Stay Free - Russel Brand - The Unraveling: Cracks From Washington to Westminster - SF657

Dec. 1, 2025 - Stay Free - Russel Brand

59:40

The Unraveling: Cracks From Washington to Westminster - SF657

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Ladies and gentlemen, Russell Fran action Russell Russell Francis trying to bring real journalism to the American people.
	Hello there, you awakening wonders.
	Thanks for joining me for a very special episode of Stay Free today.
	You are gonna love this.
	I'm telling you, you're gonna love it.
	You will love it.
	First of all, we talk about the resignation of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the possibility for heroism and real change.
	We also look at historic examples of heroism.
	Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, the Kennedys, it's brilliant.
	You'll love it.
	Then we look at Candace Owens, who's a friend of mine, and Tucker Carlson, also a friend of mine, and their public claims about deep state assassinations.
	We're going to look at that carefully and respectfully.
	Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
	It's really, really good bit of content.
	You're going to love it.
	Remember, you can read these essays on Substack if you want to.
	Help me and support me there if you've got time, money, and desire to do so.
	And finally, we look at the results of this inquiry in my country, the UK, into COVID.
	And it actually makes me so angry.
	It like is radicalizing me.
	If I didn't have Christ, I think I would become some kind of terrorist, honestly, because that's the there's only two options now: either become a sort of a radicalized terrorist against these corrupt systems or become a Christian, which is a kind of radical position now, anyway, because it means that you believe in the supernatural, you believe in God, you believe that all of this is sort of ultimately a kind of illusion and that you obey a God that's completely inaccessible to these Luciferian and corrupt powers.
	I'll also be telling you about how you can win a beautiful Jeep Rubicon Free 9-2.
	You get entries by acquiring this and these amazing products that I use that keep me radical, fit, in tune, and in line.
	Support Reborn and support me on Rumble.
	If you haven't got Rumble Premium yet, by the way, get Rumble Premium right now.
	You get more content and it's ad-free.
	You get a bunch of stuff from Stephen Crowder and Mud Club and Tim Paul and a whole bunch of other popular content creators.
	Let's get into our first video.
	We'll only be on YouTube for a while.
	You know why?
	Crazy bloody place.
	And you're going to love this.
	It gets deep, baby.
	Check it out.
	Left, right, fascist, communist, terrorist.
	In a world where political labels are wielded like weapons, media figures flip-flop between outrage and cordiality and ideological loyalty often masks hidden alliances.
	What does it mean to truly step outside the narrative and reclaim autonomy in the holy name?
	Kamala Harris and Rachel Maddow attending the funeral of Dick Cheney, a man Maddow once denounced as the maestro of terror politics, alongside Zorhan Mamdani, branding Donald Trump a fascist mere days after a cordial meeting and months after Trump had labelled him a communist lunatic signals a disturbing collapse of meaning in political language.
	Like, why would you go?
	I heard that it took the Catholic Church 350 years to apologize for calling Galileo Galilee a liar when what he had in fact done is told the truth about astronomy.
	Well, how long will it take for this system to apologize for the COVID pandemic?
	Has there been apologies from Dick Cheney?
	Has he gone, do you know what?
	There were no weapons of mass destruction.
	I was on the board of Halliburton.
	We recognized the Iraq gig was a terrific opportunity, so we went for it.
	He's not apologized.
	What does Rachel Maddow really believe?
	What does Kamala Harris really believe?
	What do any of them really believe?
	They believe in the illusion that is necessary for them to believe in to maintain the roles that they play in this system.
	But you don't have to believe in it anymore.
	I don't have to believe in it.
	If you're old enough to remember the vehement damnation that they applied to Dick Cheney, much of it deserved, I can still instantaneously call up that dude in the cowboy hat going, man, now listen, that Trump's motherfucker.
	You know, there they all are.
	There they all are.
	If ever there was a person that seemed to have made a deal with Mephistopheles, it were Cheney, the architect behind the hated George W. Bush's administration.
	Well, if all that is up for reconsideration, why would you believe a single thing they're telling you right now?
	Is Rachel Maddow going to turn up at the funeral of Donald Trump?
	Who knows?
	Maybe, because it would have been inconceivable, I'm telling you, equally inconceivable that she would attend Dick Cheney's.
	And there she is.
	I'm not condemning Rachel Madow, nor am I condemning Dick Cheney, nor am I condemning Donald Trump, nor am I condemning anyone because guess what?
	I'm not in a position to judge anyone and neither is anyone else.
	That's why you need a God.
	Otherwise, your justice is not based on supreme principle, but the arbitrary churn of human reason when applied to whatever they happen to want that day.
	It's good that we hate Dick Cheney today.
	Let's hate Dick Cheney.
	We don't need to hate Dick Cheney anymore.
	Let's go to his funeral.
	It's absolute bollocks.
	Wake the fuck up.
	Terms like left, right, fascist and communist no longer describe ideology.
	They're weapons of control deployed to manage perception and constrain thought.
	Even the term terrorist has lost its force.
	Donald Trump welcomed Syrian leader Ahmed Al-Sharra to the White House just days after he was officially listed as a specially designated global terrorist.
	They're the worst kind!
	Going so far to gift him a bottle of his cologne and playfully spraying it on the former jihadist with ties to al-Qaeda.
	This is men's, men's fragrance, yeah, it's the best fragrance.
	Come here, thanks for all.
	I have no here, sir.
	It's the audacity of Trump really that defines him.
	The fact that in plain sight he will promote products and baseball cards and stuff like that.
	I will say this.
	I've been wrong a lot about, gosh, almost everything and wrong a lot about Trump in particular.
	But the one thing I identified pretty early on is that he was explicitly what other people were implicitly.
	Probably Dave Chappelle said it better and funnier in his SNL monologue when he said he's doing out in the open what people have always suspected politicians did.
	My own version of it was almost like a sort of a gargoyle.
	Like here you are now confronted with the reality of it.
	Now, as you know, if you watch this show a lot, that I find Trump pretty enjoyable in terms of his public persona, his rhetoric, even his just his sort of manner and way.
	I feel like I'd find it amusing to spend time with someone that in particular, the example I always think of is at that UN speech talking continually about not getting the contract to build that building or just having the time to be personal at times of such global crisis.
	I find it kind of recognizable.
	But in a way, Trump is also the apex.
	This is as far as you can go down this road, I think, without coming off the edge of the world.
	That's probably what most of us can agree on, whether we like Trump or not.
	Let me know what you think about that in the comments and chat.
	Do you want to support me?
	No, I don't.
	Yes, you do.
	Support me and support Rumble Premium.
	You won't only be supporting me.
	You'll get additional access to Mug Club, that's Crowder's Gig, Tim Cuss, that's Tim Paul's racket, and Glenn Greenwald's additional content.
	Join us on Rumble Premium.
	We make content every single week through Rumble because Rumble supports free speech.
	When I was under attack from the British government and the British media, Rumble stood firm.
	Yes, of course, there's crazy people on Rumble.
	There's crazy people everywhere.
	There's a crazy person living under this hat.
	That doesn't mean we shouldn't have the right to speak freely together.
	By supporting Rumble Premium, you're supporting me and content creators like me.
	You get additional content and what I will say even more, drink down deep on the delicious irony in this one.
	You get an ad-free experience.
	If you want an ad-free experience of Rumble, get Rumble Premium.
	In the meantime, stay free.
	We can't make this content without the support of our partners.
	Here's a message from one now.
	The public is trying to respond with outrage and loyalty, while the reality behind the labels remains hidden.
	Shifting with convenience, it seems.
	George Carlin's warnings about it being a big club that we ain't in feel eerily prophetic.
	The elite manufacture conflict and choice, funneling society into predictable channels while the mechanisms of power operate unchecked, obscured, and nearly untouchable.
	Into this controlled theater steps Madame Marjorie Taylor Greene.
	Her resignation from Congress, coupled with an apology for her role in toxic politics, disrupts the expected script.
	In an era where political actors are rewarded for loyalty to spectacle and ideological signaling, Green's choice to step aside and acknowledge her complicity is striking, almost unnerving.
	You posted on X that President Trump is, with his comments, fueling a quote, hotbed of threats against you.
	Obviously, any threats to your safety are completely unacceptable.
	But we have seen these kinds of attacks or criticism from the president at other people.
	It's not new.
	And with respect, I haven't heard you speak out about it until it was directed at you.
	Dana, I think that's fair criticism.
	And I would like to say humbly, I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics.
	It's very bad for our country.
	And it's been something I've thought about a lot, especially since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, is that I'm only responsible for myself and my own words and actions.
	And I am committed, and I've been working on this a lot lately to put down the knives in politics.
	I really just want to see people be kind to one another.
	And we need to figure out a new path forward that is focused on the American people.
	Because as Americans, no matter what side of the aisle we're on, we have far more in common than we have differences.
	And we need to be able to respect each other with our disagreements.
	So just to put a button on this, you regret the things that you have said and posted in the past.
	The Facebook post that was taken down of you in 2020 holding a gun alongside the squad, encouraging people to go on the offense against the socialists, liking a tweet of somebody calling for the execution of Nancy Pelosi and former President Obama.
	Just examples.
	Well, Dana, as you know and many people know, I addressed that back in 2021.
	And of course, I never want to cause any harm or anything bad for anyone.
	So that was addressed back then.
	And I very much stand by my words.
	I said then, and I stand by my words today.
	I think America needs to come together and end all the toxic, dangerous rhetoric and divide.
	And I'm leading the way with my own example.
	And I hope that President Trump can do the same.
	Hey, see, I met her, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a couple of times.
	And I wonder if you're able to do this.
	Look at the face of Marjorie Taylor Greene and the face of the lady Dana.
	And you can sort of see in Marjorie Taylor Greene the truth of who she is.
	She's a woman.
	She's like a real woman, a real earth person.
	And the lady done, of course, she's a human being as well.
	But you can see in the kind of slightly more scene pinchedness of her expression that she's still in the constraints.
	What Marjorie Taylor Green has done is thrown off, at least temporarily, and I pray that it has the impact that such action warrants, the shackles and imposition that many people feel when they operate within those spheres.
	And like when I met Marjorie Taylor Greene, it was at the RNC convention in Milwaukee, and I felt like, oh man, she's cool.
	And I've just seen her being attacked by a bunch of people and criticized.
	And people don't like earthness.
	The people have become these sort of peculiar parasitic puppets.
	And they don't like people that have got kind of cojones.
	Trump's got them.
	She's got them.
	Don't mean they're perfect.
	And it certainly doesn't mean the system isn't generating total corruption and mayhem and madness.
	And in fact, can only do that.
	But, you know, it's cool that she's taken that stand.
	Please God, it will have a positive impact.
	Her recent positions challenging U.S. funding of foreign wars, speaking against the devastation in Gaza, pressing for Epstein files while standing alongside alleged victims, suggests she is rejecting the performative confines imposed on both left and right.
	By stepping away from the stage entirely, she hints at something more dangerous to the system than mere dissent.
	The possibility of autonomy, of moving beyond the constructed narratives that keep the masses obedient.
	History offers stark parallels.
	Muhammad Ali sacrificed everything to refuse the Vietnam draft, defying a system prepared to crush him for the sake of conscience.
	I ain't got no beef with a Viet Cong is a phrase I still think of regularly to remind us that just because you're told something so, you don't have to accept it.
	My culture won't let me go shoot my brother or some darker people or some poor hungry people in the mud for big powerful America and shoot them for what?
	They never call me nigga.
	They never lynch me.
	They didn't put no dogs on me.
	They didn't rob me of my nationality.
	Rape and kill my mother and father.
	Well, I'm going to shoot them for what?
	How can I go shoot them?
	Them little pool of black people, little babies and children, women.
	How can I shoot them poor people?
	Just take me to jail.
	Ali more than held his own against students who had a far better formal education than he.
	I'm saying you're talking about me about some draft and all of you white boys are breaking your neck to get to Switzerland and Canada and London.
	I'm not going to help nobody get something my Negroes don't have.
	If I'm going to die, I'll die now right here fighting you.
	Oh my God.
	I fucking love him.
	I love him.
	That's greatness.
	That's true greatness.
	The truly great are mystics in so much as they operate in the present.
	They operate in the present.
	Muhammad Ali, as he demonstrated, become a great boxer, but he could have become almost a great anything.
	I suppose, like that other more contemporaneous great athlete, Michael Jordan, you get the idea that guy could have just sort of done anything.
	And I suppose why it's doubly exciting with Muhammad Ali is he stepped in to the public arena and was willing here right now fighting you.
	What are you gonna say?
	Come on then.
	Let's go.
	My God.
	If I'm gonna die, you my enemy.
	My enemies are white people, not Vietnam, Chinese, or Japanese.
	I mean, you my opposite when I want freedom.
	You my opposer when I want justice.
	You my opponents when I want equality.
	You won't even stand up for me in a hurry for my religious beliefs.
	And you want me to go somewhere and fight, but you won't even stand up for me here at home.
	In a way, what Muhammad Ali demonstrated there, although it might be difficult and uncomfortable to hear some of the racialized language and a racialized dispute broadcast in that way, was demonstrated the qualities of heroism which are inseparable from the qualities of Christianity, i.e. willing to die for what you believe in.
	He did go to jail.
	He has that conversation live, present with an opponent, someone criticizing him.
	He's willing to stand up in front of people he disagrees with and confront them with the truth of who he is.
	And the truth is that we're all capable of that.
	You're capable of it.
	I'm capable of it.
	And when you see Muhammad Ali doing it, you remember.
	You're reminded, hold on, we can be glorious.
	How have I allowed myself to be thresholded and curtailed by the low ceilings of a lowly culture?
	Malcolm X returned from Mecca transformed, breaking with rigid ideologies that previously defined him.
	And this is what I had to become aware of on my pilgrimage to Mecca.
	I could see then that there are many white people in this country who will side with the Negro in whatever he has to do to protect himself.
	But that's a considerable change of opinion in Malcolm X.
	No, today I'm speaking for myself.
	Formerly, I spoke for Elijah Muhammad.
	And everything I said was, Elijah Muhammad teaches us thus and so.
	I'm speaking now from what I think, from what I have seen, from what I have analyzed and the conclusions that I have reached.
	Then the white man is no longer the devil and he is no longer bound to be evil.
	If I judge a man by his conscious behavior, I am not a racist.
	I don't subscribe to any of the tenets of racism.
	Then there are good whites and good blacks and bad whites and blacks.
	It's not a case of being good and bad, good or bad, blacks and whites.
	It's a case of being good or bad human beings.
	When you watch Muhammad Ali and Malcolm X, it's striking that this country has chosen to follow the wrong leaders and to follow the wrong ideas.
	That we had a chance.
	We had a chance then to support brilliant people, brilliant men of a variety of hues and shades, whether it was the Kennedys or these men.
	And to recognize that it's that, you know, Malcolm X ain't perfect.
	You know, we all know that he had a pretty crazy past.
	Muhammad Ali's not perfect.
	Crazy past.
	Robert Kennedy and John Kennedy were not perfect men.
	All of them, actually, it seems like there was pretty, you know, some interesting appetites went on with those guys.
	But what we've replaced greatness with is a kind of mass-marketed mediocrity, a kind of a deliberate bureaucratized kind of ordinariness, ordinariness.
	If you kill the great people, I don't know what you're going to get as a society.
	Bobby Kennedy, Sr., after the murder of his brother, recalibrated toward a moral clarity that made political calculation secondary.
	The whole question of whether we are lowering the barriers with communism and on one side of the world and we're signing a proliferation treaty of control of atomic weapons in one part of the world and in another part of the world we're killing people because they're common.
	Sounds inconsistent and it is inconsistent.
	Or the whole question of, for instance, of drug.
	We commit math.
	Cigarettes which kill far more people every year than marijuana, for instance.
	That's right.
	It's been available.
	The information is available.
	Who are the people, systems, and interests that prevent the information from reaching us and being popularized?
	Let me know in the comments and chat.
	And then we're going to have to do it.
	There is tremendous economic power behind those people and so that we don't pass laws to deal with that even though our Department of Health has said that they're so dangerous.
	Kill what 350,000 people a year.
	Although there is this great wealth that I talked about and yet there's great poverty.
	There are speeches made about the fact we're going to treat everybody equally and yet we don't treat everybody equally.
	There's talks given and pronouncements made and laws written that everybody's going to have an opportunity to have a job and have decent housing.
	And yet 43% of the people that live in the city of New York and live in this city live in dilapidated and rundown housing and are bitten by rats.
	17,000 people bitten by rats and the poverty in rural areas is worse.
	So if we weren't sanctimonious about it, if we weren't hypocritical about it, and we didn't perhaps tell untruths about ourselves, then I think that's and safe stuff to reality.
	Then I think our country would be much better off and our people would have much more confidence in those of us who are public officials and in our government as a whole.
	These moments share a common thread, the individual breaking free from imposed scripts, refusing to play the role assigned by power structures.
	Green's move echoes that dangerous impulse, but in the hyper-mediated post-ideological terrain of modern politics, such departures are rarer and more destabilizing than ever.
	The modern moment amplifies the threat of such awakenings.
	Political labels are no longer merely slippery.
	They're instruments of conditioning, shaping not just what people think, but how they experience reality.
	The public consumes outrage as if it were sustenance, reinforcing the system's boundaries while the elite manipulate outcomes with impunity.
	Greens, stepping outside that system, is akin to the red pill in the matrix, a confrontation with the hidden forces of control, a refusal to participate in the illusion, a destabilization of narrative.
	In a world where obedience is rewarded and insight punished, such departures carry ominous potential.
	They remind us that the machinery is not only pervasive, it is fragile if challenged from within.
	The broader implications are chilling.
	When politicians repeatedly betray ideological consistency and when the media amplifies conflict while concealing collaboration, society becomes a conditioned population responding to labels and narratives rather than reality itself.
	Yeah, moments like Green's resignation expose the cracks, the possibility that individuals may choose awareness over compliance, conscience over spectacle, the labels, the outrage, the carefully maintained divisions.
	All of it, all of it, absolutely all of it relies on widespread submission.
	Once that submission follows, the entire architecture of control becomes vulnerable.
	The danger for the ruling class is not opposition that mirrors the status quo, but a single actor stepping beyond the script, refusing to obey and inviting the public to question the illusions they've been fed.
	And this is an opportunity we can all share in.
	Like Marjorie Taylor Green, we can all resign from whatever role we're supposed to be playing.
	I've resigned from mine many, many times.
	Many times I've been here before.
	Now, who do we belong to?
	We belong to a source of power way beyond their malleable systems of total control.
	We can be direct agents to the principle of God rather than controlled by the ever-changing vicissitudes of a culture that has no moral moorings.
	This is the ominous question the moment poses.
	If ideological labels no longer map to reality, if political actors can flip between fascist and communist accusations at will, and if even the most extreme partisans can apologize and disengage, then who truly controls the narrative?
	The warning's clear.
	Society teeters between conditioning and consciousness, and those who step outside the controlled story threaten the system built on obedience, hypocrisy, and the illusion of choice.
	Green's resignation is not merely a personal recalibration, it's a tremor in the foundations of managed reality, a hint that the cage might one day be opened and that the public might glimpse the mechanisms that have long shaped their perceptions and constrained their minds.
	Or to use a metaphor from classic Greek literature and philosophy, we are turning at last and facing the light.
	No longer content to look at the silhouettes and shadows cast by a machine of total control.
	The reality of God is accessible to all of us and more and more people are awakening to that truth.
	At least that's what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
	A who's who of the nation's political elite gathered for Dick Cheney's funeral.
	Former Presidents George W. Bush and Joe Biden with their first ladies Laura and Dr. Jill.
	And former Vice Presidents Al Gore, Dan Quayle, Kamala Harris and Mike Pence.
	Fitting in a way that a funeral is the venue for dropping the bullshit because the bullshit is not just the political system, it's the BS we all engage in when we prefer a persona over reality.
	Indeed, the very word persona, the etymology of the word personality, suggests and indeed means a mask.
	Only temporarily is this your identity.
	Your true identity is in God.
	If you ever had a moment of peace, if you ever had a moment of prayer, then you might experience that as I have done.
	You might experience the truth that I have been granted.
	You have to attend, in a sense, your own funeral, the funeral of Russell Brand, the funeral of whoever you are, to awaken to the truth within you.
	For surely you will be attending those funerals.
	Not your own, of course, you'll be in a box for that.
	But hopefully one day by the glory of God and through the sacrifice of Christ, you may be resurrected.
	Certainly what awaits you is the death of everyone you love.
	We all know that, and yet we keep it at arm's length.
	And perhaps the death of your dreams, the death of your beliefs, the death of your artificial stimulants that holds you together and make you a participant in this illusion.
	Will you resign?
	Can you resign?
	Let's have a look at some of the other shifting sands.
	I think he's terrible.
	He's a communist.
	The last thing we need is a communist.
	I said there will never be socialism in the United States.
	Joey McConaughey and stuff.
	I think he's central.
	I mean, isn't it irrelevant?
	Can the mayor of New York meaningfully create a socialist communist state within New York?
	What power does he have?
	What levers does he have access to?
	The simple truth is this.
	Until we recognize the incredible potential of this very technology, we're going to rattle around in these ridiculous paradoxes and this stupid mudslinging.
	What you could have is empowered city-states made up of boroughs, each of those boroughs run by councils, representative democracy reduced to the minimum possible level, and direct democracy increased to the maximum possible level.
	That would mean participatory democracies and referenda in a city like New York or London.
	If I were the mayor of London, that's exactly how I'd run it.
	Referenda.
	I would tell people plainly, this is what the Mayor of London can do.
	The Mayor of London is in control of transport, to a degree, the Metropolitan Police Force, and to a degree, property planning.
	This is what I suggest, and here are our referenda.
	We're going to vote on all of these, and we are going to use the results of these referenda to direct policy.
	You might be wrong, but you'll be wrong yourself.
	We'll do our best to persuade you of our agenda, but we will accept that maybe you will not want to pursue that agenda.
	That can be the new politics that replaces this senseless, juvenile, yet somehow senile, mudslinging politics.
	How long do you want to engage in it?
	It doesn't matter if you're left or right, because as we've told you, them labels don't mean anything anymore.
	Start using N-word, racist, rapist, all these words, just tossed around as weapons to disable, smear, or impede any relevant voices.
	Let me know what you think about that in the comments and chat.
	And I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with him watching him because he has to come right in his jumbling.
	See, yet it's funny.
	Don't worry, he's not going to run away with anything.
	I think he's, frankly, I've heard he's a total nutshop.
	I think the people of the New York are crazy because they go this route.
	I think they're crazy.
	We will have a communist in the, for the first time, really, a pure, true communist.
	He wants to operate the grocery stores, the department stores.
	What about the people that are there?
	I think it's crazy.
	And Mamdani says of him.
	Clarify your answer to Stephen Nelson.
	Mamdani, you might want to review the genital clutch.
	Stephen Nelson, he asked about your comment called the president a fascist.
	And your answer was, both President Trump and I have been clear about our positions and our views.
	We can't stay on YouTube.
	We're off.
	See you later.
	Are you affirming that you think President Trump is a fascist?
	I've spoken about it.
	It's interesting, isn't it?
	Even Trump, with all of his robustness and all of his bellicosity and all of his personal groundedness and interpersonal authority, still deploys very unusual body language when dealing with something that's socially awkward.
	That's okay.
	That's okay.
	You could just say it.
	It's very un-Trump, that wrist, isn't it?
	And look at our man Mamdani there clutching away at his genitalia, putting essentially a manual cod piece over his vulnerability, you'd have to say.
	Now, you might see that as cod psychology, but I'd see that as a manual cod piece over his genitalia.
	And the fact is, is that they're just two human beings saying what they have to say in order to facilitate their function in a very narrow and increasingly ephemeral public space.
	What I mean by that is this vapor is floating away and there is a great revelation coming.
	Okay.
	It's easier.
	It's easier than explaining it.
	Now, when not trapped in the embarrassing dynamic of personal proximity, what does he say?
	At a press conference with President Trump, a reporter asked you whether you believe that President Trump is in fact a fascist, a word that you've used in the past.
	You were about to answer.
	Then President Trump sort of jumped in and he said, quote, that's okay.
	You can just say yes.
	It's easier than explaining it.
	So, Mr. Mayor-elect, just to be very clear, do you think that President Trump is a fascist?
	And after President Trump said that, I said yes.
	So you do.
	And that's something that I've said in the past.
	I say it today.
	And I think what I appreciated about the conversation that I had with the president was that we were not shy about the places of disagreement about the politics that has brought us to this moment.
	And we also wanted to focus on what it could look like to deliver on a shared analysis of an affordability crisis for New Yorkers.
	So what does fascist actually mean then?
	Fascist literally means a bundle of weak things tied together to make them strong, which is a pretty good thing.
	It doesn't really mean that though, does it?
	It means Mussolini and it means Hitler and it means baddie.
	It means evil.
	It's a synonym for evil.
	While in fact, etymologically and actually, what it means is if you bind together many weak things, they become strong.
	So fascist actually is a pretty good thing.
	And where fascism comes from is if you want to challenge centralized global forces, the people have to come together.
	It's not dissimilar to socialism in its goals.
	And that, again, is why I believe that Christ is the answer.
	Because the problem is, is whether it's a fascistic model or a socialistic model, if it's human beings that are operating the levers, it will become diabolical.
	I mean that literally.
	It will become split, dualistic, Luciferian, satanic.
	The dark forces, whether you want to see them as supernatural or natural, I don't care anymore, will ultimately take command.
	The only way out of that is to make a deep commitment to be willing to die for what you believe in.
	Once you've made that, then you're cool.
	Syria's ex-jihadist president, now Donald Trump's new bestie.
	He was a jihadist with Tim Million Bounty.
	Now Trump is welcoming him to the White House.
	But, you know, what was Fidel Castro before he became president of Cuba?
	What would George Washington have been if the British had won the War of Independence?
	He'd have been a traitor and a terrorist.
	So in a sense, these terms have always been somewhat mobile.
	The challenge is now that we're confronted with this at a pace that we can't contend with.
	I was about to say we can't put Marjorie Taylor Greene in the same category as Muhammad Ali, Robert Kennedy, or Malcolm X, such verifiably great men, but perhaps we can.
	Perhaps all of us.
	Maybe Rachel Maddow could yet still be great.
	Maybe Mamdani can be great.
	Maybe America can be great again.
	But if America is going to be great again, the greatness will be to acknowledge the greatness of the individuals within America and the potential collective greatness that that may lead to.
	And that can't be brought about through systems of inoculation and castration.
	We must revere and honor and love greatness as a reflection of the God that's within each of us.
	Look at how Malcolm X changed.
	Look at how Muhammad Ali changed.
	Look at how Marjorie Taylor Green has changed.
	If we're going to say, oh, there are no great people.
	What do you think?
	Do you think there's something in the water?
	Maybe there is something in the water.
	You think great people aren't being born today?
	You think that great people don't move among us?
	You think greatness isn't in you?
	That's what they've done.
	That's the great trick that they've enacted.
	Oh, that can't be done anymore.
	That's over.
	It ain't over.
	We forbid it.
	The glory is yet to come.
	Our great achievements are yet undone.
	You will do greater deeds than me, said Jesus Christ.
	And impressive, though Muhammad Ali no doubt is, and Malcolm X was.
	And no doubt how impressive it is what Marjorie Taylor Green has been willing to do and say.
	There is a greatness that is coming and you must participate in it with me.
	But that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
	Candice Owen claims the Macrons orchestrated an assassination plot against her.
	Public trust in authority is collapsing.
	With accusations once dismissed as unthinkable gaining traction, what does it mean when so many people no longer believe the government's version of events?
	And why should we?
	Candice Owen's claim that Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron orchestrated an assassination plot against her, now echoed by Telegram CEO Pavel Durov and Tucker Carlson's allegation that the FBI is hiding crucial information about the attempted assassin of Donald Trump.
	These allegations and claims have been ridiculed by the establishment, of course, as hysterical fabrications.
	These are videos the FBI has worked hard to make sure you haven't seen.
	They're from the Google Drive account of Thomas Crooks, the man who on July 13th, 2024, showed up at the Butler County, Pennsylvania fairgrounds and tried to assassinate the frontrunner, Donald Trump.
	And look what happened to our country.
	That day, Thomas Crooks came within a quarter inch of destroying this country.
	And yet, a year and a half later, we still know almost nothing about him or why he did it.
	That's because for some reason, the FBI, even the current FBI, doesn't want us to know.
	Since the start of their investigation, the FBI has claimed that Thomas Crooks acted alone and that he was a virtual ghost online with no presence at all.
	Their only substantive claim about Crooks' motive was that he was a right-winger.
	We learned that from FBI Deputy Director Paula Bate, who said this to Congress just one month after the attempted assassination.
	Something just very recently uncovered that I want to share is a social media account which is believed to be associated with the shooter in about the 2019-2020 timeframe.
	There were over 700 comments posted from this account.
	Some of these comments, if ultimately attributable to the shooter, appear to reflect anti-Semitic and anti-immigration themes to espouse political violence and are described as extreme in nature.
	The social media account Abate was describing was Crooks' YouTube comments.
	When the FBI made that claim, we had to take his word for it.
	We have no way to check.
	But now we do.
	In September, we obtained hundreds of comments from Thomas Crookes' YouTube account.
	Since then, we've gone to great lengths to verify that they're real.
	We can now confidently say they are.
	These are genuine, written by Thomas Crookes.
	But although Crooks's comments are interesting and give tremendous insight into why he did it, they're not the only story.
	The other story, in fact, the far more significant story, involves the government, the DOJ, and the FBI, which have hidden from the public what they know about Thomas Crookes.
	The purpose of this report is to reveal details of Crooks' social media accounts and to confront a series of key questions.
	Why is the FBI keeping Crooks' views a secret?
	Why are they ignoring congressional subpoenas to divulge information?
	Why are they pretending that there's nothing to see here?
	And more than anything, what are they hiding?
	Yet the speed with which these claims spread and the intensity of public attention that they attract reveal something deeper and far more ominous than the claims themselves.
	It reflects a growing widespread belief that government institutions, intelligence services, and security agencies have forfeited the moral authority required to be taken at face value.
	If you ask me, this process began in the 1960s when mass media brought to public attention brilliant countercultural voices like James Baldwin, Malcolm X, Muhammad Ali, and even had people in significant positions of power like the Kennedys who were willing to take unusual stances.
	These institutions are now met not with public trust but with suspicion.
	A growing portion of the public no longer assumes that official explanations are true.
	They assume that something is being hidden.
	Whether or not you believe Candice Owens' story of an international hit squad or Carlson's warnings of an FBI suppression, the instinct to question power has become a rational survival strategy in a political culture built on secrecy, manipulation, and documented historical crimes.
	Simple truth is this.
	Charlie Kirk is dead now.
	What on earth happened there?
	Do you want to believe another lone gunman story like the lone gunman that killed the Kennedys, like the lone gunman that killed Malcolm X, like the lone gunman that killed Martin Luther King?
	Or do you want to investigate the potential that perhaps something unusual is happening?
	I don't claim to have any answers.
	I'm not even sure what the right questions are other than qui bono, who benefits, who benefits.
	And probably your belief about who conducted these murders or assassinations is an indication of the kind of information that you've consumed and where you locate evil.
	And, you know, that's why ultimately we're going to need a supernatural story because it's beyond what we can comprehend.
	This distrust is not rooted in fantasy.
	It's rooted in the undeniable record of the last 70 years.
	In 1953, the CIA helped engineer the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohamed Mostai, by bribing officials, planting propaganda, and staging violence to justify the return of a monarch more compliant with Western oil interests.
	It's actually been an open secret for decades, but for the first time now, the CIA has released documents that show its role in the 1953 coup.
	That is the coup that toppled Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, had moved to nationalize oil production in Iran.
	Well, the U.S. was concerned at the time that that would mean a victory for the Soviets in the Cold War.
	So shortly after his election, the CIA began to plan his overthrow, teaming up with Britain's MI6.
	Now, the CIA, we've seen it spelling out its involvement in a series of newly declassified documents.
	These are the actual documents marked confidential, top secret, eyes only.
	It's the stuff of crime and mystery and spy novels.
	This one talks about the security implications of CIA letters of commendation for those who served in that operation codenamed TP Ajax.
	And this one, dated July 22nd, 1953, almost a month before the coup, it talks about preparing an official American statement to follow a successful coup.
	So let's dig deeper into this story.
	We're joined now by Middle East analyst Robin Wright.
	She's in from Washington.
	Robin, this is an event that the Iranians still talk about 60 years later with surprising frequency.
	What have you learned from these documents that you got to get a look at?
	Well, I've written about this episode in three different books.
	So this is, as you point out, not something new, but the fact is the United States has finally openly provided the documents and details.
	And it talks about how this was approved at the highest levels of government.
	It details the amount of money that went into buying currying favor among the various sectors of Iranian society.
	And it points out how important this really was.
	Little did the CIA understand that this would have extraordinary repercussions 25 years later.
	And, you know, one of the things that's fascinating is like it is an open secret.
	This is something that we've heard from former Secretary of State Malin Albright, President Obama as well.
	Both of them referring to this as this cooperation that happened.
	But the first time that the CIA has really acknowledged its role in this, do you think there's going to be any kind of shift or a change or a way that the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, can open up a new dialogue with the United States?
	Well, the release of these documents were as a result of a Freedom of Information inquiry.
	So this was not something that the United States voluntarily provided, but it does come at a very curious or interesting time because Iran has a new president who's talked about moderation and trying to engage in really serious dialogue with the outside world, the world's six major powers, and even hinted at direct talks with the United States.
	And it's very interesting how this release of documents is playing in Tehran.
	The fact that the United States has acknowledged it, openly, put it out there on the table may actually help both sides get beyond it.
	The United States has formally apologized for it in the past, but in vague terms.
	Now the details are known and kind of fessing up may change the atmospherics at least.
	And Robin, you know, this case perhaps explains to some Americans, to some of us, why are in the Middle East, in countries like Iran, some of the public opinion is so mixed and negative really when it comes to the U.S. We're still feeling the after effects of that coup, which was carried out at the height of the Cold War to this very day, right?
	Absolutely.
	It did lead to the abortion of the evolutionary political process led to a revolutionary process 25 years later, for which the United States is still trying to recoup.
	Iran had been one of the two pillars of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and this was a tremendous loss, not just because it's an oil-producing country.
	It has very valuable geostrategic consequences.
	And this is a moment that turned everything, two very close allies against each other.
	And this is a moment that these documents kind of illustrate the consequences of opting for stability over democratic values, which resonates in terms of what's happening in Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere in the Middle East today.
	The American public did not learn the full truth for decades because the government lied about it, denied involvement, and destroyed records.
	That same pattern of covert manipulation defined entire generations of intelligence work.
	MK Ultra used citizens as unsuspecting test subjects for mind-altering experiments.
	CIA honey traps operations target diplomats, dissidents, and politicians for sexual blackmail.
	The public was told none of this until whistleblowers and congressional investigators forced the truth into daylight.
	Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to a major circulation, American journal?
	We do have people who submit pieces to other, to American journals.
	Do you have any people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks?
	This, I think, gets into the kind of getting into the details, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to get into in an executive session.
	At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA.
	As a matter of fact, by the time I became the head of the whole news and public affairs operation in 1954, the ships had been established, and I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them.
	Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?
	Well, again, I think we're getting into the kind of detail, Mr. Chairman, that I'd prefer to handle in an executive session.
	Senator, do you think that you named the new organization's new final report?
	That remains to be decided.
	I think it was entirely in order for our correspondents at that time to make use of CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions.
	Would you say that continues today?
	Well, I would think probably for a reporter it would continue today, but because of all of the revelations of the period of the 1970s, it seems to me that a reporter's got to be much more circumspect in doing it now, or he runs the risk of at least being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public.
	I think you've got to be much more careful about it.
	By 1975, the situation was so dire that the church committee hearings revealed a catalog of abuses, domestic spying, infiltration of civil rights groups, mail interception, illegal wiretapping, and covert operations designed to manipulate public opinion.
	These were not fringe theories.
	These were sworn testimonies backed by documents that agencies fought to keep secret.
	Every revelation proved that institutions built for national security were willing to violate the rights of citizens, subvert democratic accountability and lie until caught.
	Trust died not because people were paranoid, but because government agencies had proven they could not be believed.
	The lingering doubts around the JFK assassination only reinforced the pattern.
	Official investigations contradicted each other, witnesses were ignored and key records remained classified long past the time when disclosures should have been automatic.
	Even today, Partial releases arrive with redactions that raise more questions than they answer.
	In this environment, scepticism is not an ideological choice anymore.
	It's a logical response to the government's long tradition of secrecy and self-preservation.
	The same dynamic plays out now in public reactions to establishment figures who demand unquestioning loyalty to official narratives.
	When individuals like Pam Bondi and Kash Patel present conflicting public statements about what they knew regarding Jeffrey Epstein, even as the FBI under Donald Trump promised the new transparency, people notice the inconsistencies.
	They notice the selective disclosure.
	They notice what is never explained and they draw the only conclusion that fits the pattern.
	The institutions claiming to protect the public are capable of hiding the truth when it suits them, which seems more often than not these days.
	This is the context into which Candice Owens and Tucker Carlson's claims come.
	Whether or not their specific statements are accurate matters less than the cultural function they perform.
	They remind us, the public, to think independently, to interrogate official accounts, to follow evidence rather than authority, and to understand that historical precedent justifies suspicion.
	Independent media figures may get things wrong, but they serve a purpose that government institutions resent.
	They disrupt the expectation of obedience.
	They ask questions those in power would prefer remain unasked.
	They force attention onto the details authorities would rather bury.
	Think for a moment about Muhammad Ali's brave stance when the Vietnam draft came through.
	Imagine them trying to contain Muhammad Ali now.
	Imagine them imprisoning Muhammad Ali now.
	The lesson is not that every accusation against the government is true, nor that skepticism must always curdle into belief.
	The lesson is that citizens cannot afford to accept government claims at face value because history shows that those claims are often incomplete, misleading or intentionally false.
	Trust has to be earned and these institutions have failed to earn it.
	The prudent path forward is radical change.
	These institutions have broken our trust and they themselves are broken.
	We can never again trust that the official line is the real story.
	Don't assume the release of partial information is the same as transparency.
	Do not outsource your judgment to agencies that repeatedly abuse the power they wield.
	In this age of institutional decay and public deception, independent thought is not a political virtue, it's a civic necessity.
	And the contemplation and mental interrogation that we conduct individually is likely to lead to radical collegiate change.
	Why do we need these institutions?
	Why do we need this degree of centralized authority?
	Is it not possible now to have forms of direct democracy that reflect the technology that we have and the corruption that we face?
	Yes is the obvious answer, but that's just what I think.
	Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
	As corporations push fake food on their customers and COVID inquiries deliver predictable reports while telling the public that ever tight controls, drills and behavioural conditioning are for our own good, how much of this is really preparation for safety?
	And how much of it is preparation for something far darker?
	In the face of a novel and deadly virus spreading rapidly around the country.
	Did you ever go visit that dumb wall opposite the houses of parliament where hearts were put up to commemorate dead relatives?
	Didn't you see already that that was an attempt at create in a kind of apparently organic piece of folk culture?
	What absolute bullshit we've been subject to throughout this pandemic period?
	There is nothing they will not do to control you.
	Have you seen Keir Starmer weeping about the wedding and apparent beating of his gay niece?
	There's nothing they won't say or claim in order to convince you that they're human beings with human feelings.
	I pray that Keir Starmer's niece and her partner are happy and I pray that they were not publicly beaten.
	And I pray that we're able to traverse through this weird, peculiar time where even personal anecdotes are subject to such cynicism because we know what Keir Starmer's about.
	We know what Kierstama's aims are.
	Maybe he doesn't even know it, I sometimes think.
	In the same way that I know that potentially good journalists deceptively wrote untrue stories about me, I suspect that even higher-ups don't know what they're participating in.
	The alternative is they're lying and they know that they're lying and they know that we know that they're lying and yet the lying continues.
	Possibly they're all caught up in some amdram sham where they believe what they're saying.
	They believe that they're helping us.
	Look at this Baroness telling you now that this Operation Pegasus is here to help us or that the pandemic was too little too late.
	Come on now, man.
	Think of the funerals you missed.
	Think of the births that you missed.
	Think of the church services you missed.
	The parties that you missed.
	It was all a complete sham.
	Politicians and administrators in the UK government and the devolved administrations were presented with unenviable choices.
	Whatever decision they took, there was often no right answer or good outcome.
	They also had to make decisions in conditions of extreme pressure and initially without access to data or a full understanding of the epidemiological position.
	Watch what they're saying now, even in this carefully managed piece of propaganda, and try to avoid the conclusion that I'm about to offer you.
	Well, if you are unable to do your job of protecting the public and managing crisis, how about you stop playing that role, decentralize power, absolutely, incorporate direct democracy and respect the individual sovereignty of all of us.
	Allow us to be who we are.
	Allow us to control our own communities, our own community budgets, and make decisions like, hey, this is the information.
	We're probably going to stay indoors.
	You guys can stay indoors if you want.
	That's our recommendation.
	But we'll understand if you want to go a different route.
	Particularly if you remember, like I do, that they were having parties the whole way through it.
	Now, not only is that kind of galling in a sort of visceral way, I suppose, it's also an indication that they themselves weren't scared.
	Why is that?
	They knew.
	They knew that it weren't that bad for you.
	That COVID only kills people that are going to die anyway.
	I mean, obviously, that's a category that we're all in, but it's only really dangerous if you have a bunch of comorbidities and you're not very well.
	What they should have been telling you is if you're healthy and young, crack on this vaccine.
	It doesn't even stop transmission.
	If you are an old, vulnerable person, my God, maybe try this vaccine.
	But I've got to tell you, every time I hear about a heart attack or a stroke, my first question is, I suppose don't even ask it because I know the answer.
	Did you take it?
	How many did you take?
	To assess what was reasonable, one must therefore put the decisions into proper context.
	Nonetheless, I can summarize my findings of the response as too little, too late.
	Isn't that amazing that the conclusion that's being drawn is we need to be more authoritative and we need more control.
	We should have locked down earlier and locked down more aggressively.
	No, this is the conclusion.
	You lot don't know what you're doing.
	How could you?
	You're just human beings.
	You're flawed.
	You'll use reason to pursue your own agenda, whether you know you're doing that or not.
	Devolve power wherever possible, except as to where it pertains to foreign external threats and stop creating external foreign threats to legitimise ongoing power, whether it's military threats or health threats.
	Look at what they're doing.
	How are they incentivized to stop crisis when crisis has become their primary tool for management and when crisis isn't a crisis for them, but opportunity?
	When we live in different tiers where the executives at Campbell's can say these disgusting peasants can eat our filthy vile soup and kind of get away with it.
	What does it matter?
	Sack that guy.
	What needs to change is you need a culture where people don't bleed and well eat Campbell's soup anymore because we eat food that's been grown by us where we live.
	Indeed, we must now, in a sense, not reverse the glorious revolutions of agriculture and technology, but deploy the technology sensibly.
	Now we know that monoculture leads to bad health across populations while apparently solving starvation.
	We've solved that problem now.
	Now the problem is people aren't getting enough nutrition.
	So is it possible to have permaculture localized organic farms where people that don't have jobs and you're talking about universal basic income work on the land to feed themselves and their families in the community?
	Of course it's possible.
	What's the obstacle to it?
	Think about it for a second.
	Oh yeah, it interrupts who?
	Campbell's soup.
	Do Campbell's soup benefit if you're growing and eating your own food?
	No, that's interesting, isn't it?
	And now you know you ain't getting your dream of getting in a crazy stupid dumb debt through academia.
	You're not getting your dream of making a load of money and becoming a star.
	Wake up from that dream.
	Wake up from it.
	You don't need them and their centralized crisis-inducing authority anymore.
	There's one authority.
	We're all subject to it in exactly the same way.
	You're not better than me.
	I'm not better than you.
	They're not better than us.
	Get into it quick, fast, quick, smart before you lose the choice.
	All four governments failed to appreciate the scale of the threat or the urgency of response it demanded in the early part of 2020.
	I've got no interest in hearing an inquiry where they don't go, well, you know, Rishi Sunak, you know, he had shares in the company that funded Moderna when they had like five, 10 employees and he's cashed out of that now.
	And meanwhile, while he was in government, both as Chancellor and Prime Minister, Moderna got a bunch of contracts that are still operating right now, 10-year massive long contracts.
	Unless your inquiry looks into money, then it ain't interesting to me.
	What kind of inquiry can you have that's broadcast by Sky News and is conducted by, she's presumably a member of the House of Lords, right?
	That's presumably it.
	So she's vested.
	You know, like doctors can't conduct surgery on loved ones.
	Politicians.
	I don't know how to really end the analogy.
	There shouldn't be a trusted to do anything at all ever.
	Relying in part on misleading assurances that the UK was properly prepared for a pandemic.
	In the UK, they're looking to get rid of trial by jury, except for the most serious crimes.
	I'm on trial for an extremely serious crime and hopefully justice will be served because I've got nothing to fear from justice.
	Imagine for a moment that I was the person that was conducting the inquiry saying, well, I slept around a lot, so I've been in a bunch of bathrooms with a bunch of strangers.
	And yeah, promiscuity does generate some suffering and some grievance, clearly.
	However, that is not akin to bypassing consent.
	And I've conducted my inquiry now and it turns out, you know, I shouldn't have been sleeping around so much, but actually I've done nothing wrong.
	Maybe that inquiry would be rejected.
	There should be a trial.
	There should be a jury.
	All of the evidence should be scrutinised and analyzed.
	And it should be impartially undertaken.
	This is an inquiry undertaken by people that are hiding the truth.
	And curiously enough, They are participants in the conditions that generated the trial that I'm referring to.
	What a crazy coincidence.
	Once the scientific community and the scientific advisors for each nation had become aware that the virus was causing substantially more cases of moderate or severe respiratory illness in China than was being officially reported and that it had spread from China.
	Are they not aware of the world they're living in?
	Are they not aware that most of us know now that gain of function research means that these scientists upon whose opinions they want us to rely are the very people that are responsible for taking back coronaviruses, making them more effective and infectious?

▲