All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 16, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
59:28
FREE SPEECH IS OVER! UK Government EXPLOITS PROTESTS to begin MASS CENSORSHIP - SF 432
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
so so
so In this video, you're going to see the future.
We've got a live shot there.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
We will be streaming everywhere for the first 15 minutes, but given that we seem to be in a very unique moment when it comes to censorship and control, we will be exclusively on Rumble.
After the first 15 minutes for surely censorship and surveillance are reaching a critical moment We've been aware for a while haven't we that every single crisis event can be used to legitimize control problem Reaction solution is something that's been accredited at different times to well Whitney Webb or David Icke or even Noam Chomsky but certainly most people now colloquially understand that whatever crisis occurs the possibility for powerful interest to exploit it is initially immediately rather seized upon and this country and you know elsewhere in Europe we have seen unprecedented conflagration
Unprecedented consternation, extraordinary events, peculiar management of media, total polarisation, where figures that were advocates of free speech and civil liberties five or ten years ago are presumably unconsciously Advocating for further government control.
It's an astonishing time to be alive.
I never thought I'd live to see the day where a global tech tycoon is vilified by establishment media figures For speaking out on behalf of free speech and where the arguments about what is permissible to say has been so revisited with so much scrutiny.
One of the things that's fascinated me is the amount of foreign media talking about how the UK has become more draconian and sensorial than countries like Russia or China.
And I'll level with you, I live here.
And I've already experienced some extraordinary fluctuations and manipulations and Machiavellian moves from various institutions, media, government, government funded, that I suppose have made it obvious to me on a personal level that the machine is moving in mysterious directions.
And, you know, man, I thank God for my faith.
Before we get into Britain, the riots and the fallout, let's have a look at Some stories from elsewhere because it's been a peculiar time.
Maybe we'll start off a little light-hearted before we move into the events that have followed.
The loss of life of those young girls.
Some of the other disruptions including a further stabbing in the UK.
The media reaction to it.
The riots.
The aspects of those riots that are plainly violent and unconscionable.
And the aspect of any social unrest that needs to be addressed, even if what your interest is, and primarily I suppose if your interest is, ending social unrest.
How do we do that?
Let's get into that in a little bit.
bit. First of all let's start with just some more light-hearted events from around the world.
Yeah if you put a shoe in an art gallery it is art.
Damien Hirst said in response to someone asking what makes your dissected sheet art he responded it's in a gallery.
Joe Biden may have moved out of the consciousness and into the periphery of public life like he
vacated the center of his own mind but still he is being applauded for actually being, I mean,
I think being able to ride a bike is in a sense worthy of some praise.
Trump doesn't angry about that being pushed out, are you?
No.
Oh, my God.
I suppose we're experiencing the reframing of reality while we live it.
We're looking at presidential candidates as either being potential saviors or demonic or the worst villains that history has ever conjured and now we're witnessing the reframing of Mr President!
Biden as a cherished elder statesman when it was his elderliness that was the problem
in the first place as he shuffles off into irrelevance and perhaps that irrelevance is
perhaps in a shrubbery?
Mr President!
Who forced you to drop out of the race?
Just keep going Joe, just keep going.
I suppose the speculation is hung upon the fact that it appeared at least that the elevation of Kamala Harris to the position of presidential candidate appeared to take place in a kind of somewhat surreptitious, clandestine way.
Who's pulling the strings behind the scenes?
Are there Are there various Machiavelli's and manipulators to whose processes we don't get access and I suppose the reason that we're cynical about that is yeah because of the obvious influence of the Obamas or the Clintons or nameless ones that move between the raindrops within the shadows and also because I suppose in recent years we had the evident and obvious example of Anthony Fauci as a figure who wielded incredible power
...that had never been given a mandate, that was not the leader of a constituency, that had never been voted in, but was significantly paid and double, double keen on taking them boosters.
When people are vaccinated, they can feel safe that they are not going to get infected.
I got infected about two weeks ago.
It was my third infection and I had been vaccinated and boosted a total of six times.
That poor guy, he can't stay well.
Kamala Harris has now been repackaged from the worst potential president in history and the least loved VP and the most clumsy border czar ever known to that continent to a kind of something resembling a Bodicea style stateswoman. Let's have a look
at how she's handling that, let's see her from her pulpit and how she is in a sense causing the type
of, or at least engaging in the kind of incendiary rhetoric that the Dems have long claimed to be
opposed to. So I took on in these roles perpetrators of all kinds.
Predators who abused women.
Fraudsters who ripped off consumers.
Scammers who broke the rules for personal gain.
So Arizona, Hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump's type.
There you go, the ongoing basket of deplorables analysis.
Man, the Tupac clip is so good.
There's a clip of her being asked who her favourite living rapper is and she says it's Tupac.
Have a look at this clip now and look at how she fuddles and fumbles her way through it.
This is an amazing Kamala moment.
Best rapper alive.
Tupac.
He's not a liar.
You say he lives on.
I'm not a liar.
I know.
I keep doing it.
Listen, West Coast girls think Tupac lives on.
I'm with you.
I'm with you.
So Tupac, keep going.
Keep doing that.
Who would I say?
I mean, there's so many.
I mean, you know, there are some that I would not mention right now because they should stay in their lane.
But others, I...
I don't know what that means.
I want to know who one of those are.
Keep moving.
Okay, all right.
Keep moving, Angela.
All right.
That was not supposed to be a stumper either.
What about, um... There you go.
It's an interesting way of handling that conversation.
Here's Glenn Greenwald analyzing to a degree the repackaging of Kamala Harris.
The way the US corporate media transformed Kamala Harris from a national embarrassment to a transformative pioneer overnight without even pretending to care about anything that she thinks or believes is a powerful testament to how potent the science of propaganda is.
Is.
And also, I suppose, the lack of focus on policy and the impact of policy or manifesto on the lives of Americans subsequent to the election.
Are you, other than rhetoric, are any of you able to pinpoint or even vaguely understand other than like these are the people that we condemn these the ideas that we condemn which you know on the basis of our last speech people that anybody would happily condemn other than those kind of sort of blanket condemnations what is it what is it that it stands for let's have a look at this here's um one policy being espoused by different candidates being condemned on the basis of
Who it is attributed to.
We're going to jump off of YouTube now but consider clicking the link in the description and coming on over to Rumble where we're going to talk about what's been going on in my country.
The impact of these riots and the way that they are being exploited in order to legitimize more surveillance and censorship and also you might want to become an awakened wonder A member of our locals community where we do additional content, meditations, bible book studies, and analysis of stand-up comedy like this piece by Louis CK.
Just for a minute, bask in the magnificence of this man.
🎵 🎵
I was on a plane once, and I was flying first class.
Because I had a... thing.
I fly first class, who cares?
Just, that's the way it is.
I don't, I'm not like you.
I'm not, I'm not.
All the things you do, I do a better version of all those things.
And... It's only for another year at the most, believe me.
It's not gonna last.
It's been about eight months, I got a year left, and then I'm back to being just like you.
Turns out Louis CK was prescient in that because Louis CK, another thing I share with dear Louis, is that we've been through comparable situations in the culture, haven't we?
I guess what he was talking about there is the idea that, you know, that most Flavor of the Month stars have a limited shelf life, but actually Louis CK is a brilliant director, brilliant writer, brilliant comedian, obviously understands culture very well, sort of a prominent legit blue-collar intellectual, got a hell of a lot to offer, but turns out, you know, that the culture did some weird mutations and things got kind of complicated and
It's interesting to see how that impacted Louis C.K., isn't it?
But let's focus on what he's doing as a comic here.
He's also, as a comic, just as a comic doing comedy, he's, like, further letting you off resenting him for having a first-class ticket by letting you know that he knows that it's not something that lasts forever.
So he's gone, he's admitted it, he's then amplified it by saying I do everything better than you,
and then he's let the air out by saying he knows it's temporary.
The ongoing social disturbances in the UK are plainly being utilized to create opportunity for legislation.
Here's the legacy media saying that Elon Musk should be on trial.
That's in a sort of mainstream media newspaper.
Here elsewhere it's talking about tech giants being forced to ban fake news under Labour plans.
Amazing because that's of course a phrase coined by Donald Trump who prior to Musk was the epitome of these ideas.
The idea that we can't be trusted to determine for ourselves what's true and what's false or certainly there's an entire category of people that can't and therefore we have to further empower the state In conjunction with big tech and if big tech don't comply they will be made to comply in order to censor and control.
Here's Greenwald commenting on that.
Every single crisis or perceived crisis in the west over the last eight years has been instantly exploited by power centers to fortify and augment their online censorship powers.
Covid, January 6th, rush gate war in Ukraine, War in Gaza, Brexit, now the UK riots.
There's been some sentences dished out that have been pretty extraordinary.
You'll be aware already that there's been a stabbing in Leicester Square that has similarly incendiary Let's have a look now at how the legacy media have been reporting on these riots and let's see if we can discern what the agenda is from the nature of the reporting.
UK authorities have begun arresting citizens for social media posts.
A woman has been arrested by Cheshire police in relation to an inaccurate information on social media.
I'm arresting you on suspicion of improper use of the electronic communications network.
What?
The Crown Prosecution Service were keen to point out that they've made a number of charges in relation to stirring up of racial hatred online.
Social media has put rocket boosters under the far-right extremist organisation.
The conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers.
They've been using racist language, they've been using falsehoods.
Who are finding support in dark corners of the internet.
You can be guilty of offences of incitement, of stirring up racial hatred.
I'm going to be arrested for posting on Facebook.
Publishing or distributing material which is insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred.
Like retweeting?
Hey, did you see this article about immigrants, the number of immigrants coming across, and do you see the level of crime that's happening by them?
So if you retweet that, then you're republishing that, and then potentially you're committing that offence.
Sharing that article means this group of police are going to come to your house and arrest you.
I'm actually being arrested.
They are actually already bringing charges in relation to this sort of thing.
We've been committed for sentence, having pleaded guilty to an offence of publishing written material.
which is threatening, abusive or insulting.
It's only a temporary measure in order to limit the spread of inflammatory information, misinformation as well, across the United Kingdom at this point.
I think we should focus on keeping people safe.
I'm here to do the right thing, to keep Australians safe online, to use the powers that I have and in fact test the powers that I have.
To really minimize the amount of content the Australians can see.
The post that I kept on staring at was just gov.uk.
Think before you post.
Act on advice and information that's provided by the government or the police.
Please be assured.
That police will be the source of truth and not social media and misinformation.
No guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech and especially around our democracy.
They thought that somehow this great technological change can go through without touching the sides of democracy.
I think democracy needs to sort of reinsert itself.
Social media companies here, they have to take much greater responsibility for what is happening on their platforms.
We are prepared to take whatever action is necessary To hold these companies into line.
The more this content is up there, the more that is re-shared, the more the velocity and the virality continues.
And we need to stem that.
And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media.
Their job is to look for this material.
And if you are in the business of sharing, retweeting, whatever platform it might be.
Oh, it's your Facebook Prime, is it?
That if you do this kind of thing, you are potentially committing a criminal offence.
And the consequences will be visited upon them.
And we'll come after those individuals.
Can you tell me what this comment was?
No.
Okay, well, we'll do that while we interview you.
Alright.
This offence is so serious that an immediate custodial sentence is unavoidable.
The criminal law applies online as well as offline.
However you, you know, think you're acting innocently on social media, whatever platform it is, you're just sharing something for whatever reason, that could potentially be a criminal offence.
Being a keyboard warrior does not make you safe from the law.
You could find yourself prosecuted.
The sentence is one of 20 months imprisonment.
It is a stark reminder of the dangers of posting information on social media platforms without checking the accuracy.
Well, I suppose that from the moment these events took place and it became clear that it was going to play out in a destructive and dangerous way, it became obvious that these opportunities would ultimately be exploited by a king to legislate an authoritarian New government.
The fundamental questions that we have to ask ourselves and to a degree discuss together are what kind of trust do you have in your elected governments?
What kind of trust do you have in the broader bureaucracies that govern continents like the EU and some of the non-governmental, non-elected, yet clearly significantly powerful organizations that increasingly come up in the conversations that we have in these kind of spaces I'm referring to.
WHO, IMF, WEF, influential organizations, as well as the funds and like the Bill and Melinda Gates, although Melinda's extracted herself, that have power and influence of an extraordinary reach, or indeed the Atlantic Council Think tanks and organizations that are plainly able to assert influence that has nothing to do with the democracy that they are claiming to protect by introducing censorship.
Have you noticed how often online you're reading these days the phrase, let me be clear?
Have you noticed how often it's inserted in speeches?
The more opaque Obscure and difficult to understand our cultural and media spaces become the more the rhetoric tends towards clarity and transparency.
I wonder how we collectively in a time of division like this can participate in a conversation that has as its goal healing.
I've seen so many conversations lately, I've watched a lot of Tommy Robinson's commentary online, a lot of Andrew Tait's commentary online, Owen Jones, these are figures that come from the right, that come from the left, David Icke, a huge overview, Alex Jones, Elon Musk, and of course the legacy media.
And amidst it all, I wonder if you can even begin to trace the outline of some kind of peace being achieved.
You know, like the kind of moral guide that I always seek in these situations is, would I feel at ease in the company of people from any one of the following communities?
People that feel like migration has gotten out of control in their country, and even if it doesn't directly create particular events, you know the ones I'm referring to, ...that have led to these disturbances, have certainly led to these events being hastened.
Because of course, like what took place in Dublin a couple of months ago, when migrants were involved in violent incidences, caused comparable scenes there.
And whilst it appears and indeed has been confirmed that the perpetrator of the Southport attacks was born in the UK, in a way where we find ourselves is in such a sort of state of disruption and confusion that people weren't able, in the wake and light of posts that have subsequently proven to be untrue, Pull back, contain, or redirect the rage they felt.
Of course it's preposterous and ridiculous to imagine that mosques were attacked, or that libraries were burned down, or that asylum seekers were attacked in their places of asylum.
But in the context that has been described where people have long felt that their countries are no longer, in terms of the infrastructure, in terms of function, in terms of direction, held, then in a sense it's a plane that we were waiting for some kind of event to take place that was going to cause this to spill over.
And there is literally no trust in government, no trust in media, no moral authority.
I'm astonished when I see everywhere such certainty and no room for the doubt that events like this have to create.
Particularly after there have been years and years of media stories talking about extremism and terrorism.
When that was convenient to tell those stories, those stories were duly told.
Now those stories are sort of being rescinded and repackaged and reorganized.
The point I've been trying to get to and the point I've been trying to make out elsewhere is, is there a point where the people that live in this country now might be able to come to some kind of truce and easy peace?
Is there a possibility that there might ever be a referendum on migration so people that feel that there should be no more migration have a voice on it?
And if there are people that believe that we should take refugees legally, they're able to perhaps Through decentralization?
Allocate places where migration could be coped with, dealt with, afforded and accommodated?
Because it seems that the people that most avowedly advocate for further migration are not directly impacted by its consequences.
I wonder how the balance between compassion towards the people of the world And an acknowledgement that many Western countries are being demographically altered in ways that appeared radical is creating an incredible tension.
I wonder how long you can go on dismissing people's fears or condemning people for having those fears.
I wonder how long that can go on for.
And the very fact that the response to this is to grant more authoritarian powers to already untrusted and overreaching institutions is terrifying.
Whenever you advocate for controlling information, as Bobby Kennedy has said, the good guys are never the people that are demanding the restriction of free speech and free communication.
There are obviously some really difficult conversations that have to take place.
There's obviously a lot of pain and hurt and grieving and wounding that's taken place in the last 20 years in particular, in the last couple of months in an amplified fashion.
And for violence to end, and it's so obvious that there should be, that all protest would ideally be non-violent for reasons of efficacy and reasons of spirituality.
Once you participate in violence, once you participate in destruction, once you participate in harming people, you've just added to the problem.
You've just made it more serious, more agonizing.
Them three little girls ain't coming back.
The tides can't be turned back by that.
People's feelings about how their country is being managed, directed and led have to be listened to and heard.
Communities that live here of all cultures and hues must be respected and have a voice Surely some solution can be achieved by open communication that will not be achieved by increased censorship and increased control.
That at least seems obvious.
There will be more conversations like this I suppose taking place and it's extraordinary as a person that lives here to see that these conversations are taking place yet more broadly.
Joe Rogan has been talking about it and obviously in particular has been talking about how it's been used to legitimize censorship because in a way, as the Greenwald said in his post, is this really that different from the attempts to control and shut down free speech during the pandemic period?
And of course Joe Rogan was directly targeted during that period.
We'll have a look at that in a moment but first here's a quick message from one of our partners.
Airstek, the world's only scientifically proven electromagnetic field protection chip trusted by experts.
Airstek is now, can you believe this, an official partner of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, the UFC, giving support for world-class athletes who want to safeguard themselves from excessive electromagnetic radiation.
We're all going to want that protection soon.
Elite athletes within the UFC are unique in their need to optimize their performance in 25-minute bursts.
Airstek understand the importance of optimal recovery and peak performance, trusted and used by pro athletes all around the world to elevate their game.
EMF modulation technology solutions help them train harder, recover faster, and perform at their best.
And wouldn't we all benefit from that?
I know that I would.
I keep this one device here.
It's protecting me from that.
It's protecting me from a whole lot of things.
Get out Russian hackers!
Go to airstech.com forward slash pages forward slash Russell dash brand.
There's a link.
And use the code RUSSELL30 for 30% off.
So click the link under this and use the code RUSSELL30 2 S's 2 L's for 30% off this device.
Protect yourself from invisible fields of detrimental vibration.
Back to the content.
You know that situation has gotten out of control when it becomes discussed globally simultaneously.
The riots and public disturbances are leading to increased conversations around censorship and the ways that censorship could be implemented and the way that ordinary free speech laws might be bypassed.
Here's Joe Rogan talking about that on his show.
Just terrible government overreach.
You're seeing it now in England where people are getting arrested for tweets.
England, you know, people talk about Soviet Russia, like how bad Russia is in terms of cracking down on thought police and cracking down on bad tweets and things like that.
I think the statistics are I think there's something like 4,000 people have been arrested in England for thought crimes where they've said things online that people find to be a hateful thing or a problematic thing.
And I think it's only 200 in Russia.
Oh wow.
Yeah.
That says a lot.
Yeah.
Maybe in Russia they're too scared to do it at all.
Could be.
Yeah.
But the fact that they're comfortable with finding people who've said something that they disagree with and putting them in a fucking cage in England in 2024 is really wild.
Yeah.
Especially they're saying you get arrested just for retweeting something.
The offence of incitement to racial hatred involves publishing or distributing material which is insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred.
So if you retweet that, then you're republishing that, and then potentially you're committing that offence.
And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media.
Their job is to look for this material and then follow up with identification arrests and so forth.
So it's really, really serious.
People might think they're not doing anything harmful.
They are.
And the consequences will be visited upon them.
And here's the problem with that, even if you say, yeah, well, people shouldn't tweet hateful things.
I agree.
They shouldn't.
But who's to decide what is a hateful thing?
That's the problem.
It's subjective.
It's very subjective.
And it still shouldn't be a crime.
And in our lifetime, we've seen that get moved, right?
So it used to be, if a guy thought he was a woman, and his name was Doug, and you grew up with Doug, and all of a sudden Doug wants to be called Debbie, if you call him Doug, It's no big deal.
Like, yeah, maybe you're being rude to call him Doug, but it's not a hate crime, okay?
Well, now a lot of people think it's a hate crime, and that got you banned from Twitter for life.
So if you deadname someone on the old Twitter, you are banned for life.
Deadname, not even making up a name.
You can call him an idiot.
You can call someone an idiot, okay?
Forget about a man in a dress, maybe that's a problem.
But if you call, like, a regular guy an idiot, you stupid fuck, fine, no problem.
But if you call Doug Doug, You will get banned for life.
Okay, that's the new hate speech.
That's crazy.
Now, if that keeps going, that didn't exist before, if that keeps going, maybe you can go to jail for calling him Doug.
Maybe they think it's okay to put you in jail because you violated their hate speech laws.
Yeah, we were really quick to get rid of God, weren't we?
Say, like, we don't believe in God anymore.
We're too sophisticated.
We've got technology now.
We've got reason now.
But when the state starts acting like a God, sets up cultural edicts and moral truths that it won't allow to be debated or challenged, it has become a de facto God.
It's posing the same kind of principles that a God might pose.
And it's also functioning like a god.
It's punishing.
It's vengeful.
The difference is, I suppose, that a god requires faith.
The faith is, I suppose, the subtle belief that what you're participating in is real, even though it's extra sensory.
The idea, to use what Rogan cited as an example, that it's So cruel to refer to someone who's changed their identity by their previous name that it warrants a lifetime ban from social spaces.
You'd have to believe that idea.
What if you don't believe that idea?
In the instance that Joe Rogan outlined, That it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not, it's got absolute power.
In fact, it's less, sort of, subtle than God, isn't it?
Because, like, those of us that do believe in God spend a lot of time thinking, like, wow, it doesn't actually really matter if you pray for that, it might not happen.
Actually, if you're interfacing with an atemporal, aspatial being, you have to, sort of, question your understanding of chronology and how petitionary prayer might even work if all reality simultaneously Exists or if the sacrifice of Christ is the one redeeming act that was required What does your petition or your personal sacrifice or what difference does your morality make?
There are so many enormous questions that exist within faith But with the state the state can say if you say that you're going to jail if you don't agree with me You're going to jail I wonder if there are universal principles that we can all agree on, like, you know, kindness, we should all be kind to one another, we shouldn't be violent to one another, that everyone has the right to a fair hearing, innocent until proven guilty, that everyone has the right to religious free expression, that ultimately we are all one planet and to a degree responsible for one another, but those kind of principles can only be advanced if there is a kind of moral authority, that there's a consensus around, that we all agree, that we back and believe in, and at the moment you do not have that at
Not at all.
In American politics you have nothing but strife and division and hatred, vacuity and loathing emanating from all sides of the conversation where even a figure that's as popular and broadly speaking loved, except by his obvious and many detractors as Joe Rogan, can't in passing say hey I like Bobby Kennedy without being subject to wide condemnation.
In our country, the UK, it's impossible to conduct a conversation about the nature of migration The rights and roles of a person who considers themselves a citizen or civilian, what patriotism means now, what community authority means now, what power you want to grant the state, what free speech means now, what its limits are, and who you want those limits set by.
As soon as those events took place, I mean the...
instigating incident the inciting incident of the murder of the children and the stabbing of the other people present we were in a kind of tinderbox situation and to see so quickly people talking about its consequences without addressing one the event itself and also the context within which those events took place was an odd maneuvering of information What we're not seeing anywhere in the discourse in this country, or at least certainly not in the media that I'm looking at, and maybe it's because I limit myself now to looking at it because it's so rancid and wretched and dreadful and awful and insidious and toxic and polluting, but what I don't sense is, okay, this is the situation
That we're in now.
There seem to be a lot of people that are really concerned about migration.
Everyone knows that rioting and violence is wrong, so in order to mitigate the likelihood of rioting we're gonna require, in fact, open discourse, honest conversation, democracy, Decentralization of power.
Maximal control over individual communities.
Acknowledgement that there is some social tension that needs to be addressed in order to be ameliorated.
There's no appetite to have that conversation at all.
In fact, the opposite is happening.
What we're seeing is a condemning of the conversation.
Anyone would condemn violence.
Violence is wrong.
Violence is wrong.
Rioting is wrong.
So that means you can have that principle when you say the Black Lives Matter riots were wrong.
January 6th riots, wrong.
The riots in the UK?
Wrong!
And the riots in the UK prior to these events that were confined to other communities?
They were wrong.
That's good because now we're not condemning any individual group.
There should not be riots.
Okay, what are we saying about free speech then?
Who's going to control it?
Who do we trust?
It's such a failing at such a profound moral level when there is no trust in the state, when there is no trust in the government, that the government cannot claim to be arbiters of principles that we all agree in.
And if someone hits you with an idea like But they have a mandate!
Like for example in our country of course the centrist and let's say globalist, ultimately is a good way as any is to describe them, Labour Party government were elected on a significant mandate that under scrutiny does look a lot like 30% of the vote in public because of the way our electoral system is constructed.
That is seen as a mandate to continue the war between Ukraine and Russia.
That's seen obviously as a mandate to govern.
That's a sort of A systemic problem that's not going to be altered by online discourse.
The problem comes when a government starts to make unprecedented yet predictable measures when it comes to free speech.
think a lot of us sensed that we were in for a pretty rough and authoritarian ride under
Ostama Labour Party, probably because of his authoritarian stance in previous bureaucratic
positions. Obviously what I mean by that is that when he was head of the Crown Prosecution
Services and there were disruption and violent riots and looting in this country, they set up
24-hour courts and they tried in Crown courts youngsters, meaning they lost their right to
anonymity that they would have had in magistrate courts.
So we knew that this was likely to be an authoritarian government, but of course none of us could have known how quickly that would have been revealed or the manner in which it would have been revealed.
Isn't it extraordinary to see the conversations now that take place in these spaces?
Piers Morgan and Andrew Tate's always going to be an interesting chat because Morgan is one of the figures that's moved from old media to new with considerable aplomb.
And is always an adept devil's advocate able, whether it's a subject like Israel-Palestine or Israel-Gaza or however you want to frame that conversation, to take up an opposing stance and goad or invite his opponent into articulating the depths of their view.
Now in conversation with Andrew Taito, what is fascinating about the incredibly divisive Loved in some quarters, loathed and damned elsewhere, Andrew Tate is that he is mixed race, he is Muslim, albeit a recent convert, and he did post some things that were not true at the beginning of these conflagrations.
I wonder, when people are being arrested for posting or reposting things, how they will demonstrate the causal impact of those posts.
For example, I don't know what that post was in Vigilant Fox's compilation there of a person, by the accent an English person, being arrested by police putting on those gloves.
I wonder what the post was.
I'm assuming it was something about the identity of the instigator, but that is just an assumption.
And I wonder how you would establish the causal impact of that posting on subsequent events.
And because that is sort of subjective and potentially rather ephemeral, we're in some really weird legal territory.
And I'm sort of, I suppose I'm glad I'm on Rumble, but that's no actual defense.
So I suppose I should just keep reiterating that my personal belief is that we are all children of God, and that our primary goal here is to love one another.
And when we find ourselves in complex social situations, which we undoubtedly are, our first commitment must be to non-violence.
That we may manifest a higher principle, because if we don't act like there is a higher principle, Then there isn't one, in effect.
Whoever is behaving violently, burning things down, attacking people, you have now transgressed to becoming part of the problem.
The aim will always be love and forgiveness.
That doesn't mean that we aren't forthright, strident and ought not demand control over our communities.
And when I say our, I mean all of the people that live here and that live On these islands and in fact more broadly than that in a kind of our father sense all of the people alive right now have got to find some sort of community together and we may have strong views about which ideologies facilitate that and which ideologies prohibit it but perhaps one thing we can agree on
is that centralized state power is not about the enhancement of our individual experience or the community or our community experience but about the ongoing coalescence of power that that may that power may be continually exploited by centralized global forces some state some bureaucratic some corporate in short a new world order which has been discussed in these kind of spaces for a very long time i pray for peace i pray For conciliation between the various communities that find themselves in opposition.
I pray that like my friend who told me of Muslims breaking their Ramadan in synagogues because the Jewish community opened their hearts to the Muslims that were their neighbours.
This is happening in the UK.
That we can find simple loving ways That's my hope.
In a minute we'll have a look at Andrew Tait's conversation with Piers Morgan and some of the curious and fascinating points that emerge out of that dialogue.
But before that, here's a quick message from one of our valued partners.
This time they're over at The Wellness Company.
See you in a second.
Here's a revelatory gem from former CIA operatives.
You can trust them.
They've become truth seekers.
They've broken out.
These guys have created a sanctuary for the censored and the silenced.
This is Unified TV with a Y. Over 1,000 titles, original productions, documentaries, exclusive series.
Unified TV is an intellectual playground.
They're not funded by anyone, this is the problem, but people like you and me.
No biases, absolute freedom.
Are you getting fed up with hidden agendas?
You know, oh no, there's an agenda.
Yearn for a place that values your freedom of thought?
Then Unified, with a Y, TV is for you.
Go to unified.tv, use the code brand.
For a 10% discount off your membership.
Expand your mind.
Elevate your spirit.
Join us in this quest for truth.
Unified TV.
That's where the wire keep telling you that.
It's more than just a streaming.
It's a revolution.
Unified CIA operatives.
Thank you.
Let's have a look now at Piers Morgan and Andrew Tate in a Tet-R-Tate peer-to-peer.
That's not bad, is it?
As puns go.
Let's have a look at it.
Let me make this clear.
I'm a Muslim and I think anybody who attacked a mosque is going to have to deal with God.
I'm not worried about the full force of the law.
They should worry about God itself.
But I also want to make something very clear to all the people at home and clear to you that Most of the white people are very frustrated, and they're finding an enemy amongst themselves to take it out on.
I think that the white people on these streets have a lot more in common with the brown people on these streets than they do with the politicians, because that's the problem we have here.
Keir did not just only say they're going to face the full force of the law.
He told everybody with a point of view, everybody who's concerned about the safety of their children, that they are extremists.
And that is the most That is the most aggravating language you can possibly choose when people finally have had enough of not feeling safe on their own streets any longer.
We have people who cannot afford to pay their bills watching migrants arrive who are now being held up in hotels at the taxpayer's expense for indefinite periods of time.
We're sending billions of dollars to Ukraine.
Nobody voted for it.
Nobody wants it.
And everybody's struggling to pay their bills.
Energy prices are through the roof.
Inflation is through the roof.
Now they no longer feel safe on their streets.
They don't want to put their daughters outside to play.
The police won't protect them.
The police won't turn up for most crimes, unless it's something you say bad on Facebook.
And when they look for a political solution, they're ignored.
What kind of powder keg are we building here through incompetent leadership in the UK?
This is nothing but a leadership failure.
There's not a country in the world where leadership could fail this spectacularly and see any different result.
But once again, Andrew, you are spouting nonsense in what you've just said.
Not all of it, but some of it is nonsense.
You say, for example, nobody voted for the UK to support Ukraine.
We've literally just voted Keir Starmer in in the United Kingdom with a landslide majority, and he made it crystal clear before that election that he would be contributing billions of our pounds to help the people of Ukraine thwart a Russian dictator.
Well, you may laugh.
I watched this and I thought, I wonder how Tate's gonna handle that.
You know I've been involved in a lot of online or on in media or on tv conversations.
I was like in the back of my mind I was like oh yeah yeah of course there's the mandate there's the mandate.
I think this is a pretty good response.
I wonder how we are going to become sophisticated enough to hold together these ideas.
Tate's a mixed race man.
He's Muslim.
It was irresponsible to post tweets about the identity of the perpetrator of those horrific attacks prior to it being confirmed and he also makes some good points.
How are we going to We are not being allowed to develop the sensitivity and intelligence that's required to live in a world where there's this much information and this ability to communicate.
That's the direction we should be going in.
It should be bloody hell, there's a lot of information available out there, so everyone's gonna have to get really smart and sensitive.
No, what we're going for instead is You're never going to be smart and sensitive enough to collate this information so we are going to take control of information like we used to have prior to the advent of social media and like we were able to establish prior to Musk's acquisition of Twitter.
And again, there are, you know, like, I read comments, I'm on the internet, so I know that anyone you name, you know, Tate, Piers, me, Elon Musk, Rogan, there's gonna be like just a column of people saying Elon Musk is amazing, controlled opposition, worst person in the world, criminal, like for anybody, there is no consensus, isn't all of it telling us Decentralize power!
Do not amass and accumulate more power!
This is the end of projects that are of scale.
Whilst there clearly needs to be some sort of understanding that we are on a planet with requirements, that has a population, that has... you might regard them as resources if you were looking at it from a humanist perspective, we also have to see what is so obvious to me.
But this technology has created in commercial spaces, Airbnb, Uber, all of these incredible corporate and commercial entities that are about the aggregation of communication.
The ability, because like Airbnb starts with, hey I've got a spare room in my house, anyone want it?
Of course it becomes a massive multi-billion dollar thing, and probably someone right now is telling me in the comments, do you know that that was backed by Serge Brin and Larry Page, a CIA carve-out funded Airbnb, or Uber, where it's like, you know, hey, why don't we just give people a ride?
Minicab firms could be like, or we, how, if it can be corporately deployed, It can be governmentally deployed, can't it?
Like the experiments that are conducted in Brazil where there is more and more regional power, where communities are given a budget and able to democratically allocate how the expenditure of that budget, that could be happening.
Everywhere all of the time you could minimize the amount of centralized control, not maximize it.
You could have communities where we say we're here going to grow all of our food and be entirely responsible for it.
We are going to be carbon neutral or we're going to create all of our own energy.
And over here you could say we are going to take advantage of centralized energy that is accessible.
The idea that you would have centrally controlled water companies that can dump sewage into rivers, centrally controlled governments that can ignore 20-30% of their population when they want to?
That there's no accountability or culpability when there are issues that clearly concern a lot of people?
Surely, the time has come to an end.
It has.
That's what we're all experiencing.
And they are resisting that inertia.
They are resisting that flow and trying to go, no, what we need is moral authority and control.
All of this free speech, look, it's causing these riots.
It's causing fake information to get people to take medications like ivermectin.
It's pretty clear that they have an aim, maximize control, censorship, authoritarianism.
How do we get there now that people can communicate and organize their own lives using technology?
Well, we have to...
Benefit from and exploit crises.
Putting it favorably.
And I suppose at the extreme end you might say generate and create crises.
That's a conversation that I'll be having elsewhere on this channel.
I've spoken to Dave Martin many times about those things and that conversation is up now.
You should have a look at that.
All right, let's see where Piers and Tate go now.
You just literally said the complete opposite.
So we did actually vote for a leader and a party that was completely committed to dedicating billions of pounds of taxpayer money to helping people in Ukraine defeat Vladimir Putin.
So that again is a complete untruth that you've just espoused.
I'm sure the people who are protesting up there in the north of England who can't afford to pay their bills, who are watching migrants live for free in hotels, who don't feel safe at night because the police don't have enough resources to turn up and respond to crime are very happy that we're sending money to Ukraine.
You're completely right.
Yeah.
The fact that you only had 20% of the populace vote has nothing to do with it.
And the fact that every single party will send money to Ukraine because we live in a uniparty system, which is corrupt to the core in the first place.
That's the reason why, no matter who you vote for, the migrants keep coming, and no matter who you vote for, the money keeps getting siphoned out of the tax base and sent to Ukraine.
That's the truth of it, is that most people are starting to realize and wake up from the Matrix and understand there are no political solutions, because it's all a scam and it's all a lie.
What we need is people to understand at home that we have to think outside the box and vote for somebody who's not part of this two-party, uni-party insanity, which is why I was a fan of Nigel Farage.
Even if he sells me down the river, even if he says I'm a bad person, that's his prerogative and that's his decision to make.
I still believe he's the best choice as a leader for the UK.
There you go!
That's an interesting conversation, surely, and not the kind of thing that you want banned.
Even if, probably in both cases, there have been examples of information being posted that is not entirely true.
Who gets to determine who is punished?
In a sense, these are political ideas that are as old as politics itself.
Who has the right to kill?
Who has the right to censor?
Who has the right to incarcerate?
Who is it?
And who gives them that right, if not God?
Once we say God is not real, we're not going to involve God in the way we govern countries, we're going to govern countries on the basis of reason and argument, and yet still going to require things like trust and faith, And honest conversation and principles like kindness and service.
I believe that we are now moving beyond the utility of enlightenment values and to the point where we need a fusion of the facility of technology and the values of spirituality.
But that's just what I think.
Why don't you let me know what you think in the comments and the chat.
Well, it's been a pretty extraordinary ride so far and Have you enjoyed it?
Let me have a look at this.
Oh yeah, let's have a look at that.
We've still got a little bit of time to talk about Joe... Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
We've still got a bit of time to talk about Joe Rogan saying that RFK is the candidate he most likes and the backlash for that.
First of all, let's have a look at him saying that.
That's just what they do.
That's politics.
They do it on the left, they do it on the right.
They gaslight you, they manipulate you, they promote narratives, and the only one who's not doing that is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
You a fan?
Yeah, I am a fan.
Yeah, he's the only one that makes sense to me.
He's the only one that, he doesn't attack people, he attacks actions and ideas, but he's He's much more reasonable and intelligent.
I mean, the guy was an environmental attorney and cleaned up the East River.
He's a legitimate guy.
Now, I love Bobby Kennedy and I recognise I don't have anything like the kind of influence that Joe Rogan has, and I suppose Trump, who has that kind of, not peripheral, but occasional contact with Rogan at UFC, recognises the significance of a Rogan endorsement, put this on his own Truth Social, and one wonders whether Rogan felt compelled to make this post.
In which he's sort of tagged Dave Smith, who's one of the most trusted or educated, certainly, voices in the political space that Joe Rogan is a kind of a, well, in a sense, he's the imperture, isn't he?
He's the creator in so many ways of this new emergent space.
I remember a little while ago seeing in something like The Guardian, when I say a little while ago, I mean five, ten years ago, This is how Joe Rogan is a gateway to far right and it sort of like had like a map like it was a spider's web and like look he might talk to Jordan Peterson and then someone might go to Jordan Peterson and talk to this person and that person he was sort of trying to turn it into science like why and essentially if Joe Rogan could be cancelled they would cancel Joe Rogan the same with
Lesser voices, like me, they want anyone out of the way that could have any sort of impact.
But it's interesting to see, like, Trump pushing back on that and he got some flack.
I'm sure that Joe Rogan, like me, is the kind of pundit who would say, he's allowed to like Bobby Kennedy, you know, it doesn't mean you're not allowed to like Trump or Kamala Harris.
You can like whoever you want.
That is what freedom of speech should be like.
It should be people like Joe Rogan going, yeah, I think I like Bobby Kennedy.
And then someone else going, no, I like Kamala Harris.
Why is that?
Aren't you concerned that she's a representative of bureaucratic power, ultimately backed by these various institutions that are ultimately globalist and not even democratic?
Oh, yes, good point.
Can you demonstrate?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, here it is.
Well, why don't you like Trump then?
Well, I'm concerned that Trump has these kind of... You should be able to be in a free conversation.
The incendiariness that rioters are correctly accused of when it comes to violence are joined in their exploitation by administrators that seek to impose censorship.
That's the sad truth.
Anyway, let's take Joe Rogan's advice and see what Dave Smith says.
Trump supporters have a lot of nerve flipping out during the Great Assault on Liberty.
Trump prays lockdowns demonize countries.
Yes, isn't it interesting, man?
If you love Trump, you're willing to overlook Trump's flaws.
Perhaps we should be willing to overlook one another's flaws.
Perhaps redemption and forgiveness and kindness and good faith have to return to this conversation.
And if it's not going to come from leaders, then perhaps it has to come from us.
Maybe that's the solution.
That we need to find, that it's not remote, that we're not victims, that we're not in little tiny prisons of the mind, mind-made manacles, or censored into oblivion.
Maybe the truth is this, that we are free, that we are creating reality through our consciousness, even as we exist.
And if we become adherents to a higher system, if we surrender to a higher principle, in my case if I bow down before Jesus Christ, then we have a chance A chance through that relationship of spreading love.
And guess what?
It might not be Jesus Christ for you.
It might be Islam or it might be Judaism or it might be atheism and that's all okay too.
Certainly it's not my job to tell you what to do or what to think.
It's not even my job to tell me what to do or what to think anymore.
That is something I have yielded to a higher force All together.
Hey, but that's just what I think.
Why don't you let me know what you think in the comments and the chat.
We will be back tomorrow, not with the same, but with more of the different.
If you need a little bit more of this stuff, become an Awake and Wonder over on Locals.
Click the link in the description.
It will tell you how to do it over there.
In the meantime, if you can, stay free.
Many switching, switch on, switch off.
Many switching,
▲
Export Selection