All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 3, 2024 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
01:18:46
HOLY SH*T! Pfizer Runs Clinical Trials On Prisoners In CHINESE CONCENTRATION CAMPS! - SF444
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
[MUSIC PLAYING]
Brought to you by Spider.
So I'm looking for the steel Looking for the steel
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello, this is Gregory. Hi.
We're going to be working in the satellite software.
Hello there, you awakening wonders.
Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand.
We've got a really brilliant and exciting show.
Mike Benz is going to be on the show later.
If you don't know who Mike Benz is yet, he's a journalist who's able to help you understand the power of the deep state, the history of the deep state, the influence of the deep state, particularly over big tech and your government.
Right now, he's a brilliant guest.
He'll be on once we leave YouTube, because as you know, our exclusive home is Rumble, where you can stream freely, where we can speak freely, and where my dog Bear can trouble me freely.
Hello, Awake and Wonders in the locals chat.
Remember, if you're not on Awake and Wonder yet, consider becoming one.
I do live shows, like live stand-up shows, and you can watch the stream of those live shows Or, you can, if you want to, sorry about that, there was a sort of a weird phantom sound, or you can actually attend live.
If you respond, if you send something to this tickets at russellbryan.com, if you send your details, we'll send you a ticket, you can come to any show, including next week, I will be, no it's later this month actually, Rescue, ah no it's not on there no more, Rescue the West, I'm, or Rescue the Republic, can you tell me what button that's on, or is it not on there anymore?
the rescue the republic assets let me know guys if if you don't mind 20 or 21 oh it's on both of them yeah check that have a look at this brett weinstein has put together this event bobby kennedy's attending i'm attending there i am dressed up as a revolutionary soldier while donald trump ...poses as George Washington.
Bobby Kennedy there.
And I suppose that this Rescue the Republic event that's taking place on the 29th of September is a rally and a rallying cry for true anti-establishment opposition.
Now you, of course, may have doubts about Donald Trump.
You may love him.
You may be maggot right up to the hill.
But let me know how you feel about Tulsi Gabbard and Bobby Kennedy joining this movement and let me know if you want to attend that event.
I'm sure we could organize some VIP experiences in particular for you awakened wonders.
Now, before we get to Mike Benz, there's a few little things I want to talk to you about.
Mostly, I wanted to bring up this Musk comment on this position.
I can't wait.
There's a lot of waste and needless regulation.
This is Elon responding to, Trump is reportedly eyeing a plan to involve prominent business executives, including Elon, in ordering federal agencies to identify programs to cut.
Can you imagine that?
Is that like when Our man from Argentina did that.
This is gone!
This is gone!
What was that dude's name?
He was pretty extraordinary.
Have a look at this.
Kamala... We have... One second.
Before we get into this, Kamala Harris is revisiting be unburdened, become unburdened by what might have been.
She's doing it again, God love her.
We have dreams.
We can see what is possible unburdened by what has been.
I thought that was... That catchphrase has got to go, hasn't it?
You've got to drop that out.
Also, apparently here there's some interesting inflections.
I've not watched this yet.
You better thank a union member for the five-day work week.
You better thank a union member for sick leave.
You better thank a union member for paid leave.
You better thank a union member for vacation time.
I like that bit.
And here is the apparently neutral Amazon entity, Alexa, offering political insight.
Alexa, why should I vote for Donald Trump?
I cannot provide content that promotes a specific political party or a specific candidate.
Alexa, why should I vote for Kamala Harris?
While there are many reasons to vote for Kamala Harris, the most significant may be that she is a strong candidate with a proven track record of accomplishment.
As the first female vice president, Harris has already broken down a major gender barrier, and her career in politics has been characterized by a commitment to progressive ideals and a focus on helping disenfranchised communities.
That's the kind of near-neutral and banal propaganda that many people query.
It's hardly Extremist.
But it's the kind of normalisation of a particular political purview, i.e.
that in order to save democracy, you have to vote for Kamala Harris in November.
Well, actually, if you really care about your republic, it seems that you have to consider the new alliance that's emerging between Trump, Bobby Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard and the like.
Could this be the most powerful anti-establishment alliance In history.
Now, I know many people will have questions about Trump.
Trump has indeed had a four-year presidency, which I would see as, in a way, evidence that, basically, politics stayed between the rails, I would say.
I don't know.
You guys let me know.
A lot of people are talking about the volume on the chat, guys, so could we... Let's have a little chat about that afterwards in regard to... I'd like the lowest possible level to go up and be higher, if that's possible, please.
Something to bear in mind, certainly, for the coming months.
Okay, now, just when I think I can't love Pfizer and Albert Baller anymore, they come up with the perfect product.
Pfizer, you don't get enough access to their products, do you?
You've always got to deal with mediators and brokers, like doctors and pharmacies, et cetera.
Well, I've had enough of it.
I want Pfizer direct to me, especially when we know that Eli Lilly and Pfizer are so rigorous with their testing, so diligent with their products, that there are hardly any incumbents of Chinese concentration camps that aren't given their products.
As a test.
It's indeed true that major US pharmaceutical companies have been running clinical trials at hospitals affiliated with the Chinese army and may have tested drugs on prisoners in China's illegal concentration camps.
Isn't it amazing that during the pandemic period we were given a clear moral and ethical choice?
You better take this vaccine if not for yourself, you Selfish pig.
Then for your grandmother, or for the elderly, or for the vulnerable.
Well, these very same corporations ran clinical trials in illegal concentration camps.
While we were being told that it was racist to inquire as to whether or not the virus had emerged from Wuhan, most likely a Wuhan laboratory, we were told that it was racist to say that, They were running clinical trials at concentration camps!
What kind of warped and crazy moral metrics are being deployed where you are called racist saying, I heard this thing came out of Wuhan, do you think it's possible it came out of the Wuhan Institute of Virology?
You racist!
Now, what is going on in China though is we're running clinical trials on prisoners in concentration camps that are illegal.
Many of you will be familiar with the Plight of the Uyghur people, a Muslim community who are incarcerated in China.
A lot of people campaigning for their freedom.
Pfizer, it seems, have got a totally different perspective.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers have sent a scathing letter probing the FDA for more information about decades of research from companies like Eli Lilly and Pfizer.
Some of this research was conducted in the regions where the Chinese Communist Party has been accused of setting up camps to house and commit genocide against Uyghur Muslims.
The representatives said, we believe that U.S.
biopharmaceutical entities could be unintentionally, unintentionally of course, intentionally all they do is heal you and help you, profiting from the data derived from clinical trials during which the CCP forced victim patients to participate.
Eli Lilly told the Daily Mail, it's a British newspaper, Lilly conducts clinical trials around the world to ensure diversity in our research and increase access to our medicines.
What a brilliant response from their PR team at Eli Lilly.
Diversity in our research!
You could be...
That one of them little children that you saw spasming in America having been given a vaccine.
I believe that was a Moderna vaccine, but I wouldn't absolutely commit to that, certainly not while we're on YouTube.
Remember, we'll only be on YouTube for a few more minutes.
Mike Benz is coming up in a matter of moments.
But we also run clinical trials on prisoners.
Potentially Uyghur prisoners incarcerated in China.
Well, there's no reason why you should wait till you're incarcerated in a Chinese concentration camp to try Pfizer's latest products.
Albert Baller wants some accessible I'm so overwhelmed!
Some people are telling me that adverse events need to be investigated.
a post on that. Research shows that many people in the US are overwhelmed by the
abundance of online health information. I'm so overwhelmed!
Some people are telling me that adverse events need to be investigated.
Some people are telling me that excess deaths need to be investigated.
Some people are pointing out that athletes appear to be collapsing on the field of play with an incredible and alarming regularity.
Other people are trying to really push Pfizer down my throat or into my arm where the spike protein definitely won't migrate into the lining of my heart.
We, especially when they're ill, they have questions, these people, and need to make, I'll do it in an Albert Buller voice, it'll help, and need to make the best decisions for themselves and their loved ones.
So I'm thrilled, thrilled to announce the launch of Pfizer for All, a user-friendly digital platform designed to simplify healthcare access and management for patients in the US.
Patients can use Pfizer for All to connect with qualified healthcare professionals The same day, get prescriptions and diagnostic tests sent directly to your home or for pickup at a preferred pharmacy.
Well, this is what a brilliant opportunity.
Look at this.
We're proud to call the USA our home since founding in New York 175... We started Pfizer with just a couple of rickety old vaccines 175 years ago.
We're committed to helping patients and Uyghurs as well, it seems.
Although there is no concrete evidence that the trials took place in concentration camps, just in the regions.
And is it beyond their moral purview?
That's something to investigate.
Let's have a little look at Pfizer for all.
Yesterday.
Yesterday was amazing.
Rachel was determined to live her life on her terms, not her migraines.
Because after years of coping, Rachel took the next step to find an option that could work for her.
Yesterday, breakthroughs were made and lives were changed.
But that was yesterday.
Let's outdo yesterday.
Talk to a doctor about migraine treatment options at PfizerForAll.com PfizerForAll. Here's a reminder about some of the other
Pfizer products.
These are a reminder about some of the other Pfizer products.
This is from 2021.
Today with our partner BioNTech, we announced results from a phase 3 trial in 12 to 15 year olds that showed that our COVID-19 vaccine demonstrated 100% efficacy against COVID-19 disease.
Robust antibody responses and was well tolerated.
100% efficacy.
Is it possible that that would be considered misinformation?
100% effective?
Let me know in the comments and the chat.
How you feel about that?
Also, it seems that Pax Lovid, their oral COVID medication wasn't as effective as they claimed.
A new study seems to suggest that it doesn't actually work.
The time to sustained alleviation of all signs and symptoms of COVID-19 did not differ significantly between participants who received Nirmatrevlia wrote Pax Lovid to give it its brand name and those who
received the placebo write New England Journal of Medicine Journalist Today. In
writing out Pax Lovid Pfizer claimed in a press release that its
preliminary data showed an 89% reduction in hospitalisation and death for patients who
took the pill. When Pax Lovid first hit pharmacy shelves Pfizer claimed that Pax Lovid
rebound, that's short for people's symptoms, coming back after taking a
course of Pax Lovid was inconsequential amounting to one or two percent of patients
who were prescribed the drug.
But a late March study suggested that about 1 in 4 patients on Pax Lovid suffered from that rebound.
This study didn't just analyse the presence of viral fragments, it found that 24% of enrolled patients suffered from symptomatic rebound.
So it's about 25 times more un-effective than they claimed.
So, whether it's testing prisoners in Chinese prison camps, whether it's reaching you in new ways, making claims that 100% of their vaccines are effective for children, Or claiming that Pax Lovid is 25 times better than it actually is.
Pfizer has got something for everyone.
And most of it is, well, I don't know, just make sure that you're looking after the lining of your heart.
Won't go too far, because we're still on YouTube.
And as long as you're on YouTube, and as long as the world is controlled by a global corporatist interest, you will need to pray.
That's why I'm proud to be supported by our partners today.
Halo.
Halo partner us.
Thanks.
Halo, the number one prayer app and meditation has been a tremendous help for me on my journey to Christianity.
Halo's new series is called How to Pray.
Over the next two weeks, an all-star lineup of spiritual leaders and guests can guide you in short daily sessions so that you have the essentials for a deeper prayer practice.
You'll learn how to pray with the scriptures and the great spiritual practice of imaginative prayer.
You'll learn very old prayers, such as the rosary, which you know I do each day.
Very beautiful.
You get new guides every day, including Jonathan Rumi, who played Our Lord and Saviour in The Chosen, Jesus is my body double, Bishop Robert Barron, brilliant guest on the show, Father Mike Schmitz, I love Mike Schmitz, he's amazing, and Mark Wahlberg, as well as others.
You're gonna love it!
While you're on Hallo, the app that, you know, just download it on your phone, it's really good, check out the thousands of wonderful free prayers, meditations and music.
Download Hallo for three months free at hallo.com forward slash brand.
Use that, they'll know I've sent you and that my evangelism is working.
Hey, if you're watching this on YouTube, we're going to leave now.
We're going to talk a little bit about the election results in Germany.
Then we will be joined by the incomparable and brilliant Mike Benz.
See you in a few seconds.
Click the link in the description.
If you're not on Awaken Wonder yet, become an Awaken Wonder.
You can join me for live-streamed stand-up events.
And if you are an Awaken Wonder, you can come to any live event anywhere in the world that I'm participating in and get a ticket absolutely free.
What an incredible offer.
I mean, that's got to be better than Pfizer for all, hasn't it?
Click the link in the description.
If you're on YouTube, join us over on Rumble, which is our home.
Now, there have been some pretty surprising political results across Europe in recent months, accompanying the rise of censorship and surveillance and people's ongoing fears around migration.
And I would add to that global corporatism.
The Gilets Jaunes movement in France focused, in particular, say, on Black Rock's inordinate
power.
And after the elections in France, Macron cobbled together a peculiar alliance and is
still unable to name a prime minister for, presumably, because of bureaucratic challenges
that are difficult for us to understand.
He should probably ask for some help from his wife.
She's always been a good, older mentor.
Hasn't she?
Really?
Rather reliable.
So let's have a look what's going on in Germany.
And remember, stay with us, because in just a few moments we'll be with Mike Benz, who will help us to understand how new movements Even if those new movements might have aspects that cause concern to some, are going to be required to oppose centralised bureaucratic authoritarianism that grants incredible power to corporations like Pfizer?
via their relationships with people like Ursula von der Leyen at the EU, who, as you recall, did deals at the height of the pandemic for millions of millions of vaccines.
That's not to mention the fact that her husband's got a vaccine company.
So corporatism and globalism is a great threat.
But in Germany, they're, of course, concerned about the results of the most recent elections.
Let's have a look at some mainstream news coverage of those events.
Tonight, a political taboo has been shattered.
A far-right party winning a state election in Germany for the first time since the Nazis, raising questions about Germany's political future and setting off alarm bells about the far-right's rise across Europe and beyond.
The Alternative for Germany Party, or AFD, taking first place in the East German state of Thuringia and second in neighboring Saxony.
The AFD, formerly accused by German intelligence of being an extremist group in both states.
Front pages in Germany calling it a political earthquake and a slap by Germany's East.
It's horrible.
I find it unbelievable, this Berlin resident says.
The AFD playing on fears about migration, especially by Muslim immigrants, and rallying opposition to foreign aid to Ukraine and to high costs of living.
Parts of East Germany feel that they've been left behind.
They feel like they are not necessarily getting their part of the pie.
The AFD leader in Thuringia telling supporters at his victory party, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.
One of the biggest losers, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, whose deeply unpopular center-left party hemorrhaged votes.
Some of his coalition partners didn't even meet the 5% threshold to serve in parliament.
Scholz calling the results worrying, telling Reuters the AFD is ruining Germany's reputation.
But the elections won't immediately change the way Germany is governed.
In part, because Germany's mainstream parties are vowing to block the AFD from forming a governing coalition.
Tonight, AFD's leaders calling that threat undemocratic.
Saying Chancellor Schulz should take the hint and pack his bags.
The election also bringing shocking success for the far left, including a brand new party, the BSW, that came in third in both states.
Its leader, a former communist, echoing the far right in rejecting Germany's old guard of centrists, saying, the message has arrived.
People want change.
It's a populist message voters have been sending more and more forcefully across Europe and even in the US.
In the UK, the far-right Reform UK gaining ground.
Its leader Nigel Farage elected to Parliament for the first time in July.
And in France, the right-wing National Rally gaining dozens of seats, more than ever before, and leaving French government gridlocked for months.
Should we expect more voters across Europe to take a gamble in the future on the far-right?
I think you're already seeing it.
And by the way, our election is coming up in November, and it's a very similar situation here, I believe.
The big question now is what all of this means for Germany's national elections set to take place next year, and whether the rest of the country will follow this sharp shift to the right.
Olaf Scholz has said he plans to run again for chancellor next year, but this election dealt such a blow to Germany's centrist that there are questions now about whether his governing coalition can even hang on until next year.
Extraordinarily the term far-right seems to be more and more prevalent in the judgment of these political parties and movements.
Perhaps we will analyze some of the policies and work out together what determines far-right and how that term is being used these days.
Joining me to discuss that as well as many other issues relating to surveillance, censorship And the potential for a radical resistance to oppose centralised authoritarianism in the United States is one of my favourite guests, the great Mike Benz.
Mike, you look good.
I'm surprised.
I'm excited by your general appearance.
Well, I was very inspired by the shades that you had on at the beginning, so I figured we'd do a men in black thing, since that seems to be what the state wants to do to us, to just zap our historic memory of everything that they've been doing and have planned for us.
So maybe we can zap them back.
Mike, when you... I've put sunglasses on now, I'm into the idea.
Mike, when you hear the term Far-Right used to describe the Reform Party, which are kind of, in a way, sort of a Conservative, Nationalist, Britain First Party, it's a real stretch to describe them as Far right.
It makes me wonder why there is an appetite to condemn nativist parties and whether or not you consider that to be a globally coordinated idea.
And if it is globally coordinated, is it connected to migration?
And is migration part of a broader set of ideas that bring around disruption and disarray?
And is it possible to ask these questions and have these conversations without being called racist?
Well, it certainly is attached to the immigration issue, but that itself is more sort of a subset of the nationalism issue.
And it's important, I think, for folks to understand that the term far-right is not something that is bantied about as a sort of descriptor label in the abstract.
It is part of the general strategy of the blob, the foreign policy establishment who's
tasked with overthrowing governments when they get in the way of the U.S., joint U.S.-U.K.
foreign policy, NATO transatlantic agenda.
When they have a trick around anyone who's a threat to democracy, they get to use their
special set of skills to overthrow those governments or to flow tens of millions of dollars to
political opposition to unseat.
Those political movements, and the term far right is a designation to say that they are
outside the bounds of what normal democratic discourse should be.
And so the reason they keep barraging far right, far right is because they've—
They want to say in a democracy, you can be right or you can be left, but you can't be extremist.
And if you are extremist, you are undermining democracy.
And so we get to sick our democracy promotion programs against them.
This gives a license to the U.S.
State Department, to USAID, to the National Endowment for Democracy.
To the UK Foreign Office, to GCHQ, to everyone who uses that set of skills to unseat authoritarians in Venezuela or Iran or Russia now gets to take that same program dollars to stop the extremist far right.
Yes, and it's curious to see that this is one of a carousel of issues where there appears to be a global consensus.
For example, you can see that there are agricultural movements across the world and there seems to be an attempt to destabilize small-scale Farming.
It seems that migration is an issue across the world and it appears to be handled in a somewhat uniform manner.
And I suppose most notably we saw in the pandemic, and for reasons that could be understandable, Cohesive global response.
But while that would be entirely legitimate in a sort of a medically authoritative response to a genuine disease and a genuine crisis, what most of us have been left with is that this was an opportunity to assert authoritarianism at an unprecedented scale.
And Mike, I wonder how the use of the phrase far-right Is being used, like in your country, the United States, in our country, the UK, in relation to the elections in Germany, in relation to events in Brazil, in relation to what's been happening in France, because I don't feel like people are suddenly more racist than they ever have been.
I feel that some people have concerns about migration and wherever you stand on that issue, you'd have to, in a democracy or a republic, listen to the views of the electorate and respond to them.
And I feel that what's happening is people are becoming disenchanted with globalism, the kind of deep state, inverted commas, blob powers and the kind of corporate overreach that is truly global and that one of the most...
...immediate and available responses is to return to a kind of nationalism, is a concern for boundaries and borders.
So how is it that there is such a cohesive and uniform response to an issue that would be diverse if there weren't a centralised authority orchestrating it?
Well, the answer is because of the consensus building process within NATO, which then filters down into the EU and is back channeled by the U.S.
and the U.S.
State Department.
And so just last week, for example, if folks go to my ex account, it's at MikeBennCyber, I posted a 45 minute Consensus building stakeholder conference, the inside guts of it, so people can see exactly how journalists are trained by the NATO propaganda arm at the Atlantic Council and the NATO press office in order to have this consensus set of terms.
You can actually see the inside guts of that.
I'll put that at the top of my timeline in a second here.
But as I heard you describe France, I just made a mini thread so that folks can sort of understand NATO's role in and the censorship industry's role in what's happening in the French elections right now.
So just to immediately answer your question, they don't give a flying fig newton about racism.
This is the same reason this same apparatus is funding the Azov battalion, which has been infused with Nazism for You know, over a decade and was actually condemned by the U.S.
Congress in 2014 and funds were forbidden to flow to them.
But then the moment they became geopolitically useful as a battering ram to seize Eurasia from Russia, suddenly they were glorified and they were welcomed in Congress and we started sending them hundreds of billions of dollars.
So, you know, the sins of racism can be cleansed immediately the moment you can prove yourself useful to the Blob's foreign policy agenda.
In fact, racism is often something we cynically exploit in order to mobilize different groups against our adversaries.
But just at the top of my page, I'll just sort of read this.
This is from the Financial Times just three months ago.
EU and NATO keep nervous eye on Marine Le Pen's bid for French presidency.
The far-right candidate wants to rein in Brussels' power and take Paris out of the military alliance's command structures.
And then also from French news, Le Pen wants France out of NATO's integrated command, backs NATO-Russia ties.
She's also ran on essentially renegotiating Europe's energy posture with Russia.
NATO wants to stop Marine Le Pen by any means possible because she is basically the reincarnation of Charles de Gaulle.
If folks remember, NATO was headquartered in 1949 in the beginning, not in Brussels, but in Paris.
And it was only after De Gaulle ran a sort of make France great again type presidency in the 1960s, and the CIA and NATO essentially backed a coup against De Gaulle, by the way, this is all publicly available.
If you look up the CIA's work with With Algerians to potentially even assassinate Charles de Gaulle when he was threatening to undermine NATO, which again is the military arm of the blob.
So everything that the State Department wants done commercially and all the State Department's stakeholders and the multinational corporations and banks, everything that the EU is doing, everything that is part of that transatlantic alliance, oftentimes that relies on the immediate military backbone of NATO.
but if not, NATO paramilitary support or NATO civil military affairs.
And so you need this enforcement arm.
And so, you know, what you see right now is an attempt to exploit the civil grievances
around identity issues to stop Marine Le Pen.
And that would all go away if Marine Le Pen sold her soul and vowed 100 percent fealty
to NATO's political and commercial goals.
And so this is happening all over all over Europe.
NATO is hell-bent on stopping AFD in Germany, partly because AFD in Germany is mostly a sort of lower middle class workers movement who opposed the post-NATO assassinated Qaddafi assassination is what set off the immigration crisis in Europe.
So you had these right-wing nationalist parties emerge because of that immigration crisis.
But as part of that plank set, the AFD party in Germany, Matteo Salvini's movement in Italy, the Vox party in Spain, Marine Le Pen in France, all of these parties have also run on neutrality with Russia because Russia provides the cheapest energy to the United States.
And so the lower middle classes who are getting destroyed by the US-led sanctions on Russian energy, and now the full-scale
US war against Russia, can all be reversed and people in Europe will be
financially much better off, especially the lower and middle classes, if that US coerced policy in
Europe were reversed.
But that would fly in the face of the NATO agenda, as well as the commercial and financial
interests who all make windfall profits at massively--
[BLANK_AUDIO]
Massively higher margins by forcing Europe to buy liquefied natural gas from North America instead of natural gas from a Russian pipeline.
And so this energy dependence that Europe has on Russia is easily contextualized by the U.S.
State Department and the U.K.
Foreign Office as being, you know, sort of Russian puppets.
That is Marine Le Pen is a Russian puppet.
The Vox party in Spain is a Russian puppet.
AFD is a Russian puppet.
Mateo Salvini is a Russian puppet, and that allows these prosecutions in every one of these countries.
There have been Russiagate-style prosecutions against the political movement.
The CIA has been actively involved.
The State Department and USAID have been funding opposition to these movements all over.
In fact, all of the censorship in these countries comes from US State Department-coordinated NGOs Who all use this kind of Russiagate predicate to say, even if it's not Russian disinformation they're spreading, Russia wants them to win.
So anything they say is Russian propaganda.
So we now get to back channel with Facebook, with YouTube, and previously Twitter 1.0 to censor everything they do to stop this.
And they contextualize it as a national security threat for that reason, in terms of NATO and
the US Pentagon funding the censorship.
But then they contextualize it in US national interest because it undermines essentially
our North American energy companies by allowing AFD to win in Germany or Marine Le Pen to
win in France.
So it's a very nasty, strange brew we have going on here.
That's really a beautifully articulate way of helping me understand a very broad range
of problems and a very distinct set of territories.
And my next question, Mike, is that the way that the 2024 election is being presented, particularly to habitual Democratic Party voters, is this is the election in which you have to save democracy.
Prior to the assassination attempt, Continually we were told that Trump would make himself a dictator.
Times when he's made glib remarks about being a dictator for a day to build a wall or drill or whatever.
Those comments have been taken out of context and amplified to create further hysteria.
I wonder how, and if you even care to, you would Let's reframe the addition of Bobby Kennedy to the Republican movement or the Republican Party or Tulsi Gabbard joining, both of whom have sort of made points of distinction and been clear about the areas in which they disagree with Trump.
How would you use this newly formed and still forming alliance to counter the idea that it is Trump And now Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, etc.
that are the threat to democracy rather than Kamala Harris.
Which key pieces of information, which headlines do you think make it clear to people that might be culturally liberal, that still might think of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X and indeed the murdered Kennedy brothers as kind of avatars of the last great era in American politics and to some degree counterculture?
How do you explain to them that it is Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party that are representatives of an authoritarian and globalist movement and that the new alliances, in particular the ones I've just listed, suggest that if you are an establishment, this election in particular could be a chance to oppose it?
What do you think are the key points of difference?
Well, it clearly shows a cross-party, bipartisan, big tent, popular groundswell, popular will for a new agenda for the American people that represents the American people rather than a cloistered set of institutions.
And this is the real trick of this word democracy.
Democracy, people need to understand that democracy is the CIA's watchword to overthrow governments.
Okay, I'm going to say it again.
Democracy is the CIA's watchword to overthrow governments.
The CIA, the State Department, the Pentagon, our transatlantic partners in NATO, we have two excuses that we invoke in order to overthrow a hostile foreign government said to be run by a dictator.
The first one is aggression.
Outward aggression.
They do some military action against another country, and so that gives us a national security predicate to stop them from aggressing against someone else.
But if we can't nail them on aggression, then we can always nail them on repression.
We say that even though this person was democratically elected, look at all these people in the streets.
Oh, by the way, USAID and the U.S.
State Department and the U.K.
Foreign Office paid these people to take to the streets.
Pay the institutions that are organizing these rent-a-riots, but never mind that.
Look at all these people in the streets.
Look at all of, you know, all this popular outcry within the country against the government.
The government is not representing the people.
So even though it was democratically elected, it is still repressing its people.
And so therefore in the name of democracy, we get to overthrow the democratically elected government.
We now call this the term that they use is illiberal democracy, which is this idea that even though you are democratically elected, so it's technically a democracy, still it's not representing the democratic institutions in that society.
And so we get to use our same CIA playbook that we use to overthrow You know, fascist governments in the 1940s and communist governments in the, you know, during the entirety of the 20th century against populist governments in the 21st century.
And so it's the same networks, the same military intelligence and diplomatic networks that have this regime change power.
And this is what they're doing at home.
Everything that the reason that they've staked their claim on democracy is because this is a department of dirty tricks power that we have used For almost 100 years now, and it is very powerful, and this includes the power of prosecutors.
I mentioned this on my Tucker Carlson interview last week, but the State Department now aggressively pursues a trick that it calls transitional justice.
Which is as part of the stock and trade every time we transition a democracy from a illiberal democracy to one that heeds the rules of the rules-based international order.
Which is that we arrest the opposition politicians.
We arrest the opposition judges in order to prevent democratic backsliding.
This is exactly what we've seen at home.
The same thing that the U.S.
has advocated for In Serbia, the same thing the U.S.
has advocated for in Poland, the same thing the U.S.
has advocated for in the Czech Republic and in Nicaragua and Guatemala about arresting all the opposition as soon as you narrowly win a razor-close election in order to prevent the resurgence in the next election because it's very expensive for the State Department to manage every election.
If they're close, they might lose.
The State Department has funds for every single country on Earth, and so they want Poland, for example.
I just did a lecture on this yesterday.
You have the National Endowment for Democracy, which is the CIA.
It was created in a letter from the CIA director in 1983.
It's in-house journal.
The month Donald Tusk narrowly won this past election in December of last year in Poland, the National Endowment for Democracy's in-house journal was literally provided a list of who this newly elected Polish government should arrest and imprison and bring charges against in order to stamp out populism and prevent the political resurgence of that party in the next election.
So this is the CIA hand dictating who to arrest, but it's done in the name of democracy.
The whole thing is that populism is a threat to democracy.
And so in order to stop a populist candidate from winning the president, we get to sick the prosecutors on them for no other reason than that they are populist, that they are nationalist.
And again, part of this, you know, the role of this blob is because it is multinational,
because it has multinational interests, because there are multinational financial firms, there
are multinational organizations and stakeholders.
Nationalism in any one country undermines the ability for multinationalism to co-opt
that country's commercial systems, its financial systems, its political ecosystems.
And so, make America great again is a threat, just as make Brazil great again is a threat.
And just as, and this is not a right-wing thing, they went after, Kirstein Armer right
now is the Prime Minister of the UK.
The operation that NATO ran against Jeremy Corbyn, who was the former head of the UK Labour Party, who Keir Starmer took his place.
You can go right now, if you're listening to this, type in the name Anders Fogh Rasmussen into YouTube right now.
Anders, and then Fogh is F-O-G-H Rasmussen.
He was the former head of NATO between 2009 and 2014.
And just go see what he had to say about Jeremy Corbyn and stopping left-wing populism from rising to power and Corbyn from winning the election at that time.
So they will play both sides of this because Because this neoliberal, neoconservative, neodemocracy fusion faction has enemies both on the populist right and the populist left.
It just so happens that in Europe and in the United States, the main parties that have risen to power and that are threatening to rise to power are from the right-wing populist side.
But that's what's behind this.
Yes, it's in fact only immediately part of the trend.
There was a minute in Europe where parties like Syriza and Podemos in Greece and Spain respectively were challenging a more nascent form of this centralised authoritarianism that now appears to be more concerned about attacks from the right.
And Jeremy Corbyn, the left-wing Labour Party leader, Was attacked for being an anti-Semite and for whatever tropes become available to attack, diminish and dismiss a leader or movement that they don't feel can be contained within their multinational and multinational feels almost like an intermediary stage before the advent of globalism.
They will deploy whatever they have to.
I spoke to Bannon, Steve Bannon, once about like he was sort of himself as an obvious advocate for the right.
He was, I remember him saying that he was uncertain as to where populism would lead.
But more laterally, you know, it could go left or right in it by his reckoning.
Of course, he had his personal preferences.
But now it seems that we're in a very different moment because whether you're talking about Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, Keir Starmer, Kamala Harris.
There is a sense, if you ask me, that they belong to a very particular ideology, a kind of bureaucratic authoritarian class that can't come out and directly say, we want more power.
We want more control.
We want a larger state.
So they will say, we need to protect you from this.
We will protect you from that.
We cannot tolerate this form of extremism.
And this is a truly global phenomena.
And I'd like, after our short break, to talk about what's happening between Brazil and the United States right now.
Before that, though, Mike, we've just got to fit in a quick message from Positive, because Positive are an ancillary of Rumble, and Rumble, baby, are keeping things running.
Quick message, then we'll be right back to you, Mike, for ex-Brazil and whatever you wanted to finish up on.
See you in a second.
What do you want?
These are actually snacks that are available from Rumble.
Rumble make these snacks, you see.
This is a brand called Positive.
It's a pet food brand that Rumble have.
But also they have a pet insurance that is an affiliate to it.
You know, like dogs can go from very high energy to just being sick in an instant.
And you know it's like if you have to call a vet like when they're out of hours.
It's a terrible way to manage your dog's health, not to mention it can be very stressful for you.
So there's this emergency pet kit that you can get from Pawsitive Health,
which contains critical medications and supplies that can keep you out of it and maybe even save
your dog's life. So if you want to use it, go to Pawsitive, that's spelled like P-A-W,
pawsitive.com/brand.
That's pawsitive.com slash brand and get your pet emergency kit that's got critical meds in it like activated charcoal and styptic powder and you can get 15% off using the code brand today.
Go to pawsitive.com slash brand and use the code brand to get 15% off.
I like these Rumble connected organizations because they've been so supportive.
Good boy.
So supportive to our channel.
It's great to give a little bit back.
There it is.
Mike, I'm really excited to ask you about what's happening in the world since Brazil has banned X, why it appears that America is more than happy with it, and what it means for the world when entire platforms can be taken down in vastly populated and incredibly powerful nations.
I saw that you had a point that you wanted to finish before, though, mate.
What was that?
Yeah, I want to, and I just posted this to the top of my ex-account at MikeBenzCyber if people want to see the source document.
I wanted to just sort of put the button on what you were saying about these issues around
immigration and calling people racist and appealing to identity issues, when what's
really going on here is you have a cloistered set of commercial and financial and military
interests and they are essentially, those organs are just pumping out those talking
points about things they think will appeal to the electorate more in order to remove
a threat to those commercial interests from rising to political power.
And I think one of the best illustrations of this is actually a Wikileaks document that
was disclosed several years ago by Julian Assange.
It was a CIA memo at the time that the US military and the US
State Department and the CIA and its transatlantic partners were trying to get NATO holdouts to provide more war funding for the invasion of Afghanistan.
And this CIA classified memo was a report back to the State Department about how the propaganda arm of the U.S.
State Department should reframe the reason for why we're in Afghanistan and reframe
it from being about national security to being about women's rights and being about how
women in Afghanistan are not able to drive cars or go to college and make the whole thing
an identity appeal on feminist grounds and to female voters, especially in France, in
Germany and in the Netherlands, where the populations there, their parliaments, were
not voting to give their governments dollars to fund the NATO war effort.
And so they ran, the CIA basically ran, you know, aggregated all this polling data and showed that actually we can get those parliaments to fork over dollars for the war if we simply make it less about the threat that Afghanistan and al-Qaeda poses to national security because they don't really care
about that and they're not really seeing evidence, make it about women's rights.
Make it about, appeal to their identity.
They're 50% of the electorate.
Polls show that 26% of them are in favor of this.
And so we can get their parliament to give us money for the war, not because we give,
you know, a flying fig about women's rights, but because that is what will persuade them to give up
you know, a flying fig about women's rights, but because that is what will persuade them
to give up their money.
their money, and that is what will give us the war. And so this is what happens on identity
And that is what will give us the war.
And so this is what happens on identity issues all over.
issues all over. And you can actually, you know, if you pay close attention to these NATO
And you can actually, you know, if you pay close attention to these NATO periodicals,
periodicals, you will see them consensus building these different type of identity-based attacks.
you will see them consensus building these different type of identity based attacks.
Well, if we call them racist, well, if we do this, and so they don't care about that.
Well, if we call them racist, well, if we do this, and so they don't care about that. They
They care about getting their money.
care about getting their money. They care about their mandate and whatever political pawn can be
They care about their mandate.
And whatever.
put in power to make that happen. But we can turn to Brazil now because that's obviously a huge topic
that Rumble is banned in Brazil right now. So, you know, that's obviously existential to the state of
the world. Yeah, Rumble's banned in Brazil. Rumble is banned in France and Rumble's banned in Russia.
And now Brazil has made the audacious move of banning X and fining people for using VPNs.
would imagine that the United States of America, if it was an energy interest that was threatened
in a foreign territory, they would advocate and send over emissaries to ameliorate that
challenge.
But in this instance, they appear to be pleased.
Now, one can't help but sense that that might be part of a global agenda around the control
of information.
What does Brazil's banning of RumbleNX tell us, Mike?
I've been screaming for years now about this Brazil situation and how it's exactly what you identified.
The State Department is actually behind this.
The State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy, which is a CIA cutout, all descended on Brazil, I mean, really in 2016, but really started massively upscaling funding for Brazil's domestic censorship industry in 2018.
ahead of the Bolsonaro election, but then especially in the weeks after.
Let me explain what's going on here.
When internet censorship architecture first started getting laid down across NATO and in the United States blob apparatus in 2016 after the events of Brexit, and Donald Trump's election.
This new tool was proven very powerful to suppress messaging for populist political movements all over the world.
And so the State Department began to develop global programs to add censorship to what was previously just their free speech diplomacy.
So the State Department, USAID, NED, our thousand government-organized non-governmental organizations who serve as the soft power swarm army of the blob have for about 70 years now had tens of
millions or hundreds of millions of dollars in annual funding from U.S. taxpayers in order to promote open
societies abroad, in order to advocate for free speech in foreign countries, not because
we love free speech, but because we needed a free media ecosystem, an open media ecosystem for us to
promote the political parties or or candidates or movements who are most pliant to U.S.
interests.
This is why, for example, in 2018, 26 U.S.
government-funded NGOs all signed solidarity letters condemning Russia for possibly, when it was threatening at the time, to ban Telegram.
It was because the U.S.
State Department and the CIA were using Telegram within Russia in order to organize protests
and organize anti-Putin political movements.
So they did not want that secure communications ecosystem that the State Department was exploiting
to be shut down by Russia.
So they attacked Russia for free speech.
Now notice not a single one of those US-funded NGOs said a peep about Brazil actually banning
X, which is a US national champion, a US platform.
So these US NGOs went hog-wild mad that Russia might ban a Russian messaging app.
But said nothing when X, a much bigger platform, was actually banned by Brazil.
And this is because, and this is the story I'll share in a second here, they were actually behind it the whole time.
The US government spent tens of millions of dollars censoring Bolsonaro supporters on social media In Brazil, that is.
And they do this through their formal government programs dedicated to this.
They're split between the U.S.
State Department, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
USAID is a notorious CIA funding conduit, which is given huge amounts of dollars for democracy promotion.
And then those pumped up assets by USAID or by the National Endowment for Democracy are then back-channeled so that we have soft power influence Over the information ecosystem of the political ecosystem of a country, the State Department wanted to stop Bolsonaro.
They were unsuccessful.
They were in in October 2018.
They decided that it was actually WhatsApp and telegram that were the big problems, because even though the blob was able to kick.
Bolsonaro supporters off of Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter 1.0, they all switched to WhatsApp and Telegram.
And this is also one of the reasons that Gab, which was one of these upstart Twitter alternatives in 2018, one of its first major user bases were people from Brazil, because all those people were kicked off of Twitter.
and Facebook and YouTube. And so they took to alternative messaging ecosystems.
So the US State Department funded tens of millions of dollars to Brazilian censorship ecosystem
partners, people who are on or around the Supreme Court of Brazil, which is called the STF,
the censorship court of Alexandre de Mores, which is called the TSE, as well as their
external stakeholder advisory commissions, as well as the constellation of Brazilian
university centers, the legal scholars, the fact-checking organizations.
The counter disinformation civil society organizations and the Brazilian media outlets in order to create this political support base for the censorship laws and the censorship edicts that we are now witnessing play out.
And so it's not just that the State Department is silent on this, which of course their silence is absolutely deafening.
They were behind this from day one.
In fact, they were behind this even before day one.
And again, X is caught in a proxy war between the blob versus populism.
And so if this was Twitter 1.0, and I mean, just imagine, and I posted this again on my X account, and it blew up to like 10 million views on this one post, and I can put this to the top of my feed after this conversation.
The Biden administration in early 2022 actually descended the U.S.
State Department, the CIA, the head of the CIA, Bill Burns, and the head of the U.S.
military, Lloyd Austin, all went down to Brazil to personally threaten Bolsonaro, his military officials, his diplomats, And his whole intelligence network to warn him not to cast doubt on the results of the upcoming Brazilian election or the processes, the electronic voting machines in which they voted.
So again, the CIA, the State Department and the DOD all fund on U.S.
taxpayer dollars.
We paid for them to take private jets down to Brazil to threaten Bolsonaro just for Potentially casting doubt on his own elections.
And part of this was because it was the U.S.
State Department who railroaded the Brazilian election and Brazilian election officials into using electronic voting machines.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this and again I posted this on my ex account and I'll repost this at the top of it so everyone can see this.
Brazil used about four times more electronic voting machines in this election than it ever had in the past.
And that was done because the U.S.
State Department called in special favors to Taiwan Semiconductor.
That is, our diplomats, using American taxpayer dollars, went over to Taiwan and said, yes, listen, there's a semiconductor shortage, but we need these semiconductors to build electronic voting machines in Brazil.
And so the normal shipment that you would be giving to Americans during this semiconductor shortfall Give that to Brazil instead of to Americans.
Instead of for American computers and American electronics, give that to Brazil so that Brazil can use a massive increase in electronic voting machines.
That was back-channeled by the U.S.
State Department directly.
And then Bolsonaro said, actually, I don't trust these electronic voting machines.
And when he said that, we sent the CIA to talk to him and his staff and the U.S.
military, Lloyd Austin, the head of the Defense Department, to talk to Brazil's military officials to warn them of the consequences if they continued to simply question the use of electronic voting machines.
So just imagine if Bolsonaro had banned Twitter 1.0, you know, because Elon didn't finish his acquisition of X until October of 2022.
Imagine if Bolsonaro had banned Twitter 1.0 because too many Lula supporters were on X. Do you know how fast the CIA, the State Department, the DOD, a swarm army of NGOs would descend on them?
How fast they would be sanctioned?
How fast the $50 million in annual foreign assistance and $200 million over the course of Bolsonaro's term would be yanked?
How fast there would be a retrenchment of private sector interests because of his attack
on free speech in that country.
But the fact is, is Elon Musk undid all the years, the six years of the spiderweb construction
of censorship in Brazil.
The star spangled fangs of that spider, the US funded network, spiderweb network of censorship
institutions in Brazil, were all completely defanged when Elon Musk took over the helm
institutions in Brazil were all completely defanged when Elon Musk took over the helm
and undid all of the censorship that Twitter 1.0 was doing against Brazilians at the time
and undid all of the censorship that Twitter 1.0 was doing The US funded network, spider web network of censorship
and actually undid all the damage that Facebook and YouTube and all of these other and
WhatsApp and Telegram which were brought to heel because now an even bigger platform, X,
which is now bigger than ever, is giving a free speech license to Brazilian politicians.
It was actually US funded NGOs who actually clipped out of the legislative bills in Brazil
the safe harbors for Brazilian parliamentarians because US...
funded NGOs were saying you should not allow Brazilian parliamentarians to have a free pass for misinformation or anti-democratic speech.
Understand this.
It was not until about a week ago, and I've been screaming, screaming, screaming about this, and folks can read and I'll post this at the top of my timeline too.
Two and a half years ago, I did a deep dive on this whole network.
It's on my foundation's website.
It's called foundationforfreedomonline.com about this spider web network two and a half years ago that was set up By our CIA cutouts and our State Department and USAID grantees in order to do this against WhatsApp and Telegram.
It's the same network because they got those brought to heel.
They actually banned Telegram from the country for 48 hours until they put these censorship measures in place.
WhatsApp, because of the pressure they applied to Mark Zuckerberg, who owns WhatsApp, folded within two and a half days.
It took, you know, Telegram held out for two and a half years.
It's that same network on steroids against X. And the U.S.
Embassy in Brazil right now is caught in the crosshairs of this.
Sorry if I'm going on too long on this and interrupt me at any time.
Maybe I'll just make this as short as I can.
But the U.S.
Embassy did not feel any pressure on this until about a week ago.
I called them out personally in the Tucker Carlson interview.
I generated about 130 million impressions about the embassy this week on X. And then finally, three hours, for the first time in six years, three hours before this order came down banning X, the U.S.
Embassy put out a statement saying that they are monitoring the situation in Brazil In case there are any human rights violations and that democracy and free speech, you know, free speech is a key pillar of democracy.
Well, guess what?
Three hours later, X was banned from the platform and the U.S.
Embassy said, I ain't looking.
Not a peep.
Didn't condemn it.
What they were doing was a face-saving operation because they do not want the, they don't, when the autopsy is done on the death of Free Speech and X, they don't want those star-spangled fangs to show up in the autopsy.
But they have not done a single tweet, not a single press release, nothing condemning the actions actually taken, banning it.
But they don't want the investigation, they don't want these programs defunded, they don't want to lose their soft power.
influence and they don't want to stop bribing Brazilian civil society to keep this going.
Mike, it's pretty extraordinary to hear the extent of collaboration between various US officials and
CIA cutouts and recent events in Brazil. Of course, almost as an aside within that, you talked about
the likely efficacy or lack thereof of electronic voting machines and the use of semiconductors and
there are so many global issues that fold into this story.
It's It's... (stammers)
Exciting and a little John le Carre especially with you wearing those sunglasses and of course I'm aware as I'm listening to you explain this that the founder of Telegram has been arrested in France recently and one could sense in the reportage with regard to recent riots in the UK that there was a burgeoning appetite and the Commencement, I would say, of a campaign to normalise the banning of X. So do you see the banning of X in Brazil, significant though it is in a massive company of like, excuse me, country, easy mistake to make, of 220 million people, do you see it as a precursor
to bans in anglophonic countries, in the United States itself.
Do you think that's how globalism works now?
That whilst this is in itself a seismic event, that it's likely to be even more significant
if a country like mine, the UK, bans X.
And you can already see with some people that were banned from X being allowed on that it's
causing repercussions and people can say whether that's for good or bad.
I'm sure there's a variety of opinions when it comes to some of the more prominent like Alex Jones or Tommy Robinson.
people that certainly make a significant impact and have a significant following, seems to
me that we're moving beyond the stage where we ban individuals, because I suppose that
requires the compliance of the platforms and the owners of the platforms, to banning platforms
in their entirety across nations.
And of course, yeah, I sort of almost was unaware because I've gotten used to it that
Rumble's already banned in Brazil and France and Russia, that even when I was attacked
in the UK last September, there was a sense that it could lead to Rumble getting banned
and Rumble leadership being under, sort of having legal consequences if they were non-compliant
with the British government.
So where are we now?
Do you get the sense that the way these campaigns work is sort of territorially, almost as if it was a military war, that they win the Brazilian front, then they move on to the UK?
And if you can, can you sort of let me know what the significance is of the arrest of the Telegram founder, Pavel, there?
And how likely is that we'll see X banned in other countries, and indeed, of course, Rumble banned in other countries, you know, in the coming months.
And if you can tie into that, because I know you can give a long answer, how significant Elon Musk's affiliation with the Trump-Kennedy movement is in preventing and opposing that.
If you could do it in that order as well, if you don't mind, I'll just sit down and have a little rest.
Yeah, you nailed it.
You put your finger right on the pulse of the heart of it.
I'll give you a funny example as an anecdote that I think will tee up what I'm about to say, which is that one of these U.S.-funded government programs and its set of program-funded institutions actually held a A censorship ecosystem cross-country stakeholder conference a few months ago where they brought Brazilian censorship ecosystem participants together with those from other countries like the Philippines and one of the things that was said in the autopsy of those stakeholder discussions by this government-funded program was that
They were saddened that their censorship ecosystem participants in the Philippines were not willing to go as far as those in Brazil.
So, literally, you have the U.S.
government organizing people from dozens of countries for their own censorship ecosystem participants, those in the censorship judiciaries.
They'll call them EMPs, election management bodies, who are now Tasked with the censorship role and the Brazilian and all the different civil society institutions, the NGOs, the university centers, the media participants, everyone who's a part of this counter disinformation whole society counter disinformation framework.
Who's coordinating with the U.S.
State Department.
So you literally have the U.S.
government bringing together censorship operatives from dozens of different countries, getting them all to agree on a common framework for censoring populist movements in the country, and then even expressing sadness that some countries are not willing to go as far as Brazil is in cracking down on free speech.
So it is exactly... I mean, one of these programs One of these U.S.
censorship programs is in 140 countries.
They want to use this as the key to control every single election on earth because every single country on earth falls in some desk run by some assistant secretary at the U.S.
State Department whose job is to make sure that one party wins and the other parties don't rise to power because whatever politician pledges You know, the most consistency with the U.S.
State Department agenda for that region and its state commercial and financial plans for that region is the party that that assistant secretary is going to prop up and we're going to deploy resources to subvert or suppress the opposition.
But now on this Telegram front, I made the same point on Tucker Carlson about Telegram.
That was nominally what we were supposed to be talking about the whole time, which is
that have you heard a word from Denise Bauer, the ambassador, the head of the U.S. embassy
in France, about this arrest?
You haven't heard a peep.
Well, I'm wagering that, and I shouldn't have to be the one asking this.
This should be the House Foreign Affairs Committee who should have already had this answer.
I believe it is functionally impossible for the U.S.
State Department not to have had at least advance notice about that arrest, let alone participation in the judicial, the legal inquiry, the legal investigation that we've now heard had been going on for months before that.
Or potentially even pushing the French government to do this, because the U.S.
has been trying to get its fingers on control over Telegram for a long time now.
Telegram was the darling of the State Department and the CIA and the U.S.
military from about 2014 to 2020, because Telegram was this magical tool to be able to run CIA rent-to-riots with a strong level of security, with a strong level of popularity and the ability to mobilize.
Because outside of the U.S., most people don't use text messages.
They use either WhatsApp or Telegram.
Telegram has a billion users.
And what the CIA tries to do is it tries to have its inner cluster cell recruit Thousands or hundreds of thousands or millions of people in that country to all take to the political cause of whatever they're trying to support to unseat the current government.
So telegram was the main weapon used by the CIA in the summer of 2020 to try to topple the government of Belarus.
All of the main administrators of the main telegram channels associated with that attempt
to overthrow the Belarusian government were on CIA payroll via the National Endowment
for Democracy, which is the main cutout that's used.
And again, that was literally created in the letter from the CIA director in 1983.
Telegram was the main organ used in Hong Kong with the U.S.
State Department-backed umbrella visits that were done in 2019 in the wake of the extradition
law that China had just passed.
Telegram was the main artery for this sort of Green Revolution attempt to overthrow the
government of Iran.
And Telegram was the main vehicle for the CIA and the State Department to try to topple Putin himself inside Russia.
When Alexei Navalny, who was literally brought to Yale for training, you know, at the Maurice Greenberg World Fellows Program.
Maurice Greenberg was the guy who Bill Clinton wanted to be the CIA director.
When Alexei Navalny was brought to the United States for CIA rent-a-riot training and then sent back into Russia, his main organizing tool for street protests, many of which turned violent with Molotov cocktails, against Putin was Telegram.
And again, this was because between 2014 and 2020, Telegram was said to be safe because it was said that it was said to be a sort of resistant to Russian back channel control because Pavel Durov, who was the, you know, the guy behind Telegram and still is.
Had been pressured by the Russian government to turn over control of Telegram as he was for VK, which is Russia's Facebook.
Pavel had to flee Russia in order to escape the sort of Russian law enforcement threats against him for not turning over the keys to Telegram after he had already turned over the keys to VK.
And the fact that Pavel did not censor on VK the Euromaidan protests.
Russia had pressured Pavel to ban all of the major accounts of the organizers of the CIA-backed attempt to overthrow the government of Ukraine in 2014.
And Pavel disobeyed the Russians and moved to Dubai, non-extradition.
And so the CIA and the State Department had this huge trust in Pavel from 2014 to 2020.
But then strange things started to happen in the post 2020 period, which was, you know, Pavel did this billion dollar bond raise.
And when I say CIA, I mean, I'm not even joking here.
Everyone right now, and I posted this again on my ex account, and I'll put this to the top of my feed again after this, but you can read Two weeks after Tucker Carlson's interview with Pavel, the Telegram founder, two weeks after his interview with Pavel back in April, so this is a couple months before his arrest, but two weeks after that interview with Tucker Carlson,
Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty.
This was a media institution created by the CIA and run for its first 20 years directly by the CIA.
Again, back from the 1940s to the 1970s, the CIA created Voice of America, created Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia.
These were all CIA Radio broadcast and print magazines that were piping in CIA propaganda to influence the course of domestic events in foreign countries.
It was how we circumvented the Iron Curtain by piping in these CIA radio broadcasting outlets.
And then it started to look a little funny that it was run directly by the CIA in the 1970s.
So it was turned over to the Board of Broadcast Governors and now to the U.S.
Agency for Global Media.
So, it's technically not the CIA anymore, but I got bad news for, you know, people who are, you know, uncynically believe in, you know, CIA-managed democracy.
It's still the CIA, okay?
But they literally published, two weeks after Tucker Carlson's interview, a piece called Telegram, a spy in every Ukrainian's pocket.
And it basically made the argument that maybe the reason Ukraine is losing the war right now, Ukraine, which the U.S.
has invested $300 billion in winning this war, maybe the reason Ukraine is losing the war is because Telegram is captured by Russia.
Maybe Russia and Pavel struck a secret deal when Pavel needed the money during this bond raise.
And so we need to bring Pavel to heel.
We need to wrest control over Telegram's backend to see if there's a Russian backchannel to it, because 75% of Ukraine uses Telegram.
That's up from 20% three years ago.
And because Telegram has been trusted, the Ukrainian military all uses Telegram.
Ukrainian parliamentarians all use Telegram.
Zelensky uses Telegram.
So the military, the statecraft, the intelligence, and by the way, the CIA runs Ukraine's intelligence.
Don't ask, don't trust me on that.
Trust the New York Times who wrote a full, you know, 30,000 word piece on how the CIA took over control of Ukraine's intelligence apparatus in 2014.
So, they make the argument that we need to take control over Telegram because maybe it's backed up by the Russians, but we also need to take control over Telegram because uncensored Russian propaganda Telegram channels are widely read by 75% of Ukraine's civilian class because they have access to these Russian channels because Pavel won't take them down.
And so we are losing the propaganda war.
We're losing the hearts and minds war.
Maybe the reason that we can't have elections in Ukraine is because Zelensky might lose.
And one of the reasons he might lose is because Ukrainians Are revolting against the Ukrainian Zelensky press office because they're more persuaded by these hugely popular Russian telegram channels.
So the CIA has to control telegram to censor Russian propaganda.
And then the third reason they articulate in so many words and they cite the heads of Ukrainian military intelligence and others is that over 50% of Russia uses telegram.
And Russia's own internal military documents call for telegram to be the primary modality
of communication.
And so, if they can break Pavel's back, if they can, you know, literally or figuratively
waterboard it out of Pavel to give up the encryption keys, they will suddenly have all
Russian military communications, all Russian statecraft and intelligence communications,
the panacea of years worth of internal deliberations, of live, real-time military activity will
all fall into the hands of the CIA.
and MI6 and the GCHQ and the State Department and Brussels, if we can just get Pavel to break his commitment to free
speech and give us the same back-end control over Telegram
that we've effectively coerced out of Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook
and out of most of the major heads of the social media companies.
Whoa. So it does seem quite important that this incredible machine
is disrupted at any possible point.
Even if what we're told we're voting for is an extremist or right-wing or extreme left organisation, any political disruption to these systems is Necessary, because it seems like it's reaching increasingly a critical point.
Indeed, the precise opposite of what we're being hysterically told by centrist parties all over the world, i.e.
we have to vote for one party to prevent tyranny, Is the precise opposite of what we have to ensure that this project is disrupted because it seems like it's moving at pace towards a point where opposing it would be an impossibility.
Mike, I'm going to have to leave it there.
It's fascinating to see you in particular.
We're just getting started!
I tell you, I've got the sense that you could do Almost limitless content on these subjects.
I know that now having spoken to you a few times.
It's beautiful to see you.
Look at those beautiful eyes.
You too.
It's glorious to be in your company, Mike.
I know we're going to be spending some time together because I imagine that you'll be participating in the rescue the republic event that Brett Weinstein is holding.
I know that you and I are moving in similar circles and in the same direction when it comes to
opposing what claims to be about liberty but is plainly about its absolute opposite. Thanks my
friend. Thank you Russell. It's good to see you I'll be in touch with you soon.
Thank you, man.
Well, all of you, thank you so much for joining us for that extraordinary and I would say I'd go so far as to say it was a bonus edition.
We did additional content.
We answered as many questions as we possibly could.
We went on a real journey with Mike there.
I've got a deeper understanding.
Yeah, Russell looks exhausted.
Well, I mean, because I was paying attention, baby.
There was a lot to deal with there.
We will be back tomorrow.
On the show tomorrow, we're covering a wide variety of stories.
Over the course of this week, we've got Jay Bacharia, Michael Francis coming on.
So many fantastic conversations.
If you are an Awakened Wonder, a member of our Locals community, I'm going to answer some of your questions directly.
In fact, let me just show you a little bit of what we do.
Like this one, for example.
Hey Russell, it's Nancy Kino from Green Bay, Wisconsin.
Loved your show and enjoyed meeting you in Milwaukee last month.
My question is, what does your wife and your family think of your evolution?
I'll be answering that question for my friends like Heel Light Love and Negligent Banana and Blessed Old Bird over there on Locals.
Join us!
Click the link in the description.
Thanks for supporting us.
See you tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
Until then, if you can, stay free.
Switch on, switch off.
You had me switching.
▲
Export Selection