Stay Free - Russel Brand - Israel vs Palestine: Tucker SLAMS Congress Over Reaction To Attacks - Stay Free #223

00:00:00.000 I'm going to go ahead and get the computer.

00:02:31.000 In this video, you're going to see the future.

00:02:48.000 Hello there you awakening wonder wherever you are in this world amidst the omni-crisis that will not yield.

00:02:54.000 Well done for continuing to transcend fear in a darkening space at a time of deep complexity.

00:03:01.000 It's more important that we come together now than ever before.

00:03:05.000 We must transcend this complex time by looking within and finding deep power Deep power that some would regard as holy is present with you now.

00:03:15.000 Don't be afraid.

00:03:16.000 We're going to keep going together.

00:03:18.000 We're going to talk today about Canada's ongoing information and banking crackdown.

00:03:24.000 Is Canada being used to pilot new degrees of tyranny?

00:03:29.000 I will be speaking to a personal hero of mine later as well, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, I love this man.

00:03:35.000 He was one of the first credible academics to speak out openly and clearly during the pandemic period and say, what you're doing doesn't make sense.

00:03:45.000 He therefore exposed that what we were being told was science was actually its opposite.

00:03:50.000 When you have someone like Dr. Fauci say, I am science, you know you are dealing with orthodoxy, hegemony.

00:03:58.000 We're going to be all over the gaff.

00:04:00.000 For the first part of the show, I mean, we'll be available on all platforms.

00:04:03.000 That was a weird colloquialism to have used there for an international medium such as this and for an international community such as ours.

00:04:10.000 What I mean to say is wherever you get your content, you can watch us now, but you're going to have to click the link in the description eventually and get Rumble and join us on Rumble.

00:04:17.000 And if you haven't got the Rumble app yet, Get it now because if you subscribe to us on Rumble and turn on the notification bell, you'll be told every time we make content.

00:04:25.000 You'll be told about our live streams.

00:04:28.000 Fantastic live streams.

00:04:29.000 Anyway, we've got a lot to talk about.

00:04:31.000 And by the way, if you can support us by clicking the red button to become an Awakened Wanderer, it's more important now than ever.

00:04:37.000 We do meditations together.

00:04:38.000 We do Bible readings together.

00:04:40.000 We're like people there.

00:04:41.000 We're preppers, man.

00:04:42.000 We're prepping now.

00:04:43.000 Well, we are.

00:04:43.000 We're not prepping.

00:04:44.000 But we're preparing for something better than this.

00:04:46.000 You know the system doesn't work.

00:04:48.000 We tell you how every day.

00:04:50.000 Over there, as an Awakened Wonder, we're going to explain to you the new solutions.

00:04:54.000 We will discover together how we're going to get through this.

00:04:58.000 The five ideas that are going to save the world.

00:05:00.000 Five communities that are off-grid and out of the system that work better.

00:05:04.000 These are the things we're going to learn together.

00:05:06.000 You feel you don't fit in in this world?

00:05:07.000 I know what it's like to feel that feeling I've felt in my whole life.

00:05:10.000 You come with us.

00:05:11.000 We'll work this out together.

00:05:13.000 Now, Tucker Carlson has spoken out on the complex evolving situation in the Middle East.

00:05:21.000 Particularly he's criticised Nikki Haley and Lindsey Graham.

00:05:24.000 Both said support in Ukraine is in US national interest and both of them have used extremely

00:05:30.000 vehement rhetoric with regard to this complex matter.

00:05:34.000 I have too much respect for those that are personally harmed in this unprecedented, escalatory

00:05:40.000 and difficult time to offer you strong condemnation, support or anything.

00:05:47.000 I simply don't feel qualified.

00:05:48.000 But Tucker is pointing out some interesting things that I think we can all agree on.

00:05:53.000 Wherever you stand on this complex issue, and I suppose the only way forward is to appreciate that there are numerous positions, You have to recognise, as we discussed yesterday, that it's wrong for people in Congress to profit from this.

00:06:07.000 We all agree with that, right?

00:06:09.000 People in Congress shouldn't be investing right now in weapons manufacturers and energy companies to exploit their insider knowledge, should they?

00:06:17.000 Let me know in the chat and the comments.

00:06:18.000 Tucker points out that people in positions of political power should surely not be using incendiary rhetoric.

00:06:26.000 What do you think about that?

00:06:28.000 And perhaps more importantly still, do you trust them?

00:06:32.000 Do you trust them on Ukraine-Russia?

00:06:35.000 Do you trust them to handle this situation in the Middle East?

00:06:39.000 Do you trust those institutions at all?

00:06:42.000 The government?

00:06:43.000 The legacy media?

00:06:45.000 Do you trust them?

00:06:46.000 Let's have a look at what Tucker Carlson is saying and let me know what you feel about what Tucker is saying on this subject.

00:06:52.000 So there's a lot at stake in how we encourage Israel to respond to the horrifying Hamas attacks. 0.95

00:06:58.000 Wisdom and long-term thinking are essential, but you will not be surprised to learn that is not what we are getting.

00:07:05.000 Watch this person, for example, who happens to be the media's pick for President of the United States.

00:07:11.000 This is not just an attack on Israel.

00:07:14.000 This is an attack on America.

00:07:16.000 Because they hate us just as much.

00:07:18.000 And what we have to understand is, this is the reason that we have to unite around making sure our enemies do not hurt our friends.

00:07:28.000 America can never be so arrogant to think we don't need friends, just like we needed them on 9-11.

00:07:34.000 That's why Ukraine needs us when Russia's doing this. 0.81

00:07:37.000 That's why Israel needs us when Hamas and Iran are doing this. 0.99

00:07:41.000 And I'll say this to Prime Minister Netanyahu, finish them.

00:07:45.000 Finish them.

00:07:46.000 Hamas did this. 0.62

00:07:47.000 You know Iran's behind it. 0.99

00:07:49.000 Finish them. 0.97

00:07:50.000 They should have hell to pay for what they've just done. 0.89

00:07:53.000 This was an attack on America, she says, when in fact it was not.

00:07:57.000 And for that reason, we must, quote, finish Iran, a nation of nearly 90 million people.

00:08:03.000 What are we watching here?

00:08:05.000 This is not sober leadership.

00:08:07.000 She's a child, and this is the tantrum of a child. 1.00

00:08:10.000 Ignorant, cocksure, bloodthirsty. 1.00

00:08:13.000 Yet no one in Washington scolded her for it. 1.00

00:08:16.000 In fact, they aped her hysteria. 0.99

00:08:18.000 Here's fellow neocon Lindsey Graham just spelling it out and calling for the bombing of Iran.

00:08:24.000 Notice that Tucker uses phrases like neocon to ensure we understand that transcendent of the presumed division between Democrat and Republican, there's a political movement that encompasses both of those sides, meaning you have very little when it comes to meaningful democratic purchase.

00:08:41.000 So I've been on the phone all day to the Mideast and I've told our allies and people with connections to Iran.

00:08:47.000 What I would do, I would tell Iran that if Hezbollah attacks Israel, we're going to come after you, the Iranians, and have a coordinated effort between the United States and Israel. 0.90

00:08:59.000 Do you wonder that complex, tragic, awful as this situation is and continues to be, that there are people that are exploiting it?

00:09:09.000 Do you consider that the people in Congress that are purchasing stocks in weapons manufacturers are exploiting this situation?

00:09:15.000 Do you think that those that are pushing an agenda to increase expenditure on the Ukraine-Russia conflict are exploiting this situation?

00:09:22.000 Do you think that politicians such as we have just been shown are exploiting this situation to increase Military tensions to increase military expenditure.

00:09:33.000 Do you think if we investigated the funding of Lindsay there and Nicky there, we might find that there are donations from weapons manufacturers and other vested interests?

00:09:45.000 I cannot enough convey to you my determination not to further impede on the broken hearts of people directly affected by this tragedy.

00:09:57.000 What I urge is that those of us that are not directly affected, and in a way we are all directly affected, but not in the same way that people that are religiously, ideologically or personally connected to this issue.

00:10:08.000 We have to consider, how is this being exploited?

00:10:13.000 Cynically exploited by institutions that usually, when our emotions are a little more in alignment, even though that's generally hard these days, in this state of omnicrisis and generally escalate intentions, it's hard to remain sanguine and clear and focused.

00:10:30.000 And yet those of us who can, surely must.

00:10:33.000 And those that are directly affected and understandably hurt, furious, broken, grief-stricken and terrified, those people's feelings must of course be respected.

00:10:44.000 But let me know what you think about Tucker's observation that the hysteria of Nikki Haley and the warmongering of Lindsey Graham might not be about the service of any of the people directly involved in the conflict, For have we not seen many times legitimate and real crises exploited to the advantage of powerful interests?

00:11:09.000 Even in times of heightened emotion, surely we must remain present enough To observe what we have already learned about these exploiting interests, it's so vital that those of us that can stay present, do stay present.

00:11:25.000 And pray for those that are currently unable to, due to their understandable grief, anguish and despair.

00:11:32.000 To put Iran out of the oil business by destroying their refineries. 0.52

00:11:37.000 Don't actually talk about the oil business.

00:11:40.000 People are being murdered.

00:11:41.000 This is a devastating, awful, awful situation.

00:11:44.000 Let's get oil business, though.

00:11:47.000 Let's take a minute's silence for the oil business.

00:11:50.000 There are four major refineries in Iran.

00:11:52.000 They're fixed targets.

00:11:54.000 Oh, my God.

00:11:55.000 That's not about the victims of the terrorist attack.

00:11:59.000 That's not about people living in Gaza, is it?

00:12:02.000 It doesn't matter.

00:12:03.000 We should all be appalled by that.

00:12:05.000 Are you appalled by this?

00:12:07.000 If Hezbollah attacks Israel, I would make Iran pay a heavy price. 0.97

00:12:11.000 What exactly would happen to the United States if we declared war on Iran and started blowing up their infrastructure? 0.91

00:12:18.000 Lindsey Graham has no clue what would happen.

00:12:21.000 He hasn't thought it through.

00:12:22.000 He's almost 70 years old and he has no children.

00:12:25.000 He doesn't care.

00:12:26.000 Tucker Carlson is incisive, isn't he?

00:12:29.000 What he does very elegantly, Tucker Carlson, is he's stating and expressing opinion.

00:12:35.000 I think he's being very respectful, at least the bits that we're watching now and commenting on.

00:12:40.000 And then he, like, gives Lindsey Graham such a massive dig for not having kids.

00:12:45.000 What is that about?

00:12:47.000 What is that about?

00:12:48.000 But neither amazingly do most of his colleagues in Washington.

00:12:51.000 They're as reckless as he is.

00:12:53.000 Texas Congressman Dan Crenshaw took to social media to call for what he described as a war to end all wars.

00:13:00.000 As if there is such a thing.

00:13:02.000 Plainly, ordinary consciousness is being taken to its very limits.

00:13:07.000 That's why it's worrying that progressive Gavin Newsom, governor of California, who has always presented himself as the future, plainly a person who sees himself as a potential president, let me know in the chat if you think he's being primed for such a role, has Vetoed the possibility of psychedelics being used therapeutically.

00:13:27.000 There's a lot of complexity around this issue too.

00:13:29.000 A lot of us think, oh man, you don't want those being exploited or falling into the hands of a big pharma or whatever.

00:13:35.000 Because many of you know and sense that there are deeper realities than the material realities.

00:13:40.000 If you believe in God, like I believe in God, you know there are great powers that are beyond any situation, any condition, any person, any political movement.

00:13:49.000 And surely we must call upon those powers now.

00:13:51.000 And one of the indicators that there are other layers, realms, and frequencies to reality are psychedelics.

00:13:58.000 So luckily, Gavin Newsom, lockdown party-goer...

00:14:02.000 is pretty keen to ban them.

00:14:04.000 Governor Newsom has vetoed a bill to decriminalize the possession and personal use of magic mushrooms as well as other psychedelic drugs.

00:14:12.000 Governor says the psychedelics may help people dealing with depression and mental illness, but the state must create clear guidelines for their use before they are legalized.

00:14:20.000 The governor also vetoing a bill designed to legalize cannabis cafes in California.

00:14:26.000 We know back in 2016, we saw Governor Newsom here championing legalizing cannabis.

00:14:26.000 Yeah, that's right.

00:14:34.000 Yeah, that's right.

00:14:35.000 He's not that progressive after all.

00:14:36.000 He uses the rhetoric of progressivism, but actually he seems to be quite authoritarian.

00:14:40.000 I mean, remember when he sacked all those doctors for misinformation?

00:14:44.000 Simply put, your family doctor had to tell you, agreed, Government positions on COVID, otherwise they risk being sacked.

00:14:52.000 So that doesn't sound progressive, does it?

00:14:54.000 And he's also recently announced upcoming digital ID.

00:14:58.000 Like, really, they're not progressive.

00:14:59.000 They just sort of have a haircut or whatever and talk about caring about minority groups or disadvantaged people, but actually don't create policies that will in any way benefit people that are disadvantaged in any way.

00:15:11.000 All they ever care about, it seems, is increasing authoritarianism.

00:15:15.000 And they certainly don't want people voyaging into the depths of their psyche and discovering a deep unity between all the world's people and that love is a powerful resource that can be accessed in every individual and could ultimately be used to create new systems and new democracies.

00:15:31.000 I have taken some magic mushrooms.

00:15:33.000 I'm gonna hand myself in to Gavin Newsom right now.

00:15:35.000 Now when it comes to psychedelics he says that more still needs to be done such as implementing more guidelines.

00:15:41.000 Now this bill would have legalized or taken away those criminal penalties for anyone 21 and up in the state from possessing or using psychedelics such as magic mushrooms.

00:15:53.000 Dr. Alia Ahmad is a psychedelic researcher and physician at Shaman's Healing Center in Sacramento.

00:15:59.000 She says they are disappointed in the governor's decision after researching some of the positive impacts psychedelics can have on treating mental health disorders.

00:16:08.000 What you've done there is you've made the mistake of thinking that Gavin Newsom and the government more broadly are interested in anything other than accruing more authority that can ultimately be used in the service of deep state and globalist corporate interests.

00:16:23.000 As long as you bear that in mind, you'll never be disappointed again.

00:16:25.000 Their legislation will always increase their ability to control individuals and let off the hook powerful corporations.

00:16:31.000 That's why in the state of omnicrisis, ongoing war, lots of people profit from that.

00:16:36.000 And people in Congress Invest in more war.

00:16:39.000 That's why in a health crisis, pharmaceutical companies benefit.

00:16:43.000 That's why in an energy crisis, where your energy bills go up, energy companies that are subsidized make record profits.

00:16:50.000 So what they need is more and more ability to shut down dissent.

00:16:53.000 No, as that's happening through censorship bills, more ability to control certainly the sort of consciousness and layers of consciousness and layers of reality that you explore that might possibly cause you to change your value system, all that's got to be shut right down.

00:17:08.000 They want authority and absolute control and the way that they will legitimize that authority is through safety, through keeping you safe.

00:17:16.000 Do you know who I'd like to keep safe?

00:17:17.000 Like me and literally anyone other than the government, legacy media, financial system, Unelected globalist bodies that pass down regulation to individual sovereign nations.

00:17:27.000 I'd like them out of the picture.

00:17:29.000 And guess what?

00:17:30.000 We can't do that unless all of us come together and are willing to put aside some of our many and sometimes glaringly obvious causes for division and opposition.

00:17:39.000 My God, we better find a way to transcend.

00:17:41.000 We better find a way to transcend because the enemy are organizing fast and the enemy is not each other.

00:17:48.000 Also, X is being censored to within an inch of its life.

00:17:52.000 Elon Musk's brave stand against censorship is now under attack from, of all things, the EU.

00:17:58.000 Do you even know what the EU is?

00:18:00.000 The EU's like a government for Europe.

00:18:02.000 It doesn't even really properly make sense.

00:18:04.000 No one really wants it anymore.

00:18:06.000 It's untrustworthy. 0.98

00:18:06.000 It's ridiculous. 0.98

00:18:07.000 It's expensive. 0.68

00:18:08.000 And they've judged X to be a hotbed for illegal content and disinformation.

00:18:15.000 Thierry Breton, who's like just some sort of EU commissioner, Talks like, like James Gandolfini or something.

00:18:21.000 He's written Elon Musk a letter saying, following the terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas against Israel, we have indications that your platform is being used to disseminate illegal content and disinformation in the EU.

00:18:32.000 I remind you that following the opening of a potential investigation and a finding of non-compliance, penalties can be imposed.

00:18:37.000 Do you see how this awful, terrible situation is being exploited by the weapons industry?

00:18:45.000 It's being exploited by people that want to censor Media spaces, it's being exploited because people's emotions are understandably running over and people see that as a window.

00:18:56.000 Look at what they do.

00:18:57.000 Just try to remember.

00:18:58.000 This is why we as individuals, we've got to do our best to find some different level of connection with one another.

00:19:04.000 Please press the red button.

00:19:05.000 Join us if you can.

00:19:06.000 If you can't, it's so important that you download that app if you can.

00:19:08.000 Stay with us if you can.

00:19:10.000 Let's have a look at how Vera Jarova talks about the necessity for I don't know, censorship, probably. 1.00

00:19:18.000 X, former Twitter, who is not under the code anymore, is the platform with the largest ratio of missed or disinformation posts.

00:19:28.000 Who's deciding what's misinformation and disinformation?

00:19:31.000 You?

00:19:32.000 Who's going to make those kind of choices?

00:19:33.000 The same people that have decided that saying, get a vaccine, if you get a vaccine, it stops right now, or that ivermectin is horseplay.

00:19:40.000 Who's making the decision?

00:19:41.000 Who do you trust?

00:19:42.000 Do you trust the government?

00:19:43.000 Do you trust the legacy media?

00:19:45.000 Do you trust the EU?

00:19:46.000 Do you trust the UN or the WEF?

00:19:48.000 Why would you trust them?

00:19:49.000 Some of them you fund, one way or another, if not directly through your taxes, through bizarre commercial arrangements.

00:19:55.000 But do you trust them?

00:19:57.000 I don't.

00:19:58.000 The pilot also showed that disinformation actors were found to have significantly more followers than their non-disinformation counterparts.

00:20:07.000 People seem to like people that don't like us and what we tell them.

00:20:11.000 We not like this.

00:20:12.000 Why don't we find any way of shutting down anybody who doesn't agree with us?

00:20:16.000 We could just say whatever we want and then say their argument against what we're saying is a kind of disinformation.

00:20:22.000 This is brilliant!

00:20:23.000 In fact, if we can eliminate Elon Musk and his considerable wealth and evident principles, then we can control the whole world!

00:20:30.000 Ah!

00:20:31.000 Not funny!

00:20:31.000 I mean, we can help people more, because you can see how we're helping!

00:20:35.000 Look around at all of the help that's happening!

00:20:38.000 Do you think that the imposition of online censorship is about Authoritarianism, managing information, managing dissent, presenting commercial opportunities to valued corporate partners, controlling the potential for oppositionist organizations in any country around the world, let alone global alliances that oppose the globalism itself, or do you think it's about they're worried that when you go online that you might be somehow vulnerable or hurt?

00:21:04.000 What is it they've ever said or done in all history that leads you to think they care about your feelings?

00:21:10.000 ...tend and tend to have joined the platform more recently than non-disinformation users.

00:21:18.000 Mr. Musk knows that he is not off the hook.

00:21:20.000 You are not off the hook.

00:21:22.000 You are still very much on the hook.

00:21:24.000 We can still get your money.

00:21:25.000 We can censor you.

00:21:27.000 Because now we have the Digital Services Act fully in force.

00:21:32.000 Oh my god, so you can't just opt?

00:21:33.000 Remember when it was convenient for them to say, oh, they're private platforms?

00:21:36.000 Do you remember that?

00:21:37.000 They're private platforms.

00:21:38.000 They can say what they want.

00:21:39.000 They can ban Donald Trump if they want to.

00:21:41.000 It's a private platform.

00:21:42.000 Oh, right, they're not banning Donald Trump anymore.

00:21:44.000 Regulate them!

00:21:45.000 We will be enforcing that.

00:21:47.000 We have our, I think, very well-equipped unit which will monitor and supervise what the platforms are doing.

00:21:59.000 And as Twitter has been designated as the very large online platform, of course there are obligations given by the hard law.

00:22:11.000 So my message for Twitter is you have to comply with the Hart Law.

00:22:16.000 The only decision we have to make as individuals, people that believe in free speech, is do you trust these institutions or not?

00:22:23.000 Do you trust them to make moral judgment?

00:22:25.000 Do you trust them to discern what's misinformation and disinformation and what isn't?

00:22:29.000 If the answer, like my personal answer, is no, I don't trust them, I don't trust them at all, then you have to, in one way or another, oppose This tyrannical tide towards centralised power and the closing down of free speech.

00:22:42.000 We will be watching what you are doing.

00:22:45.000 What's terrifying, additionally terrifying, about what Vera Jarová is saying is that laws are being passed all around the world to prohibit free speech.

00:22:52.000 And as we have told you before, if you shut down free speech, then everything else is up in the air.

00:22:58.000 Let's explain to you how that happens.

00:23:01.000 Canada has already brought in online regulatory laws that mean that podcasts can be controlled and that online platforms can be fined if they report on information that the government deems to be misinformation.

00:23:14.000 Oh, that was misinformation!

00:23:16.000 However, let me show you already, in real time, what that's led to.

00:23:21.000 In Canada, there's been an unprecedented spate of debanking people. 0.98

00:23:24.000 That means shutting down the bank accounts of people who essentially you don't like.

00:23:28.000 Presumably because they're Nazis. 0.71

00:23:29.000 Although, in Canada, being a Nazi can literally get you a round of applause in Parliament. 0.50

00:23:33.000 You know that.

00:23:34.000 That's not my fault.

00:23:35.000 That's their fault.

00:23:36.000 They did it.

00:23:38.000 So, people are getting their bank accounts shut down if they don't agree with the state.

00:23:42.000 Why don't we know about that?

00:23:43.000 That's weird.

00:23:44.000 That should have been in the news.

00:23:45.000 Yeah, I'll tell you why it's not in the news.

00:23:46.000 Because the legacy media won't report it because they're in alignment with it, and independent media can't report it because they're being regulated and controlled.

00:23:53.000 That's what What happens if you allow this type of legislation to be passed?

00:23:58.000 If we don't all stand up together now, we're going to lose the possibility to stand together forever.

00:24:04.000 Let's have a look at Canada.

00:24:06.000 Dystopia pilot.

00:24:07.000 Practicing laws and regulations that even five years ago would have been unimaginable.

00:24:12.000 Here's the news.

00:24:13.000 No, here's the effing news.

00:24:15.000 Thanks for watching the Fox News News video. 0.99

00:24:17.000 No, here's the fucking news. 0.99

00:24:20.000 Canada's debanking people. 0.99

00:24:22.000 What does de-banking mean?

00:24:24.000 It means shutting down people's bank accounts.

00:24:25.000 Why ain't I heard of that?

00:24:26.000 Because Canada's also got online streaming laws that mean you can't be told the news.

00:24:30.000 Oh, well, it's just Canada piloting dystopia.

00:24:33.000 It's happening in other countries as well, like the UK.

00:24:35.000 Oh, so is hell around the corner?

00:24:38.000 Well, no, it's actually here.

00:24:40.000 We've got to do something!

00:24:43.000 So, Canada.

00:24:44.000 It's not like Canada was a utopia, an Eden, a vision of a better world, even if they do have politicians called things like Justin Trudeau or Chrystia Freeland, the sarcastically named Canadian politicians.

00:24:58.000 What's your name?

00:24:59.000 Freedom.

00:24:59.000 Truth.

00:25:00.000 What's your policy?

00:25:01.000 We're in charge.

00:25:02.000 It's a strange and crazy place. I never looked at Canada as a sort of an outlier when it comes to like a perfect

00:25:07.000 Although I will say, as an English person, you always think America's going a bit too far with the colonizing the world

00:25:07.000 civilization.

00:25:14.000 and the resource wars and all that kind of stuff.

00:25:16.000 I'm talking about, you know, back in Iraq days.

00:25:18.000 And I always think that Canada and Australia, well, they're not as bad as we are, trenched in tradition and the

00:25:23.000 colonialism and all the blood on the hands of that stuff.

00:25:25.000 But also they're not doing the new commercial version of colonialism that America's doing.

00:25:29.000 Maybe Australia and Canada are some sort of slightly more neutered version of an anglophonic future, but now both those countries are essentially pilot schemes for dystopia, whether it's internment camps in Australia during lockdown or Canada's new online censorship bill, basically a censorship bill.

00:25:44.000 We've got one of those here, of course, as well.

00:25:46.000 But now, They're like literally debunking people.

00:25:48.000 I don't like keep saying debunking because it sounds too much like debunking people.

00:25:51.000 I debunk you, sir.

00:25:53.000 How dare you?

00:25:54.000 This maple syrup's perfect.

00:25:55.000 It's not that.

00:25:56.000 It's like they're shutting down people's bank accounts, usually because they don't agree with their views.

00:26:00.000 Like with the famous trucker convoys, they started messing with people's money.

00:26:03.000 When they start messing with your money, messing with your free speech, that's not good, is it?

00:26:08.000 Let's get into it.

00:26:09.000 A bank or other financial service provider Okay, well that's terrifying. 0.54

00:26:17.000 Don't just say that as if it's alright while Justin Trudeau stands there covering his mouth and genitals simultaneously as if that prevents us from seeing what's truly happening here.

00:26:30.000 Canada is meant to be a country that is a celebration of liberalism.

00:26:33.000 What does liberalism mean these days?

00:26:35.000 Let us know in the chat.

00:26:37.000 Now, if you follow Jordan Peterson, you'll know that there are all sorts of extraordinary stuff

00:26:41.000 with his license as a clinician that doesn't seem right.

00:26:44.000 And what we can't fall into, and I beg you not to, I know a lot of you will love Jordan Peterson,

00:26:48.000 certainly I love Jordan Peterson, but a lot of you will go,

00:26:50.000 oh, Jordan Peterson, no, isn't he like sexist or whatever?

00:26:54.000 Or Nigel Farage, who we'll be talking about later.

00:26:55.000 I've had like actual arguments on TV with Nigel Farage and Spats,

00:26:59.000 because I don't agree with him on a bunch of stuff.

00:27:01.000 But I tell you what I don't think, that you should shut down Nigel Farage's bank account

00:27:05.000 because you don't agree with him.

00:27:06.000 I don't think that.

00:27:07.000 I think Nigel Farage should be allowed to express himself freely in a democracy, and if in a democracy a referendum don't go your way, hey baby, democracy that you said you love.

00:27:16.000 So when you start shutting down people's bank accounts, shutting down people's free speech, and when the rest of us go, I don't mind really because I don't agree with that person, what we are is sort of compliant with emergent forms of fascism.

00:27:28.000 The Canadian government is cracking down on financial supporters of the illegal blockade.

00:27:33.000 So if you are one of the Canadians who donated, should you expect your bank accounts to be frozen today?

00:27:38.000 Well, no, because that's terrifying.

00:27:41.000 Also, they just glibly refer to it as an illegal convoy.

00:27:43.000 What do you mean, illegal convoy?

00:27:45.000 Just for a minute, step back.

00:27:46.000 If you don't agree with something that's happening in your country, your country that you live in, should you be able to protest without knowing what the subject is?

00:27:52.000 What's it about?

00:27:53.000 Is it something that I agree with?

00:27:55.000 No.

00:27:55.000 Well, you've got that.

00:27:56.000 Have some principles.

00:27:57.000 Alright then, yes, you should be able to protest.

00:27:59.000 Right, so why is this protest illegal?

00:28:01.000 Because we don't agree with it!

00:28:02.000 An emailed comment from the Canadian Bankers Association says the required measures will be diligently implemented by financial service providers, but they don't expect them to impact the vast majority of customers.

00:28:15.000 They also did not define what diligently implemented means.

00:28:19.000 It just means they're going to try their hardest to shut down the bank accounts of people they don't agree with.

00:28:23.000 And it won't impact the vast majority of customers.

00:28:26.000 I mean, if the vast majority of your customers are going to have their bank accounts frozen, I don't see things going very well at the bank.

00:28:26.000 Or should I hope not?

00:28:32.000 Well, it's quite good, because we're keeping all their money!

00:28:34.000 Canada's Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland, also announced that that order covers both personal and corporate accounts.

00:28:41.000 But the Canadian Bankers Association said that we'll just have to wait and see how that plays out.

00:28:46.000 Probably be alright.

00:28:47.000 Now you might have noticed that this is a news report from a little while ago.

00:28:50.000 The news that we're going to tell you is up to the second.

00:28:53.000 But there is no mainstream media news or indeed online news on this because Canada have introduced an online safety bill that allows them to censor this type of information and we're introducing these kind of bills all around the world and you might have noticed that independent media voices are being vehemently attacked and shut down everywhere.

00:29:08.000 Have you noticed that?

00:29:08.000 Because I have.

00:29:09.000 So look at what's going on.

00:29:11.000 Hello!

00:29:12.000 After three ministers, five years, and dozens of amendments, the Liberal government's controversial Online Streaming Act has finally become law.

00:29:19.000 And there are some big changes coming for streamers.

00:29:22.000 There certainly are.

00:29:23.000 Everything you do is subject to new scrutiny and censorship and fines.

00:29:28.000 You have seen that X were threatened with a fine just the other day.

00:29:32.000 We'll be talking about that elsewhere.

00:29:33.000 The law will require platforms to promote Canadian content, require streaming services like Netflix to pay to support Canadian media content like music and TV shows, and it will give the CRTC broad powers over digital media companies, including the ability to impose financial penalties for violations of the Act.

00:29:52.000 That doesn't sound as good, especially if you can't pay those penalties because your bank account's been shut down.

00:29:56.000 Do you know what I mean?

00:29:57.000 When you get the government sort of calling up social media, comforting and saying, are you gonna demonetize that person?

00:30:03.000 This is not liberalism.

00:30:05.000 Liberalism is not authoritarianism.

00:30:07.000 Are you noticing how words are changing their meaning?

00:30:09.000 That is also not good.

00:30:11.000 Free speech is an important value.

00:30:13.000 Yes, but people are so hateful.

00:30:14.000 What about the misanthropy at the core of that?

00:30:16.000 If you allow people to Yeah well sometimes people aren't perfect but I'd rather endure a little of that than the alternative which is granting authority to institutions that we know are corrupt already and don't trust. 0.99

00:30:31.000 So you've not heard about the debanking firstly because it's a stupid word and secondly because it's a ludicrous policy. 0.94

00:30:37.000 If you're British you'll have heard about the Nigel Farage story. 0.94

00:30:39.000 If you're Canadian you might not have heard of the debanking that's going on in your country because people aren't reporting on it because Because there's a censorship law in place that prevents the truth from being accurately conveyed.

00:30:50.000 I'm not making this up.

00:30:51.000 It's actually happening.

00:30:52.000 You can look it up for yourself, but actually, we'll do it for you and save you a bit of time.

00:30:56.000 A sweeping debanking wave has swept across Canada, affecting over 800 citizens in its tide since 2018.

00:31:02.000 A number which includes hundreds who rallied behind the banner of the Freedom Convoy.

00:31:06.000 Obviously.

00:31:07.000 Data unearthed through an access to information request by Black Locks, not to be confused with Black Rocks.

00:31:13.000 Please don't confuse them with Black Rocks.

00:31:15.000 Reporter unveiled a disturbing pattern where 837 individuals found the doors of their banks slammed shut on them over a span of five years.

00:31:23.000 The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada was brought into the loop through grievances lodged with regulatory bodies shedding light on financial strangulation that bypassed cases of validated terrorism and money laundering.

00:31:35.000 Right, so terrorism and money laundering, that's a legitimate reason, I guess, to debank someone.

00:31:40.000 As has often been pointed out, in many of the areas where censorship regulation is introduced, or new forms of regulation are introduced, we already have laws for that.

00:31:49.000 Violence is already illegal.

00:31:51.000 Terrorism's already illegal.

00:31:52.000 Money laundering's already illegal.

00:31:53.000 The new laws that you're legitimizing through the use of that language are actually redundant, because that stuff's already legislated against.

00:32:02.000 And hold on, there's a whole raft of new powers that are going to affect Everybody.

00:32:07.000 In a deeper dive into the numbers, it's revealed that the financial shackles tightened around 267 bank accounts and 170 Bitcoin wallets belonging to Freedom Convoy supporters ensnaring an estimated 7.8 million dollars.

00:32:21.000 That probably means they won't be able to protest, so you won't be able to argue with the government.

00:32:27.000 So the government is a liberal government that believes in freedom and helping people.

00:32:31.000 No, no, that doesn't sound right, does it?

00:32:33.000 Tyrannical!

00:32:34.000 Yes, that's what it is.

00:32:36.000 This exercise in financial censorship spun a web of scrutiny during a hearing on March the 7th, 2022, when Angelina Mason, representing the Bankers Association, testified.

00:32:46.000 Mason outlined that while the Royal Canadian Mounted Police supplied a list of names, banks were also mandated by separate orders to exercise their judgment in identifying account holders for debanking.

00:32:58.000 So I sort of asked, right, well, the police can have a little look, but they're busy, you know, they're mounted after all, they've got a tent to the horse, I suppose, and that hat can't be easy to look after.

00:33:07.000 So would you, the bank yourself, just have a look around in people's accounts, see if there's any familiar names, see if there's anything that you don't agree with going on.

00:33:14.000 We can't empower banks to do that, that's not what a bank is.

00:33:17.000 How can banks make moral decisions about their customers when they make their money through investing in all sorts of nefarious activity?

00:33:25.000 Weapons manufacturers, energy, have you ever looked into how banks are making their money?

00:33:29.000 What their moral position is?

00:33:30.000 Do you remember what happened in 2008?

00:33:31.000 Do you remember how that banking crisis played out?

00:33:34.000 And you know who supported them in that?

00:33:35.000 The government.

00:33:36.000 So the government and banks being arbiters of morality, like the same way as the media.

00:33:40.000 Where are the media? 0.79

00:33:42.000 I'm curious how moral you're letting the actual scum of the earth determine right from wrong.

00:33:48.000 What do you think that's going to lead to? 0.59

00:33:49.000 We have to work fast.

00:33:50.000 We have to work smart.

00:33:51.000 We have to recognize, I recognize now, this is not a game anymore.

00:33:55.000 This is actually happening.

00:33:57.000 A few years ago, maybe you'd see someone like Alex Jones or something, and you'd think, oh, come on, he's a sort of hysterical preacher.

00:34:03.000 And perhaps archetypally, there is some of that in a character like Alex Jones, who, let me say plainly, I don't agree with everything he says, the same way as I don't agree with everything Nigel Farage says.

00:34:11.000 But I do agree with people's right To speak.

00:34:13.000 I do agree with people's right to disagree with me.

00:34:16.000 I do agree with principles of justice and legislation and order and democracy.

00:34:21.000 Ideas around which the argument is supposed to have been won.

00:34:24.000 And the people and groups and parties that claim to most espouse and represent those values, guess what they're doing?

00:34:29.000 They're at odds with those values.

00:34:30.000 They're limiting those values.

00:34:32.000 They're walking back those values and replacing them with authoritarianism.

00:34:36.000 Just look at our hair and listen to a saying that we care about this group or that group.

00:34:39.000 They don't care about anything.

00:34:41.000 They care about power.

00:34:41.000 And even if they do care about those things, they're not legislating in alignment with the principles they're discussing.

00:34:46.000 They're legislating in an authoritarian manner.

00:34:48.000 The outrage at the Nigel Farage-Coutts-NatWest debanking scandal in the United Kingdom does not align with the complete disinterest in Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's debanking of an entire political caste.

00:35:01.000 In England, we do one person.

00:35:02.000 In Canada, we're going to do an entire political caste. 0.79

00:35:06.000 Nice one Canada.

00:35:06.000 Banking, it has been argued in the halls of parliament, in the pages of major publications, is a human right in the modern world.

00:35:12.000 De-banking, it follows, should be seen as an abuse of those fundamental rights.

00:35:17.000 Unfortunately, it is clear UK parliamentarians only cared about the Farage de-banking scandal because they could see themselves suffering the same fate when they're voted out of office, which is likely to be This goes a long way to explaining why those same MPs who now make grand speeches about the human rights of banking said nothing and did nothing during the Covid years when their fellow Commonwealth nation, Canada, debunked citizens as punishment for protesting against the government.

00:35:40.000 The government may not be on your team, the legacy media may not be on your team, but I tell you who's on our team and therefore yours...

00:35:48.000 Sticker Mule! 0.99

00:35:49.000 We've teamed up with Sticker Mule once more to create this limited edition sticker pack.

00:35:53.000 You are gonna love this.

00:35:54.000 There are... Wait a second, it's quite difficult to get in, but, you know, gotta keep these stickers safe.

00:35:58.000 There are six stunning designs that are only available in this pack.

00:36:02.000 Oh, ain't it exciting?

00:36:03.000 They're all made with Sticker Mule's magic touch.

00:36:06.000 Sticker Mule has 10,000 of these packs.

00:36:09.000 That's right, 10,000 ready to deliver to your address Absolutely free, you can have it now.

00:36:13.000 Like me, I've got this one, you can have one.

00:36:14.000 Just go to stickermule.com forward slash Russell and fill out the form.

00:36:18.000 It's really worth it.

00:36:19.000 This one, part of my clothes now.

00:36:21.000 Put it on your laptop, put it on your phone, put it wherever you want to.

00:36:24.000 It's your life, it's completely free.

00:36:28.000 10,000 packs.

00:36:28.000 Look at me, contemplating life, just trying my best.

00:36:30.000 Fantastic, good old Stickermule.

00:36:32.000 Stickermule, we loves ya.

00:36:34.000 Okay, let's get back to this story about the Canadian government.

00:36:37.000 Because I tell you what, you can't trust, do you know who should run Canada?

00:36:42.000 Sticker mule.

00:36:43.000 Come on, let's get into this.

00:36:44.000 Giving police excessive powers to attack the finances of those attending peaceful protests shocked many, and yet the silence from leaderships around the world fell heavy on the air.

00:36:53.000 Only the pages of the truly independent press were screeching.

00:36:56.000 Only independent media can report on stories like this for now.

00:36:59.000 That's being impeded by censorship laws around the world.

00:37:02.000 The silence from the political class is understandable.

00:37:05.000 It happened during a time when every Western government was engaged in the abuse of human rights and civil rights through various emergency powers and health orders.

00:37:12.000 It was being normalised.

00:37:14.000 We're now seeing, as many people said we would, post-Covid authoritarianism being normalised.

00:37:19.000 The use of technology to extract people from mainstream culture normalised.

00:37:24.000 If people don't get vaccines, they just shouldn't be allowed out. 0.99

00:37:27.000 That's what it should be.

00:37:28.000 If someone without a vaccine goes to a hospital, they should be refused treatment, right?

00:37:31.000 It's time to normalise that stuff.

00:37:32.000 Now look what's happening.

00:37:33.000 Well, if someone, you know, protests about something, you should shut their bank account down.

00:37:37.000 What?

00:37:38.000 When did... That's... Haven't we had that argument already, like, in medieval times?

00:37:43.000 And didn't we agree that what we were going to do is people are allowed to have different views from one another?

00:37:47.000 Like, where are all those values gone?

00:37:49.000 Where have they gone?

00:37:50.000 What's happening?

00:37:51.000 None of our leaders broke ranks observing the don't throw stones in a glass house ideology.

00:37:55.000 The press are the ones who should have been pelting rocks at these glass houses but they kept quiet too because they too had threatened their staff with mandates or taken vast sums of money from Big Pharma.

00:38:05.000 If citizens tried to speak on social media they were erased from platforms that were making a killing in pharmaceutical ad revenue.

00:38:10.000 What a mess.

00:38:11.000 The Russia-Ukraine conflict provided a well-timed distraction for Trudeau to wind back his emergency declaration and then not talk about it for months.

00:38:17.000 While Trudeau scolded Russia for her authoritarian behaviour, his dictatorial leanings had already eroded Canada's democracy.

00:38:25.000 To this, Trudeau blamed social media for spreading misinformation and disinformation which turned the people against the values and principles of democracies.

00:38:32.000 Would those principles include the right to a peaceful protest, Trudeau?

00:38:36.000 Or banking?

00:38:37.000 So how can something as radical as shutting down people's bank accounts and empowering banks to shut down people's bank accounts, banks, happen without being reported on?

00:38:46.000 Because there's already censorship laws in place in Canada and it's happening in the UK and it's happening in your country.

00:38:50.000 Do you know how I know that?

00:38:51.000 Because it's happening everywhere.

00:38:52.000 For months, representatives of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government insisted that their plans to regulate big tech social media platforms wouldn't impact independent news outlets or podcasters.

00:39:01.000 Oh, what?

00:39:02.000 And those promises were lies?

00:39:03.000 But it turns out that the government is in fact going to regulate content providers, not just big tech social media platforms.

00:39:09.000 So they've got two ways.

00:39:10.000 They can directly control the content of the creators, but also they can threaten the social media platforms themselves with fines.

00:39:17.000 So they're basically introducing laws to allow them to control the information on big tech platforms.

00:39:23.000 That's happened already, actually.

00:39:24.000 While the government is preparing to regulate independent content providers, whether news or podcasts, it's preparing to subsidise more news media content.

00:39:32.000 I wonder what type of news media content will get subsidised.

00:39:35.000 I wonder if it'll be, like, favourable news.

00:39:38.000 I wonder if it'll be news channels that don't go, hey, they're debanking your fellow Canadians because they disagree with the government.

00:39:44.000 And that's not good, is it?

00:39:45.000 Because we already know that democracy is ineffectual for two reasons.

00:39:49.000 Both of the two parties that you can vote for are too similar to make a meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary people.

00:39:55.000 Also, they are funded by the same interests and there are sets of global bodies that dictate, as you have seen in the last few years, their policies, whether that's on health, medical or censorship matters.

00:40:06.000 And now, independent media organisations that point that stuff out are being shut down.

00:40:11.000 What don't you have?

00:40:12.000 You don't have democracy.

00:40:14.000 You have a kind of spectacle.

00:40:16.000 The federal government already gives $1.4 billion in direct support to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation compared to the $650 million it receives from commercial revenue.

00:40:25.000 So it's not fair competition.

00:40:26.000 That's state media.

00:40:28.000 That's where you get propaganda from, is state media.

00:40:30.000 Elon Musk recently said that many mainstream media providers are essentially state propagandist utilities.

00:40:37.000 Now, in the case of this Canadian broadcasting corporation, what you have is state funding and commercial funding.

00:40:43.000 So whose interests do you think they're representative of?

00:40:45.000 The state, who provide funding?

00:40:47.000 Commercial partners, who provide funding?

00:40:49.000 Or you, Canadian people, who can have your bank accounts shut down if you don't do exactly what you're told?

00:40:55.000 The Liberals are using two bills and a series of regulations to crack down on free speech online.

00:40:59.000 C11, the Online News Act, and C18, the Online Streaming Act.

00:41:03.000 While these bills worked their way through the legislative process, the Liberals repeatedly lied and said they were about targeting big tech and protecting and promoting Canadian culture.

00:41:11.000 In fact, they were part of a deliberate effort to censor ordinary Canadians.

00:41:14.000 They're not going to come out and say, we're going to censor ordinary Canadians.

00:41:17.000 They say, oh, we've got Big Tech's got too much power.

00:41:19.000 We have to shut them down.

00:41:20.000 Meanwhile, what they have with Big Tech are partnerships.

00:41:22.000 Partnerships, in the case of the United States, you know that they have military contracts, all manner of tech and data contracts with companies like Microsoft and Facebook.

00:41:32.000 And now what they are doing is legislating new partnerships to control information and censor dissent.

00:41:38.000 It's happening in Canada, particularly plainly observably now.

00:41:41.000 This means it will be harder to express yourself online and digital first outlets will be disproportionately negatively impacted.

00:41:47.000 Traditional outlets will be economically reliant on the Feds and their lobby groups are already mobilising to push the federal government for more support, so much for independent journalism.

00:41:55.000 Even I was a relatively I'm a relative latecomer to YouTube.

00:41:57.000 Been on there for like 10 years or whatever it is.

00:41:59.000 And I noticed, and you will have noticed, that at the beginning, prominent independent YouTube voices were given quite large airs.

00:42:05.000 It was like an ecosystem guided by the algorithm in which there was a kind of, I don't know, Darwinism, a kind of ecology that found its own way.

00:42:12.000 But then there were some decisions made to promote what you might call legacy media within it.

00:42:17.000 And now that's just blatantly happened, hasn't it?

00:42:19.000 Now those sites are in lockstep with the government and legacy media.

00:42:23.000 There's a war happening.

00:42:24.000 There's a war happening for your attention, for your beliefs, for your faith, for your ideology.

00:42:28.000 What they want from you is obedience, compliance, induced by fear.

00:42:32.000 That's a very broad statement.

00:42:33.000 I believe it to be true.

00:42:34.000 What we want is to keep alive the possibility of change, of empowering individuals and communities outside of these establishment institutions.

00:42:43.000 That's only going to happen, the good news is it can happen, but it's only going to happen with individual responsibility.

00:42:49.000 The famous comment, the thing that I always hear in the chat, but what can I do individually?

00:42:52.000 Resist.

00:42:53.000 Now, the government says it's doing this to protect and promote Canadian culture, ensure legacy news outlets operate for a healthy democracy, and ensure marginalised voices are heard.

00:43:03.000 In reality, Trudeau and the Liberal Party are doing this so they can spread disinformation and quash dissent.

00:43:08.000 It's the opposite of what they're saying.

00:43:09.000 Trudeau's crackdown comes at a time when the European Union, United Nations and World Economic Forum are all demanding harsh crackdowns on free speech.

00:43:17.000 Wow, how weird.

00:43:18.000 Some politicians are justifying the crackdown as part of fighting the war in Ukraine.

00:43:22.000 You know how we're gonna fight the war in Ukraine?

00:43:25.000 I don't know, by like sort of giving them stockpiled weapons you've already paid for

00:43:29.000 and renewing your contracts with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other highly profitable big spending lobbying

00:43:35.000 Oh yeah, we are like that, yes.

00:43:35.000 organizations.

00:43:37.000 But also though, you gotta shut up.

00:43:39.000 The UN next month is co-sponsoring a pro-censorship event with the World Economic Forum, 0.72

00:43:43.000 a private organization.

00:43:45.000 They're trying to, like, turn it into Christmas, aren't they?

00:43:47.000 Like, Christmas of anti-free speech.

00:43:49.000 Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho! 1.00

00:43:50.000 Just two ho's. 1.00

00:43:51.000 Ho, ho. 1.00

00:43:52.000 In fact, one ho. 1.00

00:43:53.000 Ho. 0.56

00:43:53.000 That's right. 0.56

00:43:54.000 That's what you all are.

00:43:55.000 They are creating a global coalition for digital safety.

00:43:58.000 We've got to be safe.

00:43:59.000 So first of all, they have to terrify you to the point where you're like, yeah, what's your number one problem?

00:44:03.000 Is it that you can't afford food?

00:44:04.000 Is it that you can't afford energy?

00:44:06.000 Is it that you can't speak freely anywhere?

00:44:08.000 I mean, even among one another, because you're scared the whole time that there's no sort of consensus and love between human beings.

00:44:14.000 Oh no, it's like, I just don't feel safe online.

00:44:17.000 I just, when I'm online, I'm like, ah!

00:44:20.000 Oh, look, I just put it down.

00:44:22.000 Look, this is overreach.

00:44:22.000 I'm fine.

00:44:24.000 It's manipulation.

00:44:25.000 It's lies.

00:44:26.000 It's not what they're telling you it is.

00:44:27.000 It's an attempt to shut down your ability to form realities, actually.

00:44:32.000 Realities, shared realities, where you go, wait, wait, what if...

00:44:35.000 What if they're all lying to us?

00:44:36.000 Wait.

00:44:36.000 What if the state has ultimately been co-opted by globalist corporate interests?

00:44:40.000 Yes, yes.

00:44:41.000 Undergirded by the deep state.

00:44:42.000 Keep going.

00:44:43.000 And the media just amplifies and normalises the messaging of those people. 0.99

00:44:46.000 And within democracy, there's no meaningful dissent or opposition to those ideas that both parties in any country, your one, my one, two parties, more or less the same, one goes up, one goes down, both crap. 0.80

00:44:56.000 What then, if we aren't even able to use this new technology to go, hey, have you noticed this?

00:45:01.000 Once that's shut down, it's over, it's over, it's over.

00:45:03.000 Could it be that?

00:45:04.000 Or is it?

00:45:05.000 Like that, what I just described, or is it?

00:45:06.000 They're really worried that you might get your feelings hurt while you're on the internet.

00:45:11.000 Do you really, really, after everything they've done, think it could be that?

00:45:15.000 Polling shows these efforts run contrary to Canadian beliefs.

00:45:18.000 Yeah, that's not what actual people want.

00:45:20.000 We can solve our differences through conversation, through communication, through honesty, through transparency, through redemption, atonement, salvation, openness, through values and principles that they are not interested in because it would end their establishment interests.

00:45:32.000 One poll shows nearly half of all Canadians think Fed should rescind Bill C-18, the online streaming act.

00:45:38.000 There's not going to be a vote on that then.

00:45:40.000 Now more than 6 in 10 Canadians are concerned about the bill's impacts.

00:45:43.000 Canadians are also showing how media savvy they are.

00:45:46.000 They don't think big news organisations need government bailouts.

00:45:49.000 Of course they bloody well don't.

00:45:49.000 They're not bailouts.

00:45:50.000 They're hush money.

00:45:52.000 They're bribes.

00:45:53.000 And they believe C18 will harm smaller outlets.

00:45:56.000 Voters may soon too change how they view government promises as they learn that the Liberal Party lied when it said their plans to regulate big tech social media platforms wouldn't impact independent news outlets or podcasters.

00:46:06.000 Eventually Canada must move to a regime where neither the big tech social media platforms nor users are in the government's censorship system.

00:46:13.000 So, people are being debanked.

00:46:15.000 Not indiscriminately, but deliberately.

00:46:17.000 Opponents and dissidents are losing the ability to have access to banking.

00:46:22.000 Sometimes these decisions are being made by the banks themselves.

00:46:24.000 Let's think for a moment about the morality of the banking system.

00:46:28.000 Let's think for a moment about the morality of the government.

00:46:30.000 Oh dear.

00:46:30.000 Let's think for a moment about the morality of the legacy media who are being advantaged by the online censorship bills that prevent the banking regulations that are just being introduced that you can be debanked.

00:46:41.000 It could happen to you.

00:46:42.000 Do you mean it can't happen to you?

00:46:43.000 Well, here's the way that it won't happen to you.

00:46:45.000 Become an obedient little prisoner of the state.

00:46:48.000 Never think anything they don't want you to think.

00:46:50.000 Certainly don't do anything they don't want you to do.

00:46:53.000 Sit still, be quiet, never protest, never think about a better version of reality, never think about what words like democracy, justice, media, truth, opportunity, freedom, but get those words out of your vocabulary or invert their meanings into the new prescribed meanings of your new centralised, authoritarian, globalist overlords as being piloted in Canada.

00:47:16.000 That's what's happening right now.

00:47:18.000 No.

00:47:18.000 and it's coming to you, because it's already happening in the UK.

00:47:20.000 It'll be happening everywhere.

00:47:21.000 The only thing that can stop it is you.

00:47:23.000 That's why it's so important that you press the red button and join our movement.

00:47:26.000 Support us if you can, but if you can't, that doesn't matter.

00:47:28.000 It's so much more important that we have your loyalty, your attention,

00:47:31.000 your faith, your hope, your optimism, than anything else that you could give us.

00:47:34.000 Let me know what you think in the chat, and I'll see you in a second.

00:47:37.000 Thank you for choosing Fox News. 0.99

00:47:39.000 Now, here's the fucking news. 0.99

00:47:42.000 Joining me now is Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, co-founder of 0.99

00:47:48.000 Illusion of Consensus on Substack.

00:47:51.000 He's recently won in the federal court against the Biden administration for coercing social media companies to censor content.

00:47:58.000 Plainly, as well as a scientist and a doctor, this man is a conspiracy theorist.

00:48:04.000 Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, it's a great joy to meet you, sir.

00:48:08.000 Thank you for coming on Stay Free.

00:48:10.000 Thank you, Russell.

00:48:11.000 Thank you for having me.

00:48:13.000 I wonder, can you tell us, sir, what exactly did you express that was initially subject to censure?

00:48:22.000 It was the Great Barrington Declaration.

00:48:24.000 So it was an article, basically a proposal that I wrote with Sunetra Gupta of Oxford and Martin Kulldorff of Harvard in October 2020.

00:48:33.000 I'm sure your audience has heard of this.

00:48:36.000 I've seen you telling your audience this, so they don't need to be told so much.

00:48:39.000 But basically the idea was that we knew it was older people that were really vulnerable to COVID.

00:48:44.000 And that young people, especially children, were not particularly vulnerable.

00:48:48.000 The argument was to lift the lockdowns and do focused protection of vulnerable older people.

00:48:54.000 That led to a tremendous propaganda campaign, a campaign that essentially villainized me and Martin and Sunetra as if we wanted to kill vast numbers of people and we were calling for better protection of vulnerable older people.

00:49:08.000 And it led to censorship.

00:49:10.000 Like, we were kicked off of Facebook for a week.

00:49:13.000 Google de-boosted our, you know, if you Googled us, it would be on page five and we have all the hit pieces above us.

00:49:20.000 You know, that kind of thing.

00:49:22.000 And then Twitter, of course, made it difficult to share.

00:49:26.000 People lost their jobs for signing it.

00:49:28.000 Oh man.

00:49:29.000 Can you just remind me, when was that in the, you know, when was it chronologically?

00:49:34.000 So that was October 2020.

00:49:36.000 So we wrote it because the spring lockdowns had failed.

00:49:40.000 It was really clear from the epidemiological data that the COVID was coming back in the fall.

00:49:47.000 It had already come back in several places.

00:49:49.000 And it was also clear that the establishment was going to push for these lockdowns that had already damaged the well-being of the children, of the working class, of the poor worldwide.

00:50:00.000 And we thought it was a tragedy that we were essentially throwing away the futures of these vulnerable people in the name of protecting people against a deadly infectious disease, which actually didn't end up protecting anybody, these lockdowns, instead of actually just directly protecting the people that were most vulnerable.

00:50:17.000 It's likely, of course, based on just what you've explained in the last couple of minutes, that we've yet to fully experience and appreciate the consequences of those actions.

00:50:29.000 Can you tell me why, Doctor, you feel that what even a few years later seem like perfectly reasonable proposals, that if they had been followed, many economic problems, sociological, psychological, Problems may have been, if not entirely ameliorated, somewhat assuaged.

00:50:49.000 Why was it met with such ferocity?

00:50:51.000 Why?

00:50:53.000 I mean, I think part of it is hubris.

00:50:56.000 So you had a few people at the very top of these medical and bureaucracies, the social bureaucracies, that had taken on themselves this mantle of almost godlike authority.

00:51:10.000 You remember Tony Fauci saying to some reporter, or maybe even just Senator Rand Paul, if you question me, you're not simply questioning a man, you are questioning science itself.

00:51:20.000 I mean, who says that, Russell?

00:51:21.000 I mean, let's think about the hubris of someone that says, I am science, in effect.

00:51:26.000 You know, la science c'est moi, if you're like, you know, Louis XIV or something.

00:51:32.000 And the idea that there would be credentialed people that would oppose them, that would say, look, you're saying that there's a scientific consensus in favor of lockdown when, in fact, just the very existence of the Great Barrington Declaration means there isn't.

00:51:46.000 It means that you've just created an illusion of consensus to fool people into thinking that we ought to do what you say to do, rather than having a discussion and a debate, which is really what we owed the public.

00:51:58.000 Claiming to be the physical embodiment of science, which is an ongoing, never-ending process of analysis, collaboration, accumulation of data.

00:52:10.000 That is hubristic, you're right.

00:52:12.000 And in fact, it's more akin to religious demagoguery than even scientific orthodoxy.

00:52:20.000 The early period, or perhaps the pandemic in its entirety, functioned as a lens that revealed I think already present but concealed institutional behaviours and assumptions.

00:52:32.000 Particularly too, it could be used to identify where convergent interests met and where a kind of unconscious systemic process unfolded that might not require every step malfeasance, deliberately applied evil, but certainly showed institutionalism That is worryingly unconscious.

00:52:57.000 But there are points when it seemed quite deliberate.

00:53:00.000 Now I suppose it's very difficult to prove that there was something nefarious unfolding, but can you tell me Can you tell me where you think you have identified the most concerning moments and decisions?

00:53:17.000 Obviously the early attempts to censor, the denial of the existence of the Barrington Declaration.

00:53:26.000 These are key moments.

00:53:28.000 Are there other significant moments that start to suggest a tendency, if not a strategy or conspiracy?

00:53:35.000 I mean, you saw this almost from the beginning of the pandemic, maybe even from the very beginning of the pandemic.

00:53:40.000 The idea that this virus may have been the outcome of a research enterprise actually aimed at preventing pandemics, ironically.

00:53:52.000 That idea was turned into a conspiracy theory.

00:53:55.000 Even though it's a viable scientific hypothesis, it's likely even a true hypothesis.

00:54:01.000 In 2020, anyone who brought that hypothesis up was essentially labeled as a fringe figure, a conspiracy theorist, a racist demon, because you're saying it might have been the Chinese that were involved in this.

00:54:13.000 Which is a crazy thing.

00:54:14.000 It's okay to say that because of strange Chinese eating habits in wet markets, that's how the virus emerged. 1.00

00:54:20.000 But it's not okay to say that there was an intentional scientific effort, funded by Americans in part, but also conducted in China, that led to the virus.

00:54:28.000 The latter is racist, but the former is not.

00:54:32.000 But yeah, people who said that there might actually have been a virus that was created in the lab

00:54:37.000 were deemed racist.

00:54:40.000 That was a name conspiracy theorist.

00:54:42.000 And it was by the same people that suppressed the Great Barrington Declaration 0.84

00:54:45.000 using very, very similar tactics to deploy the press to smear and destroy the reputations of anyone

00:54:51.000 that disagreed with the central powers that be.

00:54:54.000 Actually, Russell, you said one thing I think is really important,

00:54:57.000 is this confluence of incentives So I don't think it was a conspiracy theory in one sense.

00:55:06.000 I think like, for instance, the pharmaceutical companies, they viewed this as a huge opportunity.

00:55:11.000 I don't think they drove it, but it was like they jumped in, right?

00:55:14.000 A lot of people who were, you know, in governments gained a lot of power from this.

00:55:20.000 And again, I don't think they were conspiring.

00:55:21.000 It's not a conspiracy to say that they jumped in to take advantage of the chaos.

00:55:27.000 There's a lot that goes into exactly what led to this.

00:55:29.000 I think a lot of it was opportunistic.

00:55:32.000 But the central sin was hubris.

00:55:34.000 And the central tactic was smearing and censorship of outside voices that criticized the people that were designing the pandemic response.

00:55:45.000 If you are interested in centralizing authority and increasing authority, particularly beyond national sovereignty and the reach of democracy, there is going to be necessary censure because we live in a time where divergent, opposing and dissident voices now at least have the potential to be platformed and to gain incredible traction.

00:56:04.000 And it seems to be a pretty prominent, evident and plain tactic that to Undermine the credibility of, as you say, dissenting voices.

00:56:14.000 It's almost a uniform, observable strategy.

00:56:18.000 If you cannot win the argument because it's unwinnable, because what's being claimed is true, let's take simply the case of the Great Barrington Declaration or, you know, the lab leak theory.

00:56:30.000 Then what you of course have to do is undermine where those voices are coming from.

00:56:35.000 And you're right, this extraordinary array of hypocritical tactics that are deployed suggest a kind of It would be on nihilism, beyond amorality.

00:56:49.000 It's almost a kind of cynicism that really scares me, particularly given that I've had recently some experiences of how these institutions can function.

00:57:02.000 Note the corroborating component that the media were willing to perform.

00:57:10.000 Did you note that there was a great willingness in addition to the censor practice and social media spaces?

00:57:18.000 ...in legacy media sites to condemn, criticize you and frame you.

00:57:23.000 Because even when you said that, even though this is stuff I know about already, when I just hear Harvard, Stanford, Oxford in relation to a scientific endeavor and, you know, furthering a discourse, I think, oh, well, this sounds pretty legitimate.

00:57:39.000 How did they even bypass that?

00:57:42.000 Well, I mean, they were almost immediately after we wrote the declaration, I started, there was pit pieces about me and Sinatra and Martin essentially accusing us of wanting to let the virus rip.

00:57:55.000 The argument was that we were somehow being deeply irresponsible by wanting to just ignore the virus.

00:58:01.000 Again, as I've said, even though we wanted focus protection.

00:58:03.000 You saw story after story in mainstream media saying this, essentially pushing this propaganda campaign.

00:58:10.000 There was a story in the Washington Post.

00:58:12.000 There was a story in the New York Times.

00:58:14.000 Story after story, essentially pushing this lie.

00:58:17.000 What we wanted was a discussion of how to better protect vulnerable older people.

00:58:20.000 And in fact, I did a And now, I'd already had experience with this, Russell, before this.

00:58:26.000 In April of 2020, I'd written a study, which was basically showing that the disease had spread much more broadly than people had realized, even as early as April of 2020, using antibody evidence from blood in the population.

00:58:40.000 And what we found was that the 50 cases, you know, for every single person that had been identified as a case, the infection fatality rose much lower.

00:58:48.000 That led to a tremendous number of personal hit pieces against me.

00:58:52.000 Allegations that I had taken money to change the study, which was an absolute lie, hit pieces against my wife, who had written an email to my kid's middle school listserv, encouraging them to join the study, because she'd committed the sin of saying that if you have a positive antibody, that might mean you are immune.

00:59:11.000 Which has turned out to be true, you know.

00:59:13.000 And it was for me personally, as a scientist, I've just written papers and published them in journals all my life.

00:59:20.000 I never faced that kind of media assault.

00:59:23.000 I felt helpless to protect my family.

00:59:25.000 For a month, I lost 30 pounds because I couldn't sleep.

00:59:28.000 I forgot to eat.

00:59:30.000 You know, in April, May 2020.

00:59:32.000 And for me, it was a very, very difficult time.

00:59:35.000 The power of the, essentially, the power of these conventional media sources to excommunicate you is tremendous.

00:59:44.000 And I felt the full brunt of that before I decided I was just going to need to keep doing my job, which was to say what the scientific evidence said and provide health policy advice to the public.

00:59:58.000 Sorry, go ahead, Russell.

00:59:59.000 I was thinking about, like, yours is a name that I've heard from the beginning because it was a significant, it was a pivotal moment in spite of how it was handled, the Great Barrington Declaration, and your name, whilst I'm still never entirely confident, Jay Bhattacharya, like, was one of the names that was synonymous with the credible opposition to the dominant narrative, and for me, therefore, legitimised my own concern And an amateur analysis of how scientific orthodoxy was being mobilized to legitimize authority and it's almost at odds with what science is supposed to be essentially.

01:00:42.000 It made me realize what dogmatism is and that dogmatism is not alloyed indecipherably or inextricably to religion or politics.

01:00:54.000 Dogma means that you're willing to say stuff like, I'm science, if you argue with me, you're arguing with science.

01:01:00.000 It's a kind of trait.

01:01:03.000 It's a sort of a human trait.

01:01:06.000 And to hear that you actually suffered in the way that you just described, obviously particularly because of recent experiences that I've encountered, shall we say, Like, it provides a sort of a, you know, you were right.

01:01:21.000 You were actually right.

01:01:23.000 What does it mean, like, to someone like you, who's a scientist, a career scientist at Harvard, whose previous life has never taken you into these sort of chasms and schisms of controversy, What does it tell you about how science can be industrialised, weaponised, deployed, defied, utilised in order to create conformity, oppression?

01:01:51.000 It must terrify you.

01:01:56.000 I mean, it really does.

01:01:57.000 I mean, of course, I knew the power of science.

01:02:00.000 I mean, that's one of the reasons that anyone enters science is because it is a powerful tool to learn about the physical world through this process.

01:02:07.000 But I always viewed it as a fundamentally humble thing, right?

01:02:11.000 If I am doing science, I have some idea.

01:02:13.000 It's always a provisional idea.

01:02:16.000 And it's tempered by data and by other critics who say, look Jay, you've thought of this wrong.

01:02:22.000 This piece of data disagrees with how you think.

01:02:24.000 And then I change my mind on the basis of those data.

01:02:27.000 It's a fundamentally humbling thing if you're actually going to do science for a living.

01:02:32.000 To see it turned into dogma, as you say, is a violation of basically every norm that I've lived by in my entire career.

01:02:42.000 It basically means that I don't really need to know what the data say.

01:02:46.000 I don't really need to be creative and think about different hypotheses.

01:02:49.000 All I have to do is I have to just pay attention to what the most powerful people inside the scientific community say, and then I'll know the truth.

01:02:58.000 As you say, it's not simply, it's not a matter of like a particular, you know, it's not a religious thing.

01:03:03.000 It's not even just even a political thing.

01:03:04.000 It is just, I think, is a common human thing to have that hubris.

01:03:07.000 Even scientists themselves often have that hubris.

01:03:10.000 When you get things right, I mean, it's like you feel like you're on the top of the world.

01:03:15.000 You make some prediction and it comes out to be true.

01:03:17.000 But then the next prediction you make is going to be wrong.

01:03:19.000 I mean, you have to remember all the time in science that every idea may be met with a fact that disproves it, even if you had it, even if you're the brightest person.

01:03:29.000 Even Einstein was wrong over and over again.

01:03:33.000 Of course, he was right about some fundamental things.

01:03:36.000 So I think that humility, the loss of it during the pandemic, was a real shock to me.

01:03:43.000 But then to see how that power is used in the world outside of science, because the ability to distinguish between true and false, If you have an entity that can do that, the power is tremendous.

01:03:58.000 It's far beyond what kings of ancient times had.

01:04:04.000 It's analogous to what maybe the medieval church had.

01:04:08.000 You say the distinction between which was true and false, but even within religious traditions, the best of religious traditions have at their center a fundamental humility.

01:04:17.000 God is beyond us.

01:04:19.000 We are not God.

01:04:21.000 So it's every human endeavor, I think, faces this.

01:04:24.000 But during the pandemic, it was deployed at scale to say, look, Jay from Stanford and Martin from Harvard and Sunetra from Oxford are wrong just because Tony Fauci says so.

01:04:38.000 By the way, we discovered this was not just like an organic reaction.

01:04:42.000 It was a specific organized campaign.

01:04:44.000 Four days after we wrote the declaration, the head of the National Institute of Health, Francis Collins, wrote an email to Tony Fauci calling me, Martin Sinatra, fringe epidemiologist, F-R-I-N-G-E.

01:04:58.000 The card that I made up says fringe epidemiology on it now.

01:05:02.000 It's so it's it was one of these things where like the head of the National Institute of Health and then he called for a devastating takedown in an email to Tony Fauci.

01:05:10.000 Devastating takedown.

01:05:11.000 He used those words.

01:05:13.000 And that led to the propaganda campaign.

01:05:16.000 They used the control of what the press sees as true and false to smear us and destroy us.

01:05:24.000 It's one of these things, if it's some random scientist doing it, even a prominent scientist doing it, that's one thing.

01:05:28.000 But the head of the National Institute of Health controls $45 billion of money that And that amount of money essentially makes and breaks the careers of every biomedical scientist known in the U.S.

01:05:40.000 and many scientists of note outside the U.S.

01:05:43.000 It's very difficult to cross someone like that.

01:05:46.000 If someone like that says, this guy's a fringe epidemiologist, let's do a devastating takedown, even a scientist that agrees with us is going to want to stay silent.

01:05:55.000 It's unfortunate and ridiculous that they use the phrase devastating takedown because that's the sort of thing that people with evil intentions say.

01:06:04.000 They don't say that. 0.94

01:06:06.000 You look like the baddies. 0.94

01:06:08.000 Let us do a draconian and wicked, I have a plan, a coup. 1.00

01:06:14.000 It's ridiculous. 0.94

01:06:16.000 Did you, were you surprised by how few people were willing to support you? 0.94

01:06:20.000 Were you heartened by the support that you received?

01:06:24.000 And did you, were there times, I mean, given that you just said you lost 30 pounds, you didn't sleep and you forgot to eat, which all seems pretty unscientific to me, as a matter of fact, you should have been paying attention in the lab of your life.

01:06:35.000 I wonder, like, was it interpersonally challenging and did you get a lot of heat from Harvard and stuff?

01:06:42.000 Well, yeah, so I'm actually at Stanford, but I got a lot of grief from friends of mine at Stanford.

01:06:51.000 But on the other hand, almost a million people signed the declaration.

01:06:55.000 I hope you signed it, Russell.

01:06:57.000 There were tens of thousands of scientists and epidemiologists signed it.

01:07:03.000 It created a community of people that found each other.

01:07:07.000 Before that, I felt isolated and alone.

01:07:10.000 As you said, Russell, for you, you heard it and it gave you a sense that you weren't crazy.

01:07:15.000 There was some sense that what you were seeing with your own eyes could be true.

01:07:21.000 It wasn't just some figment.

01:07:24.000 That was one of the major goals of the Declaration, to tell people You know, lots of scientists are seeing what you were seeing.

01:07:31.000 Lots of scientists are saying, look, look at the devastation we're causing to the poor.

01:07:35.000 Like, you know, in Uganda, four and a half million children were out of school for two years because of the lockdowns.

01:07:41.000 I mean, actually 15 million people, kids are out of school for two years.

01:07:45.000 Four and a half million never came back to school in Uganda.

01:07:48.000 And it turns out the UN did this report on this around Africa.

01:07:53.000 It turns out a lot of those kids didn't come back because the little girls were sold into sexual slavery and the little boys were put into child labor.

01:08:00.000 Because the reason is their families were put on the brink of starvation by the economic dislocations caused by the lockdowns.

01:08:07.000 We put those poor families in this like devastating bind where they had to like essentially either do this terrible thing to their children or starve them.

01:08:17.000 That's what those lockdowns were doing.

01:08:18.000 That's the cruelty of the lockdowns.

01:08:20.000 And a lot of scientists are saying, look, this is not even stopping the disease from spreading.

01:08:24.000 Why are we doing this?

01:08:26.000 Let's protect the elderly better.

01:08:28.000 We weren't protecting them with the lockdowns.

01:08:31.000 It was the opposite of science.

01:08:32.000 And thank you for introducing me to a level of reality that I'd not Pondered because I was still somewhat selfishly looking at the lockdown for the personal inconvenience I'd endured and perhaps on occasion I would think of the psychological impact and the educational impact and their mental health and suicide and all of those other things that we were told not to think about or worry about when people were speculatively discussing those things and now to introduce to it rafts of almost inconceivable suffering

01:09:02.000 For children in Uganda, that's a new component to consider.

01:09:08.000 I thought the phrase I found myself using was, but in this instance, science is a subset of a different ideology, whether that's an economic ideology or an authoritarian ideology or sort of an unconscious ideology.

01:09:25.000 It's a subset.

01:09:26.000 Science is not freely functioning.

01:09:28.000 It's science within censorship, so it's no longer worthy of the name, therefore.

01:09:36.000 This idea of a subjugated science, a deployed science, does that seem right to you, Doctor?

01:09:43.000 I mean, that's exactly right.

01:09:44.000 You can't have science without the ability to speak to one another, to be able to freely, without undue influence.

01:09:52.000 A lot of the distortions in science that we documented before the pandemic come from this.

01:09:57.000 So like, for instance, the role that pharmaceutical money plays in scientific output.

01:10:04.000 Huge, huge amounts of money poured into doing science that's essentially aimed at making sure that pharmaceutical companies do well, right?

01:10:14.000 That's distorted science.

01:10:15.000 That was known before the pandemic, and there's mechanisms in place to try to... You don't want to say, if you're a pharmaceutical company, you can't do science.

01:10:22.000 What you want to say is, look, you have to declare that you are a pharmaceutical company-funded scientist, and now you can use that in your assessment of the scientific result.

01:10:31.000 Right.

01:10:31.000 I personally never taken any pharmaceutical company money.

01:10:34.000 So I never I just because I wanted to stay independent of that.

01:10:37.000 Wow, you realize then on some personal and ethical level that to take that money and this is not a judgment of obviously it seems like the majority I presume people were funded in that manner.

01:10:50.000 But you personally made a choice that that would impede your ability to indeed be a scientist, and you were right about that.

01:10:59.000 It's been proven.

01:11:02.000 I wonder, Jay, what you think, if you'd like to explore further the necessity for discourse, conversation, account and narratives in the pursuit of true objectivity.

01:11:15.000 And how that aligns with your recent experiences in federal court and the attempts to further curtail, legislate against free speech by the Biden administration.

01:11:31.000 Tell us about that recent, and I understand you were victorious.

01:11:35.000 The whole experience we've been talking about led me to the suspicion that this suppression of scientific speech wasn't simply an organic thing.

01:11:45.000 That in fact there was a campaign organized by governments to suppress scientific discussion online.

01:11:54.000 A lot of people suspected with social media is doing it, right?

01:11:56.000 So YouTube, for instance, banning your video.

01:11:59.000 I mean, last time I was on, Russell, you told me that you were only going to say approved things to put on YouTube and then the rest you'll put on Rumble.

01:12:06.000 That's right.

01:12:08.000 Why are there approved things for someone having a discussion about scientific matters to be put on YouTube?

01:12:14.000 Why can't we just have that discussion?

01:12:17.000 Scientific discussion requires there to be people disagreeing.

01:12:21.000 One person will be right, one person will be wrong.

01:12:23.000 It's normal.

01:12:24.000 If you suppress things you always think are wrong, you're not going to have science.

01:12:28.000 So the question is, why are these social media companies doing this?

01:12:31.000 Their interest is to foster free discussion.

01:12:33.000 These are not illegal ideas.

01:12:37.000 Are there such a thing as illegal ideas?

01:12:40.000 Their business interests would normally cut in favor of allowing this kind of speech, and yet they didn't.

01:12:46.000 It turns out, so the Missouri and Louisiana Attorney General's offices approached me, Martin Kulldorff, Aaron Cariotti, another scientist, and asked us if we'd be willing to join any lawsuit against the Biden administration.

01:12:59.000 That lawsuit in federal court led to discovery where we read the emails of a tremendous number of federal officials in the White House, in the CDC, in the Surgeon General's office, in the FBI, in the State Department.

01:13:16.000 Basically, what the Biden administration did was that they would Contact social media companies.

01:13:22.000 Give them a hit list for censorship.

01:13:24.000 These are the ideas you need to censor.

01:13:26.000 These are the people you need to censor.

01:13:28.000 And they would then threaten the social media companies that if you don't censor these people and these ideas, we're going to regulate you out of existence.

01:13:37.000 Often the threat was implied.

01:13:40.000 And a lot of these social media companies, like Stockholm Syndrome, they would just say, oh yeah, what's the next thing we need to censor?

01:13:45.000 Because they just didn't want to fight.

01:13:48.000 Some of them fought back sometimes, but it was that whole censorship industrial complex, essentially.

01:13:53.000 The judge called it a new ministry of truth.

01:13:57.000 Wow.

01:13:58.000 Using, quoting, directly quoting Orwell.

01:14:00.000 And, you know, it was a federal judge that found this.

01:14:04.000 Then it was the Biden administration that appealed it, saying that they needed to be able to censor to keep the public safe.

01:14:11.000 And then a district court basically said, you can't do that.

01:14:15.000 That violates the American First Amendment.

01:14:18.000 I was and this is just this, by the way, all this just came out this this year, just in past this summer, actually.

01:14:24.000 But the judge issued his ruling in July 4, 2023.

01:14:28.000 So what we now see is part of the mechanisms by which the scientific discussion during the pandemic was suppressed, the policy discussion was suppressed, was by direct government policy.

01:14:39.000 Governments decided, and I'm certain it's not just the United States government did this, I know the UK government was involved in this as well, based on reports I've seen from organizations like Big Brother Watch, you know, what you have is essentially a government policy in the West to suppress Dissident voices.

01:14:59.000 Because they think that the dissidents are so dangerous to public health.

01:15:03.000 At least that's the argument that they make when they're pressed on it in court.

01:15:09.000 But it doesn't seem that the way that they behave generally is motivated by the desire to preserve, protect and improve public health.

01:15:17.000 Otherwise you would not have made those decisions relatively early in the pandemic period that caused so much damage and even for children to be sold into sexual slavery.

01:15:27.000 It seems that these choices were at best misguided and at worst malevolent.

01:15:33.000 That dissidents and opposing their dominating narratives is being Gosh, I sometimes feel it's not even incrementally.

01:15:43.000 In a way that appears to be coordinated, the possibility for dissent is being shut down.

01:15:47.000 Legislation in the UK, the new, again, the sort of ludicrously and somewhat ironically named online safety bill in Canada, they've introduced new laws to control information in these type of spaces.

01:16:00.000 And based on what you've just told us, and the kind of relationships between government and social media platforms, this legislation is merely enshrining something that's been

01:16:09.000 happening less formally and will now happen to a far greater degree and the dangers that you've

01:16:15.000 described, the evident, observable, actual danger that has taken place, the lives that have

01:16:22.000 been lost, the lives that have been ruined, it feels like this is gonna get worse.

01:16:28.000 Now, I understand that YouTube are using the WHO's medical guidelines now, not just for COVID, but for all diseases.

01:16:37.000 The WHO is preparing a pandemic treaty that will allow them to further bypass national sovereignty, taking, I think, 5% of the budgets of Like of any nation that's a participant in the treaty and people's fears that the censorship is increasing, surveillance is increasing, globalism and by what I mean by globalism is that there are unelected bodies that are not tethered to nations and therefore are not democratically accountable are making decisions transcendent of democracies and so

01:17:07.000 It's like this subject that we're discussing that used to just be about oh like the pandemic which we're already being sort of invited to forget and just move beyond because as I say of the Omnicrisis, of the endless wars, escalating wars, the whole just sort of climate of horror and fracture.

01:17:25.000 It appears to me that this is a significant issue and it's one that is going to It's increasing in its power.

01:17:33.000 These kind of measures are increasing in spite of your recent significant victory.

01:17:39.000 I mean, I share with you the dread of the future if we allow this kind of infrastructure to stay in place.

01:17:49.000 You mentioned the WHO.

01:17:50.000 You know, the second largest funder of the WHO is the Gates Foundation.

01:17:55.000 That guy!

01:17:56.000 But doesn't he also invest in vaccines?

01:17:58.000 Wait a minute!

01:18:01.000 I mean, and the WHO, it's not as if they got things right all the time.

01:18:04.000 During the pandemic, a few days after we wrote the Great Barrington Declaration, the Great Barrington Declaration is premised on the idea that if you get COVID and recover, you have some immunity, right?

01:18:13.000 That's what herd immunity is based on, which is true.

01:18:15.000 You get some immunity after you recover from COVID.

01:18:18.000 The WHO changed the definition of herd immunity to exclude immunity after recovery from the disease.

01:18:26.000 Only vaccines produced immunity in the definition of herd immunity, and they did that in response to the Great Barrington Declaration.

01:18:33.000 The WHO put out misinformation over and over, information at odds with the scientific data over and over and over again during the pandemic.

01:18:43.000 They downplayed the damage to the poorest places of the world.

01:18:46.000 They recommended the lockdowns because in February 2020, they thought that what China did had worked, that the lockdowns would get rid of the disease everywhere if we just did what China did.

01:18:57.000 The World Health Organization has a lot to answer for, and to have YouTube then say, okay, we're going to take this organization that failed so fundamentally during the pandemic and take it as our lodestar, the science itself, and we'll suppress everyone that disagrees with them.

01:19:10.000 Well, you know, why even have science?

01:19:12.000 I mean, that's one of these things where, like, you essentially are done, you know, you've created this epistemic bubble that cannot be pierced because you say this organization has a monopoly on the truth.

01:19:27.000 It is really scary.

01:19:29.000 I do think that the American First Amendment, before the Missouri v. Biden case, I had started to despair.

01:19:36.000 During the case, and especially with the recent rulings, I'm starting to feel a glimmer of hope, Russell.

01:19:41.000 I hope you don't talk me out of it, because I think I think the American First Amendment might be strong enough to shatter this whole regime.

01:19:48.000 Do you think so?

01:19:48.000 And I'm not trying to talk you out of hope.

01:19:50.000 I need hope.

01:19:51.000 I need your hope and I certainly need my own.

01:19:54.000 I'm just looking at the article you wrote, I think, on Substack about your experience, I think, on arriving in America and becoming an American citizen, at least, and you talk about the First Amendment and how that it's Not only constitutional, but it's almost formative, and it's in some ways the crucible of all other American values, rights, and even perhaps even human rights.

01:20:19.000 Can you sort of reprise what you mean?

01:20:25.000 I got a little emotional when I wrote that piece, Russell.

01:20:27.000 It was for Barry Weiss's sub-stack of Free Press.

01:20:34.000 When the July 4th ruling came down from the judge saying that the Biden administration had violated my First Amendment rights, my free speech rights, I thought back to when I first arrived in the United States.

01:20:50.000 I was four years old.

01:20:52.000 My parents came from India.

01:20:56.000 They came for economic opportunity.

01:20:58.000 My dad was an engineer.

01:20:59.000 My mom ran a daycare center.

01:21:01.000 In India, it was much harder.

01:21:03.000 But they also came in part because You know, the instability of political regimes in India is like the mid-70s, early 70s.

01:21:12.000 Just shortly after we came, Indira Gandhi, the Prime Minister of India, declared an emergency.

01:21:17.000 Essentially suspended Indian democracy through her opponents in jail.

01:21:23.000 Suspended basic civil rights.

01:21:27.000 Killed a lot of people, actually, that opposed her during a state of emergency that she declared.

01:21:33.000 And I remember in my family, I was young then, very young then, but just the horror that this could happen in their home country, and also the relief that we were in a country that valued free speech, where that kind of suppression of dissident ideas could never happen.

01:21:51.000 That for me was a formative value, like a sense of like, you know, the United States can stand as a bulwark against this kind of authoritarian power.

01:22:01.000 And when the judge ruled in favor of the First Amendment in this case, it cracked open, I think, this entire enterprise.

01:22:13.000 Because it doesn't take much, Russell.

01:22:14.000 It just takes a few people telling the truth.

01:22:17.000 that are heard widely, that then shatters the power of these authoritarians.

01:22:22.000 I really very firmly believe that.

01:22:25.000 It can cost a lot to the people telling the truth, of course, but that cost is part of how we renew our societies, that we bring these basic fundamental values back to our societies, fundamental ideas, you know,

01:22:41.000 like the scientific ideas like we've been talking about, ideas of free expression.

01:22:46.000 Those, I think free expression to me is the fundamental thing

01:22:49.000 that allows even David to overthrow Goliath.

01:22:54.000 It seems that we move in our conversations between the importance of the work that you do

01:23:07.000 because it is empirical, because you're able to say, wait a minute, that's not true.

01:23:13.000 I can prove it's not true.

01:23:14.000 This is not conjecture.

01:23:16.000 This is not modeling.

01:23:17.000 This is not theology.

01:23:20.000 This is, look, we can show you.

01:23:23.000 And to, in a sense, what can be extrapolated from that and what can be observed when that kind of data is censored, shut down, ignored, attacked.

01:23:38.000 So...

01:23:41.000 It's interesting that the pandemic period had nestled within it so many little crises, sociological, ideological, philosophical, judicial, political, and even within the biological component, The cover-up of myocarditis and the administering of vaccines.

01:24:04.000 There's the non-medical interventions.

01:24:07.000 There's the social interventions.

01:24:08.000 We're now beginning to go, OK, all right, well, the lockdowns were wrong.

01:24:12.000 The masks didn't work.

01:24:13.000 Social distancing was arbitrary.

01:24:15.000 That's why people were having parties during it, because they knew it wasn't dangerous.

01:24:20.000 They were just letting us know it was dangerous.

01:24:24.000 An area of conjecture, of course, is Oh, now they have recognised that it is possible to impose levels of previously unimagined control on a population as long as they legitimise it.

01:24:35.000 It is possible to destroy dissenting voices as long as you are able to use information that legitimises the destruction of those voices.

01:24:45.000 When it comes to myocarditis and the increased rates of myocarditis in people that have taken vaccines and the way that information was initially framed, can you tell us what we have learned with that particular little lie?

01:25:01.000 Now that is a little bit heartbreaking because when the vaccines were first introduced, they had run honest studies, like large-scale randomized studies.

01:25:13.000 Tens of thousands of people enrolled in a control arm that included placebo.

01:25:18.000 But you know, the thing about vaccines, when you go from tens of thousands to billions, you're going to learn things that you didn't know automatically.

01:25:26.000 They're going to be people that have conditions that are a result of the vaccine sometimes that you learn about.

01:25:34.000 The way that it's always been handled in the past is an honesty of like, okay, if you see these conditions in this group, you tell people in that group, maybe don't take this vaccine, maybe take a different vaccine, maybe You put it off and tell them to go talk to their doctor, decide what's best for them.

01:25:54.000 A lot of nuanced discussion based on what you learn after the vaccine has been rolled out.

01:26:02.000 One of the things we learned very early on in the rollout of this vaccine is that young men taking this vaccine have a higher elevated risk of myocarditis.

01:26:12.000 Myocarditis is inflammation of the heart muscle.

01:26:15.000 And, you know, it can be deadly.

01:26:18.000 It's not like it's a medine thing.

01:26:20.000 Most people that get it, it goes away.

01:26:23.000 But it's not something you want.

01:26:25.000 And it can last a long time.

01:26:26.000 It can be debilitating.

01:26:27.000 It can even be deadly.

01:26:28.000 And so in young men, you see on elevated risk, there's a fight in the scientific literature about exactly how elevated it is.

01:26:28.000 Right?

01:26:33.000 Maybe 1 in 2,000, 1 in 10,000.

01:26:34.000 I mean, I believe anywhere in between there.

01:26:38.000 And I think, but that's high enough to say, well, look, I'm going to give it to billions of people, including, you know, hundreds of millions of young men.

01:26:47.000 I'm going to end up getting a lot of cases of myocarditis.

01:26:50.000 And normally with vaccines, you want something to be so safe that no one would question not just that vaccine, but all vaccines.

01:26:59.000 If you have a 1 in 5,000 risk of some severe outcome, you would probably be very careful with that vaccine for that group because you don't want to create this skepticism about all vaccines because you're seeing a subgroup of people hurt by this vaccine.

01:27:16.000 That's what they did, by the way, in the United States with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

01:27:19.000 When they saw an elevated risk of thrombocytopenia and clotting in older women and middle-aged women, they paused the rollout of the vaccine.

01:27:30.000 My colleague, Martin Kulldorff, who wrote the Great Parenthood Declaration, disagreed with me about this, but I actually think it was probably the reasonable thing to do. 0.98

01:27:37.000 You know, again, you could argue with me about this, whether I'm right or wrong.

01:27:40.000 But the point is that's consistent with what we normally do with vaccines.

01:27:42.000 As soon as there's a signal, we pause, we're careful about it.

01:27:46.000 Because even relatively rare signals can undermine public confidence in all vaccines.

01:27:50.000 That's why most of the traditional vaccines that are out there, we have a lot of confidence in it because they pull them every time there's something, just a few, one in a million cases of something, and they're very careful about it.

01:28:02.000 With this vaccine, that caution was thrown to the wind, especially with the mRNA vaccines, and the signal was for young men.

01:28:09.000 It should have led to a pause for young men taking the mRNA vaccines, and it didn't.

01:28:14.000 Certainly vaccines have been cancelled on the basis of much statistically lower impact than that, I understand.

01:28:23.000 And this sort of crisis of confidence in our institutions and science itself has to be halted at some point because in a way science is one of the few things that can prevent us becoming hysterical because I wondered As many people surely must, if you have felt that the kind of certainty that you've had in the institutions to a degree you participate in, if you consider at least science to be an institution, although I recognise there are many, many sectors within that, plainly the funding being a significant point of difference,

01:28:59.000 I wonder if, like, you know, when you say something like, you know, vaccines historically have been like, you know, they're verifiably much safer.

01:29:09.000 Is there anything that happened in the pandemic period that made you think, hold on a minute, I'm gonna have to review the trust that I'd bestowed on either other medical or legislative or regulatory, you know, like, for example, Andy Fauci.

01:29:22.000 Most people didn't think about Andy Fauci very much prior to that.

01:29:25.000 I feel like during the AIDS crisis, some people were like, whoa, he's, this guy's making some crazy decisions and many might argue some crazy dollars as well through some of those royalty arrangements.

01:29:35.000 But Generally speaking, it's not something you think about.

01:29:38.000 I wonder if you've had the opportunity, chance or inclination to review some areas that you previously would have considered that didn't require further analysis.

01:29:47.000 I mean, it's funny, Russell, you ask that, because I actually have on my bookshelf somewhere a textbook that Anthony Fauci edited, from which I learned internal medicine.

01:29:57.000 You know, it was, you know, before the pandemic, I had tremendous admiration for him.

01:30:02.000 I had to revise that admiration considerably.

01:30:07.000 I've been at Stanford for 37 years, first as a student, then as a professor, and the motto of the university is the winds of freedom blow, and they didn't blow during the pandemic.

01:30:19.000 A lot of my colleagues I'm now deeply disappointed in I do think you have to resist the urge to say, everything I knew before was wrong.

01:30:29.000 I don't think that's true.

01:30:31.000 But it is absolutely an opportunity to revisit those things and try to understand some of the things.

01:30:36.000 Why do I think those things?

01:30:37.000 Do I still think those things in light of new evidence?

01:30:40.000 We always have to do this.

01:30:41.000 In any endeavor, we're going to take a lot of things for granted.

01:30:45.000 Science has to take, by the way, when you do science, you take a lot of things for granted.

01:30:47.000 I'm not going to revisit gravity.

01:30:54.000 It's not like I have to take for granted certain things when I do science.

01:30:58.000 And you're right.

01:31:00.000 But I think part of science's genius is that we can go back and question even those foundational things.

01:31:06.000 Most of the time, those foundational things are foundational for a reason.

01:31:10.000 There's a lot of evidence behind them.

01:31:12.000 But it's not wrong to go back and to look.

01:31:15.000 And on vaccines, I actually worked on vaccine safety with the Food and Drug Administration in the U.S.

01:31:20.000 before the pandemic.

01:31:22.000 That kind of questioning happens all the time with vaccines.

01:31:25.000 It's a normal part of why vaccines can be recommended at scale, is because as soon as there's a safety signal, you say, okay, well, even if it turns out to be just a statistical artifact, you still, with an abundance of caution, you pull the vaccine.

01:31:40.000 Right?

01:31:41.000 It's frustrating, but you do that because you want to make sure that the public sees vaccines as safe.

01:31:46.000 It's the process by which you do that that allows the vaccines to be seen as safe.

01:31:50.000 And I am completely in favor of revisiting.

01:31:53.000 I mean, I think that's part of what we do.

01:31:55.000 I suspect many of the vaccines we have that I think are quite essential, like the MMR vaccine, will see as essential even if we revisit.

01:32:04.000 But maybe others won't.

01:32:05.000 I don't know.

01:32:05.000 I mean, this is a scientific process.

01:32:08.000 Personally, I'm confident enough that I would give my kids those traditional childhood vaccines.

01:32:14.000 But I can understand the desire to revisit, given how poorly our scientific institutions, our regulatory institutions did during the pandemic, to protect the health of the public.

01:32:24.000 I can completely understand where that impetus is coming from.

01:32:27.000 Yeah, because you start to question who's spending money to ensure that non-profitable drugs are promoted, that profitable drugs are rigorously explored.

01:32:38.000 Where's that appetite coming from and what is this trend and what was revealed during that period?

01:32:43.000 That's a very sort of open-hearted and open-minded answer.

01:32:47.000 And I was thinking about like, you know, revisiting foundational principles and it Yeah, epochs are defined by those moments of revision and revelation, whether it's heliocentrism, if I'm saying it right, or in the nature of sub-particular reality.

01:33:05.000 When those revelations are made, It defines our species, it defines our kind, it defines our time, and that's why the neutrality and objectivity of science has to be protected in the same way that something like free speech has to be protected.

01:33:21.000 When science is a subset of financial interests and methods of dominion, then it's difficult to see how you're not going to end up in some kind of form of tyranny as a result of that, because of the biases accumulatively Will lead to the end of the ability for debate and the ability to undergird dissident voices in so many ways.

01:33:49.000 Getting to the sort of not the heart of the matter but a significant part of the matter it seems that here it says Moderna and Pfizer made a thousand dollars of profit every second.

01:33:58.000 They charge governments up to 24 times more than the potential cost of generic production.

01:34:03.000 It seems that there were many systemic problems, plainly, between the kind of relationships

01:34:09.000 between, let's just say, government and big tech, government and big pharma.

01:34:14.000 It seems that what's needed is new capacity for regulation.

01:34:20.000 And I'm saying decentralization of power, breaking up of monopolies in all the areas

01:34:25.000 where they appear to be able to reign, to reduce, indeed, end the ability of companies

01:34:30.000 of this scale to influence government through lobbying and other forms of funding.

01:34:35.000 And these are the kind of ideas that need to be discussed in independent media and won't

01:34:40.000 be discussed outside of it.

01:34:42.000 Absolutely.

01:34:43.000 I mean, I think that there's almost a revolving door, it seems like.

01:34:47.000 I didn't really know this, really.

01:34:48.000 I mean, I knew that it existed, but I didn't realize the scope of it before the pandemic.

01:34:54.000 The regulatory agencies that are supposed to oversee and represent the public interest, you know, the Food and Drug Administration, the CDC, a lot of this, a lot of that has, there's this like revolving door with industry.

01:35:13.000 There's a sense of where the regulators who are supposed to protect the public from the depredations of the pharmaceutical companies are often representing the pharmaceutical companies.

01:35:28.000 You have former FDA chairs now on the board of big pharmaceutical companies.

01:35:37.000 It just looks really bad.

01:35:39.000 And it is really bad.

01:35:41.000 You want an independent regulator And governments during the pandemic essentially became partners with pharmaceutical companies.

01:35:49.000 You mentioned Moderna and Pfizer.

01:35:53.000 Governments around the world, the contracts they wrote with them essentially said there's no liability if you have a bad product.

01:36:01.000 entity ever has that deal.

01:36:04.000 If you have a bad product, you're part of the deal of capitalism is that you are responsible for it.

01:36:10.000 You have to make amends for it.

01:36:11.000 You have to pay penalties for it, right?

01:36:14.000 You have the wrong incentives in place if you don't have some possibility that if you do something bad, something bad will happen to you.

01:36:23.000 And essentially that's what these deals with the pharmaceutical companies did, is they told the pharmaceutical companies, you can have a bad product and you don't have to pay the price for it.

01:36:33.000 I can't believe it that I'd ever say we have to get back to capitalism.

01:36:37.000 I didn't realize that we'd gone so far beyond it in so many areas where subsidized energy companies are able to profit in energy crises, pharmaceutical companies benefit in health and medical crises.

01:36:51.000 Military-industrial complex organizations benefit in wars.

01:36:55.000 Seems that there's some opportunity for real review.

01:36:58.000 Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, thank you so much for joining us today.

01:37:03.000 Thank you for your easy, effortless, or at least it seems effortless, ability to communicate complex ideas gently, and thank you for the plain morality of your position and the lack of hubris and presence of humility that's Most heartening for me.

01:37:19.000 You suggested that somehow I could diminish your hope over the course of this conversation.

01:37:23.000 Certainly you've lifted and increased mine, so thank you.

01:37:26.000 Thank you, Russell.

01:37:27.000 It was a real pleasure and honor to talk with you.

01:37:29.000 There you are!

01:37:29.000 Beautiful conversations can still take place even in this increasing omnicrisis, even in this fragmented and fractured space.

01:37:39.000 That's why it's so important that you support us.

01:37:41.000 If you can, become an Awakened Wonder and support these conversations.

01:37:46.000 Also, support Dr. J. Support Dr. J by going to illusionofconsensus on Substack.

01:37:52.000 Follow him on X, where he's Dr. J Bhattacharya.

01:37:55.000 It's sort of how it sounds.

01:37:56.000 We'll post the spelling in the description there.

01:37:59.000 Next week on the show, we've got another fantastic week, and you're going to love this.

01:38:03.000 You're going to love it, and I'm going to want you to join us, that's right, live to speak with Matt Taibbi.

01:38:09.000 You know who Matt is.

01:38:10.000 Larry Sanger, he's one of the founders of Wikipedia, who believes that Wikipedia's gone a little off track.

01:38:15.000 And Asim Malhotra, a man for whom I had to invent a sign because of his ability to be loquacious.

01:38:23.000 Click that red awaken button, become a member of the Locals Community.

01:38:26.000 Here's just some of the things we're offering.

01:38:28.000 Meditations, readings, ways to change the world.

01:38:30.000 What's this community about now?

01:38:32.000 What are we doing this for?

01:38:34.000 Are we serious?

01:38:35.000 Because, you know, you listen to Jay Bhattacharya for a moment and you think, uh-oh!

01:38:39.000 Revolution required, and those of you that are supporting our movement this week include Tom Town, Great Candidate, Dean O'Dean 3, Brock 23, and Lila 16.

01:38:50.000 Join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, no, not for that, but for more of the different.

01:38:55.000 Until then, if you can, stay free.

01:39:08.000 Switch on.

01:39:09.000 Man, he's switching.

01:39:11.000 Switch on.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - October 13, 2023

Israel vs Palestine: Tucker SLAMS Congress Over Reaction To Attacks - Stay Free #223

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript