Trump-Musk Interview Hit By “MASSIVE CYBER ATTACK” - Media & Dems PANIC! - SF 429
Go to http://www.stickermule.com/u/rustyrockets to support Stay Free
Go to https://gdefy.com and use code Russell for an exclusive $30 off orders of $130 or more.
⏰ BE HERE AT 12PM ET / 5PM BST ⏰
As Elon’s interview with Donald Trump is hit by a cyber attack - or technical difficulties - depending on which media you follow, the European Union sends Musk a warning about “harmful content”.
Check out my social medias and more - https://linktr.ee/RussellBrand
Hello you Awakening Wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle, Gurgle Dot, or wherever you download your podcasts these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering miasma of lies and propaganda.
We appreciate you, and we love you.
You're part of our community.
So that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live Rumble Show five days a week.
It's on Monday to Friday.
We decipher the latest news stories, we break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering, and if they aren't, Then we critique why they're not and what they are covering.
Every week as well, right?
We do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate.
These things are already up and you can listen to them now.
So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show.
To tune in live, Go to Rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand.
You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.
Now please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Thanks.
Hello there you awakening wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand where we are streaming live from what's left of the UK in a time of great consternation, conflagration, Distress and despair.
But could we, like phoenixes, emerge from the flames of these fires with new unification, new communities aligned and opposed against establishment corruption?
Certainly we could, you glorious individuals, if you're willing to access the incredible power within you in a way that great teachers like Dave Martin can perhaps instruct us to.
I'll be with Dave in a couple of seconds.
In fact, why don't we say hello to Dave Martin right now?
It's Dave.
I'm happy to see you.
Russell, I'm always happy to see you, brother.
Good to see you.
The Lord will be with us, Dave.
We shall not conjure the forces, for we are not shaman, merely conduits and vessels of his power.
I've got so much to talk to you about.
Thanks for joining us, Dave.
I'll see you.
I'll see you in a second.
We are still able to speak freely in the UK, am I?
Let me just check the time.
Yep, free speech is still possible.
We're still able to endorse, ah, blueberry bliss, the glory of it.
Where is Bear?
Where's my dog gone?
Let's get him back.
But before we get into canine care, before we get into existential despair, before we get into Dave Martin's underwear, I mean that only metaphorically, of course, let's have a look at The attacks on Elon Musk.
Are they cyber?
Are they legal?
Are they simply metaphorical?
And what do they mean?
And where do you stand?
Let me know in the rumble chat.
Elon Musk crusader for free speech or Elon Musk Yet another controlled opposition false flag.
Let me know, Joe Yodo and Angry Wee Jorby and Battle Box and Rumbled and all of you guys.
And what about Sensitive Hearts and Ed Weissner and Janice Sixx, all you Awakened Wonders, Alpine Suite, all of our community over there on Locals.
What do you think about this story?
One thing is clear.
The legacy media emboldened and excited about their new president because for them the election is a foregone conclusion.
Kamala Harris is to be the next president of the United States.
The legacy media is unified behind her.
The only potential threat is An Elon Musk, Donald Trump collab.
The two imperatures, the two mischievous, I would say Machiavelli's of the right or the libertarian tricksters.
Those two could conjure up just about enough oppositional might to bring down the propaganda campaign for Kamala.
Now me, You know where I stand!
I don't back any of these institutions!
Decentralised power!
I believe in you!
I believe in Jesus Christ our Saviour!
I believe that we could be freed together if we were willing to awaken together.
But CNN have got some pretty strong views and CNN, as you know, are a significant part of the control mechanism.
Let's have a look at what they had to say about, uh, let's see what they had to say about, um, the, the Musk and Trump conversation.
...began with 40 minutes of silence, and then a bropocalypse of politics, no matter how you frame it or what caused the glitch.
What was finally said between Donald Trump and Elon Musk at last night's Big X event can largely be defined as a rant filled with familiar lies and lines of attack.
Look at how it says, like, with false claims and softball questions.
Do you remember the Biden debate?
We're being invited to forget that that ever happened.
Remember the crazy false claims conjured up by Joe Biden?
Softball questions!
Like, do you know what Kamala Harris stands for?
Do you know what, what is it?
Other than sort of rhetoric and rage and sort of, I'd call it almost evolved basket of deplorables language, what does Kamala Harris Represent?
I don't know.
I'm not certain.
Are you not sure that she is yet another avatar for the institutions of globalist power that have swept Keir Starmer into his new authoritarian throne?
I don't know.
Seems likely to me.
We'll have a look at some of that stuff in our own time, on our own praise, excuse me, using our own fuel as it were.
So firstly, Musk's cyber attack claim in Donald Trump interview was fake, claim insiders.
Okay, okay.
The EU sent a warning letter.
This is amazing because this is like, this is In a way, what's more interesting to me, even than the great showdown of the US presidential election, are the new power bases that are forming.
I consider populism to be a movement and ideology that needn't necessarily bear the huge livery or flag of either the left or right.
We could have a populist decentralized movement.
That is a possibility, but you will never get that under the kind of bureaucracies that are In a sense, exemplified by the EU, they sent a warning letter to Musk on Monday reminding him of the bloc's rules against promoting harmful content.
That is like a little warning shot, isn't it?
It's like they smashed his windows, they kicked his headlights in.
You're going to talk to Trump, are you?
Well, we'll see about that.
With great audience, Is there a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content in connection with events with a major audience around the world?
In a post on X, the irony.
Is there a risk of amplification of potentially harmful content
in connection with events with a major audience around the world?
I sent this letter to Elon Musk.
Now, who determines what speech is harmful?
Who determines who ought be censored and who ought be amplified?
And indeed, in the case of Elon Musk, it is Musk himself who decides what voices to amplify.
But if Thierry Breton, one of the Faceless and sadly not voiceless, a pair of cheeks of bureaucratic systems, they would decide.
Now I am not expressing a view either way on whether Elon Musk should be celebrated as some kind of ubermensch or brought down into hellish dungeons.
What I will say is that bureaucracies like the EU are not your friend.
Bureaucrats Like Thierry Breton, who have formally used language like, you know, language of some gangster bureaucracy, really, where unelected officials, in some cases elected, but certainly public funded officials, are able to implement measures of control that I do not believe are beneficial for you, or for me,
Or for our countries.
Of course, the UK are no longer in the EU.
That was another example of how populism, whether you agree with it or not, can take democracy.
And by democracy, I mean the movements inspired by the ballot box, not a set of institutions co-opted and controlled by centralised interests, can still change the world.
That's what we should be looking into.
How can we get power as close as possible to the people affected by that power?
then you wouldn't have to quarrel with one another.
Needlessly, you'd be able to accept that there are many different ways of being human.
You would be able to return to the profound questions of the classics.
You will be able to inquire of yourself and one another, what is it to be human?
How is it that you want to live?
How do we best manifest the divine?
Is God real?
And if God is real, how do we live like it?
And if God is not real, then from where do we derive principles like kindness and service, fraternity and love, unity, togetherness and the rights of humankind?
Because without God, with just reason as your little tool, it's pretty hard to summons up any gusto for such notions.
OK, well, here's some moments from that Musk-Trump conversation.
Of course, it's audio only, given that it was on Elon Musk's platform.
If you're watching us on YouTube, we're going to be here for a couple more minutes.
Then I'm going to bring on beloved Dave Martin, one of the foremost voices during the pandemic periods, advocating for freedom.
And we will talk about how this period in the UK, the UK riot times, is comparable to the pandemic in so much as crises are always used to implement Further authority.
We won't look at Musk praising Trump for his assassination attempt response.
That was, you know, a moment we don't need to revisit.
Let's have a look.
At them talking about Kamala's policy around the borders.
Let's have a look at that.
Or listen to because it is for the audio senses.
Would it be accurate to say that you're supportive of legal immigration but that we obviously need to shut down illegal immigration and especially unvetted illegal immigration because you know and that's not the same as saying that everyone who is an illegal immigrant is bad.
In fact I think most people who are illegal immigrants are actually good, but you can't tell the difference unless there's a solid betting of who comes across the border.
Does that represent your position?
I say it very simply.
They have to come in legally.
They have to be checked.
Kamala was the border zone.
Now she's denying it.
Everything that I do, she's saying she was strong on the border.
We're going to be strong.
Well, she doesn't have to say it.
She could close it up right now.
They could do things right now.
It's horrible.
No tax on tips.
And all of a sudden she's making a speech and saying there will be no tax on tips.
I said that months ago.
And by the way, they had just the opposite.
You know, they had not only tax on tips, but they hired 88,000 IRS agents and many of them were assigned to go get waitresses and caddies and all of this on tips.
They have a policy.
They had a policy.
They were really going to go after you.
And we're really harassing people horribly.
And then all of a sudden for politics, she says, you know, she comes out with with what I said, which I think is terrible.
And I think it's also hitting them very hard.
These people are fake.
Now they're also saying they did a good job on the border.
We had the worst numbers in the history of the world, not of our country.
There's never been a country in history that has had a catastrophe like this.
We've had, I believe, and I think you believe this too, you know, you hear 12 million, 13.
I believe it's over 20 million people came into our country, many coming from jails,
from prisons, from mental institutions, or a bigger version of that is insane asylums,
and many are terrorists.
Hey, I wonder if the real battle is not the battle between the Democrat Party, the Republican Party, the MAGA movement and globalists, but really about how bureaucracies that are unelected ultimately want to be able to control media narratives and have the right To legitimately censor.
These bureaucracies that have emerged in the post-Soviet world ostensibly affiliated with democracies are a curious thing because the condemnation of Stalinism and Maoism is that these bureaucracies, aside from the gulags and the murders and the genocide, were bad things because they centralised power and authority and impeded individual liberty.
Organisations like the EU are all well and good, and I say all well, As a kind of almost unconscious pun, when they are advocating for, I don't know, progressivism, but ultimately aren't they sort of bureaucratic meshes and nets that ensure that corporate interests can be met and that individual freedom is always impeded and closed down on?
Yeah, they start with Trump And Musk, who I'm sure are flawed individuals in their own way, powerful individuals in their own way, human beings like you and me, I'm sure, ultimately.
What we really need to focus on, my friends, is how are we going to overcome these inflamed differences that define our times and confront these structures and institutions that seek to control us.
We will not do that unless we are willing to liberate the great light and power that is within us all, May you find it now, but that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments and chats.
Consider becoming an Awakened Wanderer.
You get access to our content first.
You get access to additional content.
And if you're watching us on YouTube right now, you're going to have to click the link in the description because I am going to speak to my guest now, a man who knows Much more about institutional corruption than I do.
The man who called it on the WHO and their plan.
The man who called it on the pandemic and its insidious intent.
I'm talking about my friend Dave Martin, who will educate you richly over the next 40 minutes on a variety of subjects.
So if you're watching us on YouTube, click the link in the description and join us there.
Thank you for coming over to Rumble.
Now guys, listen, I've got a quick word from one of our partners.
Who is it?
Sticker Mule.
Sticker Mule!
How can you not love Sticker Mule?
Who don't love Sticker Mule?
You love Sticker Mule?
I love Sticker Mule.
And we've got some exciting news.
We've launched a brand new store on, yeah, Sticker Mule.
It's got loads of stay-free merchandise including stickers like these ones, plus shirts and stuff.
So go to Sticker Mule dot com forward slash Rusty Rockets and check it out now.
You can use it look to...
Decorate your mic stand if you've got one, if you've got a podcast and stuff.
A big portion of sales go directly to us, me, we, here at Stay Free, ensuring we can continue to bring you live, thought-provoking, paradigm-shattering, establishment-provoking conversation on issues that matter.
So whether you want to show your support or just grab some stickers, we've got you covered.
I love sticking Thank you so much for joining me, Dave Martin.
You know, Russell, I love the fact that you give me so much time to prepare that I take what I thought I was going to talk about and I actually have data That's just gonna throw a monkey wrench into the EU's plan.
And you couldn't have done a better setup than this because it seems to me I recall in 2012.
The European Union decided to do a very interesting thing which they called the no disconnect strategy and I want to read this just because I think Donald Trump and Russell Brand and Elon Musk and others just need to have this in their back pocket because it's sometimes helpful to to use the perpetrators own words to help remind them of how important Policy statements that they make are.
So I just want to read this.
In 2011, the EU decided to come up with what they called a no disconnect strategy, released as a tool to support activists who use social media for democratic ways at a time when authoritarian regimes try to shut down the internet.
This is the same Thierry Breton, I just want to be really clear, who warned Elon Musk not to use social media to have a political conversation.
The same EU in 2011, not only passed the No Disconnect Strategy, which was a policy for the European Union that said that no one could interrupt a conversation about activists who were actually discussing and promoting democracy, but I want you to hear this 2014 EU Human Rights Guideline for Freedom of Expression online, which, and I'm going to read right from it, All human rights that exist offline, in particular the right of freedom to expression, must exist online and must be respected and protected equally online as well as offline.
When it comes to execution of measures, largely soft tools with no mandatory implementation or oversight.
I just want to be clear on the fact that the same Thierry Breton, who actually sent a warning letter Failed to read the 2011 and 2014 European Union Policy Commission and the EU Human Rights Guidelines for Freedom of Expression online and offline.
These are documents that you can pull up, 2011 and 2014 respectively, where it turns out that when we were trying to overthrow, I don't know, governments in the Middle East, we were more than happy to allow activists to lie, cheat, steal, activate, everything else.
We were happy to do that and The EU was so concerned with democracy and freedom of expression that they passed a regulation saying that every right that's available offline has to be preserved online.
And somehow or another, when that very policy might include conversations that they don't sanction, They apparently forget it, but how do they forget it?
They forget it because we, collectively, fail to remind them of their own policies.
So, I just want to deliver, like I try to do every time I see you, Russell, I just wanted to deliver a little blast from the past to remind everybody that Terry Burton, in his letter to ...was in fact writing something in violation of the EU written and published policies in 2011 and then once again the EU's Media Freedom Act and everything that was done in the 2014 EU Human Rights on online and offline content, Thierry Breton's email is in direct violation of the European Union's own policy act.
Just let's be clear that this was not about freedom of speech or freedom of expression or with a larger audience comes larger responsibility.
This was an express effort to violate the European Union's own policies and acts.
Nobody seems to point that out.
I have looked online as I watched the EU run around like a chicken with its head cut off in their recent digital suppression efforts.
I've watched as the United States has done the same thing, and I just find it fascinating that the same people who advocated for activists overthrowing governments in 2011 are now saying that the exact same thing they advocated in 2011 and 2014 are now not available to people who are, oh that's right, in opposition to that.
Could we pull that part of the legislation, create an asset from it, like just that clause or that subclause, and then we can like post it around?
We'll do that today.
Yeah, and this is the thing.
This is exactly the point.
The point is, Listen, I mean, Musk should have had his team do this last night.
He should have posted it with the letter.
Because the fact of the matter is, I want people to understand the European Union is violating its own law.
Let's not be, you know, dancing around the edges of it.
They're violating their own law, just like Vice President candidate, Walz, is violating the Supreme Court's 1964 decision.
And by the way, 1964, that was a while ago, Russell.
That feels like a while ago to me, at least.
That feels like it's almost 60 years ago.
When he said that you actually are not allowed to do misinformation online, despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in 1964, in the case New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964, ruled that not only can you misinform on the Internet, And in public speech and in anywhere else.
In this case, it was New York Times Publications, but it actually said, you can lie.
That's a protected First Amendment free speech right, as determined by all of the precedent cases following the 1964 New York Times v. Sullivan.
So somehow or another, These people who are allegedly going to take leadership positions in the European Union case, Thierry Bertrand in the United States, Kamala Harris's Vice President candidate, who can't even read the law in the country in which they preside.
And I wish that I was making any of this up, Russell.
I wish that this was some sort of mysterious Dave Martin whimsical flight of fancy.
But the problem is, it's actually that nasty little detail that you come to expect from me, which is the facts.
In those, Dave, similar things happening here.
In our country, the United Kingdom, he, Kistama, is saying that the laws that exist in the
nation exist online.
There's this attempt to suggest that these new foreclosures on free speech and this new censorship is already an established principle and I can see there's extraordinary Support for these ideas in legacy media and the kind of pundits, political figures and orators that you might expect to be supportive of anything that actually restricts the freedom or efficacy of their opponents.
But again, It's untethered from the principles that might once have undergirded actual democracy.
Even though I completely disagree with what this person is saying, I agree with their right to say it and we'll work this thing out in the marketplace of ideas.
So you've given us two examples, the EU example with Musk and the Waltz example.
I wonder what you think of what's happening in the UK at the moment and if you see Any parallels between what is happening now with misinformation, disinformation and control with information being censored in case it incites violence or riots and what happened during the pandemic period where information has to be censored in case it incites, I don't know, viruses or coughing?
Yeah, well, if you go back and you look at the analogy that we're never supposed to mention, so it's kind of like JK Rowling's The Name That Shall Not Be Mentioned.
If you go back and you look at the build-up to what became the Third Reich in Germany, it's actually important to realize that there were things like ministries of information That were very important in the early days of appealing to labor organizations to make sure that labor communications had a particular message that was pro the party.
But not surprisingly, if you look at the rise of what happened in Germany during the 1930s, you see.
The use of large-scale social unrest, the burning of churches, the use of public fires, not unlike what we saw in Missouri and in Minnesota and other places in the United States where it turns out that during the alleged pandemic period, we also had large-scale social disruption.
If you look at what's happening in the UK, this is exactly the same playbook, and the problem that I see in what's unfolding in the UK is, very predictably, we have this conversation that is the go-to conversation about this being an anti-immigrant wave, this be the ultra-right extreme, kind of a la Le Pen, you know, in Europe several years ago.
But the problem is the narrative doesn't match the reality and the idea that social media is the basis for inflaming this.
gives the perpetrators a phenomenal cover where the identity of actually who is perpetrating acts of violence becomes subject to only the mainstream narrative who tells you who to blame.
And this is not dissimilar, by the way, to what we've seen in information warfare before, where we're told who the enemy is.
Let's recall September of 2001, When all of those Iraqis in Afghanistan's boarded planes and flew them into towers.
Oh, hold on a minute.
They weren't Iraqis and Afghanis.
They were Saudis.
But we don't want to talk about that.
But we do want to talk about the fact that that justified a war in Iraq and Afghanistan because there was no relationship to it whatsoever.
But the narrative told by the media told us who our enemy was.
And then we decided to use this act of social violence as the non sequitur justification for the pathway into doing unspeakable horrors of war for two decades.
If we go back and examine what's happening in the UK, what we see is that this is actually merely the setup for something to come, not unlike what we saw with the BLM movement in the United States, not unlike what we saw with the riots that led to the burning of several cities in the United States, not unlike What we're seeing unfold in other places where controlled and planned social unrest justifies draconian lockdown measures and social interventions that would otherwise not be acceptable, but because the state is responding to this horrible outbreak of violence, suddenly we're willing to suspend everything that we used to think of as civil liberties and decency in the name of what we're going to be told is protection.
It seems that in a way that is the interface that we're all either side of Dave and that it's in a way now becoming clearer.
Do you see any evidence or examples of alliances being formed beyond the battle lines that
are typically drawn?
In the US, it's become a kind of libertarian versus progressives argument.
In the UK, you can see that there are attempts to make these arguments entirely about race,
again by amplifying outliers and pointing out only particular aspects of the dispute,
decontextualizing the information that's important to understanding the broader reasons for these
disputes, even though, of course, as I'm always keen to point out, violence ought never be
advocated for, for so many reasons.
At least that it's sort of an ineffective way of achieving success as well as being at odds with the principles that we're supposed to be supporting anyway.
Do you feel, Dave, that there might be ways that people that are sort of irretrievably alloyed to one side of this movement or the other might start to Reform alliances that are opposed to centralised authority, or do you think that because of the way the information is controlled, those alliances are impossible?
Well, I think if we take a step back and look at our own experience during the run-up to the 2020 elections in the United States, Russell, it was very important to have public health fear.
It was very important to have social discourse that broke down into riots and all of these kind of unspeakable, destructive acts.
And to your point, the idea of conflict for the sake of a genuine A genuine sense of disagreement where there's a sense of discord that gives rise to mobs in the streets and everything else one can make historical arguments and say that there are times when repressed individuals feel that their voices are unheard and they feel that the only outlet they have.
is to appeal to violence.
But that's not what this is.
These are contrived events.
The fires in the United States were contrived events.
The riots in the UK are contrived events.
These are not legitimate conflicts between competing ideologies that then give rise to this kind of outbreak.
This is orchestrated and it is manipulated no different than it was with the fires that took place in the summer of 2020.
And Ask yourself the question, who's the beneficiary?
Because the beneficiary of this is not some sort of, let's neutralize the conflict and then let's get into a more thoughtful dialogue.
The beneficiary of it is those agencies who seek to suspend democratic processes.
That's exactly what the tool is used for.
That is exactly what the tool has been used for over now centuries.
And we are falling for it mysteriously during electoral cycles that we have these outbreaks of what appear to be rash and irrational violent clashes.
But these clashes, much like we saw with farmers in Europe, much like we've seen in the race related stories that have happened, the immigrant stories that we've seen happen, all of these stories are manipulated.
So we're told what the issue is.
So we are distracted from any of the shenanigans that are happening behind the scenes.
And lo and behold, what gives rise is a suspension of the actual broad middle conscious group of democratic participants who would be willing to engage in normal democratic processes.
They are sidelined and they are actually set into a corner where they're not allowed to have conversation because, as we now know, Opining on any of these outrages paints you into an extremist corner.
If I say I'm anti-immigrant, I'm suddenly pro-extreme right.
Well, it turns out that's simplistic and fallacious in its simplicity.
It actually is a simple relationship that actually Donald Trump and Elon Musk did address last night.
One of the things they talked about was actually this question of, are you anti-immigrant?
Well, the answer is no, you're not anti-immigrant.
That's a ludicrous proposition.
What you are anti is the absolute erasure of controls of who comes in, who doesn't come into a country.
The reckless abandon of having open and porous borders is something that has presented a series of problems.
That's a true statement, but that doesn't make you anti-immigrant to make that statement.
But here's the problem.
Nuance dies in the fires of these contrived violences.
Yes.
And nuance is the basis of democracy.
Yes, yes, it is incredibly significant and important.
One of the things I found myself contemplating when Considering the subject of migration is the oft-discussed idea of the native culture and the preservation of native cultures that certainly you would be sensitive to if you were thinking about, forgive the word, an oriental or a foreign country.
You know, you'd think, well, you don't want immigration to the point where the treasured and cherished cultures are disrupted.
When I think of, that's why I suppose Ireland was an interesting case in this, in the kind of the globalist migration conversation because Ireland has not participated or shared in the spoils of colonialism and imperialism and is yet regardless experienced some of the complexity and troubles that come with mass migration.
But of course there are the challenges that rise up from mass migration.
It seems that, in a sense, rhetorically everyone is agreed on that.
Even the centralist parties, like, you know, the Kamala Harris's Democrats or Keir Starmer's Labour Party, won't try to have a sort of a face down on the subject of migration.
They know that it's a vote losing position.
The other challenge, though, is the kind of top-down transposing of culture that comes with globalism, corporatized globalism.
Because one of the things I felt, Dave, when I was thinking about, you know, assimilation, I was saying, well, of course you would say, you know, legal and managed migration should be part of, there's no problem, As long as there's assimilation.
Then I thought, what is this culture now in a country like mine, or perhaps yours, that you are inviting various refugees or migrants, legal or otherwise, to assimilate into?
Because Since the culture has been co-opted by a kind of global ideology, one wonders if there's anything there to preserve.
Everything being vilified, the tag racist itself becoming almost a synonym for working-class culture.
At one end, of course, you could say people that set fire to a building that's got asylum seekers in it.
That is a violent act of terror.
But on the other end, concerns about migration, as you have pointed out,
it seems to be a reasonable position.
When people, the fears that people have long had is that their cultures are being destroyed,
not only by migration, although that seems to be a visible component,
but also by the homogenization that happens through bureaucracy and corporatization,
every high street or every main street looking the same, and a sense that we are,
that culture isn't bubbling up through the soil.
We are no longer the people of the land, the spirits, protectors and inhabitants of our nations.
We are just being kind of stewarded by corporate and global interests.
We have no stakes in our cultures.
We are consumers offered anodyne solutions to complex spiritual problems.
And I wonder Dave, you know, we touched on bureaucracy earlier when we're talking about the reflexive and hypocritical power of a bureaucrat like Thierry Breton implementing measures that are opposed to his own ideals and his own legislation.
Where else is this top-down homogenising force evident?
And isn't that perhaps the greater problem, even compared to a challenge that most people now accept, like migration?
Well, I think this is a beautiful question, and I see one of the questions I've asked in many of my public presentations is when Donald Trump made homage to this nostalgia of Make America Great Again, I asked what exactly is the again part of that phrase?
What is the period of time when we had everything sorted out so well that that's the nostalgic return to the ideal of the country that allegedly we're trying to make great again?
I don't have a problem With the notion of making a country great, but I do have a problem with making the statement that there's an again in that when I would suggest that we haven't necessarily had a zenith of moral or ethical or even technological supremacy.
I mean, remind anybody listening in the United States that the United States technology revolution, which started mysteriously in the 1950s, Um, was a byproduct of Operation Paperclip, which was Germans who were actually relocated to a place called Silicon Valley and put in a company called Ampex Corporation.
And lo and behold, that's where digital tape came from.
And that's where.
Satellite communications came from and that's where audio like Dolby came from and that's where databases like Oracle came from.
And you sit back and you go, hold on a minute, what's the again part?
Do we want to find another country where we hire, you know, hijack their technical engineers and bring them over?
And ironically, the 100% of America's last 70 years of technological hegemony is courtesy of, oh, that's right.
The Small War Plants Act in the United States and German engineers that we repatriated through, oh that's right, illegal immigration!
But we don't want to say that because that would actually damage the narrative that we have about our greatness.
But here's the challenge.
The challenge is, to your point, when Kim and I traveled through Europe over the last two weeks, Russell, I lamented the fact that whether I was in Greece or whether I was in Italy or whether I was in the UK, wherever I was, I walked past exactly the same shops and exactly the same duty frees and exactly the same airports, regardless, by the way, of the economic status of the town that I happen to be in.
And I found it somewhat fascinating.
And I asked Kim as we walked through one of the airports, which, let's just say, was not at the socioeconomic peak of a European city.
And I walked past the Chanel's and I walked past the, you know, Mont Blanc and I walked past all these shops.
And I saw shopkeepers in the shops.
I saw no one, by the way, not a single person in any of the shops.
And I asked Kim the question as we walked past, I said, this has to be an aspirational brainwash.
Which is a fact to tell the people who are local that one day, if you succeed, you will actually walk around with a $5,000 handbag, or you'll walk around with a $1,500 pen, or you'll walk around with, you know, an army scarf or whatever.
And my point is not to bash a particular corporate entity.
My point is, That we traveled to locations to take in the local community, the local fair, the local food, the local events, the local artisan work, the local things.
And what you're bombarded with, no matter where you are, is this very interesting aspirational target that says, forget your culture.
Forget your identity.
Forget the who you are and the what you are and all of those things and actually assimilate into this kind of this montage of corporatocracy and my point that I've made back going back to the early 2000s.
The central argument is the Westphalian Agreement, which says we're going to take maps and we're going to draw lines on maps.
The Westphalian Agreement is over.
It has been over since the Second World War.
It definitely ended in 1944 at Bretton Woods, but the Westphalian Agreement that said that we are defined by borders and nation states.
...was supplanted by a corporatocracy that said we are actually dictated and ultimately managed by the consumer corporate interests that dictate what not our freedom of choice is, but our freedom of selection.
And here's the challenge.
We have, for the last 70 years, blurred the line between those two things.
We have actually failed to understand That we are offered a series of selections from which to choose.
Thoughts, behaviors, products, markets, etc.
Curated for us, and then we are told to choose.
But Russell, what we don't do is consider the fact that we're not choosing, we're selecting from curated options.
And selecting from curated options is not freedom of choice.
That's infecting our democracy institutions, that's infecting our consumer behavior, it's infecting our social discourse, it's infecting everything because we're told what the topic of conversation should be and then we are told we have freedom to have conversation within the four walls of the approved selected narrative rather than inquiring outside of that narrative.
And centrally, to your point, we're left in a position where our capacity to think with a full unrestricted thought framework is unfortunately impounded by a series of curated options and boundaries to which we are not even fully conscious.
I love that.
I love that definition.
I'd like a little bit more information on the Bretton Wood, because I love the breakdown of the Westphalian Treaty and the way that these ideas have become negated and no longer relevant and perhaps in a sense they were always obfuscating more profound truths.
I want to touch on this even though it's sort of a, you'll see why in a second.
Now that Olympic, the fiasco and debacle around the Olympic opening ceremony day, I thought it was interesting because when the The Olympics have been politicized before.
It's been as a result of identifier political movements that are either international, i.e.
the Soviets not participating because of the Cold War, or opposition within a nation because of civil rights, like the black athletes, black power salutes during the civil rights movement.
And I wonder what it means when a kind of an ideology that's not connected to a particular nation Um, it appears to have hijacked a significant global ceremony.
Some of the points I'd like you to touch upon is, you know, what does it mean for a culture when there is now no longer even such a thing as games or entertainment or neutral spaces of recreation, that everything is heavily politicized?
Was it ever thus, Dave?
And also I wonder if you have any thoughts on the occultist idea that in order to enact certain ideals or agenda there need to be overt sigils and symbols due to Kind of arcane principles, i.e.
that you have to, if you are part of some occultist mass movement, declare your attentions publicly in order that they are legitimized, which is an odd word to use when I'm talking about something that is somewhat ephemeral and certainly semi-sacred, or at least sacrilegious in this case, but I'm not talking about, you know, material principles.
So do you think that there are ideals that are being imposed upon people?
We've just touched upon corporatism and commercialism and how that is a homogenising and hegemonic power.
Do you think there's an occultist component?
If there is an occultist component, do you have any thoughts on how that's being managed?
Or is it just madness?
matters of material dominion or are there indeed dark principalities? Is
there some significance to these sigils and to their sort of anti-Christian
attacks and sort of satanic imagery? I wonder how these occultist interests, if
you believe that there are such things, align with the kind of
corporate and more demonstrable aspects of this problem. So I know this is going
to come as a total surprise Russell but I'm going to start with a metaphor that
feels entirely a non sequitur but you'll see why.
I was asked after my relationship in the early 2000s with the then president of Iran.
President Khatami.
I was asked why Ahmadinejad was such an important president to follow a Persian poet philosopher president like Khatami in the Iranian establishment.
And the point I made was that Ahmadinejad served as a caricature of the absurd.
And by that I meant that he would test the limits as a marketing instrument.
He would test the limits of how ludicrous a statement he could make and get away with it.
So he'd say something somewhat innocuous like, you know, maybe the Holocaust was slightly overrated.
And on the shame meter, the shame meter would twitch up a little bit.
And then he'd say something more ridiculous like, oh, by the way, I think that Hitler was my best friend.
And then the shame meter would go up a little more.
And what they were always looking for was what he could say where France and Russia would say, whoa, buddy, you went too far.
Just just as this marketing test to see how crazy.
The others in the community would be willing to tolerate lunacy before they said, hey, put the brakes on that.
That was a statement too far.
And ironically, there are, I think, three.
So I'm just going to nuance your question into three different kind of categories.
The first category is I do genuinely have familiarity with individuals who actually believe in an occult requirement.
That says for the forces of darkness to execute their plan it is a necessity for them to alert the forces of light and this is very important.
Because it is up to the forces of light to actually meet on the battlefield those conflicts and if they don't.
That true evil is to sit and do nothing when you were told something was going to be done.
So there is this interesting kind of honor among battling thieves on a field of battle which says, I'm going to do a bad thing, but I'm going to alert you to it so that you can actually prepare and countermeasure the thing.
So we meet in a free and fair conflict On the battlefield of the thought or the ideal or whatever else.
And there is a very ancient principle that goes back to the Assyrians that actually reinforces the importance of this.
So there is an occult practice that says before darkness can implement its plan, it has to alert the light so that the light can either Meet it and engage it and potentially battle and suppress it, or the light can be apathetic and do nothing, in which case the evil is not the evil intent of the actor, it is the failure of the light to respond.
And that's a very important esoteric twist.
Because the evil becomes, did we do nothing to actually countermeasure the darkness that was coming?
And so that's one category of response.
I think there's a second category of response, and this is the world that I put Anthony Fauci in.
And now I'm going out on my uncharacteristic limb, I'm going to actually state my opinion.
I don't state my opinion very often, but I will in this particular example.
I think Anthony Fauci was a sociopath.
I'm not saying he was.
I think he is.
And I'll tell you why.
I think like a mass murderer who leaves totems and talismans at the bodies or leaves a symbol or leaves a sigil or leaves, you know, an artifact that is taunting the law enforcement and taunting the police and taunting the public and saying, haha, I'm too smart for you to catch.
Right, that sociopathic instinct that says, I'm going to egoically show you that I'm that dark and dastardly, that I know I'm too dark and dastardly for you to even think about how evil I am, so I know you're not going to find me.
The same thing that mass murdering psychopaths do, I think Anthony Fauci did with the pandemic.
I think he was delighted, delighted to know that he could stand next to the President of the United States, Take all the power from the president and go, I'm going to declare what has has to happen.
And by the way, everybody's going to nod their head because I've created an emergency.
I've created a bioweapon in 2005 funded by DARPA.
I did all this stuff and now I'm going to get away with it and nobody's going to catch me because I am that sociopathically disconnected from reality.
And I think that community exists as well.
But then there's the caricature of what happened to the Olympics.
And I told you I'd get to it.
So I'm going to get to it.
Was it the Last Supper or was it this Feast of the Gods painting, right?
That conversation became comic in that the Feast of the Gods painting was itself a caricature of da Vinci's Last Supper painting.
So the fact that we have a Venetian artist, that's who has been attributed to the painting, We have a Venetian artist who actually lampooned in the 16th century, maybe late 15th century,
But Lampoon Da Vinci's Last Supper, and now allegedly Jolly is using as his point of reference that painting rather than the Last Supper, was disingenuous across the board because even his plagiarized rendition of the offense is from a plagiarized rendition of an offense.
So you sit back and you say, well, hold on a minute.
In this case, what they're doing is they're actually mocking The illiteracy of the public and this is the third and more I think more problematic space
We have been conditioned to reflexively respond to these triggers, these dog whistles of, be ashamed, be alert, be afraid, be concerned, and everything else.
We have been hijacked with our Olympic Games.
We've been hijacked with the, do you stand for the National Anthem?
Do you not stand for the National Anthem?
We've been hijacked with all of these very simplistic, reflexive tropes Where we're not taking a step back and saying, hold on a second, this is not a real issue.
We're being distracted on one hand, while something nefarious is happening on the other hand.
And this is the third classification that I would put us in, which is, I think these are magicians doing a prestige.
It is, look here, while I'm doing something over here that I'm not showing you.
This is the reason why I started this conversation with pointing out the European Union's own law.
That Thierry Breton is breaking when he sends the letter to Elon Musk.
I don't say he's bending the rule, Russell.
I'm saying he's breaking a law.
By sending the letter.
And if I were Elon Musk, I'm not, thankfully, but if I were Elon Musk, I would actually prosecute that issue as a civil violation of the European Union's own law, and I'd bring a case, a civil case, against Thierry Breton for the very act of sending the letter, because that is in violation of the European standard that was passed in 2014.
But why would that Not happen.
It wouldn't happen because Elon Musk and all of his billions of dollars and all of his followers don't know to do what I did at the beginning of the show, which is actually see if the perpetrators already had a law that made their action illegal because we're left in this inertia story that says what's happening next.
And by the way, your prime minister is phenomenal at this right now.
Just steamrolling ahead with, I'm going to buy fiat declare thing.
And I know nobody's going to go back and look to see if the thing I just said was legal, was appropriate, was anything else, because we're in this inertia of madness.
And as a result, nobody's going to bother to hit the brakes and say, I wonder if he even has the authority to do that.
I wonder if he's breaking any laws when he says that.
And by the way, the mainstream media in their fact checking, I've not, by the way, in a single instance, seen a European Union fact checker ever fact check the illegality of, I don't know, something as simple as confidential client relationships between, I don't know, the European Union president and Pfizer.
Oh my God, you mean there was actually a law that said that contracts had to be publicly disclosed?
Oh, who knew?
And how long did it take for those laws to even be considered, Russell?
And the fact of the matter is we've been caught up in this behavior that says we're going to get this bone thrown to get a dog pile going in one space, and we're not going to pay any attention to the fact that the individuals conducting the acts, like Thierry Baton, Are violating their own laws, and they're absolutely callously testing the limits of whether or not our social literacy is going to catch up with their rampant and frenetic behavior so that we actually can say, whoa, hold on a minute.
You are breaking your own rules, you're breaking your own standards, you're breaking your own laws, you're not authorized to do that, and shut those things down.
And that third piece, that magician piece, which is the prestige is the distraction over here, so that you don't see that I'm not really cutting the lady in half with a saw, because she's hidden behind the box, right?
Those kinds of magic shows become the snake that eats then its own tail, because that's when the occult comes back in.
When they see magic working, Then darkness emboldens itself.
And ironically, the entire system I laid out in these three classifications feeds into itself.
And the more the magicians get away with their magic, the more the darkness has the authority to advance.
Thank you.
It's clear that the type of delirium we're experiencing, whether it's through the occultist ceremonies, the advancing legislation, the hypocritical authoritarianism, are intersecting and self-perpetuating the advance within one another.
We've got a quick word now from one of our sponsors.
We'll be back with Dave in just a second.
Stay with us.
G Defy.
The G is for gravity, the Defy is for life.
These are the best choice for walking, running and standing if you want to defy gravity.
If you're active right or spend a lot of time on your tootsies, these shoes is for you.
I've been wearing them all week as part of this deal and I love them because when I'm out and about with Bear, I need to defy that gravity.
I need to move swiftly and nimbly.
If you're out there defying the system, standing up to the establishment, leaping high to reach the nectar of the Lord, you're going to have to defy gravity.
Every shoe contains G-Defy's patented VersoShock technology, which aligns your body, absorbs harmful shock from the ground and provides energy return, giving you the boost to walk.
Like a champion.
GDefy shoes come with two free orthotics and support your active lifestyle without discomfort.
If you want to get some of these, visit GDefy.com.
Use the code RUSSELL, two S's, two L's, for an exclusive $30 off orders of $130 or more.
That's G-D-E-F-Y.com.
Use the code RUSSELL for $30 off orders of $130 or more.
You will be defying gravity.
You will be defying time.
You will be defying all the rules and becoming free.
Thank you.
I wonder what kind of principles, Dave, we have to become dedicated to living by to ensure that we don't ourselves become reductive, simplistic, you know, like when I make mistakes, errors, malapropisms, I feel like, you know, that these blunders are so costly or wanting to Excessively vilify Anthony Fauci or suggest that he's somehow involved in the occultist component.
Or... Or... Or perhaps, you know, there's so many ways you might make a mistake.
You might make a mistake by saying, well, God, if you have to choose between the two candidates, wouldn't you choose Trump?
Or if you support Bobby Kennedy, who's a friend of mine, you know, people will have questions about certain foreign policy positions he has.
You know, Aren't we, in a sense, sort of being strung up on some sort of impenetrable and impermeable space right now?
Do you feel it the way that I do?
Yeah, and I think that this is where we have to, you know, you asked the opening question, which I think is very fascinating, is what do we have to do?
And the answer is know that every single thing that's being produced and presented to us is a reflex triggering mechanism.
And rather than responding to a reflex, the simple step is to take a step back and breathe just for a few seconds and say, okay, the reflex got my attention, but what's really at play?
Because if you ask the question, which is the reason why the human body was wired to have reflexes, which is actually to say a thing happened, whatever the thing is, I kicked my foot into a board that had a nail on it.
I don't think about the moral, you know, Philosophy of nails, and I don't think about the metaphysical reality of wood and the fact it was turned into a board.
At that moment in time, what I do is I actually recoil my foot so I don't actually push the nail into my foot.
It's a very simple thing.
Reflexes were made for a purpose, but when we are actually socially triggering reflexes with intent, so that we actually distract populations, Then what we're doing is we're falling for a series of a cascade of social engineering manipulations, which has been rampant across the last several decades.
And the fact is, whether it is the Olympic ceremony, whether it is, you know, something as ridiculous as the Australian breakdancer, who scored perfect zeros in absolutely every one of her performances, who had the audacity of saying that while other athletes Spend their entire lives getting ready for the Olympics.
She prepared all of 37 minutes so that she could show the misogyny of the breakdance community in Sydney.
I'm not sure that's what the Olympics were ever set up for.
I'd like to dial back to Athens and I know 0.0 and go.
Hey guys, when you're naked wrestling, could we pause for a minute?
Is this about misogynistic influence in the breakdancing community in Sydney, which last time I checked is really a hot bread of breakdancing more generally.
The fact is that that particular athlete has actually become a social critique of the underlying decay Of our willingness to consciously engage the question, is there any merit to debating the misogyny of breakdancing in Sydney?
I'm not suggesting that, you know, if you actually, you know, had some untoward comment made by a breakdancer in Sydney, I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't necessarily raise an issue.
I'm simply saying that if our world is to be defined by an alleged gender offense in a breakdancing community in Sydney for which this woman got her PhD thesis in the breakdancing Autoethnography, which is her term, autoethnography of the breakdancing community among b-boys and b-girls.
I'm not sure that that's a good indication that we're actually engaging our higher order intellects And our higher order social narratives around something that has salutary benefit.
I think we need to take a step back and say, that's a dog whistle.
That's a trigger.
Are you going to fall for that conversation while we watch the European Union violate its free speech laws?
What's more important?
And the fact is, we as a society, globally, Are failing time and time again.
Every time we are told to talk about a ridiculous topic, we fall for the ridiculous topic without asking the question.
This is a distraction for a purpose.
That purpose is never examined.
We do not take the time and say, who propped up this thing?
Why did it get propped up?
Why is this woman a professor of breakdance at Macquarie University?
And what the heck does that even mean?
I don't even know what it means to be a professor of breakdance at Macquarie University.
But I do know that if you have a department of breakdance at a university, something is grossly off In the role of this idea of what the pursuit of free inquiry and thought is about.
And we don't have that conversation.
We have the conversation about the kangaroo hop, you know, mashed up with the witchy grub convulsion, which apparently was the inspiration for the breakdance routine.
My point is simple.
We are falling for the reflex all the time without doing the conscious consideration of saying, we are being distracted with intent.
For those who are interested in reading it, I highly, highly, highly recommend a book that I don't like, but I highly recommend it.
And it's Lee Clow's book on disruption.
Lee Clow famously was the guy who made Apple what Apple is.
And he was the founder of what became the ad agency, Chiat Day.
But if you read the book Disruption, you'll see the game plan of what is playing out.
Because inside of his real marketing genius, what he actually mastered was the ability to do a head fake, where he would create an illusion, disruptive illusion here, and then back into that a social engineered solution.
How ironic that the thing that was going to bring everybody together, Started with the letter I. I pad, I cloud, I this, I that, I something else.
Isn't that a funny we statement?
Doesn't it sound almost, I don't know, like it's antithetical to the message?
But you create a head fake.
You actually say this is about connection and collaboration and artistic expression and everything else.
And the brand is built around I.
These kinds of head fakes have been around so long, Russell, that I think we've actually normalized our own searing of our conscience so we don't even see them when they happen.
And without getting too grandiose in this, I think it's worth noting that this is the reason why the notion of the inquiry, you and I have talked about this, the public inquiry around your journey of faith, Has been seen through this very interesting social critique of, okay, why is he doing it?
Without ever asking the question, not why is he doing it?
Asking the question, who is Russell Brand?
What is his journey?
What is the nature of inquiry as you go through life experiences and you take on a more contemplative approach to life?
Those questions are not what we're conditioned to ask.
We are conditioned to ask, which camp is he in?
Is he in this?
Is he an entertainer?
Is he this?
Is he a comedian?
Is he this?
Without actually asking any of the substantive questions.
What's the narrative?
What's the underlying energetic?
And that's the reason why it's so critical, as I've shared with you, it's so critical to have what I refer to as this voyeuristic approach to life, where you actually share with people the essence of the steps of your journey, not the destination, but the steps.
So they go, wow, I can connect to that.
I can connect to that piece of that journey.
I can connect to that.
I build association.
And what does that do?
That engages consciousness.
It engages humanity.
It engages connection.
And this is the piece we've been missing.
Yes, thank you Dave.
That was a beautiful journey you took us on from bureaucracy, hypocrisy, right through the various extraordinary and nebulous expressions of an odd occultist yet materialist power, right to the various iterations of I, The I that at least ostensibly is supposed to stand for information that likely stands for solipsism and yet how through that still
Quiet voice, we may find the true gift of the divine, which is not the intelligence evident in nature, but the sublime present in consciousness itself, enshrined in every individual, the altar of consciousness.
Dave Martin, thank you very much for participating today.
It's beautiful to have your guidance and the education that you never fail to provide when we communicate.
Please let our audience know how they can follow your work and what you're doing now, in particular the stuff you do with Kim, which is always so rewarding.
Well, Kim and I are in the process of building out a very new phase of our existence.
And without spoiling her thunder, which I will not do, she is actually off doing something that I'm just absolutely thrilled with.
She's working on the book that is her kind of coming out of the The philosophy and the world according to Kim, and it has been an exceptionally interesting journey to witness.
I'm excited.
I'm as excited as anybody else to read what she's coming up with.
So she's off on a week's journey to do writing, which is actually quite exciting.
And then we are in the process of Building out the program for our fall workshops and programs.
So that's a stay tuned event.
All of the stuff that we're doing is actually trying to advance what is ultimately the upcoming criminal actions that we are pursuing with great vigor at this moment.
I'm enthusiastic about the fact that everywhere I go, Russell, I am now encountering people who are expressing in very public ways their enthusiastic support for the accountability that we've been held holding on to.
And I'm keeping people informed on X as often as possible.
And I'm trying to stay engaged in a number of ways.
And I'm looking forward to the next time you and I have a chance to chat because it's always, always a rewarding experience.
So I'm deeply grateful for this moment.
Deeply grateful for you and what you're doing.
And I'm grateful that we have an opportunity to Expand the conversation so that we can pause enough to maybe engage a bit more consciously.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Dave.
Thanks for your time.
All my love to Kim, as always, and thank you for joining us today.
And I know it won't be too long before we commune once more.
Thank you, Dave Marsh.
All right.
Thank you so much for joining us today.
All of you in the rumble chat.
Yeah, I see you lot chatting away over there.
You glorious and awakened wonders in the locals chat.
I ain't finished with you yet because if you enjoyed the questions that I asked of Dave Mine, perhaps you would like to pose some Questions to me, for I am willing to take on that inquiry.
I'm talking to you, Laura G. I'm talking to you, Bruce Fillmore Dunn.
I'm talking to all of you AwakendWonders.
You can put your questions to me whenever you want.
I'll be answering some of them right after this.
We'll be back with another live show tomorrow, and I'm gonna go on to Locals right now.
Click the link in the description, get on over there.
Thanks once again to Dave Martin, and I'll see you guys tomorrow, unless you're on Locals, and I'll see you right now, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
