Stay Free - Russel Brand - PROOF! | We’re Killing Ourselves! - #118 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

00:00:00.000 I'm a black man and I could never be a better man I'm a black man and I could never be a better man

00:00:43.000 In this video, you're going to see the future.

00:00:51.000 Hello there, you awakening wonders.

00:00:52.000 Thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.

00:00:55.000 It's Friday and what an incredible week it's been.

00:00:58.000 Joe Biden has announced he will run again with an extraordinary video.

00:01:04.000 Tucker Carlson has been ousted from the mainstream.

00:01:07.000 Don Lemon has left It's left us all in disarray.

00:01:11.000 We've got some news analysis coming up, as well as a fantastic conversation with one of my favorite guests that I've ever had, Dr. Ian McGilchrist, who'll be talking to you about psychology, neurology, and the way that the state is using your own mental illness as a kind of mind dagger against you, how you are being controlled, nudged, behaviorally manipulated by systems and forces way, way, way beyond your control.

00:01:36.000 We're going to talk a little bit, first of all, about Summer Davos having me a blast.

00:01:40.000 Is that what we're talking about?

00:01:41.000 That's it.

00:01:41.000 That's happening.

00:01:43.000 Davos is back!

00:01:44.000 Sometimes, on a week like this, it can seem like the world is being coordinated by a centralized, globalist force, where technocrats get together to manipulate our consciousness, and that's because, to a degree, that is exactly what's happening.

00:01:58.000 If you thought winter Davos in Davos was fun, wait till you get a load of summer Davos in... China. 0.99

00:02:06.000 China, that's right.

00:02:08.000 Once a year isn't enough, is it, for Davos?

00:02:10.000 Let's be honest.

00:02:10.000 I can't get through the year, Gareth, with just one look at Klaus Schwab in an ethnically inappropriate outfit.

00:02:17.000 I want to see Klaus Schwab with a shipping Yeah, Xi Jinping.

00:02:25.000 I thought that was a type of clothing or something for a minute.

00:02:28.000 This is a type of clothing.

00:02:29.000 This is Klaus Schwab.

00:02:30.000 That's how we estimate.

00:02:32.000 We should say we've editorialized that.

00:02:34.000 That's not a factual image.

00:02:35.000 No, that's not an actual image.

00:02:36.000 We think that's what Klaus Schwab would wear.

00:02:39.000 And will.

00:02:40.000 And will wear at Summer Davos.

00:02:41.000 Let us know in the chat, in the comments.

00:02:43.000 In fact, why don't you make your own artwork of Klaus Schwab?

00:02:45.000 Be as adventurous and as bold as you want.

00:02:48.000 Unless you're watching on YouTube, in which case you should stay within the WHO guidelines, which includes, I think... Which he certainly does.

00:02:54.000 He stays well within those guidelines.

00:02:55.000 Oh, I stay within the guidelines.

00:02:58.000 I don't like to stray.

00:03:00.000 One of ours is Justin Trudeau.

00:03:02.000 Authoritarianism with the face made up with the hair perfect.

00:03:07.000 I wouldn't like to pry.

00:03:09.000 That's right.

00:03:10.000 That's what's going on.

00:03:11.000 Summer Davos.

00:03:13.000 Who wouldn't want to participate in that?

00:03:15.000 Well, I wonder what's going to be going on, because obviously it's in China rather than Davos.

00:03:20.000 They can't call it... I don't think they should be allowed to call it Davos if it ain't in Davos.

00:03:23.000 I don't think so.

00:03:24.000 It's confusing.

00:03:25.000 What will they call it?

00:03:26.000 You'd be able to go in that top.

00:03:27.000 With this?

00:03:28.000 I think so.

00:03:28.000 I think you'd be welcomed.

00:03:29.000 Some shorts, maybe some sandals.

00:03:31.000 They'd love you, mate.

00:03:32.000 Why don't you and Lee Fang...

00:03:34.000 Guests from earlier in the week go together.

00:03:36.000 I'd love that.

00:03:37.000 Hand in hand.

00:03:38.000 I've already asked him actually.

00:03:39.000 Fang and Roy Bullock.

00:03:40.000 I've actually been texting Lee Fang myself.

00:03:42.000 It's me and Lee.

00:03:42.000 No, no.

00:03:43.000 We've got the connection.

00:03:44.000 You're hurting me.

00:03:45.000 The Biden administration has invested 1.9 million in disinformation education.

00:03:50.000 So the actual presidential administration is trying to censor and control and legitimize the further manipulation of the media.

00:04:01.000 Let me just get into the facts of this.

00:04:03.000 I'm going to read this out under the assumption that reading it is going to improve my understanding of the story.

00:04:08.000 The Biden administration is set to spend almost two million of taxpayer dollars on a media education program to train educators, media professionals, librarians, government employees and information specialists in foreign countries on how to combat disinformation according to a grant document seen by Washington Examiner.

00:04:23.000 That, I don't remember we needed that, that could have gone.

00:04:26.000 Let's have a look at the next still.

00:04:29.000 Meanwhile, Meta's oversight board recommends continuing censorship until the WHO calls an end to the pandemic.

00:04:36.000 So, according to the WHO, are we still in the middle of the pandemic?

00:04:41.000 This is still it.

00:04:42.000 Certainly is.

00:04:43.000 Do you feel like you're in the middle of a pandemic?

00:04:45.000 Let me know right now if you are locked within your house, masked up to the hilt, vaccinated to within an inch of your life.

00:04:53.000 And remember, I have no opinion on what you should do.

00:04:55.000 I mean, Just stay healthy, eat well, look after yourself, those kind of things.

00:05:00.000 Vitamin D, bit of exercise, probably do get out of the house, actually.

00:05:00.000 Bit of exercise.

00:05:03.000 Yep, I think so.

00:05:04.000 Probably the mastermind benefiting you.

00:05:07.000 Should have done that in the first place, as a matter of fact.

00:05:09.000 Probably should have done that in the first place.

00:05:10.000 Is there not anything else?

00:05:11.000 We're not going to be talking about... Well, we can discuss this.

00:05:14.000 I mean, obviously... Four minutes.

00:05:15.000 The way in which this is going to impact us is continued censorship because we know those guidelines because we're on YouTube literally now as we speak and having to adhere to those guidelines.

00:05:25.000 And those guidelines will continue to inform the way Facebook or Meta approaches censorship.

00:05:31.000 So it's like the kind of continued sweeping, I don't know, whatever you call it, of censorship that will continue.

00:05:37.000 And I guess it also highlights the kind of power that the WHO have.

00:05:42.000 And organisations like the WEF, while they sometimes seem comical, particularly when Klaus Schwab is wearing that hat, they still have incredible influence and sway.

00:05:54.000 The WHO will still be, tangentially at least, managing content on Facebook.

00:06:03.000 you still won't be able to say things like, uh, vitamin D is good for you, you won't be

00:06:08.000 able to talk about the booster trials that Moderna undertook.

00:06:11.000 Well, we can't literally do it right now.

00:06:13.000 Literally can't talk about those trials.

00:06:15.000 Can't talk about the efficacy of non-sanctioned, possibly out-of-patent medications that could

00:06:20.000 be used.

00:06:22.000 Can't talk about, uh, can you talk about traces found in breast milk?

00:06:28.000 I mean, you know that you can't do any of these things.

00:06:28.000 Can you talk about that?

00:06:30.000 I can't do any of it!

00:06:31.000 Well, why are you testing me on them?

00:06:32.000 These things... I'm testing you to within an inch of your life.

00:06:36.000 You're making a point.

00:06:37.000 I'm literally making a point.

00:06:39.000 Obviously, with, you know, Facebook and Meta, we saw the story earlier in the week as well about the Seymour Hersh and the Nord Stream and the way in which Facebook are using, I think it was Norwegian, um, legal system to censor that story. So it's just another way

00:06:54.000 in which this creep of

00:06:55.000 you know censorship and sweeping for disinformation.

00:06:58.000 Obviously the thing with the Biden administration

00:07:01.000 and the disinformation in education is it's like people like, they're training

00:07:05.000 educators, so that's teachers, media professionals, librarians, government

00:07:10.000 That's a pretty big section of the workforce that they're essentially training.

00:07:16.000 A bit like we were told by Michael Schellenberger when they were bringing journalists to... Where was it, the place that you talked about?

00:07:22.000 Aspen! 0.79

00:07:23.000 Aspen, the Aspen Institute.

00:07:25.000 But you're essentially training people to look for... I'm really happy that you felt that you could rely on me.

00:07:31.000 You're probably my go-to investigative journalist, I would say.

00:07:33.000 The Aspen Institute preempted the Hunter Biden laptop, told journalists that there would likely be a laptop story and that they should assume that it's Russian disinformation.

00:07:43.000 We now know that the Biden administration went to the CIA in order to construct that

00:07:48.000 letter signed by 50 CIA signatories to suggest that the Hunter Biden story was likely disinformation.

00:07:57.000 And now this category of censorship and disinformation is on the rise, i.e. a new threat, a new problem

00:08:05.000 has been created.

00:08:06.000 We're old enough to remember when it was just old school Cold War.

00:08:09.000 That's what the problem was, an ideological block behind the Berlin Wall.

00:08:14.000 Then it became the slightly more abstract war against terror.

00:08:18.000 Then we've experienced the war against germs, and now it's the war against ideas.

00:08:23.000 It's becoming more and more conceptual, more and more difficult to define, therefore more and more easy to oppose alternative narratives, Shut down defence, legitimise surveillance, justify control, censorship and smearing.

00:08:38.000 Yeah, and we spoke earlier in the week about that essay by Leighton Woodhouse, didn't we?

00:08:42.000 About the relationship between the media, in relation obviously to Tucker at the time, the mainstream media and the government and the way in which that has fragmented.

00:08:50.000 So that's less and less potent and powerful for the government now.

00:08:53.000 So they're turning to censorship of social media and this is like an ongoing way in which they're going to try and retain the status quo in some way.

00:09:01.000 Yes, that's right.

00:09:02.000 And I feel like, as we have said before in one of our journalistic endeavours, that Tucker Carlson's story, in a sense, is an interesting symbol of the decline in trust in the mainstream media.

00:09:17.000 Tucker Carlson came to epitomise an authentic voice, a powerful voice in particular for his detractors, but the kind of voice that ...is unlikely to be able to continue to succeed within the framework of the mainstream media that increasingly requires siloed audiences and a model that's dependent on data capture, incendiary rhetoric and the increase of polemicism, even though people that hate Tucker Carlson say that's precisely what he's guilty of, although increasingly he was talking about how both parties are equally bad, like he, you know, said stuff.

00:09:49.000 He was definitely going that way.

00:09:50.000 I mean, you could make an argument for it.

00:09:52.000 Are these some of the reasons why he might have been let go by Fox News?

00:09:55.000 Was he starting to say the wrong things?

00:09:57.000 One of the things I liked most about Leighton Woodhouse's article available on his sub-stack is his suggestion that what we are seeing now is the emergence of a genuine threat of an independent political movement within American politics.

00:10:13.000 That the bi-party system itself is under threat because of the ability to communicate new

00:10:20.000 ideas. That's why the category of disinformation has to be created so that people can be

00:10:25.000 denied access to information that will stop them being compliant. That's actually why it

00:10:30.000 is not like, oh no, people are going to start taking medicine that ain't good for them

00:10:34.000 or not take medicine that is good for them or not support a war in the right sort of way.

00:10:40.000 These are the arguments that are used to legitimise censorship.

00:10:43.000 The censorship is required in order to shut down conversations that are detrimental to the ongoing success of... Yeah, I mean that is literally happening with those Pentagon revelations that we have learnt about.

00:10:55.000 We learnt some new truths about the Ukraine war.

00:10:58.000 What is immediately coming off the back of that is new regulation and new proposals that the Biden administration are considering pushing through to target now some of those sites, those sites where people are able to share ideas, in this case obviously share state secrets, but ways in which again truth is being revealed.

00:11:18.000 We're just some guys coming together to share state secrets, hang around with our tops off, call each other OGs, Yeah, as we said many times at the time, the fact that the content of the leaks was ignored in favour of condemnation of the young man that made the leaks is telling, particularly when some of the revelations included that there are American boots on the ground, is the phrase that people like to use.

00:11:43.000 I don't like when I find myself accidentally saying things like that.

00:11:46.000 Like boots on the ground.

00:11:47.000 It's like you've inadvertently become one of the pundits.

00:11:49.000 That's why I don't like deep dive.

00:11:51.000 Same reason.

00:11:52.000 I don't like popular maxims.

00:11:54.000 What would you call it?

00:11:56.000 Boots on the ground.

00:11:57.000 Yeah, boots on the ground.

00:11:59.000 Tootsies on the terra firma.

00:12:01.000 There's American tootsies on the terra firma.

00:12:03.000 Twinkle toes.

00:12:04.000 Better story.

00:12:05.000 It is, isn't it?

00:12:06.000 Can you imagine them now, just like, they're a lovely bunch of guys, just running, scampering about.

00:12:11.000 What about deep dive?

00:12:13.000 And don't be, be careful now, we're on YouTube.

00:12:15.000 Um, I would say a profound plunder.

00:12:19.000 I mean, if you need alliteration, which some have said is the leper's bell of poetry.

00:12:24.000 Like, I feel, no, I don't know, deep dive, I actually struggle to find an appropriate alternative to deep dive.

00:12:32.000 That's why you fall into it, because deep dive entered into the language relatively recently, probably only a couple of years ago, to find an alternative to it.

00:12:40.000 Maybe this is the slippery slope.

00:12:44.000 Now we're gonna get on a slippery slope with today's guest.

00:12:47.000 Maybe, you know, maybe that's how it happens.

00:12:49.000 Before you know it, you're on CNN.

00:12:51.000 You're Brian Stelter or one of those guys.

00:12:53.000 If you meet, and I pray you never do, because I wouldn't want you to offend him, Dr. Ian McGilchrist.

00:12:59.000 Last thing, he's a respected academic and a very brilliant and influential man.

00:13:04.000 The last thing that he wants is for you to be trying to get him on a slippery slope.

00:13:07.000 Like you're in some Floridian water park.

00:13:10.000 Okay.

00:13:10.000 Trying to butter him up in a tube.

00:13:13.000 I think I'm gonna meet him in a second.

00:13:13.000 I won't do that.

00:13:15.000 It's gonna be awkward, I think.

00:13:17.000 Dr. Ian McGilchrist is a brilliant and groundbreaking author and intellectual.

00:13:22.000 I've had the great privilege of meeting you because I'm stifling a burp. 1.00

00:13:27.000 Can you tell that?

00:13:28.000 Are these the nerves kicking in?

00:13:29.000 I'm not nervous about Dr. Ian McGilchrist.

00:13:31.000 I've met him before.

00:13:32.000 I've spoke to him.

00:13:34.000 He's one of them Ians that's got too many I's in his name. 0.98

00:13:36.000 I know the ones.

00:13:37.000 You know, some people, Ian, will just have the one I. Some Ians... 0.61

00:13:42.000 I have another eye!

00:13:43.000 A little bit of the eye.

00:13:44.000 Thought you were through with the eyes?

00:13:46.000 There's no eye in Ian.

00:13:48.000 Actually, there's two.

00:13:50.000 So I've got you there.

00:13:51.000 Confused you.

00:13:52.000 His groundbreaking book, The Master and His Emissary, is often misquoted and misused, because people talk about, like, you know, people might say to you, Gareth, oh, you're very right-brained.

00:14:02.000 That sort of thing, Ian McGilchrist, you don't want to hear that.

00:14:04.000 Because there's complex networks in neurology.

00:14:04.000 No.

00:14:07.000 It's not that the left brain's doing this and the right brain's doing that, although it's not even as simple as that, because there are certain traits that are characteristic of the hemispheres, and it's these misunderstandings that we're going to be clearing up.

00:14:17.000 It's reductive.

00:14:19.000 I hate all reductivism.

00:14:21.000 Yeah, which is in itself a reductive.

00:14:24.000 Do you want me to leave now?

00:14:26.000 Don't you dare leave me, because there's a lot of actual, I would say, erotic tension.

00:14:32.000 I'm not going to start saying there's erotic tension between Dr Ian McGilchrist and myself, because I'm about to have a very serious conversation, which we're going to talk about a variety of topics, including Tucker's departure and how a figurehead like Tucker Carlson rose up.

00:14:44.000 We're going to be talking about Joe Biden, what it means when you have a Atrophy and cadaverous figure running for president for four more years presenting himself as radical when he couldn't be more corporatized and more of an establishment figure and how was the pandemic used to induce mass compliance as well as the ensuing and a demonstrable mental health crisis that was exacerbated and potentially even not caused because mental health crisis has been going on for a little while but it certainly got worse during the pandemic.

00:15:13.000 Lots and lots of things to talk about Gareth so if you would Do me then.

00:15:16.000 Why don't you throw to off YouTube and I'll... I'm not going to be throwing to off YouTube yet.

00:15:21.000 Gareth, get out of here.

00:15:22.000 There's only so much an on-screen assistant can do. 1.00

00:15:24.000 I'm going to be inviting our guest Dr Ian McGilchrist to join us now.

00:15:27.000 Stay free with Russell Brand.

00:15:29.000 See you first on Rumble.

00:15:30.000 I was brought up...

00:15:32.000 At the tail end of a culture in which it was thought good to be self-reliant, to be resilient, not to fall apart if you were opposed or criticized.

00:15:42.000 And what has happened during my lifetime is that I think we've got lazy.

00:15:46.000 I think we've got used to having everything easy.

00:15:49.000 I wonder how an epochal shift like that might have occurred.

00:15:53.000 Isn't it likely that such a significant shift has been somehow culturally brought about?

00:15:57.000 There are many, many aspects to this, but one is that we have got further and further from real community, which is local, the sense of a place and a group and a rooting, a belonging, a place of belonging.

00:16:12.000 And because of mobilization and industrialization, that basis of trust, which is there in a palpable, intuitively felt society, has been lost.

00:16:23.000 So, I just would like to query your assumption that it's the individual's negligence that has led to this infantilization.

00:16:32.000 No, Russell, that's not what I said.

00:16:34.000 I won't accept that no.

00:16:36.000 Stay free with Russell Brand.

00:16:38.000 See it first on Rumble.

00:16:39.000 Thank you very much for joining me, Doctor.

00:16:41.000 Are you happy with your introduction?

00:16:43.000 It is a very good one, a fine one.

00:16:46.000 You said that I was incorrectly anticipating the conclusions to our conversation.

00:16:51.000 Any particular instance where I've been misapprehending what's likely to take place?

00:16:57.000 Oh, I wouldn't like to prejudice our subsequent conversation.

00:17:00.000 God, you're brilliant at this, aren't you?

00:17:03.000 I think that what our viewers will be most interested in initially is understanding the nature of your work.

00:17:10.000 We've of course had a conversation before, I enjoyed very much your conversation with Jordan Peterson, and I wonder if we could start by talking about how the principles of psychiatry and psychology more broadly, even though I understand that much of your work has a neurological basis rather than just analytical psychiatry, How these tools are applied in sociology and in particular in the kind of messaging that we might receive from, for example, government authority.

00:17:36.000 Yes, I thought the things that you said were right, that there are many things in the social sphere to which my hemisphere hypothesis is very relevant.

00:17:48.000 But I just didn't think that the conclusions were necessarily as straightforward as the ones you might have outlined, that's all.

00:17:54.000 I'm afraid I have been accused of reductivism.

00:17:58.000 I think one of my main messages is that one of the problems with our era is the lack of ability to see both sides of a question.

00:18:06.000 The inability to have nuance or to finesse an answer.

00:18:10.000 Everything has to be, if you'll pardon the expression, black and white.

00:18:14.000 And that's not a good world in which to live.

00:18:17.000 We've been discussing this week in particular how the rise of polemicism is Underwritten by the collapse of the previous economic models of mainstream media outlets that could previously confidently appeal to a broad mainstream base, knowing that they would be talking to both, in the case of the United States of America,

00:18:38.000 Liberal and conservative voters.

00:18:41.000 Now that a plain fissure has appeared as a result of social media's ability to use targeted and bespoke advertising, mainstream media outlets benefit from polemicism.

00:18:41.000 Yes.

00:18:51.000 They know who their audience are and they know who their audience are not.

00:18:55.000 This has increased as you have correctly identified, as you say, black and white arguments and it's getting worse.

00:19:03.000 These kind of silos are, I think, leading to any number of problems including a sort of a cry

00:19:12.000 for more centralized authority, perhaps even a return to outmoded

00:19:18.000 ideas like ethno-nationalism, which I would say I'm sympathetic to,

00:19:23.000 but I appreciate and understand how that might happen in a bifurcated media and

00:19:27.000 sociological space.

00:19:29.000 But before we get into some of the particularities of our current affairs-oriented conversation, can you please tell me some of the common misunderstandings that are applied to your work so that I can stop making them?

00:19:46.000 Thank you.

00:19:47.000 No, the first thing I have to say to anyone who hasn't read either The Master and His Emissary or The Matter of Things, my two works on this area of difference between brain hemispheres, is forget everything you think you know, because it'll be wrong.

00:20:02.000 And what that's about is that back in the 60s and 70s there was a new operation pioneered to help people with epilepsy that was making their life unlivable.

00:20:13.000 And basically epilepsy is an electrical storm and if it goes right across the brain the person loses consciousness.

00:20:20.000 And so these people were losing consciousness very, very often.

00:20:24.000 And the idea was that if they could just divide the two hemispheres one from the other, which you can do by cutting a band of fibers at the base of the two hemispheres called the corpus callosum, then you would stop it spreading and they would have at least one hemisphere working.

00:20:40.000 And for those individuals, this was a life-saving procedure.

00:20:45.000 But then what happened was that psychologists quite rightly thought, we can find out more about the differences between each hemisphere by interviewing it on its own.

00:20:54.000 There are techniques in the lab whereby you could engage, if you like, one hemisphere at a time in a split-brain patient.

00:21:01.000 And see what the differences were.

00:21:03.000 And out of that arose a sort of quick and dirty consensus that the left hemisphere was logical and linguistic, whereas the right hemisphere was, I don't know, given to painting pictures and a bit of fantasy and rather emotional.

00:21:19.000 And all this is completely wrong.

00:21:21.000 I mean, completely wrong.

00:21:22.000 Both hemispheres take part in language and reason.

00:21:25.000 And both are involved in pictures and emotion.

00:21:29.000 In fact, the most lateralized emotion is anger.

00:21:32.000 And guess what?

00:21:33.000 It lateralizes to the left hemisphere.

00:21:36.000 And I can talk more about the differences between those two hemispheres and why that changes the world if you like, but one of the things I suggest in The Master and His Hemisphere is that we have slipped more and more into a world in which the kind of things that we know via the left hemisphere dominate to the expense of knowing really or understanding or receiving.

00:21:58.000 Any of the rich stuff that the left hemisphere could tell us.

00:22:01.000 And the right hemisphere is the one we should be listening to.

00:22:05.000 Not just because of my prejudice, but because I've demonstrated at great length in The Matter With Things, it's deluded, it's false, it's wrong, it's non-veridical, the left hemisphere on its own.

00:22:17.000 It needs the right hemisphere to guide it.

00:22:20.000 One way of thinking about this is that the left hemisphere has a targeted attention to a detail, and this is to enable us to grab stuff.

00:22:28.000 Very important for survival.

00:22:30.000 But if the only kind of attention you pay is this very narrowly targeted attention, very precisely to a detail that you want to get, You won't last, because at the same time you've got to have a completely different kind of attention, which is broad, open, vigilant, looking out for predators, looking out for your mate, looking out for your offspring, that you also need to be feeding and looking after.

00:22:51.000 So, in nature, going back at least 700 million years, all neural networks are asymmetrical, because, I think, of this need to do two completely different kind of things at the same time.

00:23:07.000 Are you then suggesting that our cultural institutions and our systems of government are unduly biased by this meticulous focus that is attributed to the left brain at the expense of the more visionary aspect of the right brain, even though I'm sort of tiptoeing down this imaginary and real equator in order to avoid toppling into misinterpretation.

00:23:41.000 No, that's right.

00:23:42.000 I mean, broadly speaking, the answer is yes, but I think I ought to do a little more unpacking first, otherwise people won't see what I'm getting at.

00:23:49.000 Yeah, I'm sick and tired of people's ignorance.

00:23:51.000 Unpack everything, if you would, please, Ian.

00:23:56.000 I don't mind if I do.

00:23:58.000 The thing is this, effectively I've described two kinds of attention, and that may not electrify people.

00:24:04.000 In fact, when I first realized that the fundamental difference between the two brain hemispheres was the way they pay attention to the world, the penny didn't immediately drop.

00:24:14.000 Because I've been brought up in this very machine-like system of psychology that, you know, it's a function of a machine, the brain.

00:24:24.000 But it isn't, actually.

00:24:25.000 Attention is something a machine can't give.

00:24:27.000 It can be made to, you can turn the camera where you like, but it's not attending.

00:24:32.000 Only a conscious person like you or I can attend.

00:24:35.000 And when we attend, we bring about a different kind of world.

00:24:39.000 I mean, if you think about it, The same body on the mortuary slab in a model's artistic setting, the body of your lover, the body of your aunt, they all evoke different things and are seen differently, but they're still bodies.

00:24:59.000 And so the way in which we look at something Matters a lot.

00:25:03.000 If we look at something in a very detached way in which we're fragmenting it and not allowing ourselves to interact with it, we see it as a thing that we can use.

00:25:12.000 Whereas I think the importance cannot be overstated of relationship.

00:25:18.000 That really, everything is made of relations, not of things.

00:25:21.000 We have an idea that the world is full of things, and then how are they related?

00:25:25.000 And how am I related to them?

00:25:26.000 But I have this view that actually the primary thing is relations, and that things are the bits of this picture that stand out for us.

00:25:34.000 But in any case.

00:25:35.000 Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's cool.

00:25:36.000 So there's this tendency to look at things due to utility, which would have an obvious evolutionary function.

00:25:42.000 Exactly.

00:25:43.000 But there's Deleuze's ideas that we should look at things in the model of machines, that they are interrelated systems, that are ultimately relational, that a bicycle isn't a bicycle until you use it as a bicycle.

00:25:54.000 Yes, that's true.

00:25:55.000 And that takes one to the business of context.

00:25:59.000 In the left hemisphere there just appear to be these isolated things that it targets and then moves to another target and so on.

00:26:05.000 So it sees the world as built up from fragments and they don't have any meaning until it's put them together in some kind of a way.

00:26:13.000 And it sees them as static so that it can grab them easily, familiar because it's what it's looking for, food or a twig to build a nest or whatever it is.

00:26:23.000 decontextualized, disembodied, de-animated, in other words inanimate, and effectively something that is only of use.

00:26:34.000 Whereas in the right hemisphere you see that nothing is actually completely separate from anything else, that everything is connected, In a sort of flowing web.

00:26:43.000 So it's not static.

00:26:44.000 It's changing.

00:26:45.000 And that context matters.

00:26:46.000 When you take something out of context, you change it.

00:26:49.000 That the world is embodied.

00:26:51.000 That it has emotional and moral value.

00:26:54.000 And that it is a living world.

00:26:56.000 A complex and beautiful world.

00:26:58.000 So we have these two quite different visions, if you like.

00:27:01.000 It seems, based on what you were just saying, Ian, that the right hemisphere has a capacity for atemporal and aspatial thought, not governed by the presumption of context that perhaps could be regarded as animalistic, i.e.

00:27:15.000 even concepts such as space and time are quite sort of almost specially subjective.

00:27:20.000 It's only when you live in an environment that needs to function in a particular way The ideas like time as experienced through entropy and space as it appears through the relationships one might achieve in space even become relevant.

00:27:33.000 I was wondering while you were talking also about what type of relationship might an ape such as our species have with a tree pre-linguistically?

00:27:45.000 How do we distinguish ourselves from our environment prior to language?

00:27:50.000 Before we sort of delve into That subject, and you give me a conclusive answer, please.

00:27:55.000 No beating around the bush, metaphorical or otherwise.

00:27:59.000 Before we get to that, I want to let our YouTube audience know that we're going to move exclusively to being on Rumble now, because I'm going to ask Ian McGilchrist about how, during the pandemic era, lockdowns and government control induced a degree of compliance, and whether or not there's an advantage to locating our behaviour and our decisions in this more empirical left brain.

00:28:27.000 You know, like a minute ago you talked about like how the ability to focus on detail and utility.

00:28:33.000 Yes, but that's not the same as empiricism.

00:28:35.000 Empiricism is...

00:28:38.000 Empiricism is derivation from experience.

00:28:41.000 You're going to have to get off YouTube now.

00:28:43.000 Derivation from experience is going to be explained to me and everyone who clicks over to Rumble.

00:28:48.000 If you're watching this on YouTube, join us on Rumble.

00:28:50.000 There's a link in the description.

00:28:51.000 Please explain my error.

00:28:53.000 One of the ways you can think of it is that the left hemisphere's view, this mechanical one, is entirely theoretical.

00:29:00.000 It ignores most of experience.

00:29:02.000 The right hemisphere is the one that says, well, that theory may be right, but let's have a look and let's test it in the real world.

00:29:08.000 That's empiricism.

00:29:10.000 That's empiricism.

00:29:11.000 And the right hemisphere is a very good guide to what really is going on, whereas the left hemisphere has a theory.

00:29:18.000 A map, a mechanism, a model.

00:29:20.000 But it's not the reality.

00:29:22.000 And there's nothing wrong with a map, you know.

00:29:24.000 A map is useful, but a map is useful because it leaves almost everything out.

00:29:28.000 I mean, a map wouldn't get more useful if you put in all the names of the children that live in the houses along the road.

00:29:33.000 No.

00:29:34.000 That's there in the real world, but the map is highly... If the map was for paedophiles, they would probably... Thank you, Russell.

00:29:44.000 Thank you for elevating the level of this conversation.

00:29:50.000 You can't imagine the jokes I discarded when you said if it was a lover or an aunt, when you used the cadaver on the slab example.

00:29:57.000 As I was saying it, I was thinking, is this wise with Russell?

00:30:02.000 I thought it was interesting that even in the example you wouldn't use a mother.

00:30:05.000 I thought that showed incredible sensitivity, that even in a rhetorical Example, you used a detached family member that you could survive the grieving of.

00:30:18.000 Well, maybe.

00:30:20.000 Although... Yes, yes.

00:30:21.000 Depends what relationship you have, I suppose, with your aunt.

00:30:24.000 My aunt was also my lover, so I was... Sorry, sorry.

00:30:28.000 I'm just getting that out of my system, then I'm going to ask serious questions.

00:30:30.000 Don't worry, I'm a psychiatrist, I've heard it all.

00:30:32.000 Oh, yeah, yeah.

00:30:35.000 There might be a point in this conversation where it turns into treatment.

00:30:39.000 Yeah, I don't know where to go because you've raised a number of things.

00:30:42.000 Life without language, atemporality and aspatiality.

00:30:45.000 Yes.

00:30:46.000 And more recently, what about the Covid?

00:30:49.000 Where do you want me to go?

00:30:50.000 Shall we start with Covid because it's more sensational and it will be helpful for our audience and then we'll move into atemporality, aspatiality and pre-linguistic models of cognizance.

00:30:59.000 Okay, good.

00:31:02.000 Well, I mean the first thing I'd like to say about Covid is that I'm not going to jump on the bandwagon of saying that either those who were pro-taking strict measures or those who were against it were right.

00:31:16.000 I mean, I think it's all very well being clever after the event, but when you're suddenly presented with something where people were projecting that there would be deaths so numerous that basically society would break down, the hospitals wouldn't be able to cope and so on, If people didn't take fairly, you know, drastic measures afterwards, they would have been criticized as having destroyed the nation.

00:31:40.000 So there's that.

00:31:41.000 And then on the other hand, you have to be flexible as different bits of science come in.

00:31:45.000 And so you may change your mind and swither about.

00:31:48.000 And it's, again, easy to be retrospectively clever.

00:31:51.000 But at the time, you haven't got the advantage of knowing what's coming down the line.

00:31:56.000 What I think I can say is that whatever happened in the initial phase, you can't really blame anyone, but it went on far too long and the introduction of this business of trying to keep everybody safe was a huge mistake.

00:32:10.000 But, you see, this is not just about Covid.

00:32:14.000 This is about how we now think about us and our relationship to society.

00:32:21.000 I was brought up at the tail end of a culture in which it was thought good to be self-reliant, to be resilient, not to fall apart if you were opposed or criticized, and to take responsibility for yourself.

00:32:36.000 Those were the general ideas in the culture I was brought up.

00:32:40.000 And I know I'm anti-deluvian compared with you, Russell, but you know, there we are.

00:32:46.000 And what has happened during my lifetime is that I think we've got I'm lazy.

00:32:51.000 I think we've got used to having everything easy, which is extraordinarily unusual in the history of the world, and we've also, because it's comfortable, outsourced looking after ourselves to the state.

00:33:05.000 So the state will do everything for us, protect us and make us safe.

00:33:11.000 Well, if you were made ultimately safe, you would be cocooned in a bubble and you might as well die now and order your coffin, you know, because Life is a risky business, starting from the fact that in the moment you're born you're going to die at some point.

00:33:24.000 And I'm not saying that a society has no role in keeping peace.

00:33:31.000 It clearly does.

00:33:33.000 But not by extreme authoritarianism, infantilization of the people and so on.

00:33:40.000 So we should have been in a position very soon where we were able to make our own decisions about that and not certainly tracked in the way that this technology of the mobile phone does.

00:33:51.000 I mean, I'm very concerned about that.

00:33:53.000 We can come on to all that later.

00:33:55.000 We must.

00:33:56.000 I'm anti-authoritarian myself, you'll be astonished to learn.

00:33:59.000 Never again, Russell!

00:34:01.000 What's happened to you lately?

00:34:04.000 But when you say that there's been an almost generational shift, and I can understand that argument to a degree, between a kind of attitude of self-reliance, autonomy, self-responsibility, etc, to one where we outsource responsibility to the state, I wonder how an epochal shift like that might have occurred on the basis of individual decisions isn't it likely that such a significant shift has been somehow culturally brought about and is to some degree the responsibility of the state that has now assumed this responsibility and I would say in this context another word for responsibility might be power and authority and that it isn't inadvertent or accidental but is quite deliberate and that this very technology is being used to present the idea of individuality but individuality that's usually expressed through consumer choice

00:34:50.000 Well, in important matters, the state, who ultimately, I would argue, acting as brokers on behalf of globalist and corporate interests, continue to subdue the population and induce compliance through a number of measures.

00:35:08.000 And one of the perhaps inadvertent side effects of the Covid pandemic has been increased authoritarianism and increased obedience, something that you alluded to and touched upon whilst I acknowledge also that in the initial phase it would have been negligent to have done anything other than be cautious in a relatively unique situation.

00:35:25.000 Subsequently it's quite clear that surveillance was increased, monitoring was increased, censorship was increased, very powerful interests all profited from this crisis.

00:35:36.000 And I'm not the first person to observe that we seem to be living in a time where one crisis begets another.

00:35:42.000 The 9-11 economic crisis, the sort of crises around Donald Trump, the pandemic, the endless wars, it seems to become a kind of sort of a living or literally Orwellian dynamic where the legitimization for increasing authority occurs and then that authority is imposed.

00:36:01.000 So I just would like to query your assumption that it's sort of somehow the What do I want to say?

00:36:08.000 The individual's negligence that has led to this infantilisation.

00:36:15.000 No Russell, that's not what I said.

00:36:17.000 I won't accept that, no.

00:36:20.000 But one aspect, there are many many aspects to this, and if you want I can talk about them.

00:36:25.000 Of course I do.

00:36:27.000 But one is that We have got further and further from real community which is local and involves things like extended family and embeddedness in a place which perhaps where your parents also were brought up and died.

00:36:47.000 The local, the sense of a place and a group and a rooting, a belonging, a place of belonging.

00:36:54.000 And because of mobilization and industrialization, that has shifted over 150 years towards people who are uprooted.

00:37:05.000 may come from almost anywhere and they're put together in urban settings and that basis of trust which is there in a palpable, intuitively felt society has been lost.

00:37:15.000 And in that vacuum various things come up to take control and people feel slightly afraid and when people are afraid, it's very well known, they look for a strong man who will give definite black and white answers.

00:37:28.000 This is always bad news actually but So, you mentioned Orwell.

00:37:35.000 1984 was written in 1948, so that was before the breakdown of the kind of way of thinking I'm talking about.

00:37:41.000 People had been through the war and they still thought more or less in that way.

00:37:46.000 But I think there were a number of things that happened.

00:37:48.000 One was this virtualization in which we were no longer sort of living in a place and a time that was connected, embedded in a society with whom we knew we were safe.

00:38:00.000 That was one.

00:38:01.000 Another is that civilizations get lazy.

00:38:05.000 If you look at the downfalls of other civilizations, what happens is the first sort of generation that establish it are enormously courageous, very self-sacrificing, rather authoritarian, they kind of create the state.

00:38:19.000 And then the next generation comes up and they can afford things like philosophy and science and art.

00:38:25.000 And then eventually another generation comes who just takes all that for granted and thinks, well, I'll cruise on it.

00:38:31.000 And I think what happened was that after the war, people were fed up with this, you know, the sacrifices of the war, and they wanted to have fun, basically.

00:38:40.000 And I think the 60s and 70s were great, and they were a push against lots of the things that are so terrible that we're seeing around us now.

00:38:48.000 But they were also somewhat irresponsible.

00:38:50.000 I mean, the idea that we could learn things from the past, from our culture, was somehow lost.

00:38:57.000 And I think once you lose that connection with your own tradition, with your own culture, a people is destroyed.

00:39:04.000 And tyrants know that.

00:39:05.000 They set about destroying it.

00:39:07.000 And before we go any further, just let me say about a tradition or a culture, this does not mean fossilization.

00:39:15.000 It means the opposite.

00:39:17.000 Because a tradition is flowing and changing.

00:39:21.000 If you look at the history of the West, there's been a tradition for 2,000 years, but it's been a very different world at different times.

00:39:27.000 So it doesn't rule out change.

00:39:28.000 But what it is, it's like a river in which you don't cut slices out of a river and shove another one in.

00:39:35.000 The river is a river.

00:39:37.000 A plant is a plant.

00:39:38.000 If you want the plant to grow up a wall, the good gardener chains it gradually up the wall.

00:39:43.000 Doesn't cut it off at the roots and stick it on the wall because you haven't got a plant anymore.

00:39:46.000 And that's the same way that a society, a cultural civilization is.

00:39:50.000 It's like that plant, it's like that river.

00:39:52.000 And if you don't know what the past held, you are very much at sea and very vulnerable to anything that comes along.

00:39:59.000 That's where we are now.

00:40:00.000 I'm inclined to agree with you.

00:40:03.000 But I also feel that some of those arguments are used to mobilize a kind of exclusivity and othering of potential outside groups.

00:40:15.000 I also would like to offer, potentially, that this did not take place because of the absence of ideology, but because of the presence of an insidious and invisible ideology predicated on individualism, materialism, Deracinate it from any sort of sense of, as you say, tradition.

00:40:37.000 And I'm interested very much in what you say that somehow there are anthropological cues that we might regard in the same way as we would understand diet as being informed by our evolution in the obvious example of excess sugar inducing diabetes.

00:40:52.000 Perhaps there are subtler cultural forces that play a part in our evolution that if extracted or needlessly amplified become detrimental, that an advanced civilization

00:41:05.000 ought bear in mind, precisely as you say, not only traditions which can be

00:41:09.000 sometimes oppressive, exclusive and potentially tyrannical, but traditions

00:41:14.000 that are in place to carry our relationship to the soil, our relationship

00:41:20.000 to one another, our relationship to our values and our principles. And I feel

00:41:25.000 that those things have been kind of annihilated in order that, as I say,

00:41:33.000 insidious and difficult to determine economic models.

00:41:38.000 So that they can be transplanted and transposed.

00:41:42.000 For example, take once more the pandemic, just because it provides such a convenient lens.

00:41:46.000 During this time where sort of safety was brought to the forefront, during this time of crisis, just because I believe it is an economic ideology ultimately, so by observing the economics one can or at least it plays out economically and those are observable symptoms.

00:42:02.000 You know that if there was a wealth transfer that demonstrably was there was that if like big tech platforms benefited government benefited from the ability to regulate the pharmaceutical industry saw record profits the media benefited there are sort of institutional forces that benefit from ongoing crisis and we have in fact look some facts here uh Yeah, for 2022 the total global pharmaceutical revenue was estimated at 1.48 trillion US dollars and antidepressant drugs market revenue across the US is predicted to be at 22 billion dollars by the year 2027.

00:42:38.000 Some of these statistics relate to mental health, some of them obviously relate to particular medications. But I suppose what I'm

00:42:47.000 bringing to bear is this, if people do not have an awareness of individual

00:42:48.000 traditions and do not revere their own heritage while respecting other people's

00:42:53.000 heritage, that it's very easy for our ideologies to be usurped.

00:42:58.000 And I think that this culture of consumerism and commodification of

00:43:01.000 everything is...

00:43:02.000 Well, you're right that a capitalist society is benefited by destroying human

00:43:08.000 bonds, traditions, because it will get in the way of the mechanical manipulation of

00:43:14.000 people as units that will consume.

00:43:17.000 And of course that's such a terrifically impoverished vision of what a society is.

00:43:22.000 I mean, one can hardly begin expressing how negative that is.

00:43:28.000 But I just want to comment, before I say anything else, about your point that, you know, perhaps if we pay too much attention to tradition, outsider groups will be, you know, not welcomed.

00:43:41.000 And there's something in that, because a tradition can become sclerosed.

00:43:44.000 It is true.

00:43:46.000 But to throw away a tradition on the basis that if you don't look after it, it can become sclerosed, is not a good one.

00:43:52.000 And in fact, in my lifetime, what I have noticed is that relations between the races have frankly got worse.

00:44:02.000 During my lifetime, relations between the sexes have got worse. 0.97

00:44:06.000 In my lifetime, the gap between the super-rich and the poor has got greater, not smaller.

00:44:14.000 In my lifetime, freedom has become curtailed in very obvious ways, disastrous ways, that make this look like on the way to being a totalitarian state.

00:44:25.000 So, at the time, in the sixties, we wanted freedom, we wanted men and women to get on well, the races to get on well, and for, you know, the gap between rich and poor to be closed.

00:44:37.000 And exactly the opposite has happened.

00:44:40.000 And this is partly because of the inability to think in more than one One thread, you know, this is good, this is my slogan, I can express it in a word or two words, that's what we go for.

00:44:55.000 But there is always another side to every question, and it's the neglect of the downside of what one is doing that is leading us into ruin, where our eyes are being drawn away And perhaps, if I wanted to be a bit paranoid, as you might prefer, I would think this was deliberately schematized.

00:45:15.000 But I think that we're being asked not to look at the downside of what's going on, because it's so terrifying.

00:45:21.000 Through pursuing what look like good ends, we have reached the exact opposite.

00:45:27.000 And this is to do with the coincidence of opposites.

00:45:30.000 Which would take us into another philosophical realm altogether.

00:45:34.000 But I argue that, you know, we have this linear view of life, that this is over here and that is over there, and the further you go that way, the better, or the further you go that way, depending on what you want.

00:45:45.000 But actually what happens is they curve round and come together.

00:45:48.000 Since I was young, since you were young, you probably noticed what I did, that the extreme left and the extreme right have more in common than anybody in the middle.

00:45:56.000 Yes, I think you're right.

00:46:00.000 In some ways I completely agree.

00:46:04.000 utopianism of the Cultural Revolution I like just one current media ferrari the Budweiser light

00:46:39.000 scandal in case it has escaped you. You passed me by I'm sorry. What happened was

00:46:43.000 is that Budweiser light used a trans woman to promote their beers

00:46:48.000 This provoked blue-collar Americans, the traditional, one might argue, consumers of Budweiser Light to protest.

00:46:58.000 And sort of vocally and publicly reject this new advertising model and a kind of cultural war in miniature ensued all around the product of Budweiser Light.

00:47:12.000 But of course in my view Budweiser Light doesn't care whether people are trans and progressive around identity issues or traditional and doesn't care what class you are from.

00:47:23.000 It cares only about markets.

00:47:27.000 That was a cynical marketing move.

00:47:30.000 Yes, yes, because that's the only metric by which it survives and succeeds.

00:47:35.000 It's the only necessary or relevant metric and I think that this perhaps can be mapped on to many of the conflicts of our time that people are, it was the gay rights activist Peter Tatchell that told me along Time ago that in his experience around civil rights issues whilst they are obviously significant he dedicated his life to gay rights for example said that whilst he had discovered in his personal experience that people would cede on civil rights issues ultimately and eventually when it came to matters of finance he had noticed that there was a sort of a hard and impermeable edifice that could not be breached and I feel that what's happening is the cultural conversation is being directed to into areas that cause more conflagration and infighting among ordinary people

00:48:18.000 Rather than allowing people to come together to confront the centralised authority that is better centralised authoritative institutions, be they governmental or corporate, that are benefiting from these ongoing conflicts.

00:48:31.000 I wonder if... Please.

00:48:33.000 No, no.

00:48:34.000 I was just going to say, I mean my view, based on my life's experience, is that generally speaking when things go wrong, When things go wrong, it's more cock-up than conspiracy.

00:48:48.000 And one can see these things being engineered, and in some cases I'm sure they are, and you're right.

00:48:55.000 But generally this is a drift that I would have predicted from enslavement by being hypnotized by this left hemispheric way of thinking.

00:49:06.000 Tell me what you mean, please.

00:49:09.000 Well, it's not aware of the complexities, the different strands, the fact that opposites tend to coincide.

00:49:17.000 It thinks, has a very simple map, and it doesn't deal with the uniqueness of an individual.

00:49:24.000 It talks only about categories.

00:49:26.000 So everybody is just a category, and a representative of that category.

00:49:31.000 This is how the left hemisphere works.

00:49:32.000 It abstracts, takes things out of context, Gets rid of their individuality, fits them into a mechanical model.

00:49:39.000 Now if you start doing that in society, what you will get is a great deal of opposition from people who resent this feeling that they're no longer allowed to speak for themselves but have to be part of a group and so forth.

00:49:55.000 And the more it's promoted the more resentment it will build up and eventually you will get populist people who will not be doing good but will be voted for because they alone seem to have any The possibility of moving things away from a world which I think has been generated by patronizing liberal middle-class intellectuals who basically don't... 0.98

00:50:26.000 They secretly think that people are stupid. 1.00

00:50:28.000 Yes. 1.00

00:50:29.000 And anyone who doesn't belong to their clique is stupid. 1.00

00:50:32.000 And they have made this so obvious now that they're destroying universities, they're destroying the law, they're destroying politics. 0.99

00:50:41.000 Of course technology must ultimately, not ultimately, but perhaps is currently a reflection of the human intelligence that designs it.

00:50:50.000 And the way that these models function, in particular currently, affords a great deal of data analysis.

00:50:57.000 And perhaps this data analysis is an interesting reflection of what you are saying about the hemispheric biases that may be informing our current cultural trajectory.

00:51:09.000 Perhaps this is bolstered by the ability of technology to accrue data, but only on the basis of observable data points, leading to conclusions that, while deductive, are also reductive.

00:51:25.000 Is it possible that the tools that are being used are incapable of incorporating the aspatial, atemporal qualities that you referred to earlier in our conversation?

00:51:34.000 Well, I'd have to talk about that separately if you have time, but because I don't think... We do have time!

00:51:40.000 All right.

00:51:42.000 OK.

00:51:42.000 I mean, first of all, let's talk about economics, because there are two points in economics that really demonstrate what I think we're both getting at here.

00:51:53.000 One is the old saying, well, we've shown that it works in practice, but we can't prove that it's right in theory.

00:52:00.000 That's the wonderful left hemisphere inversion, you know.

00:52:04.000 This economic thing works, but it's not our theory.

00:52:07.000 And the other observation is that, and made by economists, that over, you know, the last 20 years, events that were palpable, aspects of the picture that were very obvious, were deliberately ignored because they didn't fit into the theory.

00:52:25.000 Or maybe not even deliberately ignored.

00:52:27.000 I mean, there's something like this, that if you have a theory that says it's got to be like that, um... You're observing some of the messaging that comes through.

00:52:36.000 That's the left brain. 0.87

00:52:36.000 I do, yes. 0.87

00:52:37.000 It's another problem with AI, yes.

00:52:40.000 It's very demanding.

00:52:41.000 Yes, yes.

00:52:42.000 Dictatorial.

00:52:43.000 But basically, you know... What is the information that's not included in the analysis?

00:52:47.000 Can you give us an example of that?

00:52:49.000 Well, I'm not an economist, unfortunately, but I can see in the world around me that people deny things that seem to me pretty obvious.

00:52:58.000 And they... I want to go referring to a brilliant philosopher, Hannah Arendt, who was a German-Jewish philosopher, as you know.

00:53:10.000 Yeah, the banality of evil.

00:53:12.000 Yes, exactly.

00:53:14.000 And the first-hand experience of Nazism. 0.76

00:53:18.000 But she said a couple of things that really strike me.

00:53:22.000 One is, when there are things you cannot say, you live in a tyranny.

00:53:26.000 So right now, in 2023 in Britain, we live in a tyranny.

00:53:30.000 One we have brought upon ourselves by just not opposing these kind of moves that I think are the sort of Wokarati's moves which will eventually destroy our institutions and destroy the culture that is very important to us. 0.93

00:53:47.000 Of course it has its weaknesses but it's got an awful lot also that it's achieved and is, you know, used to be admired all around the world for that.

00:53:54.000 So there's that and the other thing she said is The best person for a totalitarian regime is not the prototypical Nazi or the prototypical communist, but the person who no longer knows the difference between true and false.

00:54:16.000 And I think that's the world we're coming into now, and it's a big issue.

00:54:19.000 There are all sorts of ways in which it's harder to know what to trust, who to trust.

00:54:25.000 And a third century Chinese emperor said, in a society you need three things, guns, food, and trust.

00:54:33.000 If you have to give away one of them, it's guns.

00:54:35.000 If you have to get rid of another, it's food.

00:54:37.000 But you should hang on to trust, because no society can flourish without trust.

00:54:43.000 The bewilderment of not having a strong foundation, and I suppose the connection between foundations and traditions is one that needn't be overly emphasized, is I suppose what we're experiencing is there is not a consensus anymore.

00:55:07.000 There is not a consensus around how we ought to organize.

00:55:10.000 No, I think there is a consensus.

00:55:11.000 I think it's very clear what the consensus is.

00:55:14.000 It's what a group of far-left leaning intellectuals decided was the only moral way, or the only right way, and they're already being proved drastically wrong by the things it's now leading to.

00:55:27.000 In other words, all the opposites of the good aims that it was supposed to be achieving.

00:55:31.000 That's extraordinary.

00:55:33.000 But that consensus is kind of cloistered.

00:55:38.000 It's not a broad consensus while it might be... I suppose you're saying it's in foreign policy.

00:55:42.000 They may be a very small number, but they have enormous influence over media, including social media and so on.

00:55:48.000 May I just mention something?

00:55:50.000 In the 16th century, the English ambassador to the Lowlands, you know, Holland basically, wrote... I still call them the Lowlands.

00:55:58.000 I will not refer to them as the Netherlands.

00:56:00.000 Anything other?

00:56:02.000 Glowlands.

00:56:05.000 The Netherlands.

00:56:05.000 Whatever it was.

00:56:07.000 The ambassador wrote home about the Puritans going around in the Reformation.

00:56:13.000 And what he said was, a rather disciplined band, a small band, went from church to church taking sledgehammers to these wonderful statues, breaking the stone glass, burning the old manuscripts.

00:56:25.000 And these were probably a handful, 20-30 people, and the population was 10,000, and they all stood at the doors and just looked, and watched these people going about their business, and did nothing to intervene.

00:56:37.000 That is where we are now.

00:56:39.000 You think we're living in a time of undue and untethered iconoclasm.

00:56:45.000 What I feel potentially might emerge as a result of the technology that is currently being used to inculcate the kind of compliance that we've been discussing is that it may be differently utilized to create, once again, localized democracy.

00:57:05.000 I suppose what I feel, Ian, is that we ought be emulating, where possible, the conditions of our evolution.

00:57:12.000 And I don't mean in a Luddite way, let's retreat to the caves.

00:57:15.000 I think we should observe how, like, you know, but there were some ideas in there that are quite Radical, and I mean literally anarchic, because it would seem to me that with the type of technology and capacity for communication that we currently have, that even ideas like centralized state authority, the nation itself might be exposed as temporal.

00:57:36.000 And that is A challenge to some of the traditions and institutions that you plainly revere or hold at least in some regard and believe have a great deal to offer us, as I do.

00:57:48.000 But what I personally am led by is the belief that at a time of ongoing cultural conflict, a way that it might be diffused is to acknowledge that there are many different ways of being a human being.

00:58:00.000 There's nothing human.

00:58:02.000 There's nothing in our evolution to suggest that we all be corralled together in groups of 300 million and simultaneously governed by one set of ideologies.

00:58:10.000 And when I've been having conversations with people that are described as being sort of right-wing, the thing I've brought to the conversation continually is, would you be willing to stand on a platform with people that you're ideologically opposite to?

00:58:22.000 Although I reckon you would refute the idea of...

00:58:25.000 Opposition from the basis of your own study and expertise.

00:58:29.000 If it meant that you were able to have autonomy in your own community, for example, like Ben Shapiro and people that are sort of openly libertarian or conservative.

00:58:38.000 They said, of course, they would stand on a platform that people had different views on the pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gun, anti-gun.

00:58:46.000 In order to, in a sense, it would seem to me that we all be emulating the conditions of our origin and our evolution where possible, whether that's Diet or the governance of a system or a group.

00:58:58.000 Yes, I mean there's a very civil society and in a different sense we've become a very uncivil one in which people are not willing to listen to someone else with whom they disagree and then say that's interesting, I would completely disagree, my point of view would be this, what do you say to that?

00:59:15.000 And you can do that without getting angry and vicious.

00:59:19.000 But, you know, the general timbre is one of anger, self-righteousness, disgust.

00:59:24.000 And this, let me say, in terms of hemisphere lateralization, this kind of emotional timbre is typical of the left hemisphere.

00:59:33.000 The right is more willing to say, hang on, there may be something else going on here, and let me form a bond with this person, so that compassion is better than anger.

00:59:42.000 Well, would the attributes or at least traits that you just listed there in conventional psychiatry, am I right in saying, would be regarded as potentially unconscious responses?

00:59:42.000 Yes.

00:59:52.000 And I'm not sure how much you value that kind of terminology.

00:59:58.000 But sometimes what I feel is that we are governing from a place of unconsciousness, from unawareness.

01:00:01.000 You talked Yes.

01:00:02.000 Extensively about attention.

01:00:03.000 And it feels like that, you know, when righteousness, anger, these are sort of, I would say, motivated by lower levels of awareness.

01:00:11.000 That's using a more sort of, I guess, a sort of spiritual dialectic to analyze it as opposed to a psychiatric one.

01:00:17.000 But you must acknowledge that spirituality and psychiatry overlap almost continually.

01:00:23.000 Absolutely.

01:00:24.000 A lot of my work is under the aegis of exactly that kind of a script.

01:00:29.000 That religion and science don't have at all.

01:00:32.000 It's a myth that they have to be at war with one another.

01:00:34.000 They're entirely compatible.

01:00:36.000 And I've written about that.

01:00:37.000 Well, so have I. Well, there we are.

01:00:40.000 Just now.

01:00:41.000 Just wanted to be sure.

01:00:42.000 Well done.

01:00:44.000 No, what I'm saying is that we ought to be able to talk about these things and it should be absolutely wrong For anyone to be denied the right to say something.

01:00:57.000 And I think one practical thing would be that government funding for universities would be depleted by 10% every time there's an event at which somebody is barred from speaking.

01:01:08.000 And, you know, that's perfectly practical.

01:01:10.000 It could be done.

01:01:11.000 And it would encourage openness.

01:01:13.000 And if an opposite point of view is obviously wrong, then please demonstrate it.

01:01:17.000 But allow the other person to, you know, have their say.

01:01:21.000 The way I was educated was to argue a point of view and then stop and argue the opposite point of view.

01:01:26.000 And, you know, I think that's really rather important.

01:01:29.000 You know, everybody should leave school.

01:01:30.000 Having had that in their head, there isn't one right answer to anything.

01:01:33.000 Shall we do that now?

01:01:34.000 You be an edgy online provocateur, and I'm a respected neuroscientist here at the Kilchrist.

01:01:42.000 Thank you so much for joining us.

01:01:44.000 Thank you for presenting these arguments, in fact, so succinctly and beautifully for our audience.

01:01:50.000 It's fantastic to speak with you.

01:01:52.000 You're such a wonderful communicator and educator.

01:01:54.000 Thank you, Ian McGilchrist, for joining us.

01:01:57.000 The Matter with Things, Our Brains, Our Delusions and the Unmaking of the World is available now.

01:02:02.000 There's a link posted in the chat and I would recommend you read the work of Ian McGilchrist, that you become better equipped to have conversations in the confusing world.

01:02:11.000 If throughout this conversation you were thinking, I wish that bearded man would shut up and let Russell Brand just flow freely, then you're in luck, because it's time now for a...

01:02:26.000 Ian McGilchrist, you've been slowing me down throughout this conversation, impeding me intellectually.

01:02:32.000 My flights of fancy, tethered, let me fly like Icarus, who I believe flew towards the sun triumphantly without consequences.

01:02:40.000 He was fine, I believe.

01:02:41.000 That myth ends with Icarus circumnavigating the sun, successfully returning to Earth with his wings still bonded, I believe.

01:02:49.000 Time now for a deeper look... Still ablaze.

01:02:51.000 Still a blaze, yeah.

01:02:53.000 You've got to burn to shine, baby, as it says in the opening titles of The Sopranos.

01:02:58.000 Time now for a more analytical approach to a news story from this week.

01:03:02.000 Here's the news.

01:03:03.000 No, here's the effing news. 1.00

01:03:06.000 No, here's the fucking news! 1.00

01:03:10.000 Four more years! 1.00

01:03:12.000 Four more years! 1.00

01:03:13.000 But what about the last four years, Joe, you bloody old liar? 1.00

01:03:19.000 Take the head off the serpent. 1.00

01:03:20.000 Inform yourselves.

01:03:21.000 Continue to educate us in the comments.

01:03:23.000 We respond to what you tell us.

01:03:25.000 Unlike the propagandists that govern the world's most powerful nation.

01:03:29.000 Unlike the atrophying zombie cadaver that inhabits the White House, haunting its corridors with old lies and deep state corruption, getting the CIA to back him up in blags to keep laptops out of the press.

01:03:41.000 This is a time where we must change the world.

01:03:44.000 Or should we just do Four more years backed up by glossy propaganda and lies.

01:03:49.000 Let's see how Joe Biden's propaganda stands up to the hard facts.

01:03:55.000 That's what people use at the beginning of movie trailers.

01:03:58.000 Even that noise and that sort of shot and the smoke and everything.

01:04:02.000 Oh, January 6th, January 6th.

01:04:04.000 Keep frightening people about January the 6th.

01:04:06.000 Bad things do happen in the world.

01:04:08.000 But the worst thing of all is an intransigent state that will lie to you and will use propaganda

01:04:14.000 rather than ever directly addressing your needs by changing the system that's creating these problems.

01:04:19.000 Freedom.

01:04:29.000 Okay, freedom, is it?

01:04:30.000 Stay free is one of our personal catchphrases.

01:04:33.000 It's the name of our show over on Rumble.

01:04:35.000 Freedom is vital because freedom suggests that at the level of the individual, the level of the community, the level of the nation, if you need such a thing as a nation, there ought be the ability to be who you truly are.

01:04:44.000 And we hope that that includes respecting and loving one another.

01:04:47.000 Taking on responsibility and duty without an external authoritarian force.

01:04:51.000 Freedom is a very, very powerful word.

01:04:53.000 It's obviously an impactful word.

01:04:55.000 It's a word that the Joe Biden administration has chose to use centrally for this campaign.

01:04:59.000 But the problem is they've been in government for four years now, so we know what they're about.

01:05:04.000 You can't hoop up the same hysteria again.

01:05:08.000 Can you let me know in the chat and the comments once you've seen what they've been doing?

01:05:13.000 Personal freedom is fundamental to who we are as Americans.

01:05:17.000 If you believe in freedom, what you're saying is we should be who we are.

01:05:21.000 That you trust people to do the right thing.

01:05:24.000 So you don't need to, for example, surveil them the whole time and steal their data, right?

01:05:29.000 In February, the Biden administration urged Congress To renew a warrantless surveillance law that allows the government to collect messages and phone data of Americans without court order.

01:05:40.000 That amounts to without judicial process and without your consent.

01:05:44.000 When it comes to saying it, he believes it.

01:05:46.000 When it comes to legislating, he's against it.

01:05:49.000 Could there be any more literal interpretation of freedom than not locking people in cages?

01:05:53.000 I don't think so.

01:05:55.000 Let's have a look at his record on incarceration.

01:05:57.000 Biden pledged he'd cut incarceration in half.

01:05:59.000 During his administration, the federal prison population has grown for the first time in a decade.

01:06:04.000 So in spite of all that stuff, I feel like I remember.

01:06:06.000 Do you?

01:06:07.000 Let me know in the comments and chat.

01:06:08.000 He says stuff like, it's wrong that African-Americans make up such a large percentage of the prison population.

01:06:12.000 Something that I frankly believe in strongly.

01:06:14.000 Well, guess what?

01:06:15.000 The prison population is increasing.

01:06:17.000 I suppose it's just a coincidence that large corporations use prison labor as cheap labor to increase their profits.

01:06:23.000 It can't be connected to that because Joe Biden believes in freedom.

01:06:26.000 You heard him say it, didn't you?

01:06:27.000 he couldn't be lying.

01:06:29.000 But you know around the country, magic extremists are lining up to take on those bedrock 0.96

01:06:35.000 freedoms.

01:06:36.000 Much of this is clearly an attempt to address the idea that their opponents are extreme.

01:06:42.000 The idea of extremity is of course subjective.

01:06:46.000 What might be extreme to you may not be extreme to me when it comes to personal practice around culture, sexuality, ideology.

01:06:52.000 These are things that we have to be able to, as much as possible, determine as individuals.

01:06:55.000 Of course, always with the caveat that we don't harm anybody else.

01:06:58.000 But if Joe Biden loathes MAGA America so much and the MAGA movement so deeply, you would be sure right that he would never.

01:07:06.000 Under any circumstances at all, use Democrat Party funding to underwrite the campaign of MAGA candidates.

01:07:12.000 I mean, that would be hypocritical, disingenuous, evidence that you've got no real morality, that you're just a careerist strategist who cares about serving corporate interests and will get into government no matter what, even if it involves paying for the campaigns of the people you claim to hate, amplifying messages that you think, you believe, you say you believe, are harming America.

01:07:32.000 So paying for their advertisements, their commercials, that would be off-limits, right?

01:07:36.000 Wrong.

01:07:37.000 Democrats spent tens of millions amplifying far-right, they call them far-right, candidates in nine states in an attempt to ensure their candidates face less appealing opponents in the general election.

01:07:47.000 You might be a cynical, jaded individual and say, well, that's brilliant strategy.

01:07:51.000 If you genuinely believe that the messaging of these, as they say, far-right candidates is negative, then you wouldn't want to amplify that messaging because more people are going to be subject to it.

01:07:59.000 If you believe that they're racist or homophobic or against people's identities and culture later on in this piece of propaganda, the right to love who you want to love, You wouldn't amplify voices that were against that, would you?

01:08:08.000 You'd want to oppose those ideas.

01:08:11.000 That's why this piece of propaganda is so galling.

01:08:13.000 Cutting social security that you paid for your entire life while cutting taxes for the very wealthy.

01:08:19.000 Right, so it's wrong to cut taxes for the very wealthy.

01:08:21.000 Have we found a principle?

01:08:22.000 Have we found a principle in there?

01:08:24.000 Let's have a look at the facts.

01:08:25.000 The Democrats Build Back Better Bill is a gigantic tax cut for millionaires and billionaires.

01:08:30.000 Under Biden, Democratic lawmakers pushed a regressive proposal to allow wealthy property owners to deduct more of their state and local taxes, aka SALT, from their federal taxes.

01:08:40.000 This initiative provides almost no benefit to the working class but enriches their already rich donors. 0.91

01:08:46.000 Another example of using rhetoric to appeal to your audience while legislating on behalf of your donors.

01:08:53.000 You know how this works, don't you?

01:08:54.000 You don't need me to tell you this, but it's nice to see all in one place, isn't it?

01:08:57.000 It's nice to contrast it with their propaganda, isn't it?

01:09:00.000 Banning books and telling people who they can love.

01:09:03.000 So the culture war that they claim is so bad, they stoke it on two sides.

01:09:07.000 One, they fund people that say stuff that they claim is hateful.

01:09:11.000 Two, they use provocative imagery in their own propaganda.

01:09:15.000 They ain't about healing America, they're about breaking America because they benefit from the fracture.

01:09:21.000 Your wounds are their treasure.

01:09:23.000 Dictating what health care decisions women can make. 0.99

01:09:26.000 One of the things the Biden administration is always banging on about is healthcare.

01:09:30.000 Well, here's a fact.

01:09:31.000 15 million American people are currently being quietly phased out of receiving Medicaid and Children's Health Insurance Program benefits.

01:09:39.000 Just quietly phasing them out.

01:09:40.000 They won't make much noise because they're ill.

01:09:42.000 All while making it more difficult for you to be able to vote.

01:09:45.000 Well, we know now that when it comes to claiming that elections are fraudulent, the Democrats are just the same as Donald Trump.

01:09:51.000 When the Democrats lose, they claim that they're a fraudulent electoral machines, broker machines, Russian hacking.

01:09:56.000 They'll say whatever they want to say.

01:09:58.000 Whoever wins the next election, whether it's this guy, whoever else, the other party put up, the one that wins will say, thank you, we're going to heal America while legislating on behalf of their rich.

01:10:05.000 So who do they work for?

01:10:06.000 decide that losers will go. 0.97

01:10:07.000 Electoral fraud.

01:10:08.000 In October 2021, Democrats scaled back plans for a crackdown on tax cheating,

01:10:13.000 bowing to an aggressive lobbying campaign by the banking industry.

01:10:16.000 So who do they work for?

01:10:17.000 Do they work for all these like construction workers and people of various colors and identities,

01:10:22.000 who I believe they should be working for, by the way.

01:10:23.000 That we should be healing America.

01:10:25.000 That we should be accepting diversity, inclusivity.

01:10:27.000 All these words they use are, in my opinion, the right words.

01:10:30.000 As long as you include that people want to live differently all along the spectrum of different identities and cultural values.

01:10:35.000 As long as you accept that, we're all cool, aren't we?

01:10:37.000 They bow to the pressure of the lobbying industry.

01:10:40.000 You know that.

01:10:41.000 That's why there is a lobbying industry. 1.00

01:10:42.000 And never forget this electoral pledge, because it's certainly more reliable than any other pledge Biden made.

01:10:48.000 Joe Biden told rich donors on the campaign trail that nothing would fundamentally change if he were elected president.

01:10:54.000 Great work, Joe.

01:10:55.000 Four more years!

01:10:56.000 For much of the last decade, Democrats complained that Republicans were backed by dark money.

01:11:01.000 Then came the 2020 election, where donors and operatives allied with the Democratic Party embraced dark money, surpassing Republicans in 2020 spending.

01:11:09.000 One thing we've got to stop is this dark money.

01:11:11.000 Or, I don't know, maybe we could use Dark Money ourselves more than our opponents.

01:11:16.000 Dark money is good. 1.00

01:11:18.000 ♪♪ When I ran for president four years ago,

01:11:30.000 I said we were in a battle for the soul of America.

01:11:33.000 Often the rhetoric is correct.

01:11:35.000 We are in a battle for the soul of America, for the soul of the world.

01:11:38.000 But you can't access the soul without some spiritual values.

01:11:41.000 And if you don't believe in spirituality, you know that I do.

01:11:43.000 What you need are just moral principles.

01:11:45.000 Kindness, service, gratitude, community.

01:11:48.000 And we still are.

01:11:49.000 ideas that you can't just change depending on your required outcome.

01:11:53.000 We cannot allow these MAGA voices. Here's some money for some MAGA voices.

01:11:57.000 We cannot stoke this culture war, stoke the culture war.

01:11:59.000 We have to legislate on behalf of ordinary Americans.

01:12:02.000 Thank you for the banking money, we're gonna crush ordinary Americans.

01:12:05.000 You have to have principles that cost you.

01:12:07.000 And we still are.

01:12:08.000 The question we're facing is whether in the years ahead we have more freedom or less freedom.

01:12:14.000 Certainly you're gonna have less sick days in spite of his pledge to ensure

01:12:18.000 that American workers would have seven days per year sick days available to them.

01:12:21.000 There's another pledge broken.

01:12:23.000 As part of his 2020 presidential campaign, Biden pledged that he would ensure all workers have at

01:12:27.000 least seven paid sick days.

01:12:29.000 In December, Biden and the U.S.

01:12:30.000 Congress forced workers to accept an agreement without sick days and made a rail strike illegal.

01:12:35.000 Fortunately, it didn't lead to an ecological disaster involving trains careering off of the tracks and spilling chemicals all over the environment, which, as you know, the Democrats love so much.

01:12:44.000 The Rail Industries Lobbying Group... Oh, this is just a coincidence, probably not relevant.

01:12:48.000 Rail Industries Lobbying Group spent more than 13 million dollars lobbying Congress, but that probably doesn't make a difference, right?

01:12:53.000 More rights or fewer?

01:12:55.000 I know what I want the answer to be, and I think you do too.

01:12:59.000 This is not a time to be complacent.

01:13:02.000 No!

01:13:02.000 It's not a time to be complacent.

01:13:04.000 And it's certainly not a time to be funneling American tax dollars towards an unwinnable proxy war.

01:13:09.000 President Biden said, let me be clear, our forces are not engaged and will not engage in the conflict with Russian forces in Ukraine.

01:13:16.000 He had made this promise many times.

01:13:18.000 There will be no US boots on the ground in Ukraine.

01:13:20.000 The recent Pentagon leaks proved this is not the case.

01:13:24.000 Or alternatively, A lie!

01:13:25.000 Soon after the Ukraine war broke out last year, Congress voted to appropriate $40 billion in aid to Ukraine.

01:13:31.000 Every single Democrat voted for it.

01:13:33.000 This is another bit of information that's probably irrelevant, but I'll just give it to you anyway, and you can decide whether it's relevant using your own powers of deduction.

01:13:40.000 The defence sector spent $25 million lobbying the Democrats during the 2020 campaign cycle, but that can't be connected to the $40 billion of aid, half of which ended up going to the military-industrial complex, and 70% of the weapons that went to Ukraine can't be traced now, and the Pentagon have failed five consecutive audits.

01:13:58.000 These things are all just probably conspiracy theories that have just somehow been proven by facts.

01:14:02.000 President Trump has not punished senior Saudi leaders.

01:14:05.000 Would you?

01:14:06.000 Yes.

01:14:07.000 One thing I remember is in those head-to-head battles with Donald Trump when Biden said he would make Saudi Arabia a pariah.

01:14:13.000 Make them, in fact, the pariah that they are.

01:14:16.000 Which is not only a catchy and almost rhyming sentence, it's a policy we can rely on and know won't have been broken.

01:14:22.000 Biden vowed not to sell more weapons to the Saudis if he became president.

01:14:26.000 Last year, the Biden administration approved two massive arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

01:14:32.000 Four more years?

01:14:37.000 That's why I'm running for re-election.

01:14:39.000 The problem is with propaganda is it works.

01:14:41.000 Like the music works, the sepia imagery works, the close-ups work of vulnerable people of a variety of views.

01:14:49.000 If you're a decent, upstanding individual, and basically we all are, then you find this kind of stuff appealing.

01:14:54.000 It bypasses your ability to reason.

01:14:56.000 Because if you used your ability to reason, you would look at the facts and say, look, this Democrat party They're not going to do anything.

01:15:01.000 And the Republican Party aren't really going to do anything either.

01:15:04.000 Should we have a look at this whole system?

01:15:05.000 Because clearly the technology exists now for us to have a genuine independent movement.

01:15:08.000 You've got independent media now.

01:15:09.000 We can countenance all their false narratives.

01:15:11.000 We can build a political movement that's a genuine reflection of the varying requirements of American people.

01:15:16.000 If we have more decentralization and democracy, people with different cultural requirements could live different types of lives and the conflict between them could ultimately be ended through democracy.

01:15:25.000 Direct democracy.

01:15:26.000 Decentralized communal democracy.

01:15:28.000 Would that work?

01:15:29.000 Yes, of course it would bloody work.

01:15:30.000 It wouldn't be perfect, it would be better than this. 0.67

01:15:31.000 Now rather than letting that happen, they can keep you tethered by your heart strings into believing that some doddering old sod, who's basically a liar, career politician, deep state affiliate, who works for the globalist corporate machine, is going to do anything different in the next four years than he did in the last four years.

01:15:46.000 Even if you want to optimistically believe that Joe Biden's lovely, and on some level he will be, because he's a human being like you or me.

01:15:50.000 He's not going to be able to do anything because he works within a system that ain't changing any time soon.

01:15:55.000 Let me know in the chat and the comments if you agree.

01:15:59.000 Because I know America.

01:16:02.000 I know we're good and decent people.

01:16:05.000 I know we're still a country that believes in honesty and respect and treating each other with dignity.

01:16:10.000 Where was the honesty and respect when they were keeping the Hunter Biden laptop story out of the news because they thought it would affect the outcome of the 2020 election?

01:16:17.000 Where was the honesty and respect then?

01:16:19.000 That we're a nation where we give hate no safe harbor.

01:16:22.000 We believe that everyone is equal.

01:16:24.000 That everyone should be given a fair shot to succeed in this country.

01:16:28.000 As always, the stuff that they're saying is actually true.

01:16:30.000 That is what should happen, but that isn't systemically possible anymore.

01:16:34.000 That's what needs to be addressed.

01:16:35.000 The system is broken.

01:16:36.000 We should actually just start saying, you know, like if you're talking to a drunk or something, go, Are you?

01:16:40.000 Four more years and it's all gonna be okay.

01:16:42.000 Well, that'll be nice.

01:16:43.000 Oh, good.

01:16:43.000 There'll be no more wars like the last four years.

01:16:45.000 That's nice.

01:16:46.000 And everyone's gonna... I love it.

01:16:47.000 Okay, will you sit down?

01:16:49.000 Have a blanket?

01:16:50.000 Should we take over?

01:16:51.000 Yeah, we should probably take over.

01:16:52.000 I think he's wet himself.

01:16:54.000 So if you're with me, go to joebiden.com and sign up.

01:16:59.000 If you actually go to that Joe Biden website, it simply asks you for some money.

01:17:03.000 Let me know in the chat in the comments which one of Biden's lies you find most offensive.

01:17:08.000 Let me know which stories we've missed, which hypocrisies we've not pointed out. 0.99

01:17:12.000 Let me know if you think there's something we're missing, that they're actually doing the best that they can and maybe we should accept this total bullshit. 0.98

01:17:18.000 Let us know all of it. 0.97

01:17:19.000 Let's finish this job.

01:17:21.000 I know we can.

01:17:22.000 Because this is the United States of America.

01:17:25.000 Nothing, simply nothing we cannot do if we're going to get it.

01:17:30.000 This is a product of corporate meetings and commercial consultancy, but when people say

01:17:40.000 things like, we'll use Joe Biden's handwriting.

01:17:42.000 Now, look, Joe, with greatest respect, some people think that maybe you're a little old and that doesn't need to be a problem because we can make you look dynamic.

01:17:50.000 And we can say that the fact is that you're a statesman and it's your experience.

01:17:53.000 All of it is a construct.

01:17:55.000 When it is contrasted with the facts of the matter which point to a deeply corrupt system that is in part the result of career politicians and the inability of ordinary self-governance to emerge through assemblies, through true accountability from the military-industrial complex and the corporate and financial world, a genuine ability to run your communities, a genuine Opportunity to be different and live differently and respect different values and traditions and ideologies.

01:18:21.000 You can't ever, ever allow that to happen because that will impede the interests of the powerful.

01:18:26.000 This is, in a way, a beautiful piece of propaganda, but it's completely untrue.

01:18:30.000 It doesn't hold up very well to the facts.

01:18:32.000 Not during a time where there's been a massive wealth transfer, where there's been increased surveillance, where protest laws are on the rise, the militarisation of the police force is happening, the pharmaceutical industry, record profits.

01:18:41.000 All of these things are facts.

01:18:43.000 You have to accept and embrace these things.

01:18:45.000 Even in this propaganda video, it was an opportunity to say, look, I know things have been really mental.

01:18:49.000 We haven't been able to do the stuff we want.

01:18:51.000 We can't ever do that.

01:18:52.000 That's not how they talk.

01:18:53.000 And that's why they fall prey to people who are able to talk somewhere within the metre of authenticity, even if I don't think they're going to be particularly successful either.

01:19:01.000 Let me know what you think we've missed.

01:19:03.000 What are the worst travesties of Biden's election?

01:19:05.000 What are the most egregious uses of propaganda there?

01:19:08.000 Let me know if there's anything we've missed.

01:19:10.000 Basically, what I think that is, is a piece of brilliantly made, disgusting, deceitful propaganda.

01:19:15.000 But that's just what I think!

01:19:16.000 Let me know what you think in the comments and chat, and we'll pick up on that next week.

01:19:19.000 Hasn't it been a fantastic week on Stay Free?

01:19:22.000 Join us next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.

Stay Free - Russel Brand - April 28, 2023

PROOF! | We’re Killing Ourselves! - #118 - Stay Free With Russell Brand

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript