Stay Free - Russel Brand - Charlie Kirk Murder Suspect Faces DEATH PENALTY, As Media Creates Love Story Narrative - SF635

Sept. 17, 2025 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

01:10:54

Charlie Kirk Murder Suspect Faces DEATH PENALTY, As Media Creates Love Story Narrative - SF635

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
Dialogue Between Us 00:09:40
	Ladies and gentlemen, Russell Brand and Russell Russell Brand trying to bring real journalism to the American people.
	Hello there, you awakening wonders.
	Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand on Rumble.
	If you're watching me anywhere other than Rumble, like X or YouTube, click the link in the description and get Rumble Premium.
	You get additional content, not just from me, but from Crowder and Mud Club and Tim Cast and many of Rumble's premium content creators.
	We're still, in a sense, I suppose, analyzing the murder of Charlie Kirk and the subsequent consequences and conversations.
	In a way, it's no different than any other artifacts that takes place now in the ubiquitous, ongoing public square.
	An event occurs, there's possibly a genuine reaction, potentially there's our unconscious reactions to things.
	Let me give you a personal example.
	How can I objectively respond to the murder of Charlie Kirk without on secondary, ulterior, and not even properly recognized or understood levels, thinking, will this affect me?
	Is this good for me?
	Is this bad for me?
	While successively and simultaneously being hit by waves of, oh my God, he's like, his children were there that day.
	So all of us are kind of trying to work out whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.
	And I guess that's why, you know, obviously it's a bad thing, but like when you hear people say dumb stuff, like I feel like Destiny said some dumb stuff, and people on the left now are scrutinizing the motivations of the assailant in order to, I suppose, legitimize maintaining their own position.
	Look, here's something I do know quite a lot about: addiction.
	And when you're dealing with a drug addict, you get a sense of whether or not the drug addict actually wants to stop taking drugs or wants to legitimize carrying on with their addictive behavior.
	And as a person that's in recovery, I have an obligation to help people get clean from drugs and alcohol.
	And I've, over the 22 and nearly 23 years that I've been free from drugs and alcohol, learned to detect whether or not someone is serious about stopping or really they just want the problems to stop.
	And what I feel that we're experiencing as a culture now are various invitations to embrace some pretty significant and serious change.
	But those in the consequences of accepting those invitations are so radical that many people won't want them.
	And that's why we live in an age of hypocrisy and contradiction.
	Principles are everything.
	So I think it's possible to approach free speech from the left or from the right.
	But if your position on free speech alters, that means it's probably not a principle and it never was a principle.
	You were probably just using an opportunity to defend your position and pursue an objective.
	And over the course of the show today, that's what we're going to be discussing, people's unconscious motivations.
	Remember that while I'm here now talking to you, I've got all of my various challenges in life.
	I'm defined by my challenges as a husband and as a father.
	And I know that unless my primary challenge is the maintenance of a connection with God and thank the Lord that I now accept someone else's definition of what God is rather than my own.
	If there's one fundamental difference between being a new age believer and a Christian, it's that I no longer provide the explanation for what belief in God looks like, for what a spiritual program of action would seem like to the outside.
	Because I remember one of my really beloved friends I used to make content with very near the beginning of my career, my beloved friend Matt Morgan, he used to say, you talk all the time about communism and socialism and sharing and revolution, but you're probably one of the most selfish people I've ever known in my life.
	And I just think that guy's got a point, you know, because like most addicts, I'm pretty self-obsessed.
	And the journey of faith for me has been about ordering the monologue of my internal life, i.e., you know, it's sort of like a dialogue.
	You know, you shouldn't have done that.
	You shouldn't have said that.
	Why don't you do that?
	I wonder if that's going to happen.
	It's kind of like a dialogue, but both voices are me.
	But it's becoming a dialogue between me and you'll know as a Christian, Christ.
	Like I feel him and hear him within me.
	And my hope is that eventually it will become a monologue again and it will just be him.
	He must become greater.
	I must become lesser is how that is described in scripture.
	With that said, let's have a look at some of the various insights and hot takes on the brutal murder of a 31-year-old man who's the product of some contrary and contradicting ideas, a traditionalist, a conservative and a Christian who was very much a product of modern media.
	Let's look at how that's being used by the right.
	Let's have a look at how it's being used by the left.
	Let's have a look at how content creators are exploiting it.
	Let's have a look at the impact that it's having in the political space.
	Because in a way now, there's Charlie Kirk's death as it will appear to his widow, Erica, and his children, the impact of which obviously be felt over many years.
	And then there's the separate Charlie Kirk's death that is just an object.
	It's just an object, a machine.
	Gutierrez and Deleuze, the sort of post-structuralist French philosophers would say that it's just like a machine now.
	Charlie Kirk's death can just operate in all sorts of directions.
	Let's have a look at some of that.
	Firstly, I want to look at this mainstream comedian, Jimmy Kimmel.
	Now, when I used to live in Los Angeles and be promoting movies and that had a very different kind of life that was focused on what I would call a paganized culture where I worship my own sexuality, I worship my own personal power and identity.
	Jimmy Kimmel was a person I liked.
	And when I say that, I'm not even trying to be derisory about Jimmy Kimmel.
	I remember thinking, this person is a nice guy.
	Like, I like him.
	And like, you know, to give you sort of a more contemporary iteration of that idea, I recently, yesterday, in fact, spoke to Nick Fuentes for the first time.
	And when I was looking at and talking to Nick Fuentes, that interview will be here on Rumble tomorrow, I was thinking, how's this guy like an anti-Semite or whatever?
	He's like, seems really like a nice person.
	And when I eventually asked him about Israel and Judaism, that's what I was in particular focusing on.
	Who are we really?
	Is anyone, if you drill down, do you, this is probably a pretty fundamental thing that I had this conversation with Brene Brown a long time ago when I was doing that kind of content.
	I was in that kind of world.
	She's a very brilliant person, Brene Brown.
	And we talked about, do you, and this is a question I would ask of you, let me know in the comments and chat.
	Do you believe people are trying their best?
	And do you believe that people are fundamentally good or not?
	What do you think?
	And Brene Brown said that when she was a social worker, she said that sometimes she would go and visit houses of people and they were neglecting their kids.
	And she was like, no, these people can't be doing their best.
	They're making too much of a mess of it.
	But over time, she came to accept that they probably are.
	Emmett Fox, the brilliant Christian analyst, cites a potentially apocryphal tale about a Quaker who, when encountering a newcomer to his town, gets this question.
	Hey, I don't know what you call the Quaker.
	Mate is what I'd call him.
	Oi, mate, what are people like in this town where we live in?
	And the Quaker goes, well, what would the people like in the town you just come from?
	They are horrible, mean people.
	He goes, you'll probably find the people around here like that as well.
	And then moments later, another person approaches the Quaker and goes, I heard what you said, but I really like the people around here.
	I think they're really cool and everything.
	And he goes, well, what did you think of the people in the town you just came from?
	He goes, I like them as well.
	He goes, yeah, you will find it so wherever you go.
	Because perhaps on some level, the external reality that we experience is an expression of something within us.
	The kingdom of heaven is within.
	Seek thee first the kingdom of heaven and all righteousness will be granted unto you.
	If I can put myself in alignment with core spiritual values inwardly, then my relationships, even with people I disagree with or people that may wish me harm, will become lessons and opportunities.
	If I'm not able to do that, I'm going to be in a pretty hideous fight that won't really lead to anything of value.
	That said, let's have a look at Jimmy Kimmel and let's, in good faith, see where he's going with his, I guess it's commentary on Charlie Kirk's murder.
	Let's have a look.
	I'm not saying that you couldn't do comedy.
	I the other day went to Washington, D.C. to participate in a Maha event.
	I'm a big supporter of Secretary Kennedy and of Dr. Oz and people that I believe, this is what I believe, and I pray this is the case, that they have identified that you are not going to make America healthy unless you take on the interests of big agriculture, big food and big pharma and the lobbying and donor interests that ensure that policy in these areas can never significantly change whether you vote for Donald Trump, Adolf Hitler, Karl Marx or Princess Diana.
The Blood-Dimmed Tide Loosed 00:04:14
	As long as those institutions remain in place, then you'll get the same kind of policy around agriculture, food, pharma.
	Well, certainly you'll have significant resistance if you're trying to change it, as I believe Secretary Kennedy is.
	In fact, I see that he is.
	You see that he is too, right?
	So when I was there, I was doing like a little talk at a convention and just as I started talking, someone like walked right behind me.
	It's someone I knew, like someone who works with Secretary Kennedy.
	And I goes, it's a bit of a sensitive time for people speaking in public.
	Yeah, just walk right behind me in my peripheral vision, like in the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk's death.
	So it's not a joke.
	It's a reference to it.
	I could tell you that the room were not like, oh, how do we feel about this?
	None of us really know how to feel.
	But as the brilliant Irish poet W.B. Yates said, what is it?
	The best have lost all conviction and the worst are full of dreadful certainty.
	The opposite of faith is not certainty.
	That's what I heard.
	Let's have a look at this.
	Let's have a look at this W.B. Yates poem.
	See if this is of any use to you.
	The second coming.
	This is called The Second Coming by W.B. Yates.
	Brilliant Irish poet.
	Turning and turning in the widening gaia, the falcon cannot hear the falconer.
	Things fall apart, the center cannot hold.
	Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.
	The blood-dimmed tide is loosed.
	And everywhere, the ceremony of innocence is drowned.
	The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
	Surely some revelation is at hand.
	Surely the second coming is at hand.
	The second coming.
	Hardly are those words out when a vast image out of spiritus mundi troubles my sight.
	Somewhere in sands of the desert, a shape with lion body and the head of a man, a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun is moving its slow thighs while all about it real shadows of the indignant desert birds.
	The darkness drops again, but now I know that 20 centuries of stony sleep were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle.
	And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born.
	I like pitiless and blank as the sun.
	Pagan godlessness, just bright might and white light without Christ, without love, without sacrifice.
	Pitiless, the desert birds.
	That the Antichrist may occur if we don't make a manger and a cradle in the low place.
	If we're unable to welcome in the low place, the place among the beasts, the stable.
	If we don't make a place there for the return of Christ, something else is coming.
	Let me know in the comments and chat who you think's coming down the pike, baby, because I can feel it pretty strongly.
	So let's look at this Charlie Kirk thing, man.
	Not Charlie Kirk, Jimmy Kimmel.
	We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
	In between the finger pointing, there was grieving.
	On Friday, the White House flew the flags at half-staff, which got some criticism.
Construction Grief 00:06:54
	But on a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.
	My condulations on the loss of your friend Charlie Kirk.
	May I ask, sir, personally, how are you holding up over the last day and a half, sir?
	I think very good.
	And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks?
	They just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years.
	And it's going to be a beauty.
	Yes.
	He's at the fourth stage of grief.
	Construction.
	Demolition.
	Construction.
	This is not how an adult grieves the murder of someone he called a friend.
	This is how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish, okay?
	So, in a way, if you look at that, you know what Jimmy Kimmel's perspective is on the right, which we knew anyway.
	We come to Jimmy Kimmel knowing that he is understandably an advocate for what we would call the modern iteration of the Democrat Party.
	This is a Democrat Party that's not about the rights of working people.
	This is a Democrat Party that doesn't care about taking on corporations.
	This is a Democrat Party that's not interested in marshalling Americans towards freedom against the interests of global corporations.
	It's not a Democrat Party that wants people to find Divinity.
	It's a Democrat Party that altered its trajectory and its legislature in order that it could form comfortable relationships with big business.
	Think for a moment about the moment, the instance where Bernie Sanders was in that Senate financial hearing with Senator Robert Kennedy, excuse me, Secretary Robert Kennedy.
	And Kennedy said, you lot are taking money.
	Like who's the lady, Pocahontas, Elizabeth Warren?
	You've taken money.
	You've taken money off, you've taken money off big pharma.
	We're all taking money off big pharma.
	We're all taking money.
	That's what we do.
	We take money from big pharma.
	So they're not even pretending anymore.
	So what I suppose with any news calls an opportunity to do this, even when it's frivolous, trivial things, is an opportunity to look at what are the, what are we actually saying?
	What are we actually discussing here?
	We're discussing now at this point.
	This is it.
	I'll tell you if you want to know.
	It's this.
	Centralized institutions of propaganda cannot control information anymore.
	That doesn't mean all of the information that you get outside of centralized institutions of propaganda is reliable.
	It just means it's not sanctioned.
	So you might have people on the left saying a lot of stuff that's not sanctioned and people on the right saying a lot of stuff that's not sanctioned.
	Malcolm Luan, the famous, I guess you'd call him a philosopher and cultural analyst, said the medium is the message.
	He said that at a time that the prevalent forms of media were print and television, centralized media organizations that were controlled by a handful of individuals like your TV networks and print media now and mine in my country, whether it's Rupert Murdoch, who owns The Times or whoever, you can have a look at a list of who owns, ultimately owns and controls MSNBC or whatever they're rebranding it as now.
	You'll find it's just a handful of individuals and that they're partnered with various corporations commercially and that they're parts of, or they're part of larger conglomerates.
	So the medium is the message means if it's on TV, the message is going to be about centralized control.
	We need to control whole populations.
	We need to make them buy certain food.
	We need them to vote for certain political parties.
	We need them to ignore certain problems and pay attention to other matters.
	That's the message.
	And that's the medium.
	Now, the medium is the message means, oh no, by giving everybody a device, which means they can inter-communicate and we can potentially control them once we master AI surveillance and censorship.
	During the brief window before they crack that, there is the possibility for us to intercommunicate.
	But because, and there's no nice way of saying this, we're fucking dumb.
	We're arguing with one another about stupid stuff instead of recognizing we could bypass the centralized systems of control.
	And until we realize that and act upon it, we may as well not have these because you're spending all your time masturbating either physically or mentally instead of awakening.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments and the chat.
	We've got plenty of content for you today.
	Let me know how you're feeling, guys.
	I'm talking to you, Trip E88 and you, CMC Advanced, and God rules it all.
	And all my friends over on locals, like Lily Farmgirl, and Happy Cappy, and all of you, really.
	Let's have a look at what Don Lemon says.
	He says here.
	Now, look, I can tell from the title of these clips, Don Lemon claims MAGA doesn't really care about Charlie Kirk, just clicks.
	Well, who do you think Don Lemon is really talking to when he says that?
	He's talking to Don Lemon.
	Don Lemon doesn't really care about Charlie Kirk.
	He cares about clicks.
	That's all.
	And guess what?
	Russell Brand wouldn't care about Charlie Kirk unless for Christ.
	Without Christ, all I'll care about is, well, I've seen me.
	I saw me before Christ.
	I saw what I was doing.
	All I wanted to do was in a sort of a groping and empty, hollow, shallow abyss, looking for the formation and shadow of the cross.
	And let me tell you, without clear connection to him, it will take extraordinary forms out there.
	Mostly the false high poles and idols.
	You will find it in pagan goddesses, which, you know, and gods, it's just really an expression of, you might say, lower, even though, you know, it's not necessarily lower forms of energy.
	Sex and drugs and rock and roll.
	Let's have a look at Don Lemon literally accusing other people of what he's probably, I'm guessing because I've not seen the clip yet, doing himself.
	The thing that is so obvious about it, and I think this is so disgusting, is that you don't really care.
	You don't really care about Charlie Kirk.
	What you care is that this is a moment that you can use for clicks to boost your podcast or your streaming show or your radio show or your television show or your news show or your...
	It goes through his mind in that moment.
	Oh, am I doing that?
	Am I doing that?
	Your MAGA bona fides with the MAGA group or your political stripes that you can improve it.
Phytonutrients and Supplements 00:02:59
	Or you can have a moment where you're crying in front of the cameras.
	You gather all the reporters at the Capitol and you go, and it's your fault and it's your fault and it's the left and whatever.
	It's insane.
	Listen, we're going to talk about the news coverage of Tyler Robinson is the name of the murderer.
	We're going to look at some of the coverage because I feel like some people are almost trying to romanticize him.
	But first we're going to have a message from one of our partners.
	Stay with us because it's probably pretty funny.
	I've been making pretty good adverts lately.
	Let's have a look.
	What makes Balance of Nature unique?
	So many things.
	Let me count the ways.
	Their supplements are the result of years of research and are manufactured under current good manufacturing practices with regular third-party lab testing.
	They never had sugar or anything artificial.
	Any sugars occur naturally.
	How many more times?
	Hey, Russell, are there phytonutrients in those?
	Phytonutrients?
	If that's what you want, these are the phytonutrients for you.
	Balance of Nature delivers the phytonutrients that naturally occur in 47 whole fruits, vegetables, spices, and fibers.
	Their fruits and veggies supplements include 31 colorful ingredients like mango, pineapple.
	We've got phytonutrients coming out of our wazoo, which some people say is dangerous.
	Phytonutrients.
	And, you know, as I said, all these vegetables and stuff.
	I can't emphasize the success of this product.
	Four whole fibers, psyllium husk, flaxseed, monk fruit, apples, plus, by the way, 12 aromatic spices such as cinnamon, turmeric, and cardamom.
	One for each disciple.
	You gotta get them.
	Take them with water.
	True and mix them into food or drink.
	Balance of nature supplements are vegan, kosher, right, Isaac?
	Gluten-free.
	They've got it all.
	If you're taking Balance of Nature, the easiest way to stay consistent is by becoming a preferred customer.
	That means, that's right, recurrent income.
	Sign up to it.
	So you don't even get to think that stuff's coming to your door, whether you like it or not.
	Your supplements show up automatically every 28 days.
	Just try canceling this stuff.
	You cared.
	You'll be buying this when you're long dead, like a voter in Chicago.
	No reordering, no running out, no hassle.
	The best part, preferred customers always get the lowest price we offer, plus free shipping every single month.
	It just shows up your door right when you need it.
	Oh, hello, you.
	So if you're ready to save money, stick to your routine and take the guesswork out of it, becoming a preferred customer is the best way to go.
	Sign up with the code Russell.
	That's my name.
	2S is 2Ls.
	Go to www.balancenature.com and sign up as a new preferred customer with code Russell to get 35% off your first order plus free fiber and spice supplement.
	For God's sake, Hurry.
	This offer's only available while supplies last.
	That's true of all offers, of course.
	Once you're out of supplies, you can't...
	Then where would you get it?
	Now, back to the content.
	Now, listen, you lot.
	Tell me, what do you want us to talk about?
	There's so much.
	We can talk about the, you might call it legacy media framing the murderer of Charlie Kirk in the most favorable and romantic terms.
Why Epstein Still Matters 00:03:22
	That does seem pretty interesting.
	We've got a lot of stuff on Epstein and the UK and free speech and how people are flipping sides over free speech again.
	I know that I'm going to definitely do that free speech stuff.
	So, but will you tell me in the chat?
	Like you lot on locals, what do you talk about most or seen over?
	Let's talk about me.
	Well, I have done that, but there's not so much I can say about you, to be honest, is there?
	Remember, we got Nick Fuentes coming on the show tomorrow.
	I've taped it already, and it's pretty good.
	I think it was, what's good about it is it's a conversation.
	Like, can you imagine these days being able to talk to people that have like opposing views on a variety of subjects and it not go insane?
	Like, I watch Piers Morgan clips.
	Does anyone watch the whole show?
	God, who could watch a whole show of anything these days?
	It would probably kill you.
	But, like, I watch it sometimes.
	It seems like it's designed around generating conflict.
	Well, I don't think that's going to help.
	I don't think that's going to help either.
	So, tell me, you guys, what you want.
	First, while you're doing that, while you're telling me what you want to watch on the Rumble stream, remember, get Rumble Premium if you don't have it yet.
	I'm going to tell you, as best as I can, why there is this sort of sentimental reporting about Tyler Robinson, who I think, where's the most recent stuff that we had in the WhatsApp, like, you know, that I asked to put in that's about like the suicide stuff and all of that.
	Just tell me what number it's on after I get into this.
	Okay, Tyler Robinson confesses shooting in messages to my lovers.
	Let's have a look at that.
	Also, there's just a load of text messages that I'm never going to be able to, you know.
	Okay, so that's his text messages.
	Let's have a look at ABC and ABC talking about the, in somewhat sentimental terms, I understand, the murder.
	We have seen an alleged murder with such specific text messages about the alleged murder weapon, where it was hidden, how it was placed, what was on it, but also it was very touching in a way that I think many of us didn't expect.
	That's a weird thing to highlight.
	Many of us didn't expect a very intimate portrait into this relationship between the suspect's roommate and the suspect himself with him repeatedly calling his roommate who was transitioning, calling him my love, and I want to protect you, my love.
	So it was this duality of someone who the attorney said not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd, but was doing it in front of children, which is one of the aggravating circumstances of this case.
	And on the other hand, he was speaking so lovingly about his partner.
	So a very interesting and, as Pierre said, riveting press conference, David.
	It was time.
	Let's have a look at this, Montel William.
	There are people who are trying to pigeonhole this as a leftist thing and a right thing.
	And what we're really talking about, hear me, because I'm going to throw you when I say this.
	We're talking about a love-torn child, a kid.
	This is probably his first real relationship.
	And somebody was disparaging the person that he loved.
	He sat on that building for 30 minutes before he took the shot.
	Why did he wait until the first word trans came up?
Be Compassionate Towards Disagreements 00:03:23
	Then he took the shot.
	You think he heard it?
	He could hear it.
	I think he could hear it.
	Oh my God, he can't hear from up there off on a roof doing that sniping.
	It's interesting that you, I suppose, in a way, what we should be doing is the opposite of what's happening.
	Be compassionate towards the people we disagree with and not fetishize what we already believe.
	He could hear it.
	I think he also, I don't believe he was motivated politically.
	I think this was motivated emotionally.
	That's interesting because in a way, those taxonomies, the categories of emotional and political and religious, they can all be dissected and disintegrated if you have a good enough analytic and a clear enough objective.
	For example, if you think right now, there will be some people who are really, really furious.
	And probably if they had the time and the ability to reflect on what they were feeling, you would locate various islands of grief and pain in your own life that had been lit up in the circuitry of your consciousness and your spiritual life by this event, like it, like how a light switch works.
	You press the button, the circuit is completed, the light lights up.
	So when a button is pushed in you, like if you've imagine this, imagine that you're so certain that like a saint, if you're a saint, you're Saint Francis, you're Saint Paul, you're one of the many great saints, and someone dies,
	you may feel compassion, even sympathy for the people that have died, but you are certain that God is real, that the sensory reality that we occupy temporarily is secondary to the great spiritual life.
	Now, I don't know Charlie Kirk well.
	I interviewed him.
	He interviewed me.
	I spoke to him a few times and I was sort of fascinated by him is what I would say.
	What I sense, though, is that Charlie Kirk does have a deep and abiding faith in Christ and would be willing to die for what he believes in.
	His emphasis and psychiatry, his emphasis on the political aspects of conservatism and the deployment of Christian principles in political in a political context is an area where I would disagree with him.
	But what I agreed with him on strongly and would agree with anyone on, is that the spiritual life is real and what we're living in is an expression of God.
	And if you don't return to God regularly, you'll make God out of temporary passing stuff.
	Like dear old Montel Williams there.
	Let's have a look at another story for a minute now.
	Over in the UK, things are falling apart.
	Although there's a lot of optimism and hope, primarily coming out of nationalism and right-wing patriotism and the protest that center on the flag, which sort of seem to have as their central motif and explicitly have anti-migration sentiments.
Keir Starmer's Deeper Connections 00:15:23
	We sent our beloved reporter, my friend Joe McCann, to, we didn't send him anywhere, he was already in the UK, we just give him a camera and said, yeah, we film this stuff.
	And what I was struck by when watching that content was that among the patriotic protesters that day, there was quite a lot of goodwill and good feeling and something that I've always hoped for, whether I had been using the language and the colours of the left or right, a sense that you're really representing the will of the people, the will of the people, the will of the people under God.
	Because the will of the people could become a very desperate and appalling thing, actually, if misguided and misdirected.
	So, which generally it is.
	The thing that's exciting about it, for me at least, is that the UK, whether you're approaching it from a left-wing perspective or a right-wing perspective, is falling apart.
	Everyone is in absolute alignment when it comes to their perspective on Keir Starmer.
	The number of people that have got delightful chants and songs that center on Keir Starmer being a wanker is a near miracle and certainly a joy to behold.
	But at the heart of the British establishment now are serious, serious problems.
	Keir Starmer was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service and had, as I understand, a pretty close relationship with MI5.
	The person that was being proposed as Britain's ambassador to your country, America, Peter Mandelson, he's been an acolyte around power for a long, long time.
	He was there with Tony Blair.
	He was advocating for war.
	He was helping to sex up dossiers.
	He was helping to ensure that Iraq could be invaded and that people believed there were weapons of mass destruction.
	He's been sacked on numerous occasions, usually in some way connected to dishonesty.
	So the idea that Keir Starmer wouldn't know that Peter Mandelson had a close friendship to drum roll, please, Jeffrey Epstein, is ridiculous, outrageous, impossible.
	And yet that's what Keir Starmer has claimed.
	Is it possible that Keir Starmer with his deep establishment ties, he's the prime minister and before that he's the head of the CPS and before that he was the leader of the opposition, getting well involved in ensuring that the MI5 could facilitate the removal of the previous leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, a kind of old school leftist, anti-establishment leftist, such a thing still exists, you know.
	Is it possible that he wouldn't know about Peter Mandelson's connection to Epstein?
	So Epstein, whether you're in your country, the United States, or in mine, the United Kingdom, continues to be a kind of scab that if picked at, reveals the pus and disease within the body politic.
	Because surely the challenge is this.
	It ain't confined to any individual nation.
	That was always the problem.
	There's a kind of global imperialism masked by nation that's able to maneuver regardless of who's in government.
	That's what we were discussing before people started to get all distracted by their own side winning.
	So let's have a look at Keir Starmer saying he didn't know that Peter Mandelson was friends with Jeffrey Epstein.
	Then we will look at various other people pretending it's impossible for them to know.
	And let's have a look here.
	This is from a legacy media newspaper from the Times, apparently.
	Again, owned by one media baron, again aligned with the same sort of global corporatist interest that we spend a lot of our time talking about.
	Keir Starmer offered Lord Mandelson his full backing in the Commons despite knowing the Foreign Office was investigating a leaked cachet of emails between him and convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.
	Starmer does not appear to have asked for details of the emails or the investigation before defending the former ambassador to the hilt at Prime Minister's question time.
	That's like, you know, when you see Trump there getting questions.
	Even though Mandelson publicly warned hours earlier that very embarrassing messages, ha ha ha ha, they're embarrassing.
	He's chatting with a paedophile.
	Starmer knew, I'm a bit embarrassed.
	I've been chatting to a paedophile for ages.
	And that is embarrassing.
	I mean, I suppose a paedophile is still a child of God and, you know, worthy of forgiveness.
	But what you've got to point out is that, dear old Peter Mac, all of these people in the upper echelons of power, look at what's going on with them.
	Why are they all so friendly with paedophile?
	What's going on?
	What is this?
	Is it just a coincidence?
	Is it like, you know, like if you went to one geographical neighborhood, you'd expect everyone to support a particular football or baseball team?
	Because it seems like these lot can't get enough pedophilia.
	Starman knew about the Foreign Office investigation.
	He knew that Mandelson said the emails were about to come out, yet for whatever reason, he decided not to ask further questions and went out to defend Mandelson.
	That almost makes me like Keir Starmer more because he didn't go, listen, looks like you might be somehow affiliated with sexual malpractice and paedophilia.
	I've got to distance myself from you a little bit.
	I've got a country to run.
	But he didn't do that.
	Why would that be?
	Let's have a look at Keir Starmer defending those allegations and defending that decision because there are no allegations against Peter Mandelson.
	It's just the punishment is he can't be ambassador to the United States of America.
	Let's get into this story because it's connected to Epstein, connected to global power, it's connected to deception.
	It's important to appreciate what happened when, and I understand that.
	Obviously, the post, the diplomatic post of American Buster, really important post, and Peter Mandelson, before he was appointed, went through a due diligence process.
	That's the propriety and ethics team went through a process.
	And therefore, I knew of his association with Epstein.
	But had I known then what I know now, I'd have never appointed him.
	I'd known then what I'd known now.
	I'd never appoint a pal of a paedophile.
	I just thought he was pals with a paedophile, but not in a deeply entrenched way.
	You can hang out with paedophiles, you know, and not get dragged into their pedophilia.
	You could just be chatting about other stuff like a weather or sports memorabilia just because someone's friends with a paedophile.
	Don't go around judging that poor old fucker.
	He may be that he was just hanging out sharing candy and, you know, maybe a sucker.
	There's no reason to think that necessarily that these people that keep getting arrested for pedophilia are involved in, I don't know, deep-seated satanic adrenochrome sipping occultist power.
	They might have only been watching pedophilia videos on the internet for, I don't know, something like half an hour.
	Why would we condemn these poor souls?
	Back to you, Kier.
	I've never appointed him.
	Because what emerged last week.
	We're leaving YouTube now.
	Click the link in the description.
	Come watch some rumble, baby.
	Because what emerged last week were emails, Bloomberg emails, which showed that the nature and extent of the relationship that Peter Mandelson had with Epstein was far different to what I had understood to be the position when I appointed him.
	On top of that, what the emails showed was he was not only questioning but wanting to challenge the conviction of Epstein at the time.
	That for me went and cut across the whole approach that I've taken on violence against women and girls for many years and this government's approach.
	On top of that, what emerged last week on Wednesday evening late were Peter Mandelson's responses to questions that have been put to him by government officials.
	I looked at those responses and I did not find them at all satisfying.
	And therefore, on the basis of those three things, the nature and extent of the relationship being far different to what I'd understood to be the position at the point of appointment, the questioning and challenging of the conviction, which, as I say, goes to the heart and what it really is, is what have I got to say to keep my job.
	That's all that is, isn't it?
	What assemblage of language have I got to cough up in order to obfuscate the plain truth that I am just another political leader that is governing on behalf of deeper interests and those interests transcend political parties, they transcend eras, they are deep.
	I don't understand them.
	You don't understand them.
	No one really understands them.
	But this is the important thing to understand is we don't need to continue like this anymore.
	This is what we're living through, an attempt to maintain power that's not legitimate anymore.
	There's no reason for you to send off a person to Congress or the Senate or Parliament or wherever to represent your opinions, your party, your politics or your view.
	You could, using the technology through which you now order minicabs, taxis or get yourself a hotel room or a sandwich delivered, you could, using that, quite successfully run a small community.
	It wouldn't be perfect, but remember, we're not competing with perfection.
	We're competing with deep and appalling levels of corruption.
	So I reckon if I can be somewhat instructive, so this isn't just talking.
	You have to.
	These are some things you can do.
	Prioritize your spiritual life, surrender to Christ.
	There might not be your jam, but it would work for you.
	That's one.
	Secondly, don't operate primarily on the level of hatred.
	Don't fall into that trap.
	It's not like you can hate the right person or hate the right group.
	If it's hate, it's not good.
	And then stay very, very focused on where your beliefs aid the interests of centralized powers, whether they are media, government, or commercial.
	Hey, me believing that I should eat this food and half helps craft.
	Hey, me believing that I should take this medicine and half helps Pfizer.
	Me believing that this is true and half helps the legacy media, Republican Party, Democrat Party, whatever.
	If your beliefs are useful to any of those interests, you're probably wrong.
	Hey, this is pretty good from Ashela on the locals chat.
	She's posted someone projected onto Windsor Castle, like various people meeting with Jeffrey Epstein.
	That's good.
	I like it when people do stuff like that, project things, you know, and generally projections, not a good thing.
	It means that you're not able to incorporate a deep truth.
	But when it's a literal projection like that, that's quite a light show.
	That's quite a spectacle.
	Let's have a look at another person in British politics.
	You won't care about this dude.
	He's called Ed Miliband, but for a minute he was going to be a leader and he may yet be because people can step up when they're pretty old.
	Let's have a quick look at Ed Miliband saying, justifying, again, this appointment of Peter Mandelson.
	The reason it's interesting, what it is, is Peter Mandelson's been in and around power for a long time.
	He's a true internationalist.
	He's connected to Tony Blair and power that's transcendent of national boundaries.
	When people are having them protests in London, as they did last weekend, explicitly their problem, their declared problem is migration.
	They're concerned about migration and the impact of migration.
	And these are all fair and legitimate concerns.
	But what facilitates and causes those problems to be perpetuated and causes them to continue?
	You know the answer to that, don't you?
	That's globalist bureaucracies and deep state power.
	And one of the representatives of those sets of power is Peter Mandelson.
	What most of us used to believe prior to the, you know, let's say the confusion that's emerged in the Trump administration is that Epstein was the center of a kind of blackmail ring where powerful people were granted access to sexual opportunity, which meant they were compromised for the rest of their lives because,
	you know, when they were like sort of, as Manderson was about to be ambassador to the US, and I'm not suggesting, certainly it would be libelous to suggest that Peter Manderson was somehow affiliated with Epstein in a way that was compromising, but certainly he was friends with a convicted paedophile.
	But that that compromise could be leveraged against them.
	And you know, people, again, like with all things, if you're a person that sort of tends towards the right, you'll be like, I bet Bill Clinton's one of them and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and Michelle Obama.
	And if you're from the other side, you'll be like, Trump, man, he's probably connected to Epstein.
	But the important thing is not the names.
	They're interchangeable, as I've just demonstrated.
	It's the concept that people in positions of power are compromised and don't have, therefore, real power, whether that's because of sexual blackmail or lobbying or other forms of systemic and bureaucratic control.
	That's far less interesting.
	Let's have a look at this dude, Ed Miliband.
	I know Keir is a man of great decency and integrity.
	And that's absolutely right.
	He wouldn't have.
	Well, actually, I've got mixed up about Ed Miliband and David Miliband, because there's two of them that are brothers.
	They're part of this kind of like Fabian version of British socialism, which is, I suppose, what I want to say.
	It's kind of like an affinity and an affiliation that their image, their logos is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
	That's the logos of the Fabian Society.
	Maybe they've changed it.
	It used to be that.
	Now, I interviewed him.
	When he was running for prime minister, online media was in early ascendancy.
	I think people like Mark Moron had just interviewed Barack Obama.
	So people were like, oh man, I should do interviews on YouTube with the equivalent of who's a British podcaster, Russell Brand.
	So this dude, while he was running to be prime minister, came around my house and did it.
	Have a look at it on the internet.
	It's amazing.
	Came around my house and did an interview with me as part of his campaign.
	Now, he did like, it was a massive mistake that I made there because I'd very much run our channels on the message of you can't trust any politicians.
	They're all the same.
	They're all controlled by the same interest.
	There's no point voting.
	And when I said there's no point voting, it was like I touched something you're not meant to touch.
	And it caused a lot of ire and attacks.
	And the establishment went at work.
	It was the first time I was attacked.
	First or second time I was attacked by the establishment and they attempted to destroy me.
	So like whenever they attempt to destroy you, obviously, you know, as they say, you're over the target.
	When I was doing it that time, it was him, this dude, who came around my house for an interview.
	He subsequently reached out to me and gone and go, I think that did you more harm than it did even me because he didn't get elected.
	The Conservative Party, our version of the Republican, as it were, they won.
	He disappeared for a minute into political obscurity only to get a job down the line in Kierstarma's government.
	That's where he is now.
	So that's my personal connection to this dude who I can also, I can sort of tell you somewhat confidently that like Kirstama, like Peter Manderson, like Tony Blair, like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, you know, you trudeau, Macron, the part of that, the angle is we're of the left, we're compassionate political figures.
	If you're sort of a person who doesn't like, you know, the Iraq war and right-wing conservative people and like the militarization and geopolitics and racism and all of that, vote for us.
	He's part of that strand milieu of political power, which we now know is controlled by the same interest that controls both sides.
	Right.
	He wouldn't have, he wouldn't have appointed him.
	Because he didn't know these things.
	He was dealing with a unique set of circumstances around President Trump, and that's why he made the decision.
	The problem with this is that everybody knew that there was a relationship with Epstein in the past.
	Didn't know the details of it, hadn't seen those last lethal emails and texts, I grant you, but everybody knew.
	And that's Andrew Maher, who famously said to Noam Chomsky when interviewing Noam Chomsky about the manufacture of consent, the book that described and explained how mass media are able to direct populations to vote for a particular political party.
Hate Speech and Confrontation 00:15:56
	He said, Andrew Maher, famously, listen, I work for the BBC.
	I'm a journalist.
	I've not been told by my bosses or overlords what to say.
	And Noam Chomsky said, no, you misunderstand me.
	What I'm saying is, is if you didn't agree with their interests and you weren't in alignment with their agenda, you wouldn't be sitting in that chair.
	You've already been groomed and schooled.
	So remember, the people asking the questions, they've been institutionally groomed through their sort of Ivy League in your case, or Oxbridge schools.
	They've got various interests, affiliations, even familial and social affinities and affiliations that prevent them from being of any use to you or I or God.
	I'm not suggesting that Andrew Mars not a nice person.
	I'm saying that that's a really pivotal moment for those of you that are interested in trans-partisan revolutionary thought for the kingdom.
	How is it we get past the turgidness of this moment now, the literal moment we're in, where if you're sort of like a MAGA populist or if you're a sort of left-wing anti-establishment person, you're thinking, hold a minute, how do we get anywhere?
	How do we do anything?
	Well, it's by confronting these sets of powers and being willing to operate outside of it.
	You might not be interested in that stuff because you might like enjoy the tribalism.
	People like the tribalism.
	It's like it's a sport.
	Just munch popcorn and go, see, my side are winning.
	Your side's bad.
	They shot Charlie Kirk.
	Well, your side's bad.
	They're trying to exploit the death of Charlie Kirk.
	Yeah, well, your side's bad.
	They're racist.
	Well, your side's bad.
	They don't care about children.
	In school, getting hormones injected and changing their agenda.
	Your side's bad.
	You don't know what people feel like.
	It just goes on and on and on.
	When we could go, all right, it seems like there's different ways of being human.
	We've always known that.
	Let's see if we can come up with some universal principles, then leave people alone to run their own communities, decentralize radically wherever possible.
	Have that as a motive.
	Watch how people respond when you start talking about stuff like that.
	What they might do is accuse you of something.
	So I grant you, but everybody knew about that.
	Wasn't that therefore taking a huge risk in appointing him in the first place, given what we've, what's happening?
	I made this point very gently, Andrew.
	When Peter Mandelson was appointed, I didn't hear much of a hue and cry from the media about Peter Mandelson's link.
	That's weird.
	It's almost like the media are part of it as well.
	You think the media are the people that are going to go to bat for the people?
	Think how far away we've come, even from the meaning of these terms.
	In his brilliant book, Forbidden Facts, Gavin De Becker points out that the word autism is deliberately diffuse, amorphous, and unclear.
	Do you know why that is?
	So you can't diagnose it correctly.
	Do you know why that is?
	Because then you might be able to go, what's causing autism?
	Do you know why that is?
	Because you might go, hey, I noticed there's a lot more autism since people get vaccinated as a kid.
	Huh?
	Huh.
	But in order to stop that, you have to break down everything.
	Who benefits from confusion?
	Who benefits from all of this?
	Peter Mandelson's links with Jeffrey Epstein.
	I mean, these were a matter of public record.
	He'd expressed regret about them.
	But there weren't lots of people in the media saying you can't possibly appoint this man.
	So that's why what Key has said today is clear, which is he said he had no idea about the extent and depth of the relationship, nor that Peter Mandelson was after the conviction, saying you should push further release and all of those terrible things that came out in these emails.
	There you go.
	Artas24 says, Russell, can you say bottle of water?
	Yeah, bottle of water.
	Can you say that move in your face?
	Yeah, I can do that all day long.
	So there you have it.
	When it comes to the phenomena of Jeffrey Epstein and the problem of broken British politics, you can see that there are deep, deep roots, rhizones, I think is the word, roots concealed as all roots must be, beneath the surface, invisible, tangled and complex.
	And it seems that the Epstein button, if you press it long enough, will start to reveal the kind of connections that ultimately determine the trajectory, not just the national power, but more importantly, global power, the sets of power that exist permanently, not permanently, but for longer periods of time than the average human life and certainly the average political term.
	So continue to investigate those ideas and continue to locate it as a window into the way that power really operates.
	It doesn't care who you vote for.
	As they say, if voting changed anything, they'd ban it.
	Okay, that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
	We've got a lot more to talk about, actually, and not that much time to do it.
	You tell me in the chat what you want me to do next.
	There's some good stuff on free speech.
	I'll probably do that free speech stuff, maybe look at Candace Owens saying that Charlie Kirk's murder was connected to...
	It's not training, bro.
	It's a.
	It's just a t-shirt.
	I don't need no bra training, baby.
	So let's have a quick, let's have a quick commercial and then, you know, we'll be back with another story.
	Alio Capital.
	Get it now.
	The world has become increasingly divided because of you.
	Politically, socially and economically.
	But many of these divisions stem from a deeper misunderstanding of how money, markets, and policy actually work.
	Wouldn't it be nice?
	Wouldn't it be nice?
	If there was an investment app that was designed by people who understand a macro perspective and how global events affect your finances.
	And now you can have that power in the palm of your dick.
	Hand.
	That's hand, isn't it?
	Is that how I get confused?
	With the Alio Capital app powered by Altitude AI, which identifies shifts in inflation, interest rates, and global risk, then adapts portfolios in real time.
	Alio is designed for dick on.
	Sorry, hands-on or hands-off investors.
	Macro investing for people who want to understand the big picture.
	Investing is confusing.
	Get the Alio app to make it all simple.
	You want money, but why should you work for it like some stinking slave?
	Get the Alio app and watch the money flood in, baby.
	Download their app to help you make yourself a few bobbins.
	Why not?
	You deserve it.
	What you going to do?
	Just wait for death?
	Go to the app store or Google Play or text my name Russell to 511.
	That's A-L-L-I-O Capital.
	Text R-U-S-S-E-L-L to 511-511.
	Download the Alio app or text Russell to 511-511 today.
	Investing involves risks.
	Everything involves risks.
	Everything.
	Life's risky.
	What are you going to do?
	Avoid risk?
	Still pay a high price for that.
	That in itself is a risk.
	It's a paradox.
	You can't get out of it.
	Including the potential of loss of principle.
	What?
	My principles?
	I knew this would happen one day.
	Past performance does not guarantee your results.
	T-Terms and condition.
	Text these may apply.
	This is a paid advertisement for Alio Capital, baby.
	In case you thought it was me reading Shakespeare.
	That was an ad.
	I've seen that a couple of times now, that ad, and I really like it.
	If you want to invest money, do that Alio app, and then they'll go, oh, this worked.
	All right.
	Now then, come on, you lot.
	Free speech.
	Do you care about free speech or do you just care about not being offended or winning arguments?
	It'll be natural if we did discover that all you cared about was not being offended and just winning arguments.
	Those are motivations that are quite common.
	Let's have a look at the free speech argument now and how it's being impacted.
	There's free speech and then there's hate speech.
	Wait a minute.
	No, there isn't.
	There's just free speech.
	Hate speech.
	You know when like there has to be some sort of terrible legislation and they give it a nice name like the Patriot Act.
	You know, you've got to like the Patriot Act, haven't you?
	Why are you not a patriot?
	Well, what is the Patriot Act?
	We're going to be spying on you and controlling you, you patriot.
	Uh-huh.
	So what do you think is going on with hate speech?
	Hate speech is a way of ensuring that free speech, which is palpably and tangibly a good, necessary and constitutional matter, can be besmirched.
	And there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie in our society.
	Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?
	We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything.
	And that's across the aisle.
	Yeah.
	Look, this is, again, why I love the Lord.
	I started to feel this when it came to, say, one of the most controversial issues of our time.
	It's less controversial now, I suppose, but say trans issues and trans rights.
	Didn't you sort of feel somewhere within you, there must be a principle that can help me here?
	There must be a principle that can help me here.
	Oh yeah, here it is.
	Love one another.
	Kindness.
	Okay, so where am I on the love one another and kindness scale?
	If I'm loving people and being kind, can I use that to help me with any and all?
	cultural and identity issue.
	Yeah, there's a person over there, they're a Jew.
	Love one another.
	There's a person over there, they're a Muslim, love one another.
	There's a person over there that said something mean about trans people.
	Love one another.
	There's a person over there who is a trans person.
	Love one another.
	There's a person over there making offensive remarks about Charlie Kirk's murder.
	Love one another.
	That's it.
	You don't kind of decide.
	Once I saw Ben Shapiro in some sort of congressional hearing, I don't remember what he was doing now, but like they asked him about same-sex marriage.
	And he said, do I, as an Orthodox Jew, believe in same-sex marriage?
	No, I'm an Orthodox Jew.
	And I thought, well, that's good.
	He doesn't even have to think about it.
	So whether or not you agree with something or not, if you've accepted a religious way of life, you just go, right, this is what my religion tells me.
	And amongst it, he says things like, don't judge, love one another, be willing to love God with all of your heart, love God not to get anything, but just because that's what we do is we love God because we come from God, that we're about.
	And if you try and return to those points, it'll help you through, I found, a whole host of complex issues.
	And actually, it's irresistible and inexhaustible.
	Let's have a look at, this is obviously a post by Charlie Kirk, God rest his soul, about hate speech does not exist legally in America.
	There's ugly speech, there's gross speech, there's evil speech, and all of it's protected by the First Amendment, keep America free.
	And that's the very kind of thing about Charlie Kirk that I admire.
	Now let's have a look at this.
	This is Trump, I suppose, backing Pam Bondi.
	And what do you make Pam Bondi say she's going to go after hate speech?
	Is that, I mean, a lot of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.
	She'll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly.
	It's hate.
	You have a lot of hate in your heart.
	Maybe they'll come after ABC.
	Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right?
	Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech.
	So maybe they'll have to go after you.
	This dude's a fighter.
	And I think a lot of people that really love Trump love that fight.
	Remember, like, what I've felt a lot of my affection to Donald Trump comes from that kind of moment when he's like, you ABC, I don't trust you as much.
	Like that kind of, that somewhat gangster confrontational aspect of Trump is what I admire.
	That obviously comes from my own emotional palate, my own emotional injuries and wounds.
	When it comes to a principle that's enshrined in your constitution, free speech, it don't matter what our personal affiliations are.
	It matters what the principle is.
	Either you agree with it or you don't.
	Now, let's see if she's here.
	Pam Bondi appears to be threatening to fire and prosecute people for celebrating Charlie Kirk's death, which, look, obviously that's a horrible thing to do.
	It's disgusting.
	People shouldn't be doing that.
	In the same way, you shouldn't burn the flag because the flag to a lot of people means a great deal.
	People see it as the symbol of everything they love and what people they love died for.
	So to burn that, you're kind of deliberately insulting someone.
	So yeah, that's not good.
	You shouldn't do that.
	But does it need to be a matter of law?
	Tell me in the comments and chat.
	That's horrific.
	It's free speech, but you shouldn't be employed anywhere if you're going to say that.
	And employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people.
	You need to look at people who are saying horrible things.
	And they shouldn't be working with you.
	Businesses cannot discriminate.
	If you want to go in and print posters with Charlie's pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that.
	We can prosecute you for that.
	I have Harmeet Dylan right now in our civil rights unit looking at that immediately that Office Depot had done that.
	We're looking at that.
	But Sean, you know.
	It makes me realize that one of the problems is secularism.
	The idea that we can separate our religious life from governmental life, which we're told is in order to preserve our religious freedoms.
	But in fact, it allows someone who's a Christian to almost put aside their Christian perspective while dealing with the most important matters that there are.
	Truth, honesty, integrity, service.
	It's interesting.
	This is what Matt Walsh said about it.
	Get rid of her, Pam Bondi.
	It's insane.
	Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone.
	We won that fight.
	Now Pam Bondi wants to roll it back for no reason.
	The employee who didn't print the flyer was already fired by his employer.
	This stuff is being handled successfully through free speech and free markets.
	This is totally gratuitous and pointless.
	We need the Attorney General to focus on bringing down the left-wing terror cells, not prosecuting Office Depot, for God's sake, then he adds.
	Between this free speech nonsense and Epstein, Pam Bondi has committed two is the most egregious errors we've ever seen from an attorney general.
	How many seismic fuck-ups will Trump permit her before he cuts her loose?
	This is a 10 strikes.
	Is this a 10 strikes in your out deal or what?
	That's a good commentary from Matt Walsh because I know that he's a pretty conservative guy.
	And there you are.
	It seems that he's sticking to his principles regardless of whether or rather than sort of parroting points that are expedient.
	Here's JD Vance saying the same thing, I think, sort of saying that if you see someone celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder, call their employer.
	Think about it, though.
	If someone was doing that, I don't want to say, what would Charlie Kirk do as if it's a sort of a new, what would Jesus do?
	Charlie Kirk would want to have a conversation with him.
	Another of the things I liked about Charlie Kirk, and I've sort of obviously looked at that more posthumously, is like when people would be confrontational.
	I mean, I did see one where he got pretty angry with Chenk Uga.
	I don't know how to say Chenk's surname, just say Chenk generally, don't you?
	Like, remember, you really lost it with him one time?
	But generally, people would be confrontational.
	What do you mean?
	No, let her speak.
	What does he mean?
	You know, that's cool.
	I like that.
	I find it difficult, actually, to stay relaxed if I feel threatened or confronted.
	But here, JD Vance says, you know, call their employer.
	But, well, you know, maybe J.D. Vance is having his own emotional reaction to grief.
	So when you see someone celebrating Charlie's murder, call them out in hell.
	Call their employer.
	We don't believe in political violence, but we do believe in civility.
	And there is no civility in the celebration of political assassination.
	Get involved.
	It's the best way to honor Charlie's legacy.
	Start a chapter of TPUSA or get involved in the one that already exists.
	If you're older, volunteer.
	Okay.
	Let's have a look at Mehdi Hussain.
	He's a person I've been interviewed with a few times.
	And you hear it these days, of course, understandably, he's a British Muslim, him talking and even debating, for example, Douglas Murray on the matter of Israel-Palestine.
	Here, I figure he's posting about the right wing's potentially mobile position on free speech.
	Let's have a look.
	If you ever had any doubt that right-wing media is just official state propaganda, consider that Charlie Kirk was replaced on his show by the sitting Republican vice president who interviewed White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller, Independent Media.
Candice Aligns Pro Views 00:05:07
	What do you think about that point from Mehdi Hussein?
	Again, they are human beings, but he is also the vice president.
	Marco Rubio will not host foreigners who celebrate the death of our foreign, of our fellow citizens.
	Yeah, I guess, look, what you want to make sure that this is handled honorably and diligently.
	again human beings are flawed so you don't actually really even need to get in a position of judgment of whether it's remember when it used to be the old folks like uh Jen Psaki or the young black woman you know that was pressing Karen Jean-Pierre people People like really got into it, didn't they?
	Like, I hate that bitch.
	But actually, you could sort of detect in the young black woman, Karen Jean-Pierre, that's her name, that she was like, oh, man, I got to go and hear it again and defend this asshole.
	Like, she was like knackered from talking about poor old Joe Biden staggering off into bushes and hedges, weren't she?
	Like, how am I going to come up with something today to sling a sheet of wallpaper over this guy's evident Alzheimer's?
	She was knackered, poor cow.
	And like now, though, it's sort of different people with a different agenda.
	The principle should remain absolutely the same.
	Otherwise, it isn't a principle.
	It's a tool.
	A principle doesn't change.
	If you're using it as a tool, it's like, wait a minute, I can use this thing.
	I could use this for a moment.
	That's completely the wrong agenda.
	Okay, let's have a look at what, let's see what's Gavin Newsom.
	Let's get this dude involved.
	Wake up, America.
	Stephen Miller has already publicly labeled the Democratic Party as a terrorist organization.
	This isn't about crime and safety.
	It's about dismantling our democratic institutions.
	We cannot allow acts of political violence to be weaponized and used to threaten tens of millions of Americans.
	Free speech is a principle.
	It's an important principle.
	That principle only has value if it's able to withstand inconvenience, if it's able to withstand weaponization.
	It shouldn't matter.
	It shouldn't matter.
	Charlie Kirk was pretty clear about what his position on free speech was when it came to his right to go to college campuses and talk about his Christianity, his conservatism, his faith, how he derived views on people's sexuality from his faith.
	And all of those things were completely legitimate and authentic.
	To use the political murder of Charlie Kirk to vanquish free expression is a hypocrisy that makes a mockery of his death.
	I think he's actually worse than, say, for example, that dude in the UK celebrating it.
	I think that's kind of, in a sense, A more offensive response.
	That's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments and the chat.
	Remember, we stream Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday here.
	We will be back tomorrow with an interview with Nick Fuentes.
	Let me show you a little bit of that.
	I think you'll enjoy it, particularly.
	I don't know, even if you really imagine you really hate Nick Fuentes, you'll still like it.
	If you like him, you're going to love it because it's Nick Fuentes.
	Let's have a look at this moment from the conversation.
	I've not watched this.
	We did it yesterday.
	Check it out.
	Tell me what you think.
	So, Candice Owens, where do you align?
	Where do you not align?
	So, Candice, I did there.
	What I'm doing is I did a kind of lightning round because then he's always arguing with people, Nick Fuentes.
	I'm like, all right, what about all these people?
	Check it out.
	So, Candace, I disagree with her on race and on some of her more esoteric stuff, the Macron thing, the Frankist stuff.
	I disagree on that totally.
	What about Andrew Tate?
	Well, he's Muslim, believes in polygamy.
	I'm Catholic.
	I don't believe in polygamy.
	Everything else, I agree 100%.
	The Tommy Robinson.
	Well, he is right about the Muslim immigration in the United Kingdom, and he's a Zionist, very pro-Israel, and even pro-Indian immigration.
	So, I also disagree with him on race and nationalism.
	Tucker Carlson.
	I agree with him on so much, but I would say that he doesn't think it has to do with Judaism, just neocons.
	I think it has everything to do with Judaism.
	Our kind of neocon issue is deeply entrenched in that.
	Crowder.
	I don't really watch Stephen Crowder.
	He just seems like a basic conservative, doesn't talk about Israel or Jewish power at all.
	Alex Jones.
	We are coming more into agreement.
	I guess he's more pro-Trump than me, but I agree with him about Israel a lot.
	He's maybe less critical of them than I am.
	He's also a lot less racial, but we've been kind of converging in many ways.
	So I think that's changed a lot.
	David Icke.
	I don't think it's lizards, but he's been on the money for years, but I don't think they're actually reptilians.
	Pretty good trade-up.
	We'll back tomorrow.
	You can watch that interview in full tomorrow.
	You'll like it, I think.
	It's good stuff.
	All right.
	See you tomorrow.
	Stay free.

Chapters

00:05:52 Dialogue Between Us
00:15:17 The Blood-Dimmed Tide Loosed
00:19:17 Construction Grief
00:25:56 Phytonutrients and Supplements
00:28:41 Why Epstein Still Matters
00:31:48 Be Compassionate Towards Disagreements
00:34:56 Keir Starmer's Deeper Connections
00:50:05 Hate Speech and Confrontation
01:05:46 Candice Aligns Pro Views