Stay Free - Russel Brand - Matt Tiabbi (Is Free Speech Over?)

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

00:00:02.000 Thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.

00:00:04.000 Wherever you happen to be watching this, maybe you're watching it on YouTube, the whole show will be exclusively on Rumble and you ain't going to want to miss it because we're talking about Big Pharma today, Biden's broken promises to lower drug prices.

00:00:15.000 Excuse me, sorry about that.

00:00:16.000 I just had a burrito.

00:00:17.000 I know.

00:00:18.000 What about my broken promises not to burp on camera?

00:00:21.000 This is such a beautiful bit of footage of Biden being so sanctimonious and sincere. 0.98

00:00:26.000 About he's just a regular guy affected like all of us by those bloody fat cats in Big Pharma. 0.82

00:00:32.000 Sort of never mentioning he's the President of the United States during all of it. 0.94

00:00:35.000 It's fantastic.

00:00:36.000 You're going to love it.

00:00:37.000 Also, we've got so-called journalist Matt Taibbi on the show talking about the war on free speech.

00:00:42.000 I'm so excited to speak to Matt.

00:00:43.000 I've not spoke to him since he had that, is it Debbie Wasserman Schultz?

00:00:46.000 That woman in Congress.

00:00:47.000 This is my time.

00:00:48.000 This is my time.

00:00:49.000 So I'm going to say that to him during the conversation.

00:00:51.000 Yeah.

00:00:51.000 You should.

00:00:52.000 I'm going to ask him a question.

00:00:53.000 You should hold that up and say that.

00:00:56.000 I'm going to go, yeah, this is what I'm going to do.

00:00:57.000 All right, Matt, tell us exactly why you appeared as a Republican witness and how the issue of free speech transcends normal political boundaries, because ultimately it will always affect all of us because we don't know who's in authority.

00:01:08.000 We've got, OK, so me and... I'm going to just go, it's my time, it's my time, it's my time.

00:01:14.000 And then implicit, it's my time to shine like the girl boss queen I am deep down.

00:01:21.000 Once we're only on Rumble, we're going to be talking about, as usual, some new data on vaccine side effects.

00:01:26.000 Can you euphemistically tell me what that is?

00:01:29.000 No.

00:01:30.000 Because it's not allowed on YouTube.

00:01:32.000 Right.

00:01:33.000 Even couched in euphemism.

00:01:34.000 About pregnant women.

00:01:36.000 Do you mean to say, Gareth, that when they were trialling those medications, they weren't pregnant women going, yeah, you can test that medication on me and my unborn... This is the bit where we don't.

00:01:36.000 Oh, no!

00:01:48.000 OK.

00:01:50.000 OK, yeah, we can't talk about that, but on Rumble, we can.

00:01:52.000 That's why we're on Rumble, for free speech, free speech that will unite us all.

00:01:56.000 The good news is Hillary Clinton is running.

00:02:01.000 Have a look at this.

00:02:02.000 Oh my God.

00:02:03.000 What is it?

00:02:04.000 It's Hillary Clinton.

00:02:05.000 She's running.

00:02:06.000 What?

00:02:09.000 What is the whole tone of this piece of propaganda?

00:02:12.000 This is obviously a piece of propaganda of some kind.

00:02:14.000 It's one of those probably sort of an online education facility of some description that hasn't gone to the trouble of investigating Hillary Clinton's past.

00:02:23.000 Or what young people are like.

00:02:24.000 Hey, I'm a young people person, so look at me!

00:02:27.000 You know what I love?

00:02:28.000 Hillary Clinton!

00:02:29.000 She's so cool and down with the cats and kids! 1.00

00:02:33.000 It's such a terrible misstep, misinterpretation of what reality is.

00:02:37.000 And I suppose that's the fundamental problem, isn't it, with contemporary politics, is they live in a different reality.

00:02:43.000 They live in a different America, so their rhetoric and their presentations of what America's meant to be like seems like some sort of vacuous Aldous Huxley-esque What are you all upbeat about?

00:02:56.000 Is it the poverty?

00:02:57.000 Is it the desperation?

00:02:58.000 Is it the opioid crisis?

00:03:00.000 Is it the endlessly inculcated division that we're all experiencing?

00:03:04.000 It's all of that!

00:03:05.000 And have you heard?

00:03:06.000 That's not exciting.

00:03:06.000 Hillary's running.

00:03:07.000 It's not like a, I don't know, a Harry Styles album or a new form of skunk.

00:03:12.000 It's not going to cause any excitement in the corridors of academia, is it?

00:03:18.000 Running again?

00:03:19.000 I know!

00:03:19.000 I heard that's so crazy!

00:03:20.000 This is wild!

00:03:22.000 She's running again! 0.98

00:03:23.000 It's not wild at all, is it?

00:03:25.000 Because how many times has she tried now?

00:03:27.000 It's just, oh, the response would be, really?

00:03:30.000 Again?

00:03:30.000 Why?

00:03:31.000 You know that woman who spent a whole doggone life trying to impose herself on us, whether it's by crushing the aspirations of Bernie Sanders, who was a populist representation of a traditional leftist movement, or whether it's sort of clambering over the complications, shall we call them, in her marriage, or whether it's starting up the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

00:03:51.000 Making up lies about Lying about Russia and Donald Trump.

00:03:53.000 Lying about Russia and Donald Trump.

00:03:54.000 You know that sort of relentless force for power that potentially has got all sorts of expressions in forms that we... would we discuss that ever only on Rumble?

00:04:04.000 Like some of the... should we say the statistically high number of people that have taken unusual decisions after knowing the Clintons?

00:04:11.000 Should we just call it that?

00:04:13.000 Is that euphemistic enough?

00:04:14.000 Well done.

00:04:15.000 Hey, look who's running again!

00:04:16.000 Look who's running people into an early grave!

00:04:20.000 It's the Clintons!

00:04:21.000 Again, that could just be euphemistic.

00:04:23.000 Yes, and it was.

00:04:25.000 Not only could it be, it wouldn't be.

00:04:25.000 It was.

00:04:27.000 It was, it was.

00:04:28.000 So look at this now.

00:04:30.000 Now we've got the bit of Hilary Clinton. 0.98

00:04:31.000 The whole joke of this is predicated on, oh, she's not running for office like she usually is.

00:04:36.000 She's literally running down a corridor in some little dolly boots. 1.00

00:04:40.000 And we're meant to think that's somehow adorable when it's We're war criminal!

00:04:44.000 Do you think that's actually Hillary Clinton's kicky legs? 1.00

00:04:50.000 Well, if it was, that would be the most authentic part of this entire thing.

00:04:54.000 So let's hope.

00:04:56.000 If that was Hillary Clinton's actual tootsies, toes, toenails, and soles of her feet, bunions, corns, et cetera, and hey, we all get older, then that would be the only authentic thing. 0.51

00:05:06.000 Maybe that's why they did it.

00:05:07.000 They're like, well, 5% of this is actually real.

00:05:10.000 So we can stick with that.

00:05:11.000 Do you know what was real about this video?

00:05:14.000 Go on.

00:05:15.000 Those were a feat.

00:05:17.000 What's not real is anything else.

00:05:19.000 The enthusiasm of the young people, the claims that this is a legitimate political voice rather than an institutional, like in a sense the epitome of the political class.

00:05:29.000 This is not about Hillary Clinton as a person.

00:05:31.000 It's not because I know Hillary Clinton as a mother and a wife and in some ways like has succeeded in you know the narrative of a woman succeeding in a male world is i think a significant and important narrative and i think worthy of celebration but what also has that she didn't uh get involved in any bombings i would imagine

00:05:50.000 Well, God, to tell you the truth, if you've got involved in loads of bombings, that would, for me, that would undermine the whole, you go girl, woman succeeding in a male world. 0.94

00:05:57.000 I'd say, look, that is good, but I also want to consider if there's been any bombings, if you've funded bombings, if you've voted for wars, if you've accepted money for war criminals, if you've acted in ways that are undemocratic, we're going to have to include that in the story.

00:06:09.000 But so far, we don't know if that's true.

00:06:12.000 All I'm seeing at the moment is some authentic little tootsies running down a corridor.

00:06:17.000 Sorry, you're running again.

00:06:20.000 Well, I sure am, Karen.

00:06:21.000 I just got here early for the new class we're teaching together on foreign policy decision-making.

00:06:26.000 Okay, well, what are those decisions?

00:06:28.000 Bomb some children and cause ISIS? 0.87

00:06:31.000 That also isn't a good enough joke, is it? 0.83

00:06:34.000 The word running primarily means to move at pace, perambulated by your legs.

00:06:41.000 It's not like, you know, running in that way.

00:06:45.000 It's not a surprise.

00:06:46.000 It's not the sudden revelation of a previously concealed piece of information provoking laughter.

00:06:51.000 Also, the thing she's teaching is so ironic at this point.

00:06:55.000 Yeah, I'm teaching how to not blame Russia for stuff.

00:06:58.000 Classes don't start until September.

00:07:01.000 Yeah, but I wanted to be prepared, Karen.

00:07:03.000 You know, when it comes to crisis situations, you've always got to be prepared. 0.98

00:07:07.000 Certainly, you don't need to be as prepared if you fucking caused them. 0.97

00:07:10.000 Excuse my language. 0.99

00:07:12.000 Prepared?

00:07:13.000 I think you're more prepared than anyone to teach this course.

00:07:16.000 Now, what are we going to call it?

00:07:18.000 Inside the Situation Room.

00:07:21.000 Ugh.

00:07:22.000 Annoy you, just as some words inside the Situation Room.

00:07:26.000 So pleased with itself.

00:07:28.000 Oh, I'm inside the Situation, the room where it happened. 0.99

00:07:31.000 It's such a post-Hamilton, pleased-with-itself, liberal bit of crap. 0.84

00:07:36.000 And I'll cover the theory of political decision-making and strategy. 0.98

00:07:36.000 Yes. 0.98

00:07:40.000 And I'll cover what it was actually like in the room during the bin Laden raid, the Iran sanctions, the What is it like to simplify that issue and epitomize all of it in the figure of Osama Bin Laden, when there are complex issues at stake to do with the historic clash between East and West, the representation of energy companies, gerrymandering and manipulation, the ongoing colonial impact of Western interests in the Middle East, the disruption that is caused when a military acts on behalf of corporate interests?

00:08:09.000 Get out of the room! 1.00

00:08:10.000 Sorry, I'm just going to run out of here.

00:08:13.000 Look who's running again!

00:08:14.000 It's Hillary!

00:08:15.000 She's running away from the truth! 0.99

00:08:16.000 She's running from the students! 1.00

00:08:17.000 They've got questions!

00:08:18.000 She's changed into some rollerblades! 1.00

00:08:20.000 Inline ones, the nerd!

00:08:22.000 It's a ceasefire, you name it.

00:08:24.000 Okay, but are you ready for whatever questions the students throw at you?

00:08:28.000 Bring it on!

00:08:30.000 Okay, let's go! 0.79

00:08:31.000 Here are some of those questions.

00:08:35.000 As a supporter of the war in Iraq, what were some of your main achievements, Hillary Clinton?

00:08:41.000 Was it the escalating wars, greenlighting coups, and generally maintaining and expanding power around the globe?

00:08:47.000 Well, well, what is it?

00:08:48.000 Come back, Hillary! 1.00

00:08:49.000 Come back!

00:08:50.000 Would you say that generally you were more or less militarily aggressive than your Republican counterparts?

00:08:55.000 The answer to that, of course, is on most foreign policy decisions, including Libya.

00:08:58.000 Clinton was in favour of equally aggressive action, if not more so than former Bush appointee Robert Gates.

00:09:04.000 Question.

00:09:05.000 How did you package your hawkish policies publicly?

00:09:08.000 Clinton and Obama got away with hawkish policies because they stuck to the language of humanitarian intervention and liberation.

00:09:08.000 Answer.

00:09:14.000 Clinton helped assert the right of the US government to intervene in any country of its choosing, using the most brutal means possible to achieve its end.

00:09:21.000 As a mother, what's your drone policy? 1.00

00:09:24.000 Clinton was in enthusiastic support of Obama's decision to step up the use of drone warfare in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

00:09:31.000 Clinton and the Obama administration sold the drone program as a precise and effective way to ruin weddings.

00:09:37.000 Sorry, to target terrorists with fewer risks of collateral damage.

00:09:40.000 But the numbers tell a different story.

00:09:42.000 During one five-month period of an operation, 90% of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.

00:09:48.000 But only 90% of them were innocent people who shouldn't have been killed.

00:09:52.000 Think about that 10% who were the intended targets.

00:09:55.000 Think about that and dash down a corridor all pleased with yourself to present a course on truth and foreign policy.

00:10:02.000 What was your relationship with the military-industrial complex, Hilary?

00:10:05.000 That's one question.

00:10:05.000 God, bring it on.

00:10:06.000 This is a question I'd love to see answered.

00:10:08.000 What was your relationship with the military-industrial complex?

00:10:11.000 As Secretary of State, Clinton made it her business to make sure the world was open for U.S.

00:10:15.000 business.

00:10:15.000 From securing defense contracts for Lockheed Martin to brokering deals to build nuclear plants for Westinghouse, Clinton and her ambassador CEOs traveled the globe to bring foreign governments and U.S.

00:10:25.000 companies together.

00:10:26.000 We have to position ourselves to lead in a world where security is shaped in boardrooms and on trading floors, as well as battlefields, Clinton said.

00:10:33.000 Surely you didn't take donations, though, from military contractors American military contractors and their affiliates who donated to the Clinton Foundation were awarded $163 billion worth of arms deals authorized by the Clinton State Department.

00:10:47.000 And governments seeking to buy arms got the same preferential treatment if they sent money the foundation's way, no matter their human rights record.

00:10:54.000 Clinton's department authorized $151 billion in Pentagon broker deals for 16 of the countries that gave to the Clinton Foundation. 0.97

00:11:01.000 But the main thing is that She is running down a corridor in a male-oriented world, bringing about the exact same or worse values that someone who happened to have a penis would have done anyway. 0.98

00:11:15.000 Hooray! 0.99

00:11:16.000 Hooray for that! 0.63

00:11:18.000 Plus, I think they had a cat, didn't they, the Clintons?

00:11:20.000 That's another adorable detail.

00:11:22.000 It would be amazing if some of the students in her class actually asked some of those questions.

00:11:25.000 That's what I'd like to imagine was happening.

00:11:28.000 So if you're in that class, Ask those questions because in a way we're doing that as a sort of comedically aren't we Gareth?

00:11:33.000 That's our dedication to comedy because for us comedy is more than pretending to run down the corridor because the word run means run for office and also run down the corridor.

00:11:42.000 What would be lovely from a sensible serious perspective is to actually hear those questions answered.

00:11:48.000 Like it will come down to things like well the system is saying Essentially set up in this way, so you have to accept these donations.

00:11:57.000 Ultimately, I think the answers to those questions would leave you quite dispirited with the state of modern democracy in American globalism.

00:12:04.000 Certainly don't ask any questions about the war in Ukraine off the back of that.

00:12:08.000 Just that's the past and what's going on now is a completely different thing.

00:12:12.000 What I like about the present is it has no relationship to the past, has none of the same players involved, none of the same institutional interests, and certainly isn't founded in the same mentality that brought about those exact problems.

00:12:23.000 It's not the same businesses, companies, profit motives, everything basically exactly the same.

00:12:27.000 Some of the same rhetoric where you could literally like that thing, whereas they take Harry Potter characters and Star Wars characters and just go like, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker, is met by an elder who's a bit of a mystic, Hagrid, or, you know, Ben Kenobi.

00:12:41.000 Ultimately, they have to fight their father, Darth Vader, Voldemort.

00:12:43.000 They go to a place to learn to become a wizard, Jedi.

00:12:46.000 You could just change the names!

00:12:48.000 That's what a system means, is it operates in a particular way regardless of the personnel that inhabit it.

00:12:53.000 Even if that personnel exchange represents a distinct, you know, bipartisan switch.

00:12:57.000 Won't make no difference.

00:12:59.000 Yeah, and you can do that in the way that these days these former either presidents or political leaders in some form like Clinton and George Bush are being kind of reintroduced into society and reframed as these elders who should be teaching politics to kids or doing courses on painting like George Bush has done and kind of mates with Michelle Obama.

00:13:21.000 That's nice paintings, they're lovely watercolours.

00:13:25.000 Have you noticed, let us know in the chat in the comments, have you noticed how they're repositioning and repurposing war criminals and stooges of the system as a sort of avuncular, lovable, oracular elders that we're supposed to embrace and look to?

00:13:41.000 Because we're not super young, I'm sorry to admit, George Bush, that was the same as Trump.

00:13:46.000 Like they were acting like that was the issue, but after a little bit of time and a whole lot of money, they're willing to go, look, we're all in the same team.

00:13:53.000 Really?

00:13:53.000 This is almost basically a bloody sport.

00:13:56.000 And this is when something like the ongoing corruption in the world of big pharma becomes incredibly relevant.

00:14:02.000 And we're not Even talking about the craziness of the pandemic, we're talking about Big Pharma's relationship with the state, a relationship it achieves not only through making huge donations to both parties, not through the enormous amount of money that it spends on lobbying and people in Congress that own stocks and shares in the companies they're meant to regulate, but kind of a broader mentality that it is more important to serve corporate interests than to serve the interests of

00:14:27.000 Ordinary Americans who are paying too much money for drugs that they funded the development of, drugs that are sold abroad at a profit by those drug companies, even when people are writing letters about family members dying of cancer for the want of drugs that cost up to $180,000 a year in the case of one prostate cancer drug.

00:14:49.000 The kicker though is that they're sold abroad much, much cheaper.

00:14:53.000 Absolutely, because they've been developed by America, so they're exportable and they're profitable in a way they would never be if you hadn't taxed the Americans both emotionally, spiritually and literally, financially.

00:15:03.000 To watch Joe Biden use the familial, folky rhetoric of a kind of sort of uncle in Dungarees chewing on a bit of straw, kicking back on the stoop, sharing home truths with you, part of the heritage of Twain, some pastoral image of the great patriarch, and that's what we look to, isn't it?

00:15:23.000 We look to our leaders as a kind of father or mother figure, some patriarch, elder, some chief, and they use the folksy rhetoric to evoke that kind of atavistic response all the while, Acting as the, in this case, disgusting stooges of profiteering corporations.

00:15:42.000 Have a listen to this. 0.93

00:15:43.000 It's going to knock your little socks off.

00:15:45.000 We'll help you get them back on again, but, ah, the surcharge.

00:15:49.000 Have a look.

00:15:50.000 Too many of you, laying in bed at night like my dad did, staring at the ceiling, wondering what in God names happens if your spouse gets cancer.

00:16:03.000 Are you going to have any money to pay for those medical bills?

00:16:06.000 Kamala Harris at the back is going, where's he going with this?

00:16:09.000 Sometimes.

00:16:10.000 Oh, she just got asleep in this case.

00:16:12.000 I mean, I think with Kamala Harris, I don't know what her inner life is like.

00:16:17.000 I do remember in the primaries there was a minute, unless this was propaganda, Well, it seemed like Kamala Harris sort of confronted Joe Biden about, hey, your record on race issues ain't so good, and really had him on the back foot and seemed like an angry sort of firebrand woman that was really going to shake things up. 1.00

00:16:35.000 But as is often the case, once in a position of some authority, her morality was usurped by expedience.

00:16:43.000 At the core of the issues that we would like to showcase to you here is the figure of this dude, Beretta.

00:16:50.000 Or Bereke, like a congressperson who, while in opposition, lobbied furiously for legislation that would prevent drug companies profiting from products that they had developed at taxpayer expense.

00:16:50.000 Is that it?

00:17:07.000 But once he was in office, he did the exact same thing and worse.

00:17:11.000 It's extraordinary, this.

00:17:13.000 It just shows you again and again how these institutions You're going to have to sell the house or try to get a second mortgage on it.

00:17:21.000 I get it.

00:17:22.000 Here, what bugs me is that Joe Biden positions himself as like a kind of Martin Luther King,

00:17:27.000 almost civil rights activist, fronting up to Big Pharma, when he's literally the president.

00:17:33.000 He's not an outsider.

00:17:34.000 Are you going to have to sell the house or try to get a second mortgage on it?

00:17:38.000 I get it.

00:17:40.000 I get it.

00:17:41.000 With the Inflation Reduction Act that I signed into law, we're taking on powerful interest

00:17:46.000 to bring health care costs down so you can sleep better at night with more security.

00:17:53.000 Even right.

00:17:53.000 So the idea of taking on powerful interests, that sounds like odd rhetoric for a career politician who's currently the officer commander in chief of the United States of America.

00:18:09.000 What offends me is the nature of this rhetoric when related to the administrative choices that are being made.

00:18:16.000 In particular we're going to learn about something called the Bayh-Dole Act.

00:18:21.000 Let's have a look at that now.

00:18:23.000 For 40 years now there's been a piece of legislation Well, that means that the government can waive patent exclusivity for drugs whose research was funded by federal government dollars, speeding the arrival of far cheaper generics to the market.

00:18:36.000 And yet, despite marching rights enshrined in the Bayh-Dole Act, federal officials have never exercised those rights, even as drug prices have skyrocketed.

00:18:44.000 They've never used it.

00:18:45.000 So what this means is, is if a pharmaceutical company is charging too much money for a drug, they can say, you best charge a reasonable price for that, otherwise we're going to That's a brilliant piece of legislation.

00:18:57.000 and white label it and everyone will be able to sell it at a reasonable price.

00:19:01.000 I won't say an obvious example of a drug that was readily and cheaply available

00:19:05.000 because it was out of pattern a couple of years ago, because at the moment there are no clinical trials,

00:19:09.000 because no one's paid for them to determine whether or not it is effective.

00:19:13.000 So that's a brilliant piece of legislation.

00:19:15.000 The point we're making here is even when within the corrupt machine of government

00:19:19.000 there is a piece of legislation that could be utilised in the service of people,

00:19:23.000 people that are suffering, in this instance people who have family members

00:19:26.000 or are themselves suffering from cancer, then it is not utilised primarily because of lobbying

00:19:32.000 and the amount of lobbying dollars that's spent preventing the Bayh-Dole Act being used.

00:19:37.000 So this is when they can rescind the pattern when a medicine is not available to the public on reasonable terms.

00:19:44.000 And what the Biden administration are saying is $180,000 a year is apparently reasonable terms for people with cancer to be able to afford.

00:19:53.000 Seems to me quite expensive.

00:19:55.000 I mean, obviously the price of life is high, but this drug called Xanthi, the Biden administration refused to force the manufacturer of a life-saving prostate cancer drug developed completely with public funds to lower its nearly $190,000 annual price tag.

00:20:10.000 As Gareth says, that would seem to me to be a legit target for the utilisation of that piece of legislation.

00:20:16.000 The patent holders of the prostate drug Xanthi, whose ingredients were developed at a California public university, Have earned more than 20 billion dollars from the drugs.

00:20:23.000 It's not like they ain't profited up till now.

00:20:26.000 The US Chamber of Commerce spent more than 80 million dollars lobbying in 2022.

00:20:30.000 Pfizer spent 50 million dollars.

00:20:32.000 A sort of a conglomerate lobbyist group called PHRMA or I guess they want us to say that like pharma.

00:20:37.000 Spent $29 million and Astellas, who make that particular drug, Xanthi, spent $2 million.

00:20:43.000 Look at that accumulative expenditure.

00:20:45.000 And what is that money about, really?

00:20:47.000 That money is to ensure the government do not act in your interest, but in the interest of the industries that truly fund them and truly control them.

00:20:56.000 Not all drugs are subject to negotiation.

00:20:58.000 Instead, the plan will kick off in 2025.

00:21:03.000 When you hear Joe Biden say we beat Big Pharma this year, he is talking about legislation that will be passed to cap some drug prices.

00:21:13.000 But again, this is something that when you look into it is not as exciting as it sounds.

00:21:18.000 What I've found to be the case frequently is they find a piece of rhetoric that they can use, like we've beat Big Pharma this year, posing themselves as little guys up against corporate Goliaths.

00:21:28.000 But What is broadly speaking understood is that this piece of legislation will not meaningfully impact the pharmaceutical industry, and they'll find ways around it, they'll find loopholes, and they will continue to profit.

00:21:38.000 Yeah, and this isn't new for Joe Biden either.

00:21:40.000 So Biden was vice president when the Obama administration rejected congressional Democrats' demand The government used the same power to lower the skyrocketing prices of medicine in America.

00:21:50.000 So he's got history of doing this, Biden.

00:21:53.000 Amazingly, when he's making those speeches about his father looking up to the ceiling and we beat Big Pharma, he doesn't then mention, oh, by the way, I'm sorry about when I was vice president, making sure that those skyrocketing drug prices couldn't be meaningfully affected.

00:22:06.000 Our system requires of us a certain type of amnesia.

00:22:10.000 Increasingly, we are asked not to even recall the events of a week ago in order to sustain our faith in the efficacy and legitimacy of a state that operates entirely on behalf of corporate interests, only making concessions to us when it becomes so obvious and galling that to not do it would be against their own self-interest.

00:22:29.000 The build back better idea, which emerged from centralist globalist force, I mean, everyone

00:22:34.000 was talking about that, weren't they?

00:22:35.000 Build back better is like a pandemic catchphrase, is ultimately a piece of legislation that

00:22:39.000 is designed to be ineffective.

00:22:42.000 This is why not all drugs are subject to negotiation.

00:22:44.000 Instead, this plan will kick off in 2025 with a focus on the 10 costliest Medicare medicines,

00:22:50.000 followed by 15 medicines in 26 and 27 and 20 medicines in 2028.

00:22:54.000 I imagine that time frame is to allow pharmaceutical companies to manage their losses, invest elsewhere,

00:23:00.000 find alternative drugs and treatments and to spread the cost.

00:23:03.000 Do you know what this reminds me of?

00:23:05.000 It reminds me of like when them banks went down, Silicon Valley and all that, they realised,

00:23:09.000 oh no, we can't do another 2008 style bailout.

00:23:12.000 That looks bad.

00:23:14.000 So we're going to have to find more ingenious ways of bailing them out because we have to

00:23:17.000 protect our partners in the financial industry.

00:23:20.000 And as has been explained, while there may not directly be a taxpayer bailout, banking fees will have to compensate for the losses endured by Silicon Valley Bank and Credit Suisse and all of them.

00:23:32.000 We know now how these systems work.

00:23:34.000 So fundamentally, what we have to demand are not incremental reforms, but radical and systemic changes.

00:23:41.000 Did you have something there?

00:23:42.000 Yeah.

00:23:43.000 So the caps will be tied.

00:23:43.000 So continuing up there.

00:23:45.000 So most drugs won't be affected by negotiations.

00:23:47.000 Most.

00:23:48.000 Only most though.

00:23:49.000 The caps will be tied to the rate of inflation and the rule would apply to commercial insurance coverage too.

00:23:49.000 Yeah.

00:23:53.000 That could ultimately entice drug makers to boost their products launch prices.

00:23:57.000 And as we have seen in 2022, pharmaceutical companies in the US raised drug prices 1,186 times.

00:24:02.000 So it's happening.

00:24:05.000 So there you are.

00:24:06.000 So it's, I would say, a piece of legislation designed to grab headlines and continue to appease the pharmaceutical industry.

00:24:16.000 Before we click over, well, right, as I guess we should, we're going to have to leave YouTube now, because firstly, I want to name that white label off-brand medication that cannot be named on YouTube.

00:24:28.000 And also, what about the story about death and heart diseases and AstraZeneca and all that stuff?

00:24:33.000 I can't talk about that, can I, YouTube?

00:24:35.000 I can only talk about that on Rumble.

00:24:36.000 Why is that?

00:24:37.000 Why is it that you're censored?

00:24:39.000 The cold community guidelines, Russell.

00:24:41.000 I'm very aware of that.

00:24:45.000 It's a trick question.

00:24:46.000 I'm being naive and sweet.

00:24:48.000 Okay, listen, join us over on Rumble because I've got to talk about, like, while we're on the subject of the pharmaceutical industry, why don't we talk about what was essentially their gold rush, the pandemic era, where the government and the pharmaceutical industry, some might argue, ...operated... Allegedly!

00:25:02.000 ...collaboratively to ensure that favourable outcomes for each were reached.

00:25:07.000 Okay, so if you're watching this on YouTube, click on that link, join us, join us on local if you want, then I can read out your comments and all that kind of stuff.

00:25:13.000 Alright, see you later YouTube.

00:25:15.000 Rumble! 0.62

00:25:16.000 Now, this is a story about young women had a 3.5 times higher risk of death from heart issues after the AstraZeneca jab.

00:25:23.000 Now, this was a little while ago because the AstraZeneca vaccine, it was one of the early vaccines in the space, wasn't it, Gareth?

00:25:30.000 It was one of the first out of the gates.

00:25:31.000 It was known, first of all, as the Oxford vaccine.

00:25:34.000 That's when we were most pleased with it.

00:25:35.000 It was English.

00:25:36.000 It was academic.

00:25:37.000 Yeah, and then Bill Gates got hold of it.

00:25:39.000 Bill's going to have a little bit.

00:25:39.000 Of course he did.

00:25:41.000 Oh my, there's a little bit of money in that.

00:25:43.000 Let's see if we can all get involved.

00:25:45.000 So the Office for National Statistics analysed hospitalisations and vaccination records and death registrations in England among 12 to 29 year olds to assess the impact of the COVID-19 jab and infection.

00:25:57.000 This is from the Telegraph, which is a British newspaper.

00:25:59.000 So it's well done to them for reporting on this subject at least.

00:26:03.000 And it's another example of the way that the narrative is moving.

00:26:07.000 This is one of those things that when AstraZeneca, that when that vaccine was pulled,

00:26:12.000 it was right early on, wasn't it?

00:26:13.000 It was like, oh, that's a bit weird.

00:26:14.000 Are they saying that it's causing blood clots and stuff?

00:26:16.000 Oh, that is interesting.

00:26:17.000 It was one of those things that was kind of submerged because literally, as I remember it,

00:26:21.000 and you let me know in the chat and comments if you remember, this was at the time I was saying, 0.97

00:26:23.000 get that vaccine or you're gonna kill your grandma. 0.99

00:26:27.000 That's when they were not only saying it was good for you, it's good for everyone. 1.00

00:26:30.000 Have an hamburger, have a milkshake, have a blowjob. 0.99

00:26:33.000 They were offering you all sorts of incentives to get these bloody things. 0.99

00:26:35.000 I don't think that last one was offered.

00:26:36.000 Sorry, that was an offer that I was exclusively in the brand household.

00:26:41.000 I was offering just to my wife.

00:26:42.000 She remains unwilling to cooperate to this day.

00:26:47.000 So after one dose of a non-mRNA vaccine, which includes the AstraZeneca jab, there was evidence of an increased risk of cardiac death in young women, the ONS said.

00:26:56.000 Cardiac death could include cardiac arrest, heart disease and myocarditis.

00:27:02.000 That's inflammation of the heart muscle.

00:27:03.000 You should know that by now.

00:27:04.000 If there is a difference in the risk of death after vaccination compared to longer term, this shows a link to the jab, researchers say.

00:27:10.000 Most of the young people who received the AstraZeneca jab before April 2021 would have been prioritised due to underlying health conditions or because they were healthcare workers.

00:27:18.000 Therefore, the 3.5 times greater risk cannot be generalised to the whole population, the ONS said.

00:27:23.000 And what was pointed out earlier when we were putting this piece together is to remember When we were all talking about lockdown measures and we were talking about the near imposition of vaccines, but it was imposed if you worked in certain sectors.

00:27:34.000 Remember those people in New York that were kicked out of a job?

00:27:36.000 Remind us what kind of pressures you would have faced to take that medication, which may have been good for you, may not have been good for you.

00:27:42.000 You determine for yourselves.

00:27:43.000 Remember when people saying, oh, but aren't you noticing a lot of the people that are dying have got like comorbidities or they're obese or they had an underlying condition.

00:27:50.000 Don't you remember the rhetoric was, so what?

00:27:52.000 That doesn't mean they deserve to die!

00:27:54.000 And I remember thinking, no, that is a good point.

00:27:55.000 Just because someone's old or ill, that doesn't mean they deserve to die.

00:27:58.000 That's a good point.

00:27:59.000 But when it comes to addressing the impact of the AstraZeneca jab, they are pointing out that you can't generalize the results across a population because they, in particular, are going to negatively impact people with comorbidities.

00:28:12.000 So it's another example of the way that the information is managed and manipulated.

00:28:16.000 Yet another example of the from COVID with COVID.

00:28:19.000 The whole way that this information has been managed in order to create the most beneficial results from those that seek to regulate and those that seek to profit.

00:28:28.000 If you're trying to understand this landscape and you go, were people able to benefit by imposing regulation as a result of this aspect of the narrative?

00:28:37.000 Or were they able to profit as a result of this aspect of the narrative?

00:28:40.000 You can normally trace a line that leads you to one of those two conclusions.

00:28:44.000 Yeah, I mean, look, with all of this, I think it's, I mean, for me, it's about the lack of access to information.

00:28:50.000 I mean, even going to the Moderna case, because obviously we've had Rand Paul in Congress at the moment with the head of Moderna, billionaire owner of Moderna at the moment.

00:29:00.000 He's pressing him on myocarditis and getting some more information and whether or not Moderna actually hid this information.

00:29:06.000 And actually Robert M Kaplan, Emeritus Distinguished Professor at the UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, was something that we actually talked about earlier in this year, wrote that they'd found through studies a series of adverse events for 1 in 800 vaccines, which was, you know, a lot of a smaller amount than, or a bigger amount you could say, than had been reported.

00:29:29.000 Numerous vaccines have been pulled for a lot less, 1 in 10,000, 1 in 100,000 vaccines have been pulled previously.

00:29:35.000 Exactly.

00:29:35.000 But what he said was that the analysis was hindered from a lack of data being made public.

00:29:40.000 So he said Pfizer, Moderna and the FDA have this data but have kept them hidden from public view.

00:29:44.000 And I guess that's the point with all of this is just give people access to the information.

00:29:47.000 Then they can make their own conclusions and we can have, you know, truth.

00:29:54.000 Thank you very much.

00:29:56.000 Now, having spent some time in the company of so-called entertainers and so-called radicals, why don't we invite onto the show a so-called journalist, the author of Hate Inc.

00:30:06.000 Why Today's Media Makes Us Despise One Another, that's a so-called book, and also he appeared As one of Elon Musk's stooges when releasing the vital information that... Cherry-picking!

00:30:19.000 Cherry-picked information that appeared when you look at it superficially to reveal that there was some collaboration between the deep state and social media.

00:30:28.000 All right, Matt, how's it going?

00:30:30.000 It's going great, Russell.

00:30:31.000 How are you doing?

00:30:32.000 Yeah, I'm okay.

00:30:33.000 Are you all right?

00:30:33.000 Are you tired?

00:30:34.000 Are you exhausted?

00:30:35.000 No, I'm good.

00:30:37.000 I was listening intently to your show there.

00:30:40.000 I love the Hillary Clinton stuff. 0.99

00:30:42.000 Isn't that a natural sitcom?

00:30:45.000 The Clintons.

00:30:47.000 Yeah, like a sort of a get a life type of thing.

00:30:51.000 Like, you know, Hillary Clinton on a bike delivering newspapers or something like that in the beginning.

00:30:55.000 Rolling her eyes, her adventures and misadventures.

00:31:00.000 Oh, Bill.

00:31:02.000 Bill, what's that by your fly?

00:31:04.000 Hey, what's all this dry cleaning?

00:31:12.000 And you need a Carlton the Doorman character, you know, who kind of appears regularly, all that.

00:31:16.000 I guess that could be, I don't know, one of the former, Bob Rubin or somebody like that.

00:31:25.000 Matt, you can try and entertain us all you want, but I know for a fact, did you, have you got more money now than when you were a little boy?

00:31:34.000 Right, so where did the money come from?

00:31:37.000 Corruption.

00:31:38.000 How can you be a Republican witness, which is a necessary part of the congressional procedure, and not call yourself, I use this word deliberately, a terrorist?

00:31:50.000 Yeah, I mean we're laughing about it, but in the moment I actually made a mistake.

00:31:55.000 I got so caught up in whether or not What she was saying to me was true, uh, that I forgot to just say to her, it's none of your business whether I make money or not.

00:32:05.000 And you wouldn't ask that question of any other kind of journalists.

00:32:09.000 Like, did you get a book deal out of this story you're telling us about?

00:32:12.000 I mean, nobody would ask that question normally.

00:32:14.000 Um, so that was absurd.

00:32:17.000 Uh, and the, you know, the way they all use exactly the same phrases when they talk to you is, It's incredible.

00:32:26.000 In the case of that hearing, I think you're referring to, you know, the cherry-picked, spoon-fed evidence.

00:32:33.000 I must have heard that a million times since the beginning of the Twitter files.

00:32:37.000 What I imagine must be interesting about an experience appearing at that congressional hearing is that something that, for me at least, usually feels abstract, like corruption, the way that information is manipulated, Smearing of opponents, like sometimes we encounter these things, sometimes we're even personally subject to it, but to actually be within the machine, did it make somehow more visceral, personal and emotional your broad sense that there is entrenched corruption taking place?

00:33:13.000 Yeah, it was a little bit of an eye-opening moment for me.

00:33:16.000 I mean, I've obviously been doing this for a long time and seen a lot of crazy things in my lifetime, so I'm not surprised when politicians are corrupt, but it was It was very shocking the degree to which they didn't even think about engaging with the material.

00:33:35.000 It was just pure attack, attack, attack from the very, very beginning.

00:33:39.000 And then as you noted, every time I tried to answer a question, it was just reclaiming my time.

00:33:45.000 You know how this works.

00:33:46.000 You don't get to talk over and over again.

00:33:49.000 And like, you know, that was a little shocking.

00:33:53.000 Yeah, I suppose the danger is that if it were not a subject that I were personally invested in, I wouldn't inquire.

00:34:01.000 And yet what is revealed is the MO of the institutions, that it presents itself as an objective and investigative process, when in fact it's a propagandist and condemnatory process that's, in a sense, designed to help us reach the favorable conclusions that it is already predetermined as evidenced by the use of the phrases like spoon-fed and cherry-picked.

00:34:26.000 They already have an agenda.

00:34:27.000 They don't listen to you.

00:34:29.000 They smear rather than investigate.

00:34:31.000 And I suppose this must be happening continually elsewhere and is symptomatic of a deeper malaise that won't be as easy to observe elsewhere.

00:34:39.000 As the ongoing Twitter revelations continue to Be released.

00:34:45.000 Do you feel that at this point, it's just further augmentation of the ideas of corruption that were sort of present in the first Imprature? 0.95

00:34:54.000 Or do you feel that it's sort of evolving?

00:34:56.000 Is there anything like new and interesting?

00:34:59.000 And how does it relate to things like our personal deal over here at Rumble, where we're subject to some attacks?

00:35:05.000 And sometimes I feel like, oh, well, yeah, I guess there are a lot of people that are right wing on this platform.

00:35:08.000 It's kind of difficult to deny.

00:35:10.000 And also that is allowed.

00:35:12.000 People are allowed to be right wing.

00:35:14.000 That's one of the things people are allowed to be in the world.

00:35:17.000 And what do you think about the sort of TikTok congressional hearings?

00:35:20.000 Because they seem to also be sort of like an odd combination of utterly inept and biased and corrupt, because all the things that are being alleged of TikTok are applicable with the American state's relationship with US social media sites.

00:35:38.000 Yeah, I mean, We are still finding stuff that speaks directly to all the things that you're talking about.

00:35:48.000 For instance, we found a whole bunch of communications just recently about In preparation for a hubbub they were all having at the Aspen Institute in 2021, where they were discussing ideas like the Restrict Act, which is being proposed for, you know, in response to TikTok.

00:36:07.000 There's, I guess, the European Digital Services Act, or whatever they call it.

00:36:11.000 That's that they're thinking about for the EU.

00:36:14.000 All the ideas in both of these bills are sort of wish lists that have been passed around in this community for a long time.

00:36:22.000 The governments want absolute full and complete access to all data that these platforms provide.

00:36:30.000 Uh, and then they want a couple of other things that are really important.

00:36:33.000 They want, um, they want to have the authority to come in and moderate, uh, or at least be part of the process of moderation.

00:36:41.000 Um, and they also want for people who are called like trusted flaggers.

00:36:46.000 Uh, that's how it's described in the European law.

00:36:49.000 They want those folks to have access to these platforms as well.

00:36:53.000 And what they mean by that are these sort of outside quasi-governmental agencies who tell these platforms what they can and cannot print about things like vaccine safety, right?

00:37:08.000 And then we found out more about that, where they're openly talking about censoring true information.

00:37:14.000 So yeah, we're still finding out a lot of stuff about this, and I think there is more to find, unfortunately, which is kind of disturbing.

00:37:23.000 I've not heard a Maxim more disturbing lately than a trusted flagger.

00:37:30.000 If someone comes to me claiming that they're a trusted flagger, I think I'd be more at ease with someone who announced themselves as a paedophile.

00:37:38.000 It just sounds like a disturbing thing to call yourself or to set up.

00:37:43.000 Absolutely, yeah.

00:37:44.000 No, I mean, but that's in there.

00:37:46.000 That's in the Digital Services Act.

00:37:49.000 If you look at the bill, there's a whole list of Things that would apply to the various different types of companies and one of them is sort of access for trusted flaggers.

00:38:01.000 Twitter has its own language that's similar to that.

00:38:04.000 They have people they call trusted partners who determined for them who are allowed to make determinations about content or whose whose determinations they will take seriously.

00:38:16.000 So yeah, I mean this is all the it's.

00:38:20.000 Straight out of 1984, all this stuff.

00:38:22.000 The lang, the lang, the language, yes.

00:38:24.000 I'm, this is my time, I'm reclaiming my time, this is my time, how dare you, how much money did you make during that 1.00

00:38:29.000 time you were talking to them, where did you get it, you and that bastard Schellenberger, a dangerous, dangerous, stinking 1.00

00:38:35.000 terrorist, and you don't wash properly either I don't imagine. 1.00

00:38:38.000 I'm, I'm, Matt, it's, we, thanks. 0.72

00:38:42.000 It was good fun, wasn't it?

00:38:43.000 I said I was going to do it at the beginning of the show, and then I thought, I'm not going to do it because I respect Matt too much.

00:38:47.000 But then I thought, no, it will be funny.

00:38:48.000 So I did do it.

00:38:49.000 That was my process.

00:38:51.000 But hey, the EU apparently are introducing legislation that means that what was covert is now becoming sort of overt, where they're sort of saying, platforms like Rumble, we're just going to shut them down and ban them from EU states, which doesn't include Britain anymore, as a matter of fact. 0.89

00:39:04.000 So, you know, to hell with them.

00:39:06.000 But like, it's interesting, isn't it, that they are essentially just Going to legislate against free speech because they have to. 0.61

00:39:15.000 And one of the ways they can do that is by saying that free speech is a code for racism or hate speech or whatever.

00:39:20.000 And of course, there is such a thing as racism and hate speech.

00:39:23.000 But what we continually say is we want to use these platforms to tell the truth and attack powerful institutions and also to have the ability to speculate and have fun and joke and all those kind of things, but not really to hurt people.

00:39:35.000 I hate the idea that someone would be hurt as a result of my words.

00:39:39.000 So what do you think?

00:39:40.000 Absolutely.

00:39:41.000 Do you think Matt that we're going to see more and more overt legislation and maneuvering to shut down the ability

00:39:48.000 to communicate openly in the way that these platforms facilitate?

00:39:52.000 Absolutely, that's one of their primary goals is to make it impossible for people to have unfettered communication.

00:40:03.000 If you look at the Digital Services Act, it's a lot like the recommendations of the Aspen Institute, and it's got a lot in common with the Restrict Act here in the States.

00:40:13.000 When you look at the sections about giving the government access to data, what they really mean by that is they want Everything, every kind of content that's created on the platform has to be done in a format that can be algorithmically searched.

00:40:33.000 So even video, or if you have like, you know, something, a conversational platform, they have to be able to automatically generate a transcript quickly, so that whatever AI they're attaching to surveil and monitor people has to be able to look out for keywords.

00:40:52.000 Quickly, and it's funny, we did a thing about this thing called the Morality Project, and they were upset.

00:40:58.000 One of the things they were upset about when they were reviewing COVID information was that a worldwide freedom rally that was held last year, I think, or two years ago in Europe had been organized on Telegram.

00:41:10.000 Where they couldn't search it.

00:41:11.000 Where they didn't know it was coming.

00:41:13.000 And so, like, that's part of their thinking.

00:41:16.000 We don't want any more of those spaces where we can't search.

00:41:19.000 We want everything searchable and we want it instantly searchable.

00:41:22.000 So it continues to be about control and they continue to present it as about safety.

00:41:29.000 We're trying to protect you has become, it is actually, we're trying to control you.

00:41:34.000 When you say that about AI and a kind of pressuring to put data into searchable formats, it makes me feel that AI will of course be used to generate commercial opportunity by creating very particular and bespoke advertisements, but also it's going to be utilized to exert more control and while it might start as a resource that is accessible to all and fun for everyone, it will quickly, like water, find its level as a tool of commerce and of the state.

00:42:04.000 So there is a, in spite of, however they frame the problems within platforms like TikTok or Facebook or Rumble, free speech has to be a kind of absolute principle because the alternative ...is predicated on a centralised authority, and when you see even terms like cherry-pick and spoon-fed starting to emerge, or, you know, build back better, it's that these are the indicators that centralised authority is at work, and like you said, those various bills all bear the same hallmarks, so you have to have some absolute principles, don't you, Matt?

00:42:40.000 Yes, I think so.

00:42:41.000 And I think what's really striking about all the people who are backing these censorship measures is that they have absolutely no understanding of what the principle of free speech is all about.

00:42:53.000 The whole idea that you could have a centralized truth-deciding authority is completely counter to Every Enlightenment idea about what speech is for.

00:43:07.000 You can't have a government body that decides fact and fiction.

00:43:13.000 We don't believe that that's actually possible.

00:43:15.000 What we believe is that people freely discuss things and they arrive at a kind of truth together.

00:43:24.000 Factual truth is always a moving target in journalism, but as a society, you can't just decide what's true and what's not true, because as we learn, even scientific fact changes constantly.

00:43:35.000 So if you don't allow free speech, if you don't allow weirdos and people who are crackpots to have their say, you know, because they're right a lot of the time, like you just never know, right?

00:43:47.000 And the folks who want to Get rid of all of that are deluded and extremely dangerous people because what they believe is that they have all the answers like we're the experts we know and you know never mind what you think.

00:44:05.000 Which is terrible.

00:44:06.000 Their certainty is terrifying and certainty is often an indicator of the psychopath, I would say.

00:44:14.000 Matt, thank you so much for joining us.

00:44:16.000 Congratulations on the tremendous work you're doing.

00:44:19.000 Thank you for enduring that awful experience and doing so with such good grace and good humour.

00:44:25.000 Don't berate yourself for not saying it's none of your business, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who made you Lady Jesus.

00:44:33.000 Was it Hillary Clinton?

00:44:37.000 And thanks for being such a great asset for our show and a great person to work with.

00:44:41.000 Cheers, Matt.

00:44:42.000 Of course.

00:44:42.000 Thanks, Russell.

00:44:43.000 Have a good one.

00:44:44.000 Gareth, take care.

00:44:45.000 Take care, mate.

00:44:45.000 Oh, cheers.

00:44:46.000 Matt is the editor of Racket News on so-called aggregating news site Substack.

00:44:52.000 Thanks, you lot.

00:44:53.000 What a lovely man.

00:44:54.000 He's so great, isn't he?

00:44:55.000 And he's decent.

00:44:56.000 See, little things like saying your name, that's an indicator of his principles, values, awakeness.

00:45:02.000 So that's a person who's kind.

00:45:03.000 And the way they branded him in that hearing was disgrace.

00:45:06.000 And what's so ironic at the moment, literally listening to you two talk about, I guess, authoritarianism, is what we're talking about here, is Biden and Trudeau, literally the other day, uniting together against authoritarian regimes, you know, when they kind of met.

00:45:19.000 And it's just, it's so mad that they can be like, we're just against authoritarian regimes.

00:45:24.000 Oh, what about all these things that are going on at the moment?

00:45:27.000 No, no, that's different.

00:45:28.000 Don't ask that question. 1.00

00:45:29.000 We'll have you killed. 1.00

00:45:30.000 Don't you ever call me an authoritarian. 1.00

00:45:32.000 This is my time.

00:45:33.000 This is my authority.

00:45:34.000 Our authoritarianism is couched in a different type of language and weird, odd, perverted victimhood.

00:45:41.000 Hey, thank you so much for joining us on today's show.

00:45:44.000 Tomorrow, our guest is Callie Means, a whistleblower. 0.99

00:45:47.000 He blows whistles, who exposes corruption in big food and big pharma.

00:45:50.000 If you saw him last time he was on the show, he was fantastic, talking about a new obesity

00:45:54.000 drug that's set to be the most profitable drug in the world.

00:45:56.000 You could check that out on Rumble now.

00:45:58.000 It's already up, but we're having a deeper, longer, stronger conversation with him a little

00:46:02.000 later.

00:46:03.000 You should sign up to our locals community because you get my Brandemic stand-up special

00:46:07.000 free!

00:46:08.000 That's part of the deal over there, as well as ad-free content, access to a weekly show that me and Gareth do called Stay Connected, meditations, podcast.

00:46:16.000 I mean, there's so much stuff on there.

00:46:18.000 I literally don't have time to list it all.

00:46:20.000 Not when we are so busy.

00:46:22.000 Please join us tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.

00:46:25.000 Until then, stay free.

00:46:26.000 Many Switching, Switch on, Switch off. Many Switching, Switch on, Switch off. Many Switching, Switch on, Switch

00:46:36.000 off.

00:46:37.000 Switch on, switch off.

00:46:38.000 Man, he switchin'.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - March 30, 2023

Matt Tiabbi (Is Free Speech Over?)

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript