when I went out to work in the Secret Service in the Long Island office, he said, hey, you want to rent the apartment?
	And the driveway was right near the apartment.
	So, four o'clock in the morning, every morning I'd hear... He had this old Mercury Cougar.
	And my dad was the boss.
	He ran like a 20-person department in Town of Smithtown.
	There was zero reason whatsoever for my father to get to work before nine o'clock.
	No one else was there.
	It was just him.
	But he got there at, I think, 4.35 because it was important to him that everybody knew he was the first guy into work and that he was... He didn't knock anyone else for showing up on time.
	He wasn't like, hey, you should be here at 4.
	He wasn't trying to be a showman.
	He was trying to set an example.
	And I gotta tell you, man, I never forgot that.
	And I feel like... I don't know if you feel the same, Russell.
	I know, Charlie, you do.
	Like, I don't mean this in an insulting way to us, but we don't have real jobs.
	Military folks, you know, engineers, railroad workers, UPS drivers, they have real jobs.
	America, the UK, the world works because of them.
	Not because we talk for a living.
	It's an important job.
	I'm glad we can impact people's lives.
	But it's not a real job.
	And I say that all the time to my audience.
	And they're always like, no, no, Dan.
	I'm like, no, no, no, Dan, nothing.
	Like, this is not real.
	What you guys do is real, and I respect that.
	And if you're going to give me a fake job like this, where I talk for a living, then you're damn right I'm going to do the damn thing, the right freaking way, and not talk a bunch of bullshit.
	That's my job, man.
	And, you know, I'm not sitting here digging ditches for a living.
	There are real people busting their ass.
	We owe them that.
	That's a pretty beautiful set of values.
	I wonder how those values and the constituency that Dan is speaking to and for have over the last 20 years somehow been so casually demonised and condemned.
	I saw it in my country in Brexit and certainly the rise of the MAGA movement has been accompanied with condemnation of an entire class of people as racist and various forms of attack.
	How has that happened?
	How did America turn on its inhabitants, Charlie, by your reckoning so insidiously and cruelly?
	And how did they get away with it, continually framing themselves as the protectors of the vulnerable?
	Yeah, after the wall fell and we declared victory over the Cold War, the ruling class of this country decided to care much more about Corporate profits and their own enrichment and the welfare of the American citizenry.
	And they got away with it for the first 15 years because we were living on the multi-decade inheritance of winning World War II.
	And so they decided to open up markets to liberalize everything.
	We literally had the book by Francis Fukuyama where he said it's the end of history.
	He's like, this is it!
	That was the actual title.
	Literally.
	The title was The End of History.
	Liberalism will take over the entire world.
	you know, the whole idea of dictatorship or oligarchy or conservative rule is over, and
	liberalism is the best way of ruling ever, and it will just spread with any sort of restraints.
	And that was a lie. And it was a lie because they made a series of, again, what was on
	full display here at the RNC is a refutation of that devil's bargain that occurred in the
	late 80s and early 90s, which is neoliberalism is built on invade the world, invite the world,
	and import a bunch of cheap stuff at the expense of your own citizens.
	And we've lived through the excesses of that because our leaders, the last 20 years especially, have contempt for the people that they are tasked to govern.
	It's pretty extraordinary that those military endeavours are no longer supported automatically and reflexively by the kind of people that you described.
	Now, those people have become cynical, full of doubt.
	The idea, as Charlie described earlier, Dan, that presumably Trump and Vance will ascend into power on an anti-war mandate, that, as Charlie said earlier, is an incredible recalibration.
	How has this How has this change in temperature been achieved?
	How has it happened that the Republican Party movement now is the party of anti-war?
	And what do you imagine is going to happen?
	Where is all of that power, all of that lobbying clout, all of that manipulation going to go
	once they no longer have the pathways that were available to them?
	Isn't it incredible?
	I mean, you're a guy, comedy, acting, you've been around, people have known you forever.
	You've been surrounded, essentially, by liberals your entire life who prided themselves on the idea that they were the peaceniks, right?
	And now they're the warthogs.
	You know what?
	My position on this, though, I've actually run for office at last, but you can go back and watch my campaign commercials and everything else.
	I've been consistently anti-foreign intervention when there's no actual game plan.
	I was against the Iraq war, Afghanistan, there were portions of it we had to do after 9-11, but I certainly did not support a long-term footprint.
	And I'm going to tell you something that changed me, and I'm trying not to get all choked up, and I'm trying not to be a wussbag, but you know what?
	My uncle served in Vietnam, a war where the message, at a minimum, was confusing to people.
	They didn't understand what we were doing.
	I'm not saying that... I'm just saying the message to the American people was off, okay?
	My uncle was supposed to come home.
	The day he was supposed to come home, they had signs... We owned a bar.
	It was called Gibby's Bar on Myrtle Avenue in Queens, New York.
	They had signs up, Welcome Home Greg.
	It was the actual day.
	Two soldiers walk up.
	It's not Greg.
	And my grandfather, who was a little bit of a bit actor, and he would do commercials.
	He was the bar owner.
	My grandfather was about 500 pounds and 6'7".
	He was a big guy.
	So that's why he was an actor.
	And you'd see him.
	He used to do Rupert Beer commercials.
	And my grandmother was upstairs.
	Now, my uncle who died, my grandmother's first husband had died.
	That was my uncle's dad.
	So this was his stepfather.
	And these two soldiers walk in.
	And they said, you know, my uncle, my grandfather knows right away.
	And they said, we're looking for Eileen, Gregory Ambrose's mom.
	And he said, you're not going up there.
	I'm going to do it.
	He didn't let him.
	He said, no, no, you don't.
	They said, we have to.
	He said, I know you got hurt.
	You're not doing it.
	And I'm going to tell you something, man.
	My grandmother was never the same, ever.
	There was 1968, he was killed.
	He was shot in the back in Thu Duc, Vietnam, saving his friend.
	He was given the bronze star with a V cluster.
	My grandmother was never, ever the same.
	My grandmother died, you know, 40 years, 50 years later, she could never, ever have the name Greg mentioned in front of her without breaking down.
	And Russell, I get it.
	I don't want to oversimplify war.
	The human condition is something not easily simplified by one-page narratives in a book.
	However, if I, as a political leader running for office when I did, I'm not anymore, am going to commit your son into combat, or daughter, and they're going to come back in some freaking body bag, then I better damn well have some kind of game plan as to why they died.
	And I think the Republican Party has always been the party, at least on the economic front, of results.
	And I think we just applied the same guiding ethos to war.
	Where's the spreadsheet?
	What are you doing?
	We're giving them money exactly for what?
	What's the game plan?
	What are we doing in Iraq?
	And no one can answer these questions, and what's our history of success?
	And if I may, last evening the kicker of J.D.
	Vance's entire speech was that we are rejecting abstractions.
	Think about, oh, we're spreading democracy in Iraq.
	Go spend more money.
	Or Zelensky's the new Churchill.
	Exactly.
	These are all abstractions.
	When they come under criticism or scrutiny, they have no backing in any sort of facts.
	The slightest criticism.
	By the way, how do they respond when you criticize?
	You're a Putin puppet.
	They cannot have a conversation about any of these things.
	And neoliberalism is built on weaponized name-calling.
	Oh, well, you're a protectionist.
	You're an isolationist.
	Or you're a racist for not wanting to have mass migration.
	And so we just kind of back off.
	And when you have a political order that can fall apart as soon as the name-calling ceases, maybe those ideas are really bad.
	And they're hurting a lot of people.
	Wait, can I?
	I'm sorry, Russell.
	Just to add, Charlie is 100% correct.
	The mildest of scrutiny, it collapses.
	You ask him a basic question.
	Listen, I don't need the... I am not the chief of staff.
	You know, I'm not the head of military operations at the Pentagon for special forces.
	I don't need to know surgical strikes.
	I'm just asking you a basic question.
	Okay, what does victory look like in Ukraine?
	Are we taking back Crimea?
	I'm not really sure.
	But what happens if we do and Putin launches a tactical nuke because then his power is threatened and he's a maniac and he's not going to leave power without sending a message by dropping a tactical nuke first.
	And then they go, is that victory now?
	Because then there's no Crimea because the nuclear war breaks out.
	And then they look at you and go, shit, man, I never really thought about that.
	Well, maybe you should, bro, before we get more people killed and send a hundred billion more dollars.
	I mean, can you imagine?
	Let's make the simplest analogy.
	You get a script for a movie.
	They're like, Russell, we have the greatest script ever.
	Your comedy skills are so amazingly suited for this.
	And the script is blank.
	And you're like, well, how am I supposed... Is this a joke?
	No, no, we'll get it to you later.
	Like, no, no, bro.
	I'm not signing a contract with a blank script.
	That's what they want us to do.
	Charlie is so right.
	You ask basic questions.
	Basic questions, Russell.
	There's no answer.
	Don't nearly call me Russia, because I have been called... I've already been called a Putin apologist.
	We've all been called.
	They made a little video about me saying it was an in-Ukrainian, I hasten to add.
	But what do you think is indicated by that lack of a script and by the lack of an inability to outline a clear agenda?
	What is revealed by this inability in your view, Dan?
	This is what... If you ever go to business school, they do SWOT analysis.
	Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats.
	Modern American politics has solely become about not, you know, weaponizing the ability to take advantage of opportunities to make America great.
	It is shifted almost fully into, let's just mitigate a threat and stay alive.
	So, in relationship to wars in Ukraine, I can almost guarantee you, swampy Republicans, because it's a bipartisan shitshow what's going on, and weak Democrats said, well, we don't want to look weak by having Putin invade Ukraine because it's going to politically hurt me, so let's just marginally do something, whether it works or not, and let's just ride it out to the next election.
	Never attribute to incompetence what you can attribute in politics, to sheer malice.
	They just want to stay alive.
	It is about mitigating threats to power.
	It's not about actually advancing a cause, because they can't tell you what the cause is.
	Charlie just said it.
	They don't even have a basic idea.
	And because they can't admit what the actual cause is.
	So, I mean, I saw Lindsey Graham here.
	I asked, how many Ukrainians have died in the war?
	He can't tell you.
	And think about how sick and evil that is. He's the number one cheerleader for Ukrainians to get money,
	and he can't tell you how many Ukrainians have died. Like I said, can you give me a ballpark?
	10,000, 100,000, 150,000. He's like, I'll have to get, you know, he's like, you know,
	staff came in and just like, I didn't film it because I'm not there for sensationalism. I'm
	not here to, I'm just like, I'm actually interested in a policy question from somebody who like,
	kind of, just no idea. So I'm not, okay, fine. So, but then, and by the way, I got that from
	Tucker who goes around and ask that question to everybody.
	But we must understand that after the wall fell, it all goes back to the wall, we had a decision, which is, are we now going to keep this NATO project alive, and what is the reason for NATO?
	And Russia wanted to join NATO.
	Repeatedly wanted to join NATO, and just end this chapter, and we don't have to have this Russian bear adversary.
	But NATO is the GAE, the gay, which is the Great American Empire.
	And that is why when NATO was in town, it was in America, it's as if this is the neoliberal project is housed within NATO.
	And so when Putin invaded Ukraine, first of all, he was provoked to invade, provoked by Kamala Harris going to the Munich Security Conference and saying that Ukraine should become a member of NATO, and we have all this weapons and all this armament on the border.
	What American liberals saw is that they saw a questioning of the outer edges of their empire.
	Because we as Americans are much closer to mercantilism than we are to anything else, which is we're not actually a nation.
	We are a deteriorating homeland with outer edges colonies and an oligarchy that makes a bunch of money off of the underclass.
	And permanent war is the oxygen of the oligarchy.
	What's terrifying to me, both of you, and obviously I want to hear your perspective on this, is that if we were living through a period of de-dollarization, where America's economic power is indeed under collapse, then how will they be able to resist, even with this presumed mandate in post-November, The ongoing struggles that are presented by the potential threat of a rise of China or the rise of Russia, if indeed what is playing out really on a geopolitical level is the threat of the BRICS currency and what is the emergence of genuine threats from China and Russia, do you see that under this administration, on the geopolitical level, to go right from the micro of the anguish and agony of losing a family member in war
	to the vast potential for the apocalypse, which I think many people are terrified could become a reality under the Biden administration, were it to be granted time to administer it.
	How do you think that those kind of problems are diffused?
	Or do you not consider them to be problems that can't be resolved diplomatically, both of you?
	It's going to take work.
	You're not going to reverse 40 years of neoliberalism overnight.
	But President Trump He has a mandate, hopefully, from the American people coming in November, which is that we're not going to have any more of these adventurous wars.
	We're going to put the American worker first.
	And we still hold all the cards.
	Here's the thing.
	BRICS is this fake thing.
	America is still by far the strongest country.
	I have a good friend here in the audience.
	I just stepped out.
	He's like the king of American energy.
	Harold Hamm.
	Great American, by the way.
	One of the most valuable and largest American energy companies.
	We have Two neighbors that are not going to win.
	Well, we are being invaded.
	But we have largely friendly neighbors.
	We have an incredible population.
	It just takes leadership to reverse it.
	And China has a lot of looming problems.
	So does Russia.
	And I don't see it to be an issue at all if President Trump's able to win.
	Now before I turn to you on this matter, Dan, this is of course, due to my participation, a transatlantic conversation.
	And you may have friends in the audience, and I have have former adversary, and now newly elected Member of Parliament for Clacton-on-Sea, Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party.
	Nigel, thank you so much for joining us for this conversation.
	I can see you know Dan, and I presume you know dear Charlie Kirk as well.
	I wonder, just to acknowledge your arrival here, we've not met in person for a very long time, and last time we did it was in a similar panel environment, the barbed remarks were flung around wildly, but since then it appears that via the discourse around anti-establishmentism, Nigel and I have found common ground.
	Just listening, Nigel, just to get you up to speed what we've been talking about.
	We've been talking about how the Republican Party now is truly the anti-war party.
	That both Dan and Charlie are optimistic that a Vance-Trump partnership in the White House will mean an end to Middle Eastern war.
	An end to the Ukraine-Russia war.
	Now you were attacked for saying, as you did as a member of the European Parliament, that Putin was being provoked.
	You didn't try to mitigate Putin's own malevolence.
	That's simply not your job.
	I wonder what you feel on the most vast of stages, the global one, the ascent of Trump and Vance will mean for the most important of geopolitical issues, war.
	Yeah, Russell, it's lovely to see you.
	Thank you.
	Without you abusing me, it's really rather lovely.
	Well, hold on.
	No, I'm joking.
	No, it's not.
	long time ago and it's water under the bridge, it really is.
	My sin was I stood up in the European Parliament in 2014 and said there will be a war in Ukraine
	and they hated me for saying it.
	And they hated me even more for being right about it.
	You know what?
	The causal factors of this...
	It's historic.
	It goes back to the fall of the Berlin Wall.
	There were many educated people here in the State Department, major figures like Henry Kissinger saying, understand what Russia is.
	Understand what Napoleon did to Russia.
	Understand what Hitler did to Russia.
	Understand there is a paranoia in Russia and that Putin's a dictatorial figure and what you don't do with a Russian bear is deliberately poke it with a stick, right?
	But that's history.
	We are now where we are.
	One of the reasons I was attracted to Trump back in late 2015 was I'd seen a series of American presidents launching what seemed like endless wars with our government going along with all of them.
	Often fought at enormous cost, not just to us, but to say the civilian population of Iraq, hundreds of thousands of people died there.
	And I'm not a pacifist by any means, but I believe that peace comes Through strength and not through weakness.
	And what Biden did, withdrawing those last 3,000 troops, the way in which he did it, from Kabul, sent a message to the world, to China, to Russia, that the West had given in.
	The West had fallen to pieces.
	And they even had reason to think that NATO was no longer viable.
	Because, you think about it, Britain and America have stood side by side for over 100 years on virtually every single war.
	And Biden did that.
	Did that withdrawal without even telling us?
	Yet we'd been with America, pro rata, we spent the same money, we lost the same number of troops, we're just a smaller country than you, but we'd been with you all the way.
	Don't say in front of them, Nigel!
	I'm over here working extremely hard!
	Just prior to your arrival, we were talking about the ineptitude and the botched departure from Afghanistan, and we were just on the precipice of mentioning Julian Assange and his sort of rather simple yet seemingly accurate edict, But the function of government is to funnel public money into private hands via the endeavor of war, and never was that more clear than in the Afghanistan conflict.
	And it seems apposite to mention his name as we attempt to tie up that particular part of our conversation.
	But another of the areas that I hear all of you talk about is, of course, border security.
	And the opponents, the many vocal and vociferous opponents that all of you, and indeed I have, on a variety of issues, but there's focus on this one.
	What we are continually told is that with regard to the issue of migration, that there is a kind of a legacy of compassion that is owed to refugees.
	And I've heard you say many times, Nigel, that legal immigration is necessary.
	I just wonder what you think is the reason that your political opponents continue to advocate for
	migration both legal and otherwise, although you've significantly reframed and moved that
	argument in our country for sure.
	I wonder how you regard the use of compassion as the undergirding for that argument,
	given that we have seen so much malevolence in the subject of war, so much ineptitude during Covid,
	such a lack of compassion elsewhere within the neoliberal establishment. Do you feel like you've
	been proven right on this issue?
	But in particular, would you focus on the aspect of compassion when it comes to migration?
	I'll start with you, Nigel, because you know your time is limited here.
	It's not compassionate to people who've legally come to America or Britain, been through the
	process, spent their money, obeyed the law, got their citizenship. It's not compassionate
	to them for someone to walk straight across a border or come on a small boat across the
	sea and get benefits and get put up in hotels. That's not compassionate. It's actually completely
	unfair and it's not compassionate to impose upon communities, young men, because that's
	what it is.
	You don't see women and children, or very few of them.
	It's young men who come from totally different cultures, who are not assimilating, not treating women in a way that we would think to be reasonable and fair.
	In many cases, coming from organized crime groups, going straight into drug farms, whatever it is.
	This isn't about compassion, it's about common sense.
	And common sense says, and Reagan said it 40 years ago, Unless you control your borders, you're not a proper country.
	That's what it comes down to.
	Yeah, and my perspective from the States, I'm an immigration restrictionist.
	It's not just the southern border, it's our legal problem as well.
	We have too many legal immigrants coming into America.
	And this is something, this is the third rail of American politics, but when you have... Elon Omar is a legal immigrant to the United States.
	Has Elon Omar enriched the United States of America?
	No.
	She hates this country.
	She's an ingrate.
	So it's not just that we have a southern border problem, which obviously they're trying to replace the American population for political purposes, but we have a legal immigration problem that we keep on bringing people that do not share our values.
	And J.D.
	Vance said it politely and correctly last night in a way I've never heard it framed.
	If you are a newcomer, you come on our terms.
	And that means when we want you.
	Some of the greatest times of American prosperity are when we had the lowest levels of legal immigration.
	1950s and early 1960s.
	No one talks about it.
	It was like 50,000 people a year.
	Right now we have 1.3 million legal immigrants a year, and we have anywhere between 3 to 4 million people trespassing on the border, coming in and illegally occupying themselves and domiciling themselves.
	So a government exists to protect its citizens, because we're a country, not a colony, and if we are a country, then your immigration policy should be always be asking, is it helping the citizens of our country, or is it hurting them?
	And when American workers, for example, I represent young people and I was just speaking
	at University of Washington, Seattle in May, and they're all going to, you know, the huge
	computer science department and they say, yeah, we have to compete against foreign-born
	Indian workers for tech jobs at Microsoft.
	I think that's insane.
	Like, why would we go bring in a bunch of foreigners to go compete against our own Americans
	that we educated, that we have a moral obligation to?
	And it comes down to a question of the social contract, which is breaking down.
	The social contract no longer exists.
	Why?
	Because people want mass migration for political purposes.
	Others want them for corporate profits, when in reality it is the American citizen that
	is not prioritized.
	It seems impossible and unwise for me to decouple the issue of migration from other threats to national sovereignty.
	Your argument about borders seems apposite.
	Clear, and I appreciate and understand it.
	But what sense is there in protecting borders when it comes to the subject of immigration if the nation is not economically protected from forms of globalism and corporatism that are less easy to identify but similarly present a drain on the country?
	We'd spoke before your arrival, Nigel, about the urgent requirement for America and I presume you would see this similarly The United Kingdom to be extricated from foreign wars.
	But what do you think too about the influence of global corporatism on domestic politics in our country and in this one because we focus so much certainly in this environment on bureaucracy and entrenched bureaucracies and the corruption of an unelected deep state class running things.
	But because I know that you know a great deal about international commerce and finance, I wonder how you regard the insidious influence of financial power that is non-domestic on, for example, British politics.
	Well, it's the unholy trinity, isn't it, of big banks, big business, and big politics.
	So the more you regulate an industry, the more it suits the multinational.
	Because it makes it very, very difficult for small and medium-sized competitors to enter into the marketplace.
	So big bureaucracy suits the multinationals, they love it.
	And in our case, they don't even pay tax in the UK.
	Their corporate profits are paid through Dublin or paid through somewhere else.
	I think the effect of corporatism is it stifles new ideas, it stifles competition, it reduces choice in the marketplace.
	I'm a capitalist.
	And when you hear the left attacking capitalism, there isn't any capitalism.
	We're living in corporatism.
	And it gets harder and harder for the little guy, the little woman, that wants to run their own business and set up, they find themselves being crushed by regulation, crushed by taxes, and that's bad for the economy.
	And the last time we saw real wealth creation Going from the bottom up.
	Where the gap between the top and the bottom started to narrow was in the 1980s.
	And in the vanguard of all of that were men and women going out, setting up their own businesses.
	Reagan was a great advocate of it.
	Thatcher was a great advocate of it.
	And at the moment, nobody in politics understands small business, understands entrepreneurship,
	and that's one of the things that I want to fight really hard for.
	I believe that.
	By the way, Pope John Paul as well was also a great advocate of economic freedom,
	which we're kind of missing that now, which you've seen with our current pope,
	who seems to be on the other side of the economic spectrum.
	He's a Marxist first.
	By the way, what an honour to meet you.
	Congratulations.
	Can I comment quickly on UK politics?
	Please be cautious, David.
	I know, I don't want to start a fire here.
	I find it hilarious, at least, you know, the comical and dopey American media, them saying how, oh, you know, the left in the UK, no such thing happened.
	Number one, they got less votes.
	And secondly, they're now stealing our ideas.
	Now, they're not going to implement them because they're phonies, but this is not a bunch of communists.
	They ran stealing our ideas because Sunak and others threw truss under the bus and didn't do what they were going to do.
	So any bullshit you're hearing in the American media, but the, oh gosh, look, the left.
	Nonsense.
	You got the seat.
	Your party is now a power player.
	That is total bullshit.
	And a lot of it had to do, I think, this, this sense of populism that's gone on around the world, whether it's France, whether it's, you're seeing it now in the UK with Nigel's party, it has to do with the border issue, which you asked about before.
	Russell, listen, you know, compassion without a plan is actually not only not compassion, it's the inverse.
	It's immoral.
	I'll give you an example, maybe it'll make sense.
	You know, we've got to take care of people that are poor around the world.
	Yes, we live in a world of scarce resources.
	There's always going to be people who are poor, and people who are rich, and people in between.
	I'm sorry that's the way the world was designed.
	I'm not the creator.
	That's the world we live in.
	Everything's scarce.
	Water, air, everything, okay?
	We have to take care of our nation first.
	Here's an example for you.
	Say you're, I'm Russell Brand, I'm compassionate.
	You know, I want to build houses for the homeless.
	Love you, Russell, that's such a great idea.
	And then, you don't know anything about houses, but you're compassionate, you build a couple houses, the homeless gentleman moves in, the next day the house collapses and kills him.
	It wasn't only unethical and not compassionate, it was downright immoral for you to do something you had no battle plan for.
	Compassion with no battle plan is immoral.
	It's not just not compassionate.
	And it goes back to, again, Thomas Sowell's description of this conflict of visions.
	You have a vision, Nigel, Charlie, and I have together on the conservatarian side, where our vision is this.
	Man is inherently conflicted.
	Men can be mercenary.
	There's an evil in the world that'll never be purged.
	Your only goal as a governing system in the government you're thankfully now a part of is to control the latent evil that exists in men.
	Your goal is not to make my life better.
	Your goal is to get the fuck out of my way and let me make my own life better.
	You don't know shit about me.
	You don't know anything about my business.
	You don't know anything about my health condition, about the educational goals I have for my kid.
	Get out of my way!
	Give me police services, give me a decent, strong military, a court system, and please, God, I don't use names in vain, get the fuck out of my way!
	I don't want you to do shit for me!
	Shut the fuck up!
	And go there and do nothing!
	Am I allowed to curse on your show?
	Sorry, I'm not.
	But we need a little more clarity on what your perspective is on this subject.
	You're being too vague.
	I'm sorry.
	What I want to say is in a sense you have perfectly articulated the new cartilage that's emerging in the anti-establishment space because you touched for a moment on a variety of issues and you did some rather wonderful cursing.
	We all applaud that.
	Nigel and I in the past have been in positions, adversarial positions and perhaps one day we will again but you mentioned British politics and one thing that is important you question the nature of Keir Starmer's mandate and there are other questions yet about the nature of that mandate.
	Keir Starmer, wouldn't it be wonderful if in opposition he had been the kind of opposition leader that said What's Julian Assange doing in Belmarsh?
	If he'd been the kind of opposition leader that hadn't secretly met with the CIA, potentially to prolong and certainly not to expedite the release of Julian Assange.
	And certainly it's curious that in Kyrstyna we have a leader that almost as one of his initial duties went to assure Zelensky that funding of the war will continue, that there will be no meaningful transition.
	And it's precisely this kind of globalism That's meant that people that might customarily have been on the left like myself, and people that are customarily on the right like Nigel, now to a degree have a common opponent.
	These kind of centralist, managerial, citizen management, bureaucrat class that don't seem to have a vision for peace.
	Far less a vision for autonomy and democracy in a kind of get-the-fuck-out-of-my-way style, as articulated by Dan Bongino.
	And I wonder if you've noticed that as well, Nigel, that this is an unusual time.
	There is a rise of populism of various hues and varieties, and therefore I think the potential for different types of political alliances, both domestically and internationally, and now you obviously feel that internationally, you're here presumably to support Donald Trump in this Curious, extraordinary moment.
	What do you think about the emergence of similar alliances, based on what Dan Bongino has just said, that so many of us just want the government to get the fuck out of the way because we don't trust them?
	Excuse my language.
	I mean, yeah, I'll resist.
	I will resist the language, if you'll allow me.
	I would never think of myself as reserved, but yeah, you know what?
	Government getting out of the way was my point about small business.
	That they are regulated to a level where many people say, just what is the point of doing this?
	The same goes for tax systems, where we in the UK now see a brain drain.
	First time in 40 years that young, bright people are leaving the country because the tax burden is getting worse.
	They're saying, you know, marginal tax rates of 63% now on the last portion of income.
	People say, what's the point of being here?
	But the new politics is, if you earn between £100,000 and £120,000, you're paying 63% tax.
	The government literally owns a majority of you.
	It's just a disaster.
	But on the changing politics, that speech of JD Vance's last night, you could have given that speech in South Wales.
	Where the steelworks are all closing, the production is going to India and China, and we're saying, aren't we great?
	We've cut carbon dioxide emissions.
	No, we haven't.
	The same steel gets produced now in India and China and then shipped back to us.
	And when you listen to what JD said last night, that speech could appeal to 50% of Democrats in this country.
	The old left-right divides that perhaps certainly I grew up with years ago are being blown out of the water.
	This is a very different kind of politics.
	This is a politics that says actually a lot of good, ordinary, decent folks are being really done over.
	by the political system and the beneficiaries, this sort of upper middle class marzipan layer of people, not quite at the top but tucked in very securely, they're doing terribly well and they tend to run media and they tend to run politics, they tend to be executives in the global corporate organisations and they live in the middle of our big cities.
	And that's the divide.
	It is the metropolitan types against those that live in small-town Britain, small-town America.
	That's the real divide, and even the class dynamic of politics has changed completely, where so much of the middle, middle-upper classes would have been naturally centre-right, now they've become liberal, and much of the working class that would have voted on the left are now feeling that actually their feelings of patriotism, their feelings about the way government's treating them, are pushing them to what we maybe see as the right.
	That's the big shift, politically, that's going on.
	Yeah, it seems extraordinary and media platforms such as this one are at the vanguard of that movement.
	It seems to me, I've said this a couple of times in this conference but if you'll indulge me once more, Breitbart's famous saying that politics is downstream of culture could include the fact that all are downstream of technology and our ability to
	communicate in this manner, to have conversations where it's possible to create possibly new consensus, new
	alliances, seems to have contributed certainly to the ascent of this new Vance Trump Republicanism
	movement. And I wonder what kind of permutations and expressions it might find
	elsewhere, because it does seem indeed that there is a requirement for radical global
	change. And I think that we're at the beginning of something quite exciting, precisely because of
	the ability to have forums like this one, whilst I accept that it's obviously in a
	Republican space.
	It seems like though, have I got to do a live ad read?
	The irony of it, Nigel, I'm being dragged by the throat into a commercial requirement.
	As long as they're not too corporate, it's okay.
	Well, it turns out that this is for the wellness company, and I'm reading it live.
	Dan, will you please steward this?
	Nigel, have we got you for a moment longer?
	A moment longer.
	Have you got to depart?
	OK, this is for the contagion kit.
	Do I have to do this right now?
	Is this an important moment for us to do it?
	During the Biden administration, you'll be aware, so this is a party political issue, Americans saw disinformation, which we're furious about, pandemic response disaster, Oh, and I've got to say this.
	Left-wing takeover of our institutions.
	Do you want to do that line, Nigel?
	And decimation of our economy is a dire warning of events to come.
	Okay, so this contagion kit from the wellness company means that you will have your own emergency kit in the event that you shall require one.
	Though it seems, with the ascent of a new political class and possibly with decentralization, libertarianism and a new kind of Christian-informed anarchism, You may not require it with the same urgency, but go to TWCHEALTH.COM and get your Contagion Emergency Kit right now.
	There's a link in the description for you to take advantage of this extraordinary offer.
	Dan, when you express yourself that clearly, I'm not sure, Nigel, if as a fellow Englishman you're aware of the extraordinary power that Dan Bongino wields in this space.
	Do you see that what's happening is...
	Something that happened in our country I'm much more aware of is in the Brexit era, which of course you would have to say that you were the architect and imperture of, I noticed, and it sort of started to change my political perspective, that there was an ongoing contempt and disdain for ordinary British people.
	I saw the people of the North, Spoken of derisorily.
	The people of where I'm from, Essex, spoken of in a condemnatory way.
	And I've noticed that this phenomena doesn't seem to be unique to the United Kingdom.
	In this country, like I hear in Dan's ire, a kind of protection for ordinary working people.
	Dan comes from an ordinary working family.
	I wonder if you think that part of what's happening now is that there's a sort of an emergence of confidence and pride in those communities that have been abandoned by this professional marzipan class that you described.
	Do you feel that there's a kind of a new robustness?
	Yes, I do, and it's funny, isn't it?
	I mean, if you say anything in the public space that can be construed to be homophobic or racist, you're out.
	Even if it's not, but you're out.
	You're cancelled.
	But basically treat the entirety of the working class with total contempt, and that's absolutely fine.
	Especially if they're white.
	It makes it even better.
	No problem at all.
	The deplorables, right?
	The famous deplorables.
	This is the point I was going to make.
	Clinton did it back in 2016.
	She talked about the deplorables.
	She felt no sense of guilt or shame in writing off huge numbers of Americans.
	No, the real divide in society is snobbery.
	Snobbery.
	And now a lack of social mobility.
	Far fewer people, Russell, from working class backgrounds, getting into media, even getting into the top ranks of politics, of sport.
	There's a very big class divide.
	And I do think, I do think that among many of those working class communities, there is a feeling that enough is enough.
	At least for those who've still got ambition.
	For many others, the welfare state in our country, and we're seeing it here now in America, the rapid growth of the welfare state, where people can be better off not working than they are working.
	And that leads to a level of depression, it leads to a level of drug abuse, it leads to a level of, frankly, downward societal decay.
	So we have to find ways of getting those on benefits back to work.
	And we have to find ways of giving those working class communities, who've been so done down by de-industrialisation and everything else, we've got to find a way of giving them hope and optimism.
	But are they ready for a new political message?
	Are they ready for a new kind of leadership?
	You bet your life they are.
	And I think, you know, whatever his faults are, whether you like him or not, I do think Donald Trump represents some sense of hope for those communities.
	And again, picking JD Vance, picking a Midwesterner, I think that was a very, very clever thing to do.
	I think there's no question now after recent events that it seems that there is an unassailable ascent, an extraordinary optimism, and my prayer as a person who is somewhat outside of this, other than my contributions to this wonderful platform, is that this does augur the kind of optimism and the kind of change that all of us would like to see, the kind of individual freedom, community freedom, than the kind of responsibility derived liberty that's been
	discussed and eloquently conveyed by all of you over the course of this conversation. And let's
	not forget that it all took place on Rumble. Nigel, thank you for this impromptu opportunity to
	speak and I hope we get more chances to speak because we share many things in common and
	have a lot to talk about I hope and I pray. Dan, it was lovely to have this chance to speak with
	you and to see you in full Dan Bongino life, fully swearing, fully libertarian, full of purity,
	full of life. Charlie Kurtz, thank you.
	The endless gifts of your commitment and devotion I'm most grateful for.
	And for all of you, thank you for joining us.
	We'll be back tomorrow with Benny Johnson.
	Stay free back there.
	We're back tomorrow, not with more of the same, but with more of the different.
	Until then, if you can, stay free.
	See you soon.
	Take care.
	Stay free!

▲