All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 27, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:14:39
"WE’RE BEING CHOKED!!" - COVID Lockdown Censorship Was JUST THE START! With Neil Oliver - SF 439
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, I'm going to go ahead and start the video.
So, I'm going to start the video.
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand and what a special edition it is.
If you're watching us on YouTube, we'll be there for the first 15 minutes.
Why?
Because they're censoring people, they're banning people, they're trying to create a dystopia of disinformation over there.
The irony where disinformation and misinformation is usually what's used to legitimize further censure and control.
Why is it a special show?
Because of the presence of Neil Oliver.
He and I will go on a journey and a voyage together, communicating on a variety of subjects that I know you're interested in.
Authenticity, truth, dystopia, centralized technological power.
Thanks for joining us, Neil.
I'm delighted to be here.
I've been violating community guidelines.
You are a violation of community guidelines.
I'm so sorry.
What you should be is locked up.
Now when Trump fans sing Lock Her Up, even though I like anthems, I've always been a fan of anthems, I like the behaviour of crowds, I find it interesting, I like football, Crowds.
I like the kind of raucous banter.
Not a fan, of course, of violence.
We'll talk about that later.
But look how delighted Hillary looks when she's not the recipient or the target of the lock up charges, but somehow the beneficiary.
It's just another example of how there are no real principles at the heart of this movement.
Just utility.
Nothing means anything.
It's not what I... Do as I say, not as I do.
As long as it's not happening to them, it's fine.
If it's happening to somebody else, excellent.
Lock him up!
Donald Trump fell asleep at his own trial.
And when he woke up, he made his own kind of history.
the first person to run for president with 34 felony convictions.
As vice president and as a member of the American people, I am proud to be a member
as vice president and...
as vice president kamala sat in the situation room what do you feel when you see that neil
Now, booboo-do-booboo-do.
Would someone, surely, rather than stoking the being of a Crowd as though they were a gladiatorial event.
Wouldn't it have been, wasn't there a form of words that might have come from a statesman?
Something statesman-like that would have taken on board and made something of the fact that the passion in the room, the strength of feeling was understandable.
But that now was the time to look back and reflect and to see that there are strategies and performances and forms of words that are best avoided.
And while I understand, I can understand why here in this pressure cooker atmosphere of the convention, feelings are running high.
It's always time and there's always an opportunity to find a better way and let's just find a better way.
Do you know, there are ways in which rather than just pouring petrol in the fire by grinning like a Cheshire cat, that it's infantile.
A statesman would have handled that differently.
Because I suppose there is no meaning at the core and no principles that are being followed, it's difficult to have reference even to what you're describing, which is a kind of a moral sensibility and statesmanship that is absent entirely from this space.
Some of us might have thought at the RNC, well, Hulk Hogan, this thing's crazy, but what's the difference?
It's just aesthetics.
At this point, to some degree.
And to further illustrate that hypocrisy, here's J.B.
Pritzker, who many believe appears on some interesting lists and in some curious address books.
Certainly, I've heard that mentioned by some sources.
I'm not willing to elaborate further on that, but if people ask me, it could be any number of lists or address books.
Let's have a look at J.B.
Pritzker saying, quite plainly and clearly, that some billionaires are better than others.
Donald Trump thinks that we should trust him on the economy because he claims to be very rich.
but take it from an actual billionaire.
Trump is rich in only one thing.
Stupidity!
Not a good enough outline.
And also, what does that suggest to you, mate?
Well, obviously you can see why some people consider him numero uno, because he may well be one of a kind in certain respects.
But again, again, why would you take such a line?
Why would you say, yes it is money that matters, it's all about money and I'm your kind of billionaire and it's okay to be this kind of billionaire if you're going to do the things that we will do to get back into power.
That's just naked abuse of power and position and money.
Again, would somebody not have said, it's not about the money.
It's about meaning.
It's about sincerity.
It's about believing in something and if you can convince other people of the sincerity of your belief then they will come with you.
Even if you don't have a penny in your pocket?
Is that not the kind of line that people might be inspired by, rather than saying, yeah, yeah, he's a rubbish billionaire, I'm an excellent one?
If there were ethics and principles at the core of this movement then that would be possible and maybe even likely, but what I suppose we're offering you is the idea that this is a spectacle with very little beneath it except for the naked pursuit of power.
Frankly, I'm thankful that JB Pritzker himself was not naked.
Here is a terrifying announcement from our island about Operation Early Dawn.
I'm sure you'll be familiar with this, Neil.
This is the early release of current prisoners in order to make way for new prisoners for new crimes, for crimes that have as yet to have been invented, perhaps.
We will guarantee a prison cell.
We will make sure that those people who need to be in prison, will be in prison.
Not necessarily in the area where they live, they may be two, three hundred miles away from home, but we will guarantee people a prison cell.
The numbers all suit.
There is a prison for everyone, and if a crime doesn't exist to arrest you with yet, we'll bloody well think of one.
Have you been following that, Neil?
Yeah, there's plenty of examples online, you know, a justice, a judge or whatever, you know, reading out the Facebook posting of a man saying, well, words to the effect that he didn't want his tax spent on illegal immigrants when there were homeless people on the streets and so on and so on, but voicing opposition to the presence of large numbers of illegal immigrants.
And the judge said it was such a serious offence that a custodial sentence was unavoidable.
20 months.
20 months in jail for something they put on Facebook.
And yet, at the same time, running in parallel is talk of, you know, potentially people guilty of actual violent crime being allowed out to make space for, well, political prisoners and enemies of the state is really what we're being told here.
That people that have just done run-of-the-mill things like hit somebody over the head with a bottle, or whatever, need not necessarily be in jail.
But if you have dissented, if you have spoken out, if you have said things that don't chime with the official narrative, then it's a prison cell for you, hundreds of miles from home.
Neil Oliver, if you're not familiar with him, is known as the Coast Guy on X. He is a writer and podcaster.
His content is available on GB News.
If you're watching us on YouTube, where Neil is an outlaw, frankly, then we're only going to be available for a couple more minutes.
Click the link in the description.
Join us over on Rumble, where we'll be having a conversation about the crisis in meaning, the loss of truth, The power of the pandemic and the ability to manipulate and control behaviour on an epic and unprecedented scale.
If you're not an awakened wonder yet, consider clicking the link in the description and becoming one.
We analyse stand-up comedy over there.
This week I've been looking at some of Rowan Atkinson's brilliant comedy, inspired by the resurfacing clip of him Expressing his deep concern about the sudden emergence of censorship that would have been unthinkable in the 80s and 90s when he was practicing some of his greatest work, although he continues to be magnificent and brilliant.
Click the link in the description.
Me and Neil are going to be cutting up the rug verbally, and I don't know, maybe literally, if the opportunity to doubt emerges.
See you in a few seconds.
Neil, it's so lovely to have the opportunity to speak with you in person.
I enjoyed our rural drive here as well and we didn't discuss our wardrobe and we've known for some time about our haircuts and beards.
Do you think that if an alien force were to land and to conduct a kind of culling, they probably would determine quite quickly that they didn't need both of us?
Well, as I've said before, I look as if I've been made with the bits left over from the larger pie that was you.
I don't think that's... I've been made out of the little bits that got cut off around the rim.
I've already observed the areas in which you have benefited and that you have superseded me.
Root uplift and maybe follicle density being but two.
I've always been, well not always, but from my late teens onwards I've always had longer hair and yet even now, aged 57, anytime anything is written about me it always mentions the fact that I've got, you know, Hair on my head, and it's amazing how it's sustained as a point of interest.
It's odd, isn't it?
Because this is what happens if you leave it alone.
It's the other type of haircut that is an intervention.
I wonder if you've spent much time thinking about archetypes.
The archetype of the wild man, the green man, the hairy man, they crop up in folk tales and myths.
Is that adjacent to your area of expertise?
Do you think, well, do you think it is some sort of response to other stimuli?
Because I have noticed more of it.
There's a guy that we both know, I had him on my podcast, I talked to, he is Viva Frey, David Fryhite.
When I first encountered David he was clean shaven and short haired.
And by now he looks like this.
And there are many other examples of it and I do wonder at the extent to which maybe there's been some sort of response to the situation, to the stresses and strains, to the tightening of the leash that has encouraged more males to Get a bit shaggier than they would ever have been under other circumstances.
My shagginess has been reduced, I will tell you that, by a number of external factors.
I used to be a lot more shaggy, depending just how you're using this word.
Precisely how you mean that.
But I think it's noticeable that there's more hairy men visible than I remember in recent times.
Neil, you and I have both crossed over from more sanctioned mainstream spaces that you were for a long time a highly, and I don't mean you're not highly regarded now, but a highly regarded sort of mainstream figure that you were affiliated with things like the Scottish National Trust and you were a relatively safe individual.
Do you feel, as I do, that what's happened is more and more things have become It's not that long ago that you were on the front page of the Scottish Times in a headline that made you sound... well, some of your content was pulled from YouTube on the basis of anti-semitism, although I was interested to learn that YouTube did not nominate, describe, or appoint any particular part of your one-hour long interview with Whitney Webb as being anti-semitic, but the Times were able to make that deduction.
That strikes me as interesting.
Correct, and definitely interesting.
When we investigated why that content had been taken down, we were told simply that it was in violation of community guidelines.
I think that's almost word for word.
And also there's this strange, vague suggestion that you might, as the creator, want to re-watch it.
And we'll see if we can work it out.
It's a bit like being told, I think, you need to go to your room and think about what you did here.
But they don't tell you explicitly what the problem is.
They just say, we're not having... And it's over an hour long, an hour and a half long, whatever.
And yet, and yet, somehow the Sunday Times were able to conclude that it had been taken down on the grounds of anti-Semitism.
And if it was, I don't know where that allegation came from, such that I don't know if the Sunday Times are actually making a story out of their own allegation.
I don't know.
Neil, I strongly disagree with everything you've just... No, actually, Neil, you're right as always.
Here's a quick message from one of our supporters.
Don't leave, we'll be back in a second.
We can't continue to bring you this awakening and hopefully enjoyable content without the support of our partners.
That's why I've got to ask you, and I'm glad to ask you, are you struggling with back taxes or unfiled returns?
The IRS is escalating collections, adding... Get this!
20,000 new agents and sending over 5 million collection letters to kick off 2024 to spend on things that you probably don't agree with, like wars and measures and a total lack of infrastructure.
In these challenging times, your best defence is Tax Network USA.
Don't let the IRS take advantage of you.
With over 14 years of experience, Tax Network USA have saved their clients over $1 billion in back taxes.
No matter the size of your tax issue, their expertise is your advantage.
They specialize in negotiating with the IRS, aiming to significantly reduce your debt.
Tax Network USA doesn't just negotiate, they also protect your assets from IRS seizures and manage your yearly returns for ongoing compliance.
Importantly, they are licensed to help you with all state tax issues, regardless of where you live in the United States.
The clock is ticking.
Don't wait as the IRS steps up its game.
Seize control of your financial future now.
Contact Tax Network USA for immediate relief and expert guidance.
Visit taxnetworkusa.com forward slash brand.
Don't let tax issues overpower you.
Turn to Tax Network USA and find your path to financial peace of mind.
All right, let's get back to this content.
That's interesting.
I'd love to pick up on a few things.
One, the assumption of a somewhat parental dynamic that you receive when communicating with YouTube.
An unprecedented giant in the media and communication space.
That initially in the early years of YouTube it seemed like it would be a platform that facilitated free speech and empowered creators and certainly to a degree it was.
Even a relative latecomer like me was able to experience radical and rapid growth reach a lot of people but in that short period of time I've noticed how In one's communications with a platform like YouTube, you can see what power is like now.
And I alluded to this in our journey here in the Volkswagen Camper, but you didn't pick up on the reference and I was hurt then, so I'm going to drop the reference a lot harder this time.
That in Kafka's The Trial, there is this idea that the protagonist is defending himself from an allegation that is unclear.
And the power that Kafka describes in the trial, and I think elsewhere in his writing, is a kind of bureaucratic power that is difficult to understand.
Now, I suppose it's my own editorialization to add to that the kind of banal benignness and soma-induced sweetness of Huxley's dystopia in Brave New World, but it seems to me that when you bring those two together, and of course add Orwell, why not everybody else does with
the inversion of meaning, the forever wars and the many other motifs that Orwell seems to have been prescient
about.
You have this, I feel, a depiction of power that is exemplified beautifully by YouTube.
You have done something wrong.
You have transgressed community guidelines.
Perhaps you should go back and look at the content again.
Now, at the moment, all we're talking about is censorship, I suppose.
A video being taken down.
And as people used to say, it's a private company.
They can do what they want on their platform.
But it's clear that that private company intersects significantly with government and corporate power.
And I wonder what you feel that incident of censorship is an indicator of.
Well I think it's an indicator of a determination to infantilise society.
Just take a telling.
If you're a child, hypothetically in a child-parent situation, a parent, a frustrated parent that just couldn't be bothered might just say, don't ask me why, just do what you're told.
So there's that element of it.
I think it also inevitably and deliberately leads to self-censorship.
Because you just become, well, frightened perhaps, or certainly cautious to the point where you think, maybe it's just not worth bothering doing anything at all.
What is the point, you know, when you may face censure?
And you may have them put up a thing saying you've violated.
Violated is a strong word.
Community is a strong word.
And then when it leads to third party headlines, you know, in a broadsheet newspaper that put your name together with anti-Semitism and the one has sprung organically from the other, all of it conspires to just be discouraging.
I don't need this in my life, potentially, is the way that you might think.
But I also do wonder at the extent to which it's an inevitable consequence of all of those platforms having come from, well, a sinister place.
I was involved with the internet very early on.
I was involved with Britain's third website, which was BT.com, British Telecom, at a time when in Britain there was only a website for Tesco supermarket and I think one of the banks, Royal Bank of Scotland maybe, I can't remember, but BT.com was the third.
And there was a time when everyone was invited to think, hey, it's this Wild West, you know, free for all, it's all going to be, you know, it's all free source and you can download and you can get all the software and it seemed benign and benevolent.
And then you realise, when you dig into it a bit, that the internet itself came from DARPA.
You know, the US military wanted it.
And we're always invited to think that things like Google, which has now become Alphabet, and Facebook, and all of these things were just clever, nerdy, geeky guys in their garages or their mum's spare bedroom, collaborating to produce these amazing things.
Mark Zuckerberg's Facebook and all of it.
And then you dig a bit into that and you realise, well no, these things were all acquired very early on by the same military intelligence community and all of the rest of it.
And so lo and behold, quite soon really, in the lifetime of something as massive as the internet, it has become apparent that it has been intended to have been a means of control, a means of surveillance, a means of monitoring, a means of harvesting data about people at a level that would have been Unthinkable and impossible by any other means.
You know, a level of data collection that would have been beyond the dreams of a Stalin or a Mao.
And there it's all there.
So why are we surprised when, in short order, within our lifetimes, it has become what it always was?
And the gloves are off, the mask is off, and it's now becoming apparent that actually, if you're going to step into this arena, it's my way or the highway.
These are the rules and if you want to step out you better be putting out some pretty anodyne content at worst or stuff that toes a party line because anything else there's going to be consequences and you won't know when those consequences are and when you breach the guidelines we won't even enter into a sensible professional dialogue with you about what it is that you've done wrong.
On that basis, Martin Gurry's excellent analysis in his book The Revolt of the Public may be askew.
He offers us, Neil, the idea that what we have now is a scenario where new elites are unable to marshal the new spaces that have been opened up by the internet and the subsequent spaces that is afforded us.
you alluded to the common analogy that it was kind of like a Wild West and I've always been kind of
willing to wear that, that there was a territory, albeit a cyber one, that was sort of slowly tiled over by the logos
of Meta and Alphabet et al. As they slowly colonized and
controlled these previously free spaces
redolent with potentiality. And now what we have is a controlled space in
the same way that the world, I think it was you and I that were discussing this, is
being turned slowly into one big airport where your every action is monitored and controlled
on the basis of crisis.
It struck me as interesting when you spoke about the infantilization that we are encountering as a kind.
That a child is in continual crisis if you consider risk to be a mild form of crisis and the role of a parent to be One primarily of a protector.
That what we're continually offered are dynamics that suggest crisis.
Whether it's a health crisis, a military crisis, a financial crisis, a cyber attack crisis.
As long as there are all these crises, then we require authoritarianism.
And it seems now that there was something rather sweet and twee about the authoritarianism of the 20th century.
People marching about, goose stepping in leather boots and Sieg Heil in left and right.
Now, What you get, I believe, is an insidious power that comes to you almost gaseously garrulous and friendly.
You have transgressed against community guidelines.
Now, I wonder whether or not the internet was always imagined as a space for surveillance, control and commercial opportunity.
It seems likely that it wasn't.
A few illustrative stories that, just to drop in before you resume, dear Neil, might be Mike Benzie's tale, although of course it's true, I presume, that Uh, Serge Brin and Larry Page, founders of Google, had their PhD at, I think Stanford, but I could be wrong, funded by a CIA carve-out.
And when he told me this, it was one, you know, sometimes someone tells you something and the scales fall from your eyes.
He said that, And then they found Google and Google Maps.
And you think, of course, PhD students aren't launching satellites into space.
Those satellites were already there.
Someone granted them access to previously existing technology.
At best, they alloyed whatever ingenuity, and I certainly wouldn't deny them that, they created with the search engines and the capacity to create the systems and the surfaces of the map app.
But there definitely has to be government involvement just for the... and it seems to me what you're suggesting is from the outset, these spaces were always designed to create control.
Yeah, I mean, it was just a... if it's too good to be true, you know, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
If you're not paying for it, you're the product.
I mean, these clichés or axioms or whatever they are, are all instructive.
You know, if you're not paying, you're the product.
I can remember sitting in on meetings about, you know, early days of the website that I previously mentioned and saying, how come all of this is free?
Because, you know, British Telecom's a telecom company.
People were charged per call, you know, for the phone calls that they made.
And yet this thing was manifesting and everything about it was free.
And I was saying, how come?
Who's paying for this?
And those conversations never really went anywhere because there was other matters, more corporate and business to be discussed.
But as it turns out, it was an important thing to be paying attention to because it was being laid out like flypaper onto which people would step and be unable to move and they would themselves become The end game of the product and people have been harvested, people have been collected into these platforms and every kind of detail about the way that you think and the things that you do and what you're interested in has all been collected and collated and it's all there and that almost certainly was someone's potential objective all along.
I think the other side of that is I think possibly an unintended consequence is that The internet is a double-edged sword and that which I would contend was probably always designed to be used to control and to be used against us is also being used against the very people whose concept it was.
And I don't think that was perhaps predicted that it would be as problematic as it has been.
And it's into that, it's to solve that problem that all the censorship has suddenly come.
I suspect that wasn't always Going to be the case.
It's just that people networked via the very technology itself, found each other.
People of like mind were able to collaborate and to share ideas and to take reassurance from, I'm not mad, thousands of other people, even millions of other people are seeing this, are thinking this.
So that the, you know, the internet has become, you know, has become a problem as well as, it's a double-edged sword.
It's become a solution to a corporate and an intelligence community challenge, but it has also become something that potentially threatens the, you know, the control that has been acquired.
Thank you.
Yes, we're just going to have a quick word now from one of our supporters.
We'll be back in a minute.
Listen, you know that we are partners with Rumble, and Rumble have gotten into the coffee game.
Now, if you knew that your coffee had been tainted with pesticides and chemicals, sitting in bags for months, sitting in an old ball bag for months, probably with traces of mould, would you drink it?
The answer is, of course you wouldn't.
Even Joe... Jill Biden wouldn't drink a bag so contaminated.
Most of the coffee we consume is stale, flavourless, and full of harmful substances that have a negative effect on our health.
Rumble 1775 coffee, on the other hand, is free from harmful substances and chemicals, whilst it's also rich in flavor.
The beans are sourced from high-altitude farms in Bolivia, roasted weekly in Miami, and delivered fresh to your doorstep.
As believers in freedom, buying 1775 coffee helps fight back against other coffee makers that don't even care about you none.
Join the coffee revolution and brew rebellion with Rumble 1775 coffee.
It's dark, it's delicious, but there are a variety of blends available.
All you gotta do is go to 1775coffee.com slash brand.
Use the code brand right now to get your 15% off.
You can click that.
There's stuff available whether you're in the Wake and Wonder chat or in the Rumble chat.
It's pretty bloody good coffee.
I'll tell you that right now.
And I say that as an Englishman for whom the date 1775 is a very painful thing to reflect on.
One of the things that seems clear is that there are now no longer the requirement for the rigid taxonomies that of which we seem so certain for a century or so that emerged, I suppose, post the industrial revolution.
emergence of socialism, the emergence of capitalism at least in its sort of relatively modern forms,
and the political movements that come from them, republicanism and the democrats, you know,
a centre-left and a centre-right political party nominally, and in our country the conservatives
and the labour movement from the 1940s particularly onward.
And it seemed then, because of the inability to create networked consensus and ongoing
communications that in terms of power and power dynamics might resemble rather than two poles, two
opposing forces, a heat map in a sports match, say football for example, where you would see, ah,
here there are a bunch of relationships around free speech, here there are a bunch of relationships
around anti-war, here there are a bunch of relationships and connections around commodity or
falling birth rates or free speech.
There are any number of issues around which novel relationships can be formed and I wonder, Neil, if that presents an almost anarchic threat in so much as it seems to me that What we are being confronted by is a tendency to centralize power under the auspices of social democracy.
Liberal democracy appears to require high taxation, high control, opportunity for authority.
I never thought that I'd be a person that would line up with like free market capitalism and those kind of things.
I'm a sort of person who, in a rather general way, picked up my political thinking such as it is autodidactic etc.
From, you know, the counterculture, from the civil rights movement, from reading conspiracy theorists or radical academics, all somewhat superficially because I didn't go to university or anything, and it seems now odd to me that what is presented as the inheritor of the civil rights movement, take the example of the
democratic national convention and its denizens, seems to me to be more the exemplar of the Huxley-esque,
Kafka-esque, bureaucratic, technological feudalism and therefore a much greater threat to individual
freedom and collective freedoms, because it does seem to me that that is the, uh, bulwark,
the vanguard of the march for truly globalist power, usually legitimized by crisis, whether
that crisis is the The Berlin Wall has come down, 9-11, a pandemic, a global war, a terrorist threat, germs, whatever it is, they're going to use fear to legitimise the centralisation of power.
Whereas this new technology would suggest a possibility of truly local power.
The kind of communities of affinity that might form around anything like, for example, horticulture
or baseball, but could also form around how are we going to manage our schools in this
area, our water board, our energy, our budget, our agriculture.
How are we going to handle this community's migration?
It seems to me the opportunity for decentralization afforded by this technology is being deliberately obfuscated because if it was realized what you would have will be a genuine threat to the two poles of power that seem to vacillate either between overreach of corporate power or overreach of the state.
That seems to be the general pendulum motion.
But you know after the 20th century who Who among us would be delighted to choose between communism or fascism as the as the sort of overteen window of choice?
I think what seems to me to be the reality is that the access that so many of us have had to information, to data, and perhaps more important than either, is connections.
We've been able to find like-minded people and share so much information.
A consequence of all of that has been to reveal that none of the ideologies that some people once genuinely espoused and many people genuinely invested hope in have stood up to the kind of scrutiny that has been made possible by all of these things.
So much information, so much shared information, so many conversations possible with so many unlikely people.
That whatever, you know, communism, free market capitalism, any of it, is all being exposed as hollow.
And when you talk about grassroots community, local solutions, and the people being able to find locally appropriate ways to meet their own needs, those things are undergirded by real feeling.
That's real people's lives and real people genuinely wanting the best for their family and wanting the best for communities that they feel embedded in and they feel part of and that they want to see, you know, survive into the next generation and all of the rest of it.
So there's reality there and there's meaning there at that level.
And what has happened is when you take it up to the levels of these ideologies, they've just been exposed, I would say, as the Emperor's new clothes.
There's nothing really there.
I don't think it's possible to take any of these people seriously anymore, be they Democrats or Republicans, be they Labour or Conservative or Liberal.
It is just a uniparty.
The scrutiny under which all of that has been put has revealed that there's nothing there.
And I think it's actually, for a sensitive soul, it's actually quite devastating.
Because it feels as if we've been living in a, you know, hypnotized by something and someone snapped their fingers and everyone has, or so many people have woken up and thought, oh, it's not that at all.
It's none of that, none of that has any meaning.
You know, a friend of mine, Nick Hudson, you know, he talks about Hudson's razor, which is this heuristic about if you, if it's pitched at you as a global crisis, To which there is only a top-down solution.
And thirdly, if any dissent to the top-down solution and the validity of the crisis, that dissent is to be crushed.
He says that's a scam.
If you can find those three things, be it in a pandemic, be it in the climate crisis, be it in anything, if those three things hold true, then you're dealing with a scam.
And that, and I think, what I feel is that the ideologies were inherited by second and third and fourth generations.
Someone like, you know, if there ever was, you know, one of the conspiracy theories about there being a kind of a Cecil Rhodes, Alfred Milner group that wanted to perpetuate the British Empire into forever.
This will last forever if we take the right steps now.
But they live and die and they're Their objectives have to be handed on to the next generation and then to the next and to the next.
It's like a 14th photocopy.
The whole thing's become blurred to the point where nobody can read it anymore.
So people that have inherited, you know, the successors to communism, the Fabianism, all of these things, it's not their idea.
They've just been handed it and they're expected to get it over the line.
And they have neither the enthusiasm, nor the commitment, nor the wit, nor the intent, nor the drive to do so.
They've just been handed the baton and they're being expected to get it somewhere.
And all of it has been revealed as, it's less than tissue thin.
There's nothing there.
And I think what people are finding very difficult, challenging, and it depends if you're optimistic or pessimistic, but there is now, the time now is for a whole New sense of meaning and validity and substance has to come from somewhere because everything else has been worn through.
You know, like some photograph that's been pinned up on a wall and had too much sunshine on it.
It's just gone.
There's nothing there and people feel it.
Or it could be like those photographs of Marty McFly, where he slowly fades as decisions are made that might interrupt the possibility of his conception, which is as good a way as any to demonstrate the problems of time travel.
Because one of the things that I started our conversation with Neil was that both of us in our own way were mainstream figures.
I was mainstream entertainment, mainstream Hollywood, I was on BBC Radio 2, Channel 4, making movies with Warner Brothers, Universal, You, it seems, were present at the inception of the internet itself with British Telecom and I wonder how we've become such marginal figures because I still consider myself to be someone who cares about individual freedom, equality, like the kind of things I don't trust the establishment, all the things I always felt and always thought are present with me yet.
So what has changed about the world to Turn both of us in our own ways, from you from coast guy to castaway, from celebrated icons of hedonism to pariahs, and in certain communities at least, condemned and feared.
When did you become more open, Neil?
to like we're talking now in a sort of in a very general way about seismic events like the impact of the internet the emergence of censorship and i i love your musing on the likelihood that the pandemic was a scam and but so before we ventured into that i thought well Is that something that you now believe?
And I like, because me, I was kind of, I realise what I'm basically doing now is saying I've been into that band for ages.
I used to read like a lot of David Icke and stuff when I was like 15, 16 when I was dropping acid and that.
I was sort of David Icke when just after he'd been on Wogan and been sort of ridiculed and kind of some of the things he said was pretty crazy.
A lot of the things David Icke says still seem quite crazy to me.
Certainly he doesn't hold back in criticising either of us two, but I do feel Look, a lot of what David Icke is saying is like, I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR AGES, YOU BASTARDS!
I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR AGES!
Like, almost every tweet is, I KNEW THIS YOU BASTARDS!
And like, so, I wonder though, like you know, when it comes to something like, I bet you can find, in the same way as with Alex Jones, you can find footage of Alex Jones prior to 9-11-2001 saying, That, well, there's this guy called Osama Bin Laden, he's gonna fly planes into the Twin Towers, hits the CIA... You know, like, that's pretty extraordinary that someone that did that is now, in the mainstream, primarily known for his rather egregious remarks around Sandy Hook.
And then if you take someone like David Icke, I'm even, I must say in a rather esoteric way, pretty interested in some of his more occultist, Baroque, interdimensional being stuff, because it does seem that something pretty dark and bizarre is going on.
What do you consider to be the most verifiable, fascinating and viscous conspiracy theories that you've encountered, and how do you separate the chaff from the wheat, and which things do you lean into?
Because a lot of what we're talking about, mate, is a kind of desacralisation and banalisation, and certainly all of this Illuminati and dimensional being stuff certainly galvanises interest and indeed intrigue.
When...
When you realise that you've definitely been lied to about something by authority.
I've said this until I'm almost blue in the face, that I just wasn't paying attention.
And if that's the same as being asleep, then I was asleep.
I mean, I was preoccupied with, you know, doing my own stuff, paying the mortgage, da-da-da-da, getting the next gig and all of the rest of it.
And I wasn't watching what politicians were saying and I wasn't watching the way society was evolving.
And it absolutely was the case that that all happened to me during the, you know, the COVID era.
That was when I started for the first time thinking, hold the phone, that's, wait a minute, there's something egregiously wrong with this now.
And I didn't get it right away.
It was a process of, you know, paying attention then.
That's definitely wrong now, I thought, by some point in 2020.
And once you lose trust, trust is a fundamental, it's one of those things, it's like sacred, it's like truth.
Once the trust goes, once the vase is broken, you can stick it back together again and make it look like it did, but you wouldn't fill it up with water and pick it up by the handle.
It's not the same anymore.
And once you think, God, if they laughed at me about that, if they said that something as enormous as a global pandemic that was going to kill 500,000 people in Britain if we didn't all go home and stay there, and millions of people around the world.
If they're going to lie about that, then what else, what else?
What else have they been lying about?
And so, you ask the question, you know, what conspiracy theories?
I'm now, I've become, well, reluctantly at first, but you think, well, I just have to be open-minded about everything now until I get to the bottom of all of it.
And there's this concept that I'm quite attracted to, this staircase of disbelief.
Let's imagine it's 100 steps high.
And the scariest step to get onto is the first one.
And it'll be a conspiracy theory, something that you had hitherto dismissed.
It'll be different things for different people.
Maybe it's who shot Kennedy.
Maybe it's what was the truth of 9-11.
Maybe it's whatever.
But if you get on the first step, now you're out of the madding crowd and they can see you.
He now has given house room to that.
What's he going to do now?
But once you're on step one, you might well go on to step two.
And it goes all the way up.
And each conspiracy theory then is more extreme than the last, but it's like a gateway drug.
You get into the one and it becomes a little bit easier to be open minded about the next thing.
And so at this moment in time, I'm just sort of reviewing the situation.
I'm just wondering.
And like you, I remember David Icke appearing on Wogan, you know, in the purple leisure wear and saying that he was the son of God and all of that.
And I remember all of that.
And then much more, much later, seeing that he was talking about this thing about, you know, if they create a crisis, they can then offer you the solution.
And by the way, they had the solution ready before they created the crisis.
Now, And yes, he does now keep saying, I knew that!
I knew that before you knew that!
And he's a bit like, you know, an old star who just keeps on singing Delilah rather than do new stuff.
You know, he's got to move on with it rather than keep just claiming ownership of... Yeah, we get it, we get it, we get it.
But that said, he's been right about a lot of stuff.
He's been right about, I would say, about a centralising of control, about an unelected, unaccountable, largely out of sight, you know, group loosely allied with their own competing interests, you know, who can see that the more that they can control The richer and the more powerful that they will be and he's been preaching that for a long time and he's right about a lot of that.
But I think that I am 100% certain that the pandemic was a scam.
There was nothing there.
I mean, it's been borne out.
The mortality was what it always was, which was if you were over the age of life expectancy and you were, well, unwell with other things.
Maybe you were, you know, terribly overweight.
Maybe you had a pre-existing condition.
Those are the people that died.
And that's the same people that would die every year with various, you know, viruses and the kind of things that come every winter and harvest tens of thousands.
And those deaths don't make any headlines, never have before.
The pandemic was a pandemic of testing, it was a pandemic of fear, it was a pandemic of PPE, it was a pandemic of propaganda and I'm also prepared to believe that it was choreographed and rehearsed years previously, maybe even decades previously, because it has done what it's done.
It's the biggest transfer of wealth in history and the leash has been shortened and an enormous amount of control has been established and people were tested to see if they would be submissive in the face of Egregious limitations on their freedoms.
And they were, and they have.
And that leash has not been released again.
That which was wound in has not been wound back out.
Absolutely a scam.
The great conspiracy theory really of my life as background music was the Kennedy assassination.
But Bobby Kennedy Jr.
is out there saying the CIA shot my uncle and they shot my dad.
And you think, oh my god, you know, I spent years saying, of course you didn't, it was Lee Harvey Oswald in the book Depository, anyone can see that.
No, I don't think that at all.
I think that was a, I think, you know, that the Kennedys were murdered by their own government.
It's very interesting.
We were talking earlier about like the surfeit of information and the impact that it has and I'm trying to understand these new categories of misinformation and malinformation and I suppose what they do is they create a sort of tenure and pathway for control because I'm starting to suspect that these new and emergent elites and their practices benefit from us being deluged and overwhelmed by information In so much as I was listening to you, Neil, talking about the pandemic and I imagine that all of, you know, your audience, my audience, our collective and shared audience are somewhere on the spectrum of it was a pandemic, that it was deliberately released, you know, that one end in order to generate
I don't think you even need to go there.
There's the endless furious debate about labs and Wuhan and released or not released and gain of function and all of the rest of it.
Maybe.
Conversation for another day.
The point is, nothing of note happened.
Whatever Covid was up to, and including it wasn't anything at all, through to whatever it was, gain of function, release from a lab, whatever, it didn't do anything at all.
I mean you go to the official government figures from a country like Germany, Well, Freudian slip there.
Maybe Germany is just a company now.
But you go to a country like Germany and the hospital bed occupancy was at an all-time record low in 2019-2020.
There was nobody there in the hospitals.
And the hospitals only started to get a bit busy after 2021.
Now, what started to happen to it?
But anyway, you don't need to answer the question.
Well, some people do.
You know, a lot of people have a lot invested in getting to the bottom of what, if anything, Covid was.
But I would say that you don't actually need to know that because it wasn't dangerous.
It wasn't dangerous to the vast amount of the population The figures don't stack up.
The people that died were the people, you know, were over life expectancy and all of the rest of it.
It was a scam and it was rolled out because it enabled... A. Let's find out just how much the people will put up with.
Let's just see.
Let's just see.
Everyone says they won't put up with this but let's just see how far we can take this and let's get the money.
Yes, and at the other end of the spectrum, what can be tracked?
We touched upon a recent guest on this show, Jay Bhattacharya, who seems to be a person interested only really in the rendering of simple facts, and in the great Barrington Declaration, of which he was one of the co-creators, They said consider natural immunity, consider the possibility that it doesn't impact children, consider shielding the more vulnerable people and look at the efficacy of lockdowns, look at alternative medications other than vaccines, don't vaccinate in the middle of a pandemic.
perfectly reasonable assertions that have subsequently proven to be true. But
what my point is, Neil, is other than sort of intrepid folks that tenaciously
continue to pursue truth in this area, I would say that most of us, even
people that work in the space like you and I, experience a kind of fatigue. And
because of this surfeit of information, seems like such a long time ago, and I
even feel sort of bewildered by it all, even though I suspect that there's a
connection between the kind of content that I discuss and that you discuss and
some of the external consequences that I have experienced.
I don't imagine those things are unrelated.
It still seems hard to convince, and is indeed our duty to convince, people outside of the audiences that we already communicate with that something extraordinary happened in the last few years.
And as you say, there has been a tightening of the leash, the stranglehold, the choking has somewhat receded, but not to where it was before.
And you can tell with every subsequent crisis that almost a paradigm was minted that can be rebooted at will.
It was around that time that we started to get those emergency messages on our phone.
And I remember everyone thinking, what's this new thing that they're doing?
I remember there was a sort of a slight weather crisis.
And that weather crisis, people sort of talked about, should we shut the schools?
In a way, I don't know if it's sort of snow days and stuff.
I felt though that there was a kind of a coached readiness to yield to crisis.
And most of all, I feel that there's a sense now of despair, bewilderment, a kind of a breakdown, and I wonder, Neil, if indeed we will ever be able to make people accept that something of that magnitude has taken place, almost because it's
Too vast and too big and even in the UK riots recently there was a sense of oh wow look at the response how quick and rapid and authoritarian and the response was and how easily an authoritarian leader who sort of again campaigns under sort of the auspices of tenderness can impose extraordinary measures quite quickly.
I think there's two things there.
The big lie, you know, that the likes of Hitler and Goebbels and whatever famously said, you know, if you make the lie big enough, you know, little lies are, everyone tells little lies, you know, every day.
But big lies, so the example being, if you tell the entire population of the world that they're at risk of dying from a new disease, and they have to do this or they will die, and everyone else around them will die, To then expect, for people like us, to expect all those people to accept that they were duped by something so huge and global.
Cognitive dissonance kicks in.
I cannot process that.
It's easier to just continue to believe the big lie.
Because to take on board the fact that the entire world's authority figures lied in the same way, in an orchestrated and choreographed way, at the same time, because they wanted more control and more money.
People don't want to believe that.
That's one thing.
But there's also, I would say, complicity.
You know when you get a story like Murder on the Orient Express?
Can you do Death on an Isle just because I was in that?
I understand the plot better.
If only I could torture that analogy and make it so, but I can't.
It has to be on the Orient Express.
It has to be on the Orient Express.
The idea that there's an omerta to begin with that Poirot has to unpick because they all did it.
That's the same in Death on the Nile, that would work.
Same plot.
They all took part.
They all took part.
Or if you go to, I don't know, an inspector calls.
Inspector Gould calls.
I know that, I did that at school with JB Priestley.
If you get everyone to share the guilt, Then they're so ashamed by the guilt that they'll just, let's just keep this under the rug because we've all got skin in the game on this, let's just... And you think that's population wide in this instance?
So I think potentially what's happened here, so many people went along with Taking the medical intervention, pushing it on their kids so they could go skiing, snitching on their neighbours, or maybe they enjoyed the vilification of the unvaccinated, being able to at least vicariously look on at the othering of a minority group.
There's so many people, it's just undeniable, are complicit in it.
And so that complicity is the glue that binds and it makes people disinclined to drop it, re-evaluate it, admit that they were wrong because they took part in it in the same way that everyone stabbed the guy in the Orient Express.
Yeah, you're right, that didn't happen in Death in the Nile, it wouldn't have worked.
They all took part in it.
It's that shared complicity and I think what was extremely clever in what was done to populations was that the authorities made accomplices of significant proportions of the population who would now, rather than confront that, And accept that, oh yeah, I did do that.
I was part of that, I did do that and I feel badly about it.
It's better just to keep on going and put that behind us.
Let's forget all about that and move on to the next thing.
War in Ukraine!
One of my favorite bits of writing is in Herman Melville's Moby Dick.
He talks about how there is an analogy between our intuitive feelings about land as a place of safety, verdant and abundant and occupied.
And the sea as an expanse that if confronted with for too long can induce a kind of desperate despair.
In the template that you drew out for us there of a kind of unwillingness to confront what we had all mutually participated in, I sense that there might be something broader still, in that we perhaps all sense that we are participating in a more general way, in a series of synthetic acts and activities, that we have lost our connection to the sacred and to one another.
Look, I feel it in this most mundane of examples that we're just nodes of utility.
Like that when you're buying something in H&M and you recognize that the store assistant don't even have the authority to grant you a discount.
Oh look, these trousers.
I was buying some for my kid.
These trousers have got a hole in them.
Give us a discount.
I'm afraid we can't.
They are just the occupants of a system.
Fact and and that actually goes beyond that's an obviously a one would assume a relatively low paid position in retail and I think that the same Condition exists as you go up and up the bureaucratic scale So you might have someone like Thierry Breton who appears to have a degree of power But ultimately only has the power afforded to him by that role and if you don't If you don't exercise that power in the way that the system demands you will be dispatched and someone else will come in and I think even with more celebrated figures Like Biden, Clinton, Bush, whoever.
You still have the need for compliance and that's before we investigate the likelihood that there has long been a playbook of ensuring that these people have skeletons in their closet or have some kind of deep-held secret that can be mobilized against them should they prove non-compliant.
There's a significant evidence that Jeffrey Epstein worked with deep state agencies, that the people on his list, on his black book, had been compromised.
And it's so interesting how a story like the Epstein story still exists, because again, as we've discussed earlier in our conversation, the internet just affords that kind of transparency at its best.
As with the COVID inquiries in our country and in the United States, there's this sense of spectacle that it sort of plays out that no one's ever really held to account.
You can be exorcised from YouTube.
I can be banned and accused and have allegations made against me.
But when it comes to real power, Epstein, when it comes to what you at least posit, and I'm sympathetic to the idea that the pandemic itself was a massive facade, there can never really be a true inquiry because that inquiry would be an unravelling of the system itself.
It seems extraordinary to me to recognise, one, that we seem to be operating within an intransigent system that is engineered and controlled by As you point out, I was talking about it in another context earlier this week, the truth is another fiat currency.
It's been so devalued, it's been so Corrupted as to be utterly valueless.
You know, there's this tired meme all the time on social media about, you know, the truth is a lion and it needs only to be set free and it'll take care of itself, which is, that's great, but no, it's not, because it's self-evident that so much truth is out there.
That lion If it is a line, has long since been let out of the cage, and it's toothless and clawless.
It's not doing anything for us.
You know, you're talking about Epstein.
You know, the only one person has been jailed for that, and it's one woman, Ghislaine Maxwell.
And it's clear that there's lists and lists and lists of people who are compromised by whatever it was that Epstein was purveying and providing.
Nothing.
The truth is out there about so many things.
I mean, there just this week, you know, that three House committee report, 291 pages long, came out saying that, alleging that Biden, Joe Biden, his family and the family's associates profited to the tune of $27 million for peddling access to him when he was vice president for Barack Obama.
It doesn't matter.
It's out there.
It's out there.
We know that during the Covid scam that they were saying things like, you know, you need to be six feet apart.
You need to wear face masks.
You need to follow magic arrows on the floors of supermarkets.
You can only have nine people at a funeral or a wedding or whatever.
They've come out and said, yeah, yeah, we just made that up.
People from Pfizer came out and said, well, we didn't test the thing to see if it would stop transmission from person to person, because we weren't asked to.
So the very idea that it was safe and effective, and that if you didn't take this, you might kill granny, is utterly bogus.
That truth is out there.
Now, that lion is not roaring.
Those claws and teeth are not tearing apart the lion.
It's just more lies, more lies, more lies, more lies.
And that's the dire predicament in which we find ourselves.
And I think all of it is an inevitable consequence of the lack of meaning, which is also a product of the secularization of Western society that has gone on for two or three centuries, that if there is no meaning, if people have no
meaning, then inevitably you just end up at the point at which we've arrived, where
everything is just a commodity, people included.
And the truth is what the most powerful, the highest bidder says what the truth is.
And pay attention because it might be different tomorrow.
You know, I was just thinking, Mehanda, I don't often reflect on the fact that the word annihilation has embedded within it the creation of the conditions of nihilism.
To truly annihilate is to sort of engender a lack of meaning.
When we've spoken When I've spoken with Vandana Shiva, she talks continually about this process of desacralisation, that everything is being robbed of its meaning, that there's this desecration and decimation of...
And desiccation.
Meaning he's being sucked out and we're left with sort of a dryness.
And the sort of gaudy and incredible spectacle of Joe Biden's send-off at the DNC was easily and eerily redolent of the celebrations of boxer in every schoolboy's favourite ball world book, Animal Farm.
Where the slaughtered proletariat has now got a national holiday named after him.
And even aside from the fact that he was clearly annexed, nixed and dispatched by his own party, there is the claim that he was a kind of a stalwart of morality, authenticity and decency.
He was a good and decent man right up to the moment where the world saw him fall apart in that debate.
They were telling you he was as sharp as a tack.
And now they're re-rendering him as a sort of old father democracy.
You're right, there is no meaning.
Now occasionally there are events that I think pierce our collective soul.
This kind of dampening and slow process of annihilation I think is by its nature de-spiriting.
One example I think was when that young In our country, in the UK, when that little girl Millie Dowling, was it?
Hacked her phone and that led to the journalists hacked a dead girl's phone to hear her messages and it meant that her parents felt that she may have still been alive because... Accessing her phone, yeah.
Because her phone has responded to messages.
This was sort of led, in this country at least, to an interrogation of the old-school media.
Well, you know, when Ultima released, some people got paid off and all that.
And, you know, there were probably, I think, probably great successes for a number of people through the correct judicial channels.
But what is of note to me is that it meant that the News of the World as a title had to be collapsed.
Now, probably within the News International Murdoch Empire, they recognized that print media's expiration date Was looming anyway.
But I wonder if sometimes events occur that prove pivotal and how systems become adept at managing them, as in the example I've just given.
When something too disgusting and appalling to bear took place with the Millie Dowling phone hacking, they collapsed an entire title.
Get rid of News of the World, that's the only way that this is going to be handled.
With something like the murder of the children In Southport and the attacks of the other people at that Taylor Swift party, it led of course to a kind of chaotic response and within that chaos there were many unacceptable acts.
That's including acts of violence, and my personal perspective when it comes to civil disobedience is that it has to remain non-violent for deep spiritual and moral reasons, yes, and also for tactical reasons, that if you succeed, if you're to succeed, you can't breach those thresholds, or you will ultimately, you will fail.
Now, people that are more savvy than me will say, well, how would you prevent, if you were part of a movement that was committed to non-violent protest, Deep state agents and actors on the fringes and periphery committing acts of violence as part of that movement in order to corrupt the entire movement and perjure the entire movement.
We know for example that on January the 6th there were deep state agents from the FBI and from numerous other agencies and presumably it's common practice in most countries.
I wonder, Neil, if you consider that there could be events that might not lead to fracture and opposition, as the rise in this country did with the attacks on mosques and the attacks on places where, you know, sort of refugees of asylum seekers, but instead a cohesive, deliberate response It seems to me that what you would need would be a re-sacralisation of social spaces.
A emboldening of the spirit of our kind that probably can't come from nationalism.
It's too recent of an idea actually.
It's probably something much more arcane and deep that needs to be evoked.
The positive equivalent of the shame that you've referred to that keeps us cold and quiet and cowed.
It's this power that we have within us that they most fear and it's this power that I wonder if we can somehow access utilizing these technologies in communicative spaces.
I think what has to be done is to acknowledge the The extreme, the depth of the danger in which we find ourselves.
I think there comes a point where you can no longer just think, oh it'll be alright, just keep your head down, just keep on going and this'll eventually sort itself out.
The beginning of something that would make a difference would be in acknowledging that... I mean, I've been saying for as long, any chance I get, that there's an anti-human agenda.
Yeah.
You know, that all these, you know, Malthusian, eugenicist undertones, overtones to concepts like Agenda 2030, where it's like, save the planet, and in order to get there, we'll have to get rid of, by whatever means, This many billions of people, that if there was any genuine feeling about public health, you know, if Covid had actually been about health, you know, they wouldn't have, you know, they wouldn't have shut the gyms and they wouldn't have, you know, they wouldn't have kept fast food joints open while they would have been pushing vitamin D and they would have been encouraging people to be healthy and to get out and to exercise and get fresher.
The fact that none of that was prioritised was all you needed to know to see that it wasn't about saving people.
It was about prosecuting the objective, which was power and money.
If we could get to the point where we can see that it's not just anti-human, it's anti-humanity.
I would say the existential threat is real.
It's humanity itself.
You see it manifest in transhumanism, where we've been invited to think that the human Homo sapiens Mark 1 is suboptimal and needs an upgrade.
An upgrade by who?
By what circuit board are you going to improve on seven million years of evolution just from the time when we parted company with whatever became chimpanzees?
And that's not to take into account the billions of years since the emergence of life at all from the primordial soup.
And yet there's this vanity, this hubris amongst an elite class that thinks that it can do a better job with being human.
You've got transgenderism.
You know, where young people are being sterilised, they're being neutered, they're being made neither one thing nor the other.
Now, that is anti-humanity.
You know, that's where we are.
It's not just anti-human, it's anti-humanity.
And I think part of the solution would be when people finally accept complicit With whatever complicity, shared guilt, all of the rest of it.
If we don't do something, it's the future of the species itself that's actually at risk.
And it does, however people might wince at the possibility, I think it is about spirituality.
I think 300 years of secularism have brought us here.
And you have to ask yourself, is this where we want to be?
Because we have undoubtedly got here by dint of secularism.
Saying that there really is no meaning in anything.
You know, you're here today and you're gone tomorrow.
You're three schooled in ten and then that's the end of it.
And it will be difficult maybe for people, but I know that a lot of people are, you know, re-engaging with a spiritual aspect.
And I think there's something very profound there that's very, whatever you believe, anything or nothing, if you believe that the law, let's say, or the truth comes from somewhere unreachable, untouchable, inviolate, That it cannot be manipulated, altered, or worked around by us, because it comes from somewhere else that we can't reach.
And if you make that God, or intelligent, or whatever, but if you just accept that You can't work around the truth and you can't obfuscate and get rid of the law or the truth because you can't get there.
It's out of your reach.
Then that provokes a different kind of behaviour.
As soon as you surrender to the idea that well yeah it's all very well to say thou shalt not kill but You know, we've come up with a workaround for that because we want you guys to go over there and kill a lot of them.
And that's going to be okay.
Don't worry about it because we've sorted the workaround.
But you can't work around it if you accept that it's come from somewhere untouchable.
You know, that Lawrence Vander Post line about, you know, the story is like the wind, it comes from a far off place and we feel it.
That's the truth.
You feel it.
You feel it when it comes.
You feel it when you hear it, when you hear it.
You feel it when you say it.
It's what makes people laugh.
It's at the root of effective comedy.
It's because you've told the truth.
Or you bring people to tears because you've told the truth and invariably you don't have to compose the line yourself.
It just comes out of you.
You've conducted it like lightning through a lightning conductor.
And if people would embrace the idea that we are not the be-all and end-all, that there are profound, fundamental parts of being human and alive, that we are not able to overwrite, rewrite, tweak, adjust and work around, Then I think within that is a fundamental that was understood for millennia, you know, on the road to civilization.
If you operate in that way, you get to a different destination and I think we need to be somewhere else than where we've arrived at the moment.
Thank you, Neil.
That's beautiful.
Thank you, as always, for joining me for a conversation that ended with, I feel, the very wind that you were describing.
I felt it when you were talking, that there is meaning, that there is truth, that God is real.
Thank you so much for watching us today.
Remember, you can become an Awakened Wonder and get access to additional content.
Thank you so much once again, Neil.
Did you enjoy this conversation?
Every time.
Every time, Russell.
I enjoy the gentle, reflective nature of the conversations that you engender.
Thank you so much.
I think that perhaps there is room for both of us.
The eugenicists that eventually come will surely spare us both.
We will be back tomorrow with another show, not with more of the same, but with more of the different.
Until then, if you can, stay free.
Many Switching, Switch on, Switch off.
Many Switching, Switch on, Switch off.
Many Switching...
Switch on.
Switch on.
Man, he's switching.
Switch on.
▲
Export Selection