Stay Free - Russel Brand - David Sirota (Cancel Culture: Fact or Fiction?)

00:00:00.000 Hello there, you Awakening Wonders.

00:00:01.000 Thanks for joining us on Stay Free with Russell Brand.

00:00:03.000 We'll be talking to David Sirota later from the Lever.

00:00:06.000 Also, we'll be looking a little bit at the ongoing culture war that's being fought through beer.

00:00:12.000 Beer.

00:00:13.000 Access to beer with less calories in it than normal in the way that it's marketed.

00:00:17.000 We'll have a look at that in depth.

00:00:18.000 We'll be bringing back our regular item, Football is nice, where we talk about the culture around football.

00:00:23.000 But we're going to start by talking about Rishi Sunak, who somehow or another wound up as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom that we live in right now.

00:00:35.000 And you'll notice that the pageantry that surrounds our Prime Minister is not as impressive as the pageantry that surrounds our royal family.

00:00:42.000 They're going to be making a big move next week when they put a different type of hat on a different type of person. 0.99

00:00:48.000 That's right, it's the coronation.

00:00:50.000 King Charles is going to be splashed up all over your money.

00:00:54.000 They've slowly and incrementally altered the titular Camilla from Queen Consort to Queen.

00:01:00.000 They've took away that suffix, Gareth.

00:01:02.000 Yep.

00:01:02.000 She's just Queen now.

00:01:03.000 Big promotion.

00:01:04.000 Big pro... like that, you can't get a bit...

00:01:07.000 What better promotion can you get from a person?

00:01:12.000 You're a queen now.

00:01:13.000 No, a kind of god in a way.

00:01:15.000 Yeah, anointed by gods, literally, because there's a little bit in the ceremony where they turn away the cameras.

00:01:21.000 You can't see this bit, but they put a special oil on the head of the monarch, and after that bit, you're royal.

00:01:27.000 Do you know what that oil's like?

00:01:29.000 I do.

00:01:29.000 I know exactly what it is, but I'm afraid I can't reveal it.

00:01:32.000 Not while we're on YouTube, Gareth.

00:01:34.000 I actually provide that oil and we'll be talking to Dr. Shana Swan, who some people childishly refer to as Shania Twain, about another special and sacred fluid manufactured in the testes of all males.

00:01:48.000 It's sperms. 1.00

00:01:50.000 They're in crisis.

00:01:52.000 That's not today's show.

00:01:53.000 That's later, is it?

00:01:55.000 That's tomorrow?

00:01:57.000 That's yesterday.

00:01:58.000 That was yesterday that that happened.

00:02:00.000 Yeah, we've got to keep these things separate.

00:02:02.000 We can't dilute the content as radically as male sperm is apparently.

00:02:06.000 Did you enjoy talking about that yesterday?

00:02:08.000 I learned a lot, but I can't believe just how diluted sperm has become.

00:02:12.000 We're talking about that more, as well as the anointing potions that will be dousing King Charles on the brow and Queen Consort Camilla in just a matter of days.

00:02:22.000 And how will that pageantry go when you see the way that the British conduct it?

00:02:26.000 I mean, when you see a motorcade in the United States or even in Korea or in Russia, they usually do it well, don't they?

00:02:35.000 Pretty cool.

00:02:36.000 Look at how we do a motorcade.

00:02:38.000 It makes you worry about the coronation.

00:02:40.000 And also listen to the guy that's doing the commentary.

00:02:42.000 I don't know what mainstream media network he's working for.

00:02:46.000 I know a lot of people think that he's working for us from some of the outrageous things he says.

00:02:50.000 Have a look at it. 0.97

00:02:54.000 What's this madman doing? 0.88

00:02:59.000 On a bike, I don't think it's right. 0.85

00:03:01.000 Why aren't they on motorbikes?

00:03:04.000 Because on bikes it looks like they aren't even in the mechanised age.

00:03:08.000 No.

00:03:09.000 Isn't it?

00:03:09.000 It's not that much faster than running.

00:03:11.000 Some of them are running, you'll see in a minute. 0.95

00:03:14.000 It's like you're powered by your own buttocks and your own tootsie boots. 0.99

00:03:18.000 It's undignified. 0.99

00:03:19.000 A motorbike... How many horsepower is your bicycle?

00:03:24.000 It isn't a horsepower.

00:03:26.000 It's not got the power of a horse.

00:03:27.000 You'd be better off on a horse.

00:03:29.000 Even though this is mechanically a progression from a horse as a vehicle, it's a step backwards in terms of its capacity.

00:03:35.000 Also, horses are intimidating.

00:03:37.000 A bike isn't intimidating in any way.

00:03:39.000 A bicycle, I've never been intimidated by a bike.

00:03:41.000 Even when people go past, like, you know, a delivery service, like, uh, delivery, or, somebody's very trusted!

00:03:47.000 Like, if you're someone, you know, they don't stop at zebra crossings.

00:03:49.000 No, they're terrifying.

00:03:50.000 Why won't they stop at a zebra crossing?

00:03:52.000 At Pelican Crossing.

00:03:53.000 Crosswalk.

00:03:54.000 Why won't they stop at that?

00:03:55.000 They go thundering by, don't they?

00:03:57.000 I think it might be because they're on zero-hour contracts.

00:03:58.000 Zero-hour contracts, they're working so hard.

00:04:00.000 They're part of the oppressed underclass that's been created, but has once again, the technological miracle, has turned human beings into a kind of fodder for a machine that will ultimately devour your soul. 0.99

00:04:10.000 Thanks for explaining.

00:04:12.000 Let's see how this luminous cavalcade continues down the road.

00:04:21.000 You should have motorbikes!

00:04:22.000 What's going on with the motorbikes?

00:04:24.000 You should have motorbikes!

00:04:26.000 What's wrong with it?

00:04:27.000 He's actually undermining it.

00:04:28.000 I'd feel undermined.

00:04:29.000 Maybe he's the director of it or something.

00:04:32.000 He's like the director's commentary.

00:04:34.000 Oh, we said motorbikes in the meeting!

00:04:36.000 He's a genius, but he gets the job done.

00:04:38.000 He's like David Fincher or something.

00:04:40.000 He can't unsee that.

00:04:42.000 Once he's seen that they're not on motorbikes, that's going to bother him for the whole thing.

00:04:45.000 Yeah, like Kubrick.

00:04:47.000 We were actually shooting this for 10 days.

00:04:50.000 Look, one of the police ain't even on a proper bike.

00:04:53.000 The one at the back, oh no, they're all on at least consistent bikes, are they?

00:04:56.000 I don't know.

00:04:56.000 I haven't studied it.

00:04:57.000 I wonder if those are faster bikes or jazzed up in some way.

00:05:01.000 Who makes that even a police bike? 0.99

00:05:02.000 It's rubbish. 0.99

00:05:03.000 It's just a bike. 0.99

00:05:04.000 Stay free with Russell Brand.

00:05:06.000 See it first on Rumble.

00:05:07.000 We've got a fantastic guest on now, whether it's Oscar-winning writing, or groundbreaking investigation, or bringing together high-profile figures to have necessary conversations about democracy and its shortcomings.

00:05:20.000 I'm particularly impressed by his recent conversation with AOC where he confronted the I would say that she's an important congressperson, AOC, with the kind of questions I want to hear people ask.

00:05:33.000 Like, why do you vote in line with stuff you don't agree with?

00:05:36.000 What does that tell us about the system?

00:05:37.000 Anyway, David's here.

00:05:38.000 He's been watching us chat on about the monarchy.

00:05:40.000 He's probably utterly exhausted by now.

00:05:42.000 Thanks for joining us, David.

00:05:43.000 It's great to see you, mate.

00:05:45.000 Thank you.

00:05:45.000 Thanks for having me.

00:05:46.000 I like reading your newsletter.

00:05:49.000 Thank you.

00:05:49.000 I appreciate it.

00:05:50.000 And I appreciate you debating whether it's the lever or the lever.

00:05:54.000 I think they say it differently here than they do over there.

00:05:57.000 You say lever?

00:05:58.000 Yeah, we say the lever.

00:05:59.000 But I think the British pronunciation, I think I'm not British, but I think the British pronunciation is lever.

00:06:04.000 So whatever you want to do is good with me.

00:06:07.000 Okay, well, perhaps we'll vacillate over the course of the conversation.

00:06:12.000 Can we ask you about Nancy Pelosi's recent award for advancing healthcare?

00:06:18.000 Has Nancy Pelosi done a great deal to advance healthcare over the years, David?

00:06:25.000 Well, I mean, so the story is that Nancy Pelosi recently, this week, got an award from one of the big health care lobby groups, the Hospital Association, the hospital lobbyists.

00:06:35.000 And for those who don't know about the American health care system, the hospital lobby is one of the most powerful lobbies in the entire country, private lobbies.

00:06:45.000 And it's a lobby that doesn't want government-sponsored healthcare because it fears that government-sponsored healthcare will bring down the prices that hospitals can charge.

00:06:57.000 Hospitals are some of the most profitable pieces of the for-profit healthcare system.

00:07:02.000 So Pelosi was given an award by the major lobbying groups for the hospitals after she blocked Medicare for All,

00:07:12.000 after she blocked, used her position in the House to block all sorts of healthcare reforms. 1.00

00:07:17.000 So in this sense, this story is a story of kind of honesty, right?

00:07:21.000 Like the lobbyists who don't want a reform of the healthcare system in any serious way,

00:07:28.000 the lobbyists who wanna preserve the for-profit healthcare system,

00:07:32.000 were giving an award to a lawmaker who has, I mean, I think it's undeniable,

00:07:38.000 who's played a pivotal role in protecting that industry and preserving the current healthcare status quo,

00:07:46.000 which is basically a dystopia for millions and millions of people in this country,

00:07:50.000 but is certainly a financial jackpot for the hospitals and for the other pieces of the for-profit healthcare

00:07:56.000 system in the United States.

00:07:58.000 David, do you think that there is some kind of unspoken consensus that we are not supposed to overtly criticise our, inverted commas, own side?

00:08:10.000 I know that you are a Democrat, you're a liberal, that you've written for Bernie Sanders,

00:08:19.000 but you're willing to ask difficult questions to the AOC.

00:08:23.000 We find ourselves in our own particular media space challenged by the idea that we are willing

00:08:30.000 to attack both sides, but you start to recognize how audiences are accrued to the kind of subjects

00:08:36.000 that are appealing.

00:08:37.000 Do you face similar challenges when criticizing the Democrat party?

00:08:43.000 And we've discussed before whether or not you feel broadly disillusioned.

00:08:47.000 Just take as a starting point for this question the current glee on the left around Fox News's out-of-court payout to Dominion when their attacks on the electoral system is certainly a bipartisan issue and even the criticism of the machines themselves has been undertaken and used by Democrats in elections that they've not won.

00:09:11.000 In the next election, whoever wins, we're likely to have a period where the side that loses undermines the election result itself.

00:09:20.000 What do we do, those of us that work in media space, when tackling issues that are sort of defined by partisanship rather than real principles and values?

00:09:29.000 How does that play out with issues like the Fox payout and electoral politics more broadly?

00:09:36.000 Well, look, I think there's a couple things going on.

00:09:40.000 I certainly think there's always been partisan media in our country.

00:09:45.000 That is never going to go away.

00:09:48.000 But I do think that over the course of 20, 30, 40 years, that partisan media has become a bigger and bigger force

00:09:56.000 in American politics.

00:09:58.000 There was a study out that we reported on last week where I think it was one in seven Americans right now

00:10:04.000 are consuming eight hours or more per month of partisan media.

00:10:09.000 And that among this group of people, most of them are not exposing themselves

00:10:16.000 to cross-cutting media, media that might offer a different perspective

00:10:21.000 than the partisan bubble that they're in.

00:10:23.000 And I think that the partisan bubble has been enhanced or really fortified by social media filter bubbles.

00:10:31.000 The algorithms will serve you more of the kind of content that it thinks that you want.

00:10:36.000 So if you're on the right, the algorithms are going to be serving you more of that content rather than exposing you to different kinds of content.

00:10:50.000 So I think The problem is, and I think we've discussed a little bit of this before, the problem is there's truth and there's verifiable facts, and partisanship doesn't necessarily care about that.

00:11:03.000 What we're living in is an information system in which facts are preferenced or suppressed based on whether they are perceived to serve or undermine a particular party.

00:11:19.000 If there's a fact out there that doesn't serve a particular party, those party members are less likely to be exposed to that fact, even if that fact is incredibly important.

00:11:31.000 So I think it's very difficult to get the facts out.

00:11:35.000 Now, I will say this.

00:11:36.000 I do think we are in the middle right now of a big battle over this.

00:11:41.000 I mean, you have seen mass layoffs across corporate media.

00:11:45.000 I think that has a lot to do with corporate media's business model, but I also think it has a lot to do with the audiences sensing that they're not getting an honest picture of what's going on from corporate media.

00:11:57.000 And I think there is a rise of independent media that some of which, not all of which, but some of which is trying to hone to the facts, focus on inconvenient truths, even though it may offend one or the other side.

00:12:12.000 But when you do that, There's going to be.

00:12:14.000 There really is a lot of pushback.

00:12:17.000 I mean, if you tell, as an example, the story that we just discussed about Nancy Pelosi, if you tell that story to people who are ensconced inside an MSNBC media bubble, a kind of democratic aligned partisan media bubble, a lot of that audience will react in a hostile way to that because it's content, it's facts that they don't want to hear, that they've been conditioned To be hostile to because, in the narrative, it potentially helps the other side.

00:12:50.000 Now, I don't think that's true.

00:12:51.000 I have a different view about this.

00:12:55.000 My view is that we need to adhere to facts, not only for the public good and having a discourse that's actually rooted in verifiable facts, but that if you want your party to be better, Then what you should want is your party to be informed by those facts so it can speak to lived realities.

00:13:14.000 Again, using the Pelosi example, the healthcare system is completely a dystopia in the United States.

00:13:22.000 That's an issue that is a political issue whether the Democrats or the Republicans like it or not.

00:13:28.000 Pretending that the Democrats haven't had anything to do with the healthcare dystopia, not looking at the record of the party leadership that we've talked about as it relates to somebody like Nancy Pelosi, doesn't help the party connect with voters on those issues in elections.

00:13:47.000 When journalists like Taibi, Greenwald, Schellenberger, who I intuitively feel are probably left of centre and anti-establishment figures, start to be smeared, to use a sort of, I mean there's a point where I would have to say being right-wing is just one of the options within a rather limited rubric of potential things you can be and it shouldn't be even regarded as a smear, it's just a type of political identity, But and then public figures like say me or Joe Rogan get called right wing or far right even by association.

00:14:19.000 Do you begin to become concerned about the nature of your reporting, that there is an attempt to censor?

00:14:25.000 And even the fact that, you know, as you outlined, you said you have a different purview and perspective

00:14:30.000 that you think that it would be an opportunity to grow the party, including critiques of Nancy Pelosi

00:14:35.000 as an opportunity for the Democrat party to improve.

00:14:37.000 But that's obviously not institutionally the direction that politics is heading in.

00:14:42.000 And it seems pretty clear to me that the reason is is 'cause it can't handle those critiques,

00:14:45.000 'cause ultimately to take them on board, you'd have to change the direction.

00:14:48.000 You wouldn't be so beholden to your donors, to dark money, which you've done great work on reporting on, of course.

00:14:53.000 So ultimately, doesn't it reveal that they don't want an open, independent conversation about political systems

00:15:03.000 that are pretty turgid and corrupt when it comes to it?

00:15:08.000 I think that's exactly right.

00:15:09.000 I think that's what's really going on here is that the donor class of both parties wants to have a particular conversation that isn't about how the donor class fleeces the country.

00:15:18.000 So the donor class wants a media conversation, mostly about the culture war.

00:15:26.000 Billionaires are happy for people to be arguing about culture and not about billionaires ripping people off.

00:15:32.000 Corporations, it's the same thing.

00:15:34.000 So I think the hostility to a fact-based discourse and dialogue that doesn't hone to partisan parameters, I think that's a threat To the donor class of both parties, which is why it's hard to have that discourse.

00:15:55.000 And you bring up the tactic of labels.

00:15:57.000 Look, labeling people right-wing, you know, right-wing demagogue, you know, Bernie Sanders socialist.

00:16:06.000 I mean, socialism has an actual meaning, but you see the use of labels and the use of them as epithets to try to shut down the conversation.

00:16:17.000 Now, I want to be very clear about this.

00:16:19.000 I think that if somebody brings an unverified, unsubstantiated, untrue allegation into the discourse, that should be interrogated and debunked with other verified facts.

00:16:36.000 And you can do that without resorting to kind of name calling that seeks to shut down the conversation, right?

00:16:44.000 That's what a lot of these labels end up doing.

00:16:47.000 They're an attempt to shut down the conversation, shut down the debate, because the debate is inconvenient.

00:16:55.000 But that's different from you bring up an allegation into the debate and somebody counters it with facts.

00:17:01.000 I mean, I think we need more of that and less of the former.

00:17:05.000 Yeah, I think you're absolutely right.

00:17:07.000 A recent conversation I enjoyed was Jon Stewart's with Kathleen Hicks, where he brought up the failed audits of the Pentagon.

00:17:13.000 And it was, for me, interesting to see someone genuinely interrogate a figure with a degree of power.

00:17:19.000 And also her hubris and disdain for even the line of questioning was pretty revealing.

00:17:26.000 I want to ask you, How does an anti-establishment voice like Jon Stewart's compare in your view to what I would regard as an also anti-establishment voice like Tucker Carlson's?

00:17:39.000 You know, although obviously Tucker Carlson is associated, certainly due to his tenure at Fox, with right-wing conservatism and it's pretty plain that his cultural values are somewhat in line with traditional conservatism.

00:17:50.000 Do you feel that as the political space shifts and the argument becomes more about centre versus periphery rather than left versus right, that new alliances between figures like even Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders and RFK, Marianne Williamson and other sort of firebrands of the libertarian right, What would be a valuable new alliance if we're going to actually shift politics away from the intentions and agenda of the donor class that you have identified as being the sort of real power behind the teleology of American politics?

00:18:25.000 So to me, the difference between somebody like Jon Stewart and Tucker Carlson is about verified facts and lying.

00:18:33.000 Tucker Carlson, I believe, has lied about the, for instance, the election.

00:18:38.000 He has sown Things that are not verified, allegations that are not verified, and frankly, not true about elections.

00:18:48.000 I don't think Jon Stewart has done that.

00:18:51.000 And I'm not talking about individual issues here.

00:18:54.000 I'm saying there is fact-based questions on things that we can, after verification, stipulate are facts.

00:19:02.000 And then there is kind of knowing, deliberate sowing of information that isn't true.

00:19:10.000 So, I think that's less a question of people's political ideology, because you can be on the right and be making your arguments based on facts that are actual facts.

00:19:20.000 You can be on the left and do the same.

00:19:22.000 I think that's a question of, well, do you agree with the person's ideology if we can stipulate facts?

00:19:30.000 When people go knowingly into pushing out things that they know to be untrue, or at minimum they know to be unsubstantiated, I think that's when we get into a different kind of conversation.

00:19:45.000 It's not about political ideology.

00:19:47.000 Then it becomes about, well, is the conversation rooted in things that we can know?

00:19:53.000 And I think that's really my metric as a journalist.

00:19:58.000 I don't believe that there's any such thing as objectivity, if you're a human being.

00:20:03.000 I believe anytime you decide that something is a story to be reported on and something else isn't, that is a subjective decision.

00:20:10.000 That is based on opinion.

00:20:11.000 That is based on your viewpoint.

00:20:14.000 And that's okay, because that's what being human is.

00:20:18.000 The obligation of people in the media space, in my view, especially as a journalist, is that what you're saying is accurate, is as true as you can tell, as you can verify, and if it's not fully verified,

00:20:32.000 you can acknowledge that, you can be transparent about that. That should be the metric by which

00:20:39.000 we judge, in my view, media. It's not whether you're conservative or liberal or anything else, it's

00:20:46.000 whether you are acknowledging your viewpoint, being honest about that, being honest that there's

00:20:51.000 no such thing as objectivity, and then being true to a pursuit of truth and actual facts,

00:20:58.000 and not throwing out there things that you know to be untrue just because they serve your

00:21:04.000 particular ideology or your party.

00:21:06.000 Isn't that just one of the sort of potential flaws and tendencies of subjectivity itself?

00:21:12.000 Because whilst I Imagine that when you talk about Tucker Carlson, you're saying that there's something cynical around his reporting on the election result.

00:21:22.000 And that's sort of, you know, I'm sure you would argue demonstrable if those text messages are valid and stuff.

00:21:27.000 And with regard to that issue, you know, I take your point.

00:21:30.000 But more broadly, Tucker Carlson has said that he regrets toeing the line for the mainstream

00:21:35.000 when it comes to the Iraq war.

00:21:36.000 He's been very skeptical about US involvement in the Ukraine war.

00:21:41.000 He's attacked the deep state.

00:21:43.000 He's attacked media machinery.

00:21:45.000 He's actually gotten to the point now of saying that he don't trust either political party.

00:21:50.000 So like, when you take all that in, are you still saying you're cynicism,

00:21:54.000 are you still cynical about Tucker Carlson's agenda?

00:21:58.000 So we're just using him as an example.

00:21:59.000 'Cause I'm sort of reaching the point where I think, hang on a minute, I feel like it's probably easier

00:22:04.000 to form an affinity with Tucker Carlson rather than a kind of CNN-style stuffed shirt reporter

00:22:12.000 that's ultimately gonna parrot the talking points of their funders or their sort of overlords,

00:22:18.000 for want of a better term.

00:22:20.000 Yeah, I mean, look, I have trouble at large trusting people who have put out or who have propped up things that aren't true and done so in a way that doesn't seem to be, you know, an accidental error.

00:22:37.000 There's kind of a deliberate calculation there, which goes back to calculations based on what serves a particular party or particular ideology.

00:22:47.000 So on that level, I I have trouble trusting, whether it's Tucker Carlson or anyone else, people on that score.

00:22:55.000 Now, ideologically, I will also acknowledge that I have a set of ideologies and beliefs and values that are fundamentally, in many ways, at odds with what Fox News and what Tucker Carlson puts out there.

00:23:11.000 has put out there, right, on all sorts of issues, whether it comes to immigration, race,

00:23:17.000 whatever issue you want to go into, they are fundamentally divergent from my views.

00:23:22.000 I find some of the stuff they put out to be deplorable.

00:23:27.000 So that's less a trust issue and more a, listen, I just disagree with where you want

00:23:35.000 to take this country. 0.71

00:23:37.000 Now, I can acknowledge here and there in the way a stop clock is right twice a day,

00:23:45.000 that once in a while, somebody on Fox News will say something where I'm like,

00:23:50.000 well, you know, that's a good point.

00:23:51.000 Or, you know, I can agree with a point there.

00:23:55.000 It's pretty occasional, but I can acknowledge that.

00:23:57.000 And I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that.

00:24:00.000 But I will say this to go back to the media information system that we live in, even me just saying that right now

00:24:07.000 on this show, there's like a decent chance that somebody's gonna go on social media, clip this clip

00:24:13.000 and use it to say that I am a shill for Fox News.

00:24:18.000 In saying that once in a while, somebody on Fox News says something I agree with, that can be clipped to say,

00:24:23.000 look at Sirota, an anti-establishment journalist.

00:24:26.000 He's actually a shill for Fox News because he said once in a while, occasionally, someone on Fox News will say something about an issue that he doesn't completely disagree with, right?

00:24:36.000 That's the information dystopia we live in.

00:24:39.000 And the trouble with it is, is that it's used to shut down the discourse.

00:24:47.000 It's used to try to classify people as on one side or the other for the purposes of muzzling them.

00:24:54.000 Yes and with the regard to the matter of vulnerable people broadly you know that can be sort of almost a derogatory term but it says to the subject of immigration and in particular homelessness.

00:25:09.000 Before I went on Tucker Carlson's show I spoke to A bunch of my mates that are, what you might say, traditionally Democrat, liberals, like, you know, mates with Shepard Fairey or Tim Robbins or whatever.

00:25:20.000 And I go, I'm going on Fox News.

00:25:21.000 I'm going to be, like, having these kind of conversations, dah, dah, dah.

00:25:24.000 What sort of points would you have me bring up?

00:25:25.000 So when I talk, you know, although I've said my own values and opinions as well, but like I spoke about the subject of homelessness and one report that I'd personally seen where Tucker had been really sort of quite incendiary.

00:25:36.000 And I brought that up and he was actually, I would say, apologetic.

00:25:41.000 And, like, owned that, right?

00:25:43.000 So, while I agree that we would have different values, how does your, like, if you say that someone's propping up ideas that they don't believe are true with regard to the sort of well-documented issues that are going on with Fox News, How do you relate that to AOC, who's voted for stuff that she said she would never vote for?

00:26:04.000 And this is a person that's in Congress and sort of like a figurehead for a movement, should we say, rather than a pundit.

00:26:11.000 Now, you could argue about who has the most influence, but when it comes to actual democratic authority, AOC has more.

00:26:17.000 So, like, do you think, do you evaluate these figures in the same way, or do you think one's own biases, and in this case your own biases, make you more broadly sympathetic to AOC?

00:26:29.000 Even if, in the end, David, the sympathy towards immigrants becomes a kind of aesthetic, because nothing's bloody well getting done, because when it comes to voting time, we're going to vote with a machine.

00:26:39.000 Yeah, I mean, let me first address the point about Tucker Carlson, because I just want to make an important point here, which I think people miss a lot.

00:26:45.000 I mean, you mentioned homelessness crime as a great example.

00:26:49.000 Fox News' focus on a particular story about crime.

00:26:53.000 You'll notice that Fox News does not focus very much, if at all, on white-collar crime.

00:26:59.000 on rich people's crimes against everybody else.

00:27:02.000 There's a particular kind of story that is told on Fox News, by the way, broadly throughout the American corporate media, that is a crime, you know, the sort of law and order story that is aimed at, as you said, vulnerable people, poor people, lower income people.

00:27:19.000 And you don't get nearly as much coverage about the white collar crime that is creating all sorts of damage in our society. 0.75

00:27:26.000 Point being here is that There's a way to dishonestly skew the narrative through story selection.

00:27:38.000 One of the most powerful ways to create or to push an ideology is to choose stories carefully, to tell one set of stories and ignore the other set of stories.

00:27:52.000 It's a really profound way to manipulate the discourse In a way where you can say, well, the stories that were airing, they're not untrue.

00:28:01.000 That's true, but you're not telling this other huge part of the crime story.

00:28:05.000 So I only bring that up to say, when I watch Fox News, I don't trust Now, as it relates to AOC, look, you're right, she's different than a pundit.

00:28:16.000 any eye towards telling an accurate and honest holistic story about the topic at hand.

00:28:24.000 Now, as it relates to AOC, look, you're right, she's different than a pundit. She is a politician. 0.99

00:28:29.000 My belief wholeheartedly is politicians need to be held accountable for their promises.

00:28:34.000 Politicians need to be held accountable for their votes.

00:28:38.000 Whether they're conservative, whether they're progressive, they need to be asked tough questions.

00:28:44.000 I would say this.

00:28:46.000 I think that AOC in the interview that I did with her, she made, I asked her the question, if you say you're on a different wing of the Democratic Party, why are you voting 91% of the time with Joe Biden in some cases on things that you've said you won't support?

00:29:01.000 And what I gleaned from her answer is that Inside of an institution like Congress, you're ultimately forced to deal with binary choices.

00:29:11.000 A yes vote or a no vote.

00:29:12.000 And if you can get good things into something that you don't like, there's a case to be made you should vote for half the loaf, even if you're voting to eat.

00:29:20.000 You know, something attached to that half a loaf is something that you don't like.

00:29:24.000 Those choices are difficult and I'm not absolving them.

00:29:28.000 That people should be held accountable for those votes.

00:29:32.000 But her argument was that it's a more nuanced situation.

00:29:36.000 Now, I would say this, it's my responsibility to ask the questions.

00:29:39.000 It's her responsibility as the politician to offer up answers, and it's the responsibility of the viewers to decide whether those answers hold water, whether those answers are convincing enough.

00:29:49.000 I would say this, I do have Because of my own political values, I guess I don't believe that the vision that somebody like AOC says they want to see for the country, I am not necessarily opposed to pieces of that.

00:30:09.000 I think there's a different values proposition than with somebody like Tucker Carlson, who I'm very open about.

00:30:14.000 I don't agree with his core values.

00:30:18.000 So does that mean I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to AOC?

00:30:21.000 I think the answer is no.

00:30:22.000 I think I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to somebody like AOC on the facts of the matter.

00:30:28.000 I'm not willing to give the benefit of the doubt to somebody like AOC by saying, well, listen, I agree with your, I may agree with some of your values, so I'm not going to ask you tough questions.

00:30:35.000 But it is to say, I'm more open to the idea.

00:30:39.000 That she's not necessarily, she, and by the way, members of Congress from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party writ large, that they're not making necessarily, they don't have necessarily horrible intentions.

00:30:53.000 That their vision for the country is not, in my view, a bad vision.

00:30:58.000 I can say that I think that their tactics, in many cases, have been weak, that they've capitulated, that they haven't stood their ground.

00:31:06.000 And arguably, you can say, in not standing their ground, they are making a values decision.

00:31:12.000 This is a really interesting part of that discussion, which is, what is the difference between a tactical dispute and a values dispute?

00:31:20.000 Am I having a dispute with you over the way you're pursuing the values that we agree on, or is the way that you're allegedly pursuing the values that we supposedly agree on, are the tactics that you're using, do they exude that you actually don't have those values?

00:31:38.000 And that is the hardest thing to discern in journalism.

00:31:41.000 That is the hardest thing to figure out.

00:31:44.000 When you outlined the first part of your point saying that what Fox News presents is a kind of a mural that discounts ideas and issues that will be antithetical to their ideology, I would say that the way that they differ from CNN or MSNBC is so small as to be negligible and not worthy, ultimately, of conversation.

00:32:08.000 When you point out the restrictions that AOC offers within, it Identifies the fundamental systemic problem.

00:32:17.000 Even if she has values that are in alignment with what you believe in, it's irrelevant systemically.

00:32:24.000 This, David, leads me to the conclusion.

00:32:27.000 Oh, let me just finish this point.

00:32:29.000 I'll just let me finish.

00:32:29.000 Let me finish, man.

00:32:30.000 Come on.

00:32:30.000 I've been like such a little good little fella sat here.

00:32:35.000 This leads me to this conclusion.

00:32:37.000 It is more important that we find common ground with people that we avowedly disagree with.

00:32:45.000 And whilst you say that, you know, like Fox News, I completely agree with you.

00:32:49.000 I don't think Fox News is the answer.

00:32:50.000 I don't think republicanism is the answer.

00:32:52.000 There are aspects of libertarianism that I'm becoming sympathetic towards, because if you truly believe in individual freedom, then that means across the scale, across the spectrum, whether it's sexuality, identity, Gun ownership, you know, there's all sorts of ways I can see that that could be an interface for coalition.

00:33:10.000 But when it comes, when we start to identify that even if someone has values that you broadly agree with, cannot get across without considerable compromise, notions, ideas, intentions, or policies that would be in alignment with your beliefs, What it shows me is that systemic change is required and in order to bring about that systemic change, new coalitions have to be formed that transcend the current framing of the discourse.

00:33:37.000 That's why my-- speaking about us as two people operating in this space in varying ways, that's

00:33:43.000 why I'm interested in having conversations with people that I would plainly disagree with,

00:33:49.000 because I feel that those kind of alliances will disrupt and alter the trajectory.

00:33:53.000 I'm actually beginning to think that the taxonomies themselves

00:33:57.000 are becoming redundant.

00:33:58.000 Because particularly if you agree with democracy genuinely--

00:34:01.000 and I think that means the maximum amount of democracy, not some atavistic throwback democracy

00:34:06.000 from bloody 300 years ago, where we pretend we couldn't all be voting on many, many more issues,

00:34:12.000 that we couldn't be devolving power, that secession might be possible in certain instances.

00:34:18.000 If you actually are interested in radical change, that's going to mean the introduction of radical new ideas.

00:34:23.000 It's going to mean the potential for radical new alliances.

00:34:26.000 And if we confine ourselves to reform and partisanship, even within these media spaces, then those advances are negated.

00:34:35.000 That's my point.

00:34:36.000 So here's my one, I guess, question.

00:34:41.000 It's something that I think about and I worry about a lot.

00:34:45.000 That if you look back on some of the worst and most dangerous right-wing authoritarian fascist movements in history, Many of them have couched themselves in the language of helping the little guy, helping the working class.

00:35:03.000 And the ultimate question that really comes up on this is, if you make common cause, With right-wing fascists, people who are not interested in democracy, true authoritarians.

00:35:20.000 And you make common cause with them on this or that issue where rhetorically there seems to be agreement.

00:35:28.000 Are you ultimately emboldening that right-wing authoritarian movement to do horrible things that transcend the specific issues that you agree with them on?

00:35:41.000 I mean, look, I'll be honest.

00:35:43.000 I've been invited on Fox News a lot.

00:35:46.000 I haven't gone on Fox News, and part of the reason is because I'm uncomfortable with participating in an endeavor that emboldens not just a political party, but an authoritarian movement that

00:36:08.000 Broadly speaking, doesn't have the overarching values or goals that I support and that does have overarching values and goals that I think are quite dangerous.

00:36:19.000 Now, some could say, well, if you don't go on Fox News, you're forsaking your ability to talk to its viewers.

00:36:25.000 And I think there's an argument there.

00:36:26.000 I really do.

00:36:27.000 And so I'm kind of conflicted about this.

00:36:30.000 And I should say, I think that politicians, which is a different role than you or I, I think they have a responsibility.

00:36:36.000 To be in as many forums as possible.

00:36:39.000 So, you know, Bernie Sanders did a debate on Fox News.

00:36:41.000 I think that, I mean, if you're trying to run for president and speak to as many voters as you can, forums that you go in, you have to try to reach voters where they are.

00:36:50.000 But I will say, This question of, in trying to find common ground on specific issues, are you actually emboldening a larger and more dangerous movement that will operate in a bigger way beyond those issues to imperil everything?

00:37:14.000 That's the question I struggle with.

00:37:15.000 I don't know what the answer is.

00:37:16.000 I mean, what's your answer on that?

00:37:18.000 I understand your concern but I noticed that you had to recourse to the term right-wing fascist sort of like early on in your response and I think to that I would say yeah right-wing fascism that's out full stop and with regard to authoritarianism the rise of authoritarianism on the liberal left is being It's terrifying whenever it's surveillance, censorship, the legitimization of new methodologies for authoritarianism.

00:37:44.000 And my concern is that beyond Republican and Democrat, we're living in a time of perpetual crisis.

00:37:49.000 And the function of this perpetual crisis is the legitimization of authoritarianism.

00:37:54.000 I think we should be, it began perhaps, as far as I can tell, around 9/11,

00:37:57.000 and every subsequent disaster, whether economic or medical or military,

00:38:03.000 has been used to underwrite authoritarianism, and I think that this is a response

00:38:07.000 to something that you alluded to earlier, the real legitimate potential for actual democracy now,

00:38:14.000 that technology provides us with, immediate ability to communicate,

00:38:18.000 the opportunity for counter-narratives to emerge immediately.

00:38:22.000 All of us have the opportunity and possibility for a valid voice in this new technological space,

00:38:29.000 and the only way to shut that down is through censorship, and I think the media across the political spectrum,

00:38:33.000 which I believe is pretty bloody narrow, as a matter of fact,

00:38:36.000 are aligning themselves with whoever's interests most neatly align with their own,

00:38:41.000 in order to prevent the burgeoning changes that are presenting themselves.

00:38:45.000 That something is trying to be born and authoritarianism is the de facto response of both parties.

00:38:52.000 I would say that when it comes to the media and both political parties that by Coming out to bat for our particular side, which I think for me not long ago would have been the, you know, the sort of centre left or liberalism, even socialism, actually, although I no longer trust the state to represent ordinary people against corporate power.

00:39:12.000 I no longer think the state does that.

00:39:13.000 So I would not advocate for empowering the state further.

00:39:18.000 I feel that, I feel that in coming out to bat for either side, we are contributing to the problem.

00:39:24.000 That's my feeling, David.

00:39:26.000 Yeah, I mean, look, I think that's a fair point.

00:39:28.000 I really do.

00:39:29.000 And I want to be clear, I'm not using right-wing fascists as just a label or an epithet writ large.

00:39:37.000 I mean it as specific.

00:39:40.000 I mean, like, fascism as an ideology.

00:39:43.000 Fascism not as just an insult.

00:39:46.000 Fascism as the kind of fusing of corporate and state power in an authoritarian way.

00:39:51.000 The battalion that we're funding right now in Ukraine.

00:39:56.000 And I think your concerns about authoritarianism on the other side, I think about surveillance, the normalization of the war on terror, I mean, and all of that, I think that is hugely important and hugely important to criticize.

00:40:13.000 I just worry about, you know, as an example, If I go, and I'm not that important, but if somebody like me goes on Fox News to make my points, and Fox News, and again, I'm just using Fox News as an example, it could be any of the corporate media outlets.

00:40:33.000 And I am used as a way for them to go out and say, look, we're honest, we're fair, we're accurate.

00:40:40.000 You know, somebody like Sirota is on there, on here.

00:40:43.000 And then the next segment is them demagoguing something on crime in order to scare people about racial minorities or the like.

00:40:52.000 Have I participated?

00:40:54.000 in helping them make a set of arguments and create a set of narratives

00:41:02.000 that I don't think are good for democracy.

00:41:04.000 I think are authoritarian in nature.

00:41:07.000 I don't really know what the answer is.

00:41:09.000 I'm not sure there's one answer, but it is something that's on my mind.

00:41:13.000 It's sort of the opportunism, I guess is what we're circling around.

00:41:17.000 The kind of dishonest opportunism of all of many of these corporate media structures in which the viewpoints are only there to serve their deeper goals and values, most of which are not the goals and values that I share.

00:41:33.000 Most of which I think are goals and values that are bad for small d democracy and bad for the future, bad for the world.

00:41:40.000 What I did when I went on there is I went with prepared facts about inequality and political economic corruption on both parties and read them out while I was on Fox News.

00:41:51.000 That was the only way that I combated Gareth Faheer, who I work with, who loves the lever.

00:41:58.000 Like, you prepped us a whole bunch of stuff.

00:42:00.000 And so I was like, while I'm on it, I'm going to say this stuff.

00:42:03.000 Now, the idea that we might be contributing to a sort of a kind of cultural mandate of the veracity of Fox News reporting, I think potentially, David, plays into the Paternalism that is leading to the distrust in the political class and the media more generally.

00:42:22.000 I think that we're the right, and again I don't feel that being right wing is in itself a problem whilst I would consider myself to be transcendent of these political labels because I don't think there's an answer to be found within them. 0.98

00:42:35.000 One of the things I don't like is the idea that they're being spoken down to and that there's a sort of a technocratic intellectual class that think that they're idiots.

00:42:45.000 And when you can use those flashpoints like basket of deplorables and the kind of criticisms that are often levelled at literally 50% of the voting population, there or thereabouts, depending on which voting machine you use or decry, that that's going to create more antagonism. 0.74

00:43:03.000 So again, like you say, I agree, there isn't one answer.

00:43:05.000 It has to be ultimately a question of your personal values and almost your intuition.

00:43:09.000 It becomes, in a sense, spiritual, emotional at some point.

00:43:12.000 But my feeling is that approaching this conversation in good faith, acknowledging your fallibility, recognising that if you have consistent values, you're going to find yourself criticising MSNBC and Fox.

00:43:27.000 Republicans and Democrats, because your values are going to demand that of you.

00:43:31.000 Because if you're interested in real change, empowering ordinary people to live their lives, whether you have a traditional or progressive identity, your freedom to express that, the acceptance that people are going to be different and with some pretty contentious subjects have vastly differing views, therefore at some point you're going to have to say, well over there they do it that way and over here you do it that way.

00:43:52.000 But this starts to play into, you know, some Pretty libertarian argument that could only, I think, be rebutted by a state legitimized by genuine intention to stand as a dam against a corporate deluge and there is literally no evidence

00:44:10.000 That either party, due to their funding models, is going to do anything like that any time in the future.

00:44:15.000 And by settling for reform and offering panaceas for the kind of problems that are within Congress.

00:44:21.000 And I know you don't do that.

00:44:23.000 We take your information all the time.

00:44:24.000 We're talking to you because you attack the Democrats, you attack the systems and all that stuff.

00:44:28.000 I think that's part of the problem.

00:44:29.000 So I'm sort of...

00:44:31.000 Interested in ways of transcending their framing by being willing to attack both sides and also accepting, OK, you're a really traditional orthodox Jew.

00:44:41.000 Cool.

00:44:41.000 Crack on.

00:44:42.000 Oh, you don't believe in gender identity in any of the ways that people did 100 years ago.

00:44:47.000 Fantastic.

00:44:48.000 Let's get on with it.

00:44:49.000 Because as long as we're mired in this, the centralized billionaire class are going to continue to exploit those differences because we can't form any of the necessary alliances to confront No, look, I agree with that foundational point.

00:45:07.000 And I want to go back to something you said, because I've been thinking about it since you said it on this broadcast.

00:45:11.000 You mentioned socialism.

00:45:14.000 As an example, you don't trust the state to be a defense against corporate power.

00:45:21.000 I would guess that part of the reason, if maybe even most of the reason you don't trust the state, is because the state has shown that it is not really controlled by the people writ large.

00:45:34.000 In other words, democracy has been so limited, it barely even exists, that the state is not acting in At the will of the people in whose name it is governing.

00:45:48.000 I do think that the democracy crisis, and that term bothers me because I think it's been limited

00:45:54.000 to January 6th and the like, because the democracy crisis really is a crisis of a government that

00:46:02.000 governs in the people's name and doesn't really care about the people writ large,

00:46:07.000 a government that is essentially owned by a handful of oligarchs and corporations.

00:46:14.000 That is, to my mind, the fundamental problem with so much of this, is that whether it's

00:46:19.000 corporate media as the fourth estate check on government or government itself, these institutions

00:46:25.000 are not built to represent or to respond to what the public really wants.

00:46:34.000 It's a very good question.

00:46:35.000 It's it's and I think ultimately, that is really the problem.

00:46:39.000 Millions and millions.

00:46:40.000 I mean, we have look, we can go through issues where it's like, you know, polls show people are 90% in support of an issue, and there's just absolutely no chance of that happening.

00:46:51.000 Passing through Congress, getting okayed by the Supreme Court.

00:46:55.000 So we have clearly a highly undemocratic system.

00:47:00.000 And I think the ultimate question then becomes, well, not only how do we fix that, but how do we even have a media system that's able to address that?

00:47:09.000 A media system in which much of the media, certainly most of the corporate media, exists to prop up that system.

00:47:18.000 The thing that kills me in media, and I know I'm kind of all over the place here, but the thing that kills me in media is so many of these corporate media organizations present the defense of the current status quo and the system as objective reporting.

00:47:36.000 You notice when you read these newspapers and the like, it's kind of the tone of the voice of God, that what they're presenting, these are the facts, this is what's going on, and there is no alternative, right?

00:47:50.000 There are no other inconvenient facts.

00:47:54.000 And we have no ideology.

00:47:56.000 This is just the truth.

00:47:58.000 Now, obviously, they do have an ideology.

00:48:01.000 But one of the most, I think, powerful ways that these organizations create the discourse and split us apart is by pretending That their information that oftentimes props up the status quo, an unacceptable status quo, it presents it as apolitical, as completely impartial.

00:48:24.000 That's why I don't trust so much of corporate media.

00:48:27.000 I would rather you tell me and be transparent about what your values are.

00:48:31.000 Yeah, I agree with you.

00:48:33.000 and then so that I know and that you then have an ethos that at least

00:48:38.000 honors being accurate about things but I can at least know where you're coming from.

00:48:43.000 I'm more likely to trust that than somebody presenting me their story that has an ideology

00:48:50.000 but presenting it and pretending they have no viewpoint or ideology at all.

00:48:54.000 Yeah I agree with you and I think that that's a kind of a message that people that conventionally

00:48:59.000 watch Fox News would benefit from hearing as a matter of fact although I completely understand

00:49:06.000 and appreciate your position when you sort of present it in terms of oligarchical corruption

00:49:12.000 then I think that that's that is the appetite that is the anger and when there is no

00:49:18.000 representation from anyone other that's rhetorically exploiting that anger then that

00:49:24.000 is literally the only game in town.

00:49:27.000 I think people sense I think it makes sense that Joe Biden is a career politician who's corporately backed, who's precisely in position to ensure there is no meaningful change, that the capping of Big Pharma, of drug prices for ordinary Americans, becomes a kind of mealy-mouthed, mitigating, yeah, but not really kind of deal because of the power of the lobbyists, the power of the donors, the power of the media class.

00:49:55.000 I think people are exhausted.

00:49:57.000 And I think that, as you have pointed out several times in our conversation, that the systems themselves are unable to deliver change.

00:50:05.000 And if there are, and I know that you're right, issues where 90% of Americans would vote for it, democracy means that you have to deliver that.

00:50:14.000 You can't say, oh no, that's not in the interests of the elites, or we don't think that's right.

00:50:18.000 You have to persuade people.

00:50:20.000 That's what we're supposed to do.

00:50:21.000 we're supposed to be able to go, look, I personally think that we should allow some immigration

00:50:27.000 and this is how I would handle it and this is how I would ensure that it's beneficial

00:50:30.000 and that people that advocate for it don't advocate for it over here and then when it's

00:50:35.000 affecting them directly they're like, ah, aghast about it.

00:50:38.000 You have to, but as you say, the information is so tailored and I literally, I don't want

00:50:44.000 to spend any time quibbling about who's worse because I think that's just a representation

00:50:48.000 of my own prejudices because they're both so bad and I think it prevents us from moving

00:50:53.000 forward because we literally are accepting their framing.

00:50:56.000 Yeah, no, Fox is worse than MSNBC.

00:50:58.000 No, the Democrats are a bit better.

00:51:00.000 It's like we're a little bit better party in these ways and we've learned the correct

00:51:05.000 terms that you say right now and we're doubling down on crushing communities of people that

00:51:11.000 We actually have a great deal in common, and that what we should be creating is new alliances.

00:51:18.000 Whoever you are, you might have someone who's a conservative or right-wing traditional person who slips up in their language, or you might have a son that identifies differently.

00:51:31.000 We have to find some new humanity and spirituality, and there is no good faith in these arguments, I don't think, really, on either side.

00:51:39.000 I think that both of them are trying to mire us.

00:51:41.000 That's a really good point.

00:51:43.000 And you know, I think back to the 2020 election, you mentioned Joe Biden.

00:51:49.000 There was a moment in that campaign where he actually spoke the truth in a way that was like a story for one second and then it kind of went away.

00:51:58.000 And I think it was such a telling moment.

00:52:02.000 It was when he had that fundraiser with big donors and he was talking, I think it was specifically about sort of tax policy and economic policy, and he reassured them That if he wins, nothing would fundamentally change.

00:52:18.000 I mean, that's a direct quote from Joe Biden.

00:52:22.000 And I think we don't get that many admissions from people in power.

00:52:28.000 And it was considered sort of a gaffe, right?

00:52:30.000 In the United States, when a politician slips up and actually admits the truth, it's called a gaffe.

00:52:36.000 It's like an accident.

00:52:38.000 But I think that was such a revealing moment because the guy actually admitted what he thinks his role is.

00:52:45.000 He thinks his role is to prevent too much change from happening.

00:52:51.000 And I think, frankly, that was somewhat comforting to a lot of people in the era of Trump.

00:52:58.000 Where they saw Trump's behavior on TV, Trump kind of behaving like a spaz, and the idea of somebody who was just going to come in and calm things down. 0.94

00:53:07.000 I think there was at a surface level among some people that was comforting.

00:53:12.000 But I go back to the idea that if you look at something, let's talk about climate change.

00:53:17.000 If nothing fundamentally changes on our energy policy, Then everything on our planet, all that we care about, is going to change, almost certainly for the worse.

00:53:28.000 So the ideology of, it's our job as politicians, people in power, to prevent change, that ideology is quite literally not biologically or ecosystem-wise, that is not a sustainable ideology, but it is the ideology.

00:53:49.000 And that's what's so terrifying to me about both political parties, which is that fundamentally at the very top, they are not really about systemic, fundamental, and I would argue constructive change based on the verifiable facts of the kinds of changes we know we need to make.

00:54:09.000 I use climate change as one example.

00:54:11.000 We know what we have to do.

00:54:13.000 We know what the changes that have to be made fundamentally in science.

00:54:19.000 That has been verified.

00:54:20.000 That has been studied.

00:54:22.000 I don't think there's really any serious, honest debate about whether the climate is changing and whether we should probably try to do things about it to prevent bad things from happening.

00:54:33.000 And yet the ideology of those on top is to prevent change or to at least slow a pace of change.

00:54:41.000 And that should terrify us all.

00:54:43.000 Joe Biden admitted in that moment that his function and role is to steward the interests of those elite institutions to ongoing success and to be unimpeachable, which will necessarily require the management and control of the ordinary population whose interests they are directly against.

00:55:04.000 They have to control the information they have access to, the wealth that they have access to.

00:55:08.000 And with regard to your climate change argument, which I know is something that you are passionate

00:55:14.000 and very well educated around, I think that people will be like,

00:55:17.000 'cause I know some people that watch this channel will be saying, "Oh no, it's stuff that happens

00:55:21.000 "over centuries and it's hypocal "and there are counter arguments and all that stuff."

00:55:24.000 There will be those kind of arguments here.

00:55:26.000 And what I would say is that the kind of measures that tend to emerge out of the kind of globalized response,

00:55:33.000 shall we say, usually focuses on measures, changes, sacrifices and taxation,

00:55:40.000 that will be born by ordinary people around the world, rather than significant change made by powerful elites.

00:55:47.000 An organisation like the WEF, which we've discussed before, seems to fundamentally be about how How can we keep this the same and appear like we're doing something?

00:55:56.000 And also, once Joe Biden has made that omission to his powerful donors, then what the hell is the point of anything else that he says?

00:56:03.000 We're going to do something about climate change.

00:56:04.000 We're going to do something about inequality.

00:56:06.000 We're going to change the prison population.

00:56:07.000 We're going to build... No, you've just told us.

00:56:10.000 You're not going to do anything.

00:56:11.000 So stop trying to galvanize support.

00:56:13.000 Just admit that you're part of a managerial class for the elite.

00:56:17.000 You are part of the problem.

00:56:18.000 So and also, David, it's probably a good time to acknowledge that on an emotional, visceral level,

00:56:24.000 the kind of berserker, gargoyle version of the strongman that Trump represents through his casual disdain

00:56:26.000 gargoyle version of the strongman that Trump represents through his casual disdain for institutions

00:56:34.000 for institutions and establishment, his willingness to say, it's the system that I myself

00:56:35.000 and establishment, his willingness to say, "It's the system that I myself exploit."

00:56:38.000 exploit.

00:56:39.000 That has an emotional timbre that resonates with people that have spent their whole life

00:56:44.000 knowing that they're being lied to.

00:56:47.000 You're lying.

00:56:48.000 I don't trust all this, you're doing this 'cause inequality and slavery

00:56:53.000 and reparations and climate change. 0.99

00:56:55.000 I feel this is maybe bullshit. 0.99

00:56:56.000 It stirs a rage. 1.00

00:56:58.000 Then someone comes into that environment, goes, "You are right. 1.00

00:57:01.000 "You can't trust them, it's bullshit." 1.00

00:57:03.000 And there's no counter-argument 'cause they can't make a counter-argument. 1.00

00:57:07.000 Of course that people should be able to express themselves sexually, consensually in any way they want.

00:57:12.000 Of course racial and cultural identity is important. 0.99

00:57:14.000 Of course we should care for and respect and love the fucking planet that we live on. 0.98

00:57:17.000 All this stuff's bloody obvious. 0.97

00:57:19.000 But if all the people that use that rhetoric are lying to you, then it has no value.

00:57:24.000 And someone that comes out and goes, like, sort of funny, like, well, at least you're funny.

00:57:29.000 You know, like, that's where they set the bar.

00:57:32.000 It's their problem.

00:57:33.000 They created that.

00:57:34.000 They should be held responsible.

00:57:36.000 They should provide an alternative.

00:57:37.000 They're not going to, because they're not an alternative, because fundamentally, nothing will change.

00:57:44.000 Like Trump was able to say on the campaign trial for the primaries, you think Jeb Bush is going to do anything?

00:57:48.000 A member of the Johnson & Johnson family is running his campaign!

00:57:52.000 That, and he could say that again, and again, and again, and again, and again, all the way to the White House, you know?

00:57:58.000 And like, so who's it beholden on?

00:57:59.000 Who's the problem really?

00:58:01.000 Right, and I think democracy is supposed to be the safety belt. 0.82

00:58:05.000 When somebody like Joe Biden says nothing will fundamentally change, well, in a democracy, we're supposed to have the opportunity to force change through pressure, through democratic institutions.

00:58:18.000 Now, that hasn't Happened as much as I would like, but that's what it's because our democracy, I think, is so tattered right now.

00:58:26.000 But that's what's that's sort of what the release valve is supposed to be.

00:58:30.000 Look, we did an eight part podcast series called Meltdown, which was how to which to ask the question, how do you go from Obama to Trump?

00:58:37.000 Right.

00:58:37.000 You can't just say it's only racism because 220 counties that voted twice for Obama went to Trump.

00:58:43.000 And I think the answer at its core is what you just said, that You had an election in 2008 in which there was a financial crisis where millions of people were getting thrown out of their homes, and the candidate of alleged change promised fundamental change and then made a series of decisions to turn hope and change into more of the same, to side with the big banks that were causing and creating the problem.

00:59:11.000 And I think what that did was shred the last tatters of the social contract and people's faith in government to do things.

00:59:20.000 And the demagogue, Donald Trump, came in and said, listen, they've all been lying to you.

00:59:26.000 I will make change.

00:59:27.000 And I, you know, I'm a human bomb. 0.78

00:59:29.000 I'm going to blow up the system.

00:59:31.000 Now, what's interesting here is that There was a period of time in American history where this potential kind of thing almost happened before, and there was a different thing that came out of that.

00:59:44.000 Back in the 1930s during the Great Depression, FDR gave a speech In which he said, essentially, that democracies in other parts of the world have fallen because people got so frustrated, and I'm paraphrasing here, but people got so frustrated with their political leaders lying to them that they were willing to discard democracy and vote for authoritarians in the name of getting something to eat.

01:00:10.000 And the reason FDR cited that was to say that his New Deal program,

01:00:15.000 which really did focus resources on the lower end of the economic spectrum,

01:00:21.000 he understood that that was not only a macroeconomic priority, a moral priority,

01:00:26.000 but also a political priority to stop the rise of authoritarianism.

01:00:31.000 He understood that the only way to stop the population from embracing authoritarianism

01:00:38.000 and that kind of destructive demagoguery is to show that the government

01:00:43.000 is actually delivering for the people.

01:00:47.000 I think the Obama moment in 2008, when there was a chance for that to happen

01:00:52.000 and people's hopes were raised and then it didn't happen, I think that was the alternate version

01:00:58.000 of the story of FDR back in the Great Depression.

01:01:01.000 That FDR was facing a rise in the United States of serious anti-democratic authoritarian forces.

01:01:09.000 And he focused on...

01:01:12.000 He wasn't perfect, but he focused on an economic program that delivered for regular people.

01:01:17.000 I think when Obama and the Democrats didn't do that, they shredded an already tattered social contract, created a deep disillusionment to allow for the growth of an authoritarian conservative movement in response to that.

01:01:32.000 And I think we're still living through that.

01:01:34.000 And I think that Joe Biden Being a candidate and a president who has not truly embraced the kind of change and focus that FDR, as an example, emulated, I think that imperils, that further imperils the tattered democracy that we have and further emboldens the authoritarians who are seeking power right now.

01:02:01.000 I would agree with you, but I would also add, David, that if you have a president that bails out the banks when most people wouldn't want that and certainly democratically wouldn't vote for that, you already have authoritarianism because stuff is happening that you don't want to happen.

01:02:17.000 And then a post-Trump, you get Joe Biden, nothing's going to fundamentally change.

01:02:20.000 So where was the bit where it went more authoritarian?

01:02:23.000 What it went was rhetorically out of tune with the profound I have no problem with wokeness.

01:02:37.000 I think people should be who they want to be.

01:02:40.000 What right-minded person doesn't think that?

01:02:42.000 What I have a problem with is the exploitation of those ideas to mask economic and political corruption.

01:02:49.000 And yeah, David, I could talk to you for hours and hours until one of us started saying crazy stuff just to see which one of us would do it first.

01:02:55.000 It'd probably be me because it's an affliction that I have.

01:02:59.000 But we have to wrap up the show.

01:03:01.000 I just thank you once again for your conversation.

01:03:03.000 I always feel like what I think when I speak to you is if I ask the right questions and listen, I will finish this conversation smarter.

01:03:12.000 And I feel that today.

01:03:13.000 So thank you very much.

01:03:14.000 Thank you, Russell.

01:03:14.000 Thanks for having me.

01:03:16.000 Cheers, man.

01:03:16.000 I'll speak to you soon.

01:03:17.000 Thanks, David.

01:03:18.000 You can watch David's interview with AOC.

01:03:20.000 It's worth watching.

01:03:21.000 You can see the question that we were referring to being asked and how that was handled.

01:03:25.000 We'll put a link in the chat.

01:03:26.000 And also you can follow David and his team's work at Lever or Lever, Levernews.com.

01:03:32.000 It's basically an L, an E, a V, an E, an R, then the word news.com.

01:03:36.000 That's what you have to do if you want to see that.

01:03:38.000 We're learning.

01:03:39.000 We are learning.

01:03:39.000 We're all learning together.

01:03:40.000 We're learning together.

01:03:41.000 Join us on Rumble tomorrow, not for more of the same, oh no, but for more of the different.

01:03:46.000 Until then, stay free.

01:03:48.000 Man, you switch it.

01:03:49.000 Switch on.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - April 27, 2023

David Sirota (Cancel Culture: Fact or Fiction?)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript