Russiagate, the return of the Russiagate scandal, the new Trump White House press conference, Tucker Carlson's live show in Phoenix, and much, much more! Stay Free, Russell Brand (01:00) - Russigate (05:30) - Putin and the new scandal - The return of 'Russigate' (15:00), the new White House Press Conference (20:00 ) - Trump's latest press conference (23:00). - Chris Pawlowski's arrest warrant is out for him (27:00): Is he under threat? Is he being targeted by the intelligence services, or is he being used as a tool by the military-industrial complex to further their own interests? (30:00:00 - My baptism) - Tucker's Live Show in Phoenix (31:30): My baptism (35:00); and much more. If you like what you hear here, please consider becoming a supporter of Awakened Wonderrs and we'll pay for your tickets to our upcoming live events! (36:00-42:30). You can also apply for tickets to one of our upcoming events by becoming a patron supporter of AWakened Wonders (41:30-45:00.) This episode is sponsored by VaynerSpeakers. (45:40) - If you're a supporter, we'll be giving you a discount on your tickets for our upcoming event in the next episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand's Stay Free With Russell Brand - Stay Free event (46:00)! Have a question or suggestion for a future event? (47:00] - What's your favourite conspiracy theory you'd like us to cover in Stay Free? or a story you d like to hear me talk about in a future episode? Theme song by Ian Dorsch? Music by Skynyrd? Download MP3 by Cracked? Send me your answer in the comments section! Theme music by my main amigo, Evan Handyside (1:01:10) by (2:15:20) - "Let's Talk About It" by Jeffree Stars (3:00, 4:20, 5:30, 6:40, 7:15, 8:00s, 9:30s & 9:40s
00:11:19.000It's possible even that the Rumble honchos, is the word I'm going to use, could be under threat as so many independent media tech figures are these days.
00:11:34.000Hello Gorilla Wagon, hello Van Halen, hello all of you awake and wonders watching us in locals.
00:11:42.000Listen guys, we've got a lot to cover in the next few minutes.
00:11:44.000We're going to be talking about the reboot of Russiagate.
00:11:48.000We're being told once again that Russia has infiltrated independent media.
00:11:56.000Russian carve-outs are making shady payments to independent media figures.
00:12:02.000I don't think that bird's going to fly, you know.
00:12:06.000And we're also going to look at We're going to look for work.
00:12:09.000Some of this stuff's quite close to home.
00:12:11.000If you're watching us on YouTube, we'll be there for about 15 minutes, then we're going to be exclusively on Rumble, and of course, on locals of our AwakendWonder community, where if you are a member, you can come and see me live.
00:12:22.000Let me know if you were in attendance, by the way, in Phoenix, Arizona, from where I've just returned from doing Tucker Carlson's live show.
00:12:31.000Let me know if any of you were in the audience for that.
00:12:35.000Let's cover some of the stuff that's Directly affecting us.
00:12:41.000There are some people saying that an arrest warrant has been issued for Chris Pawlowski, CEO of Rumble.
00:12:49.000And after we've seen Pavel Durov arrested in France, you have to entertain the idea that Figures that support free speech potentially could be under threat.
00:13:03.000Now that X and Rumble are banned in Brazil, now we're seeing more and more conversation about censorship and the normalization of censorship.
00:13:12.000We have to be sort of alert to these stories.
00:13:14.000My prayer is that it's not true and these prayers are becoming more effective.
00:13:19.000We might jump in for a moment and have a look at Trump.
00:13:21.000Trump is just doing an impromptu press conference Post one of his numerous trials, this one is an appeal for one of the cases with which I'm sure you're familiar.
00:13:39.000Utterly insane efforts to introduce propensity witnesses, Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff, most notably, in an unfair and improper effort... Can you mute the audio for a second?
00:13:53.000Don't look good when someone else is talking, does he?
00:13:56.000Like when he brought Bobby out for that rally, I always feel like when you're sort of there watching Bobby, I feel like it didn't suit him that, the role of the onlooker.
00:14:07.000We'll jump in and out of that story as the show goes on.
00:14:14.000There's a few posts and little clips from my appearance with Tucker.
00:14:19.000This is what Benny Johnson posts about that.
00:14:21.000He's just impressed, I think, by the sheer number of people.
00:14:25.000And here is a clip I've not watched yet about me talking about my baptism.
00:14:32.000Bear Grylls sort of appeared in my existence, coming out of the shadows, and said, would you like me to come and baptise you on the 28th of April?
00:14:42.000of April and I sort of went, yeah, but I meant no. I would not like you to come. You know
00:14:51.000you sort of make plans. You know, like I think if I'd known so many people there I'd have
00:14:59.000It's an incredibly well attended event.
00:15:01.000We gave away tickets to some members of our AwakendWonder community.
00:15:05.000If you are an AwakendWonder you get the opportunity to see lots of Live events, and if you respond to the message in the chat now, you can just apply for tickets whenever we have them.
00:15:15.000That's just one of the things we offer to our supporter community, as well as some forthcoming specials that I think you're really going to love.
00:15:23.000This clip says that I'm going to explain the world to Tucker in less than 60 seconds.
00:15:28.000I can't imagine which 60 seconds that was.
00:15:31.000And I suppose that if you have that kind of polarity, a kind of tension, where crisis is beneficial to the most powerful interests in the world, it's likely that you will see a perpetuation of crisis.
00:15:42.000If the military-industrial complex benefit from war, you will have war.
00:15:46.000If the pharmaceutical complex benefit from ill health, you will have the perpetuation of ill health.
00:15:51.000If they require you to eat food that's bad for you and take medicine that's bad for you, then you find that this great, wonderful nation, in which I'm a foreigner, traipsing willy-nilly back and forth that border, almost at will, popping in them cages that Obama built.
00:16:07.000Then I suppose that what you have instead of this wonderful nation, you have a kind of conveyor belt where we're sort of turned into larvae with parasitic tubes attached to us.
00:16:17.000One end being pumped full of sugar and seed oil, the other end being pumped full of needless pharmaceuticals.
00:16:36.000The night after that was with Vivek Ramaswamy and I think Bobby Kennedy made a surprise appearance.
00:16:42.000I was very interested to see Vivek talking to Jordan Peterson and how he said that his personal contribution to the Republican movement would be to ensure That the Republican Party did not remain in the capture of the donor class.
00:16:57.000As this new movement continues to grow, it feels like it's important to me at least, and tell me if you agree with this in the chat, to continually reiterate that this cannot remain a partisan issue.
00:17:11.000We have to look at the Problems that underlie our systems.
00:17:16.000And to me, it appears that the ability for a donor class to control both parties in your country, the industry of lobbying's endless ability to magnetize and direct policy in the trajectory of your nation, unless that's addressed, it's...
00:17:33.000It's pretty unlikely that the world's going to change as significantly as is required.
00:17:38.000Let's have a look at Tucker and Vivek and Bobby Kennedy.
00:17:43.000And so it's an honor to introduce Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
00:18:14.000there you go It seems to me that that will be beneficial in the ongoing framing of the counter-movement to what seems like another four years of bureaucratic civilian management if
00:20:01.000Use the code RUSSELLBRAND or scan the QR code that's on your screen right now to get a free fume topper when you order your journey pack today.
00:20:11.000You won't want to be without one of these once you've got one, and not because you're addicted, because it's not addictive.
00:20:36.000And the judge ruled a fine against me, the likes of which has never even been heard of.
00:20:43.000Businesses will never come to this state as long as that is able to be held up.
00:20:49.000Because we won that trial so conclusively.
00:20:52.000We had an expert witness said that President Trump's financial... This was an expert witness from the Stern School of Business, one of the most highly respected people in the country as an expert witness.
00:21:06.000He said, to the best of my remembering, it's a big statement, but he said, this is perhaps the best financial statement I've ever seen.
00:21:15.000But the judge made me pay like a $400 million fine.
00:21:25.000Consumer fraud case that they made it in.
00:21:29.000The judge refused to give it over to the commercial division where they could understand things and they would have dismissed it immediately because this case had no merit whatsoever.
00:22:06.000I'll tell you why, because this story, Russiagate.20, start the countdown, this story, Russiagate.20, covers a variety of complex ideas.
00:22:17.000We're going to be starting with, well, how can the mainstream media be carrying, once again, the idea That Russia are interfering in elections.
00:22:26.000And does that seem plausible to you when Putin has already declared that his personal preference would be a Kamala Harris presidency?
00:22:35.000And what's happening with the leaked DOJ investigation into independent content creators?
00:22:41.000And we're going to touch upon Stephen Crowder, Rumble creator's investigation into the DOJ.
00:22:46.000We're going to have to work out what is it that this version of Russiagate is about?
00:22:53.000First of all, maybe we should start off with the, let's have a look at the mainstream media reporting on the subject, pushing the idea that it is indeed RussiaGate.20 Breaking news!
00:23:06.000The Biden administration taking a series of actions to target what they allege are attempts by Russian-backed actors to manipulate public opinion here in the U.S.
00:23:17.000ahead of the presidential election, according to two senior U.S.
00:25:40.000The first time they did that, Russiagate, it seemed like an inability to address the lack of their government's actual popularity.
00:25:50.000A disinterested, or in fact uninterested electorate turning away from the kind of mainstream politics that had consistently failed to deliver the type of results that the electorate Feel that they deserve, and in fact you could argue that they do deserve, this version of it.
00:26:15.000Don't you think that what we're living in now is a time of such sort of delirium that, like, do you think that Russian misinformation could genuinely impact the outcome of the 2024 election?
00:26:31.000Because there is so much bloody information to consume.
00:27:14.000I said that if we can name a favorite candidate, it used to be Joe Biden, but now he is not participating in the election campaign, and he recommended to all his allies to support Ms.
00:27:34.000Harris, so that is what we are going to do.
00:27:37.000Yeah, that is some Olympic level trolling.
00:27:42.000What would they do there though? Would they troll their own population on Russian media?
00:27:46.000So he would assume that that would get picked up in the US and would play well.
00:27:55.000I don't understand how many levels to this game there are.
00:27:59.000Let's have a look at other legacy media outlets dealing with the inconvenient news that Putin would prefer Kamala.
00:28:09.000And if they would prefer Kamala Harris, why would they be trying to manipulate and influence the election in favour of Trump?
00:28:20.000How many levels to this simulacrum is there?
00:28:24.000President Putin said this morning that President Biden was his first choice for a second term, but that now he'd like Vice President Harris to become the next American president.
00:28:36.000Her laugh is so expressive and infectious, Putin said at an economic conference.
00:28:42.000But is the former spy telling the truth?
00:28:45.000intelligence agencies believe Putin prefers Donald Trump over Harris, seeing him as less likely to continue supporting Ukraine.
00:28:53.000And Washington believes Putin is already trying to influence the election.
00:28:57.000On Wednesday, the State Department said it would designate five Russian state-funded news organizations, including RT, formerly known as Russia Today, Ruptly, and Sputnik, as foreign government missions and limit visas for their employees.
00:29:12.000The Justice and Treasury Departments are acting as well, indicting two RT employees accused of funding an American right-wing media company to carry out the Kremlin's influence campaign.
00:29:24.000The Justice Department's message is clear.
00:29:27.000We have no tolerance for attempts by authoritarian regimes to exploit our democratic system of government.
00:29:36.000A spokesman for RT told NBC News the group had several responses including ha ha ha ha and 2016 called and wants its cliches back.
00:31:17.000The DOJ is alleging that these two Russians who worked for RT, I mean, that does matter, but it's really the fact that they're in Russia and they're Russian and they're pushing Russian interests.
00:31:28.000What they did was they called their friend Lauren Chen.
00:31:31.000Now, she is a Canadian citizen who's living and working in America, I believe living here too, but definitely working in America for, among others, The Blaze.
00:31:42.000And she's a relatively well-known conservative personality online.
00:31:49.000I unfollowed her a while ago because it was obvious this is not a person worth listening to on X. So they contacted Lauren Chen because, unbeknownst to me, she had worked for RT for a year as a commentator.
00:32:07.000Apparently on the air, but at least writing articles for them.
00:32:10.000So openly affiliating with this channel.
00:32:35.000But in this case, they did reach out to Lauren, according to this indictment, and said, help us form a new independent media company and help us find influencers who will work for it.
00:32:47.000And according to the indictment, she did.
00:32:49.000She and her husband both did that and recruited guys like Dave and Tim Pool and Benny and three others I never heard of.
00:32:57.000And she, according to the indictment, knew that the Russians would be funding this and editing content.
00:33:06.000But the influencers, the conservative podcasters, did not.
00:33:11.000And that's according to the indictment.
00:33:12.000That's why none of them has been indicted.
00:33:14.000The feds are saying Rubin, Poole, Bennington, they didn't know.
00:33:20.000In fact, they were given misinformation by Lauren because, they allege, she knew they would never do this if they understood it was being funded by the Russians.
00:33:30.000She told them that it was all being funded by some French businessman Uh, Edward Gregorian.
00:33:38.000And the indictment alleges that both Tim and Dave, I don't know about the others, tried to kick the tires a bit, obviously not enough, on who this is.
00:34:46.000Edward Gregorian, mystery man, looking out the window of a private jet.
00:34:51.000He cares about social justice and he cares about you and me.
00:34:54.000Let me tell you, I didn't offer us any money, or else you'd have just watched 25 minutes of me telling you that Edward Gregorian's a great fella and we should just follow along with it.
00:35:02.000Don't you just assume that all media is to some degree propaganda and that isn't in fact the charm of independent media is that the biases are sort of somewhat evident and Declared.
00:35:39.000But we can't simply continue to believe that the only reason people would vote for Donald Trump or vote against Kamala Harris and the remnants of the establishment that she represents because of Putin's ingenuity and deception is It's plain that people are utterly disillusioned and on the precipice of despair with the institutions of democracy, the institutions of justice, the institutions of communication, primarily because they've all become so dreadfully corrupted.
00:36:10.000You can't have it that on one hand Putin is publicly endorsing Kamala Harris, then deceptively ensuring that people vote for Trump.
00:36:19.000I don't know how he thinks he would benefit from a Kamala Harris It's pretty clear that the Democratic Party are more interested in continuing to fund Ukraine, for example.
00:36:32.000I can't pretend to begin to understand it, not for a second, except for saying that the world of media, espionage, surveillance and censorship seems to be governed increasingly by authoritarian forces that benefit from all of us being goggle-eyed and bedazzled and distracted from the things that are truly important, and you know what they are, don't you?
00:36:55.000Personally, I know most of those influencers, and I would say that None of them are going to actively promote Russian interest for money.
00:37:07.000Benny Johnson is patriotic to an outrageous degree.
00:37:11.000Tim Pool seems like a deeply critical thinker trying his best.
00:37:16.000If America votes for Donald Trump in November 2024, it's not going to be because of the will of Vladimir Putin.
00:37:25.000It's going to be because of the ineptitude and corruption of the government for the last four years and the general state of disillusionment, the fugue of despair induced by centrist politics that We've got a fantastic conversation coming up for you now.
00:37:40.000It's with Jay Bhattacharya and Rav Arora.
00:38:10.000Get in the rumble ad free version because if you get rumble premium It supports all of us and rumble will need support because banned in Brazil banned in France banned in Russia And I feel that this organization this platform is committed to free speech and between now and the election We're going to require that you know when you see Like Eric Weinstein, Brett Weinstein, basically Weinstein.
00:38:34.000When you see the whole Weinstein sibling fraternity suggesting that something eerie and peculiar is going to happen between now and the election, I think it's really important.
00:38:44.000We're going to speak to Jay Bhattacharya now.
00:39:05.000This is an interesting conversation when it comes to the deployment of lawfare, an interesting conversation about censorship, and it's interesting to see someone with such credibility and integrity addressing such important issues.
00:39:25.000So great to be here with you, Russell, as always.
00:39:29.000I always feel that when I'm talking with you, I have a confidence of communicating with an expert, but also I feel like I'm dealing with someone that is very spiritually open.
00:39:40.000And actually, I'll just start with this, if I can, Jay.
00:39:44.000Say with the changes that have happened in American politics recently, and it seems like a giddy carousel, and we're adjusting to reality so swiftly, and I think almost now that That our temporal measurements are no longer as relevant, like a day, a week, an hour, a month.
00:40:02.000It seems like it's almost the same way that communications companies went from charging for minutes to charging for blocks of data.
00:40:11.000Perhaps our consciousness has been affected by the sheer freight of data we interact with.
00:40:16.000You know, once you would have only seen, you know, prior to the printing press, how many words would people have read in a day.
00:40:22.000Now think of the number of words you read on advertising hoardings and endless scrolling and the amount of information you interface with, even if you're not a diligent academic like yourself.
00:40:34.000Now, what strikes me as odd is that, you know, you're a Stanford academic, you're not white, and the idea that you would be seen as a kind of a MAGA person seems pretty absurd.
00:40:49.000But looking at the direction that the Kamala Harris Democrat Party is going in, and your very committed views on censorship and anti-censorship, It would seem that you are a person that would be a ostracized outcast when it comes to the purview of the Democrat Party because they are a default pro-censorship party even when it comes to just the results of your cases that went all the way to the Supreme Court were bounced down.
00:41:22.000Obviously that was under Biden but ultimately this is a sort of a continuity.
00:41:26.000It's hardly a sort of a radical Uh, evolution represented by Kamala Harris's ascendancy.
00:41:32.000She's there using the same manifesto and prospectus.
00:41:35.000It's not going to be in any way significantly different.
00:41:38.000In fact, that's what most of us would argue.
00:41:41.000So do you find, while I recognize that you're going to talk to us about your case, your significant U.S.
00:41:47.000Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court The request to remove misinformation on social media was subsequently granted after it looked like people, it was very high profile, they were saying, you know, we're not going to do that.
00:42:00.000I wonder how you feel this case and what the Democratic Party represents Where we find ourselves in 2024, where someone like you, who wouldn't traditionally be regarded as a right-wing fascist or a MAGA person or however that's conveyed, finds herself as an opponent, an enemy of at least that aspect of the state.
00:42:25.000I mean, I don't want to be too hyperbolic, Russell, but I think that the very principle of free speech is actually at stake in this election.
00:42:35.000I saw Tim Walz give an interview, you know, the vice presidential candidate, give an interview where he defended the censorship activities of the Biden administration.
00:42:44.000And just to be abundantly clear, Russell, they censored me in particular.
00:43:13.000And the Biden administration fully backed that all the way up to the Supreme Court, essentially arguing that unless they had the right to censor my ideas and people like, and ideas like people like mine, actually, and yours as well, Russell, that somehow the public was going to be harmed.
00:43:33.000I think that, in fact, the public was harmed by that censorship effort, by depriving the public of the opportunity to hear contrary ideas.
00:43:40.000They specifically censor ideas that criticize policies that they were putting forward, policies that end up harming children, ended up harming the working class.
00:43:53.000I don't, I don't even, I mean, I, I, I tend to be allergic to policy.
00:43:57.000It makes me, it makes me, that's just, I just don't like any of it.
00:44:00.000I mean, I try to, I try to stick to data, uh, but in here, I think the principle is still important to me.
00:44:05.000Science can't work without free speech.
00:44:09.000Uh, and, and, uh, our polity is, is deprived of, of, of real de- half, half.
00:44:15.000If you have, you know, you're right, Russell, we have millions and millions of words that we can read.
00:44:19.000But if the powerful forces can say, look, you can only look at these kinds of words and not these kinds of words, we're going to be misled by just the sheer volume, right?
00:44:27.000In fact, what we need is the capacity to allow, to be able to sample from all kinds of ideas.
00:44:36.000And this regime, actually, not just the US, it's around the world, it's sort of emerging.
00:44:43.000I actually feel that if we don't Oppose it, wherever it is.
00:44:49.000We will paint a civilization into a corner that it can never get out of.
00:44:54.000I asked you a characteristically broad and carooming question that covered the way that we consume data and what the modern centre-left represents, and we've pulled up your Substack article, The Illusion of Consensus, with the headline in its ruling on Murphy v Missouri, the US Supreme Court harmed free speech, an article that you have written.
00:45:18.000And to give us a sort of a basic framing of the conversation that we're commencing on, during the pandemic period, the kind of information you conveyed that you alluded to as being sort of pretty reasonable and not that extreme, could you just Give us three to five of the points that you suggested relatively early in the pandemic that were censored and that were rendered as being extreme, certainly censoring them suggests that they were regarded as extreme, just so that we can have some actual examples of what constitutes extremism in this new environment so we can actually see how extreme censorship has become.
00:46:01.000So one idea was that the disease is very hard to stop.
00:46:06.000That was an idea, which meant then that the infection fatality rate was lower than people thought.
00:46:13.000The second idea was that children were not particularly harmed by the disease, while older people really were by COVID.
00:46:20.000Third idea, the lockdowns themselves harmed every single person that was exposed to them, including children through the school closures, including poor people around the world, causing starvation on a catastrophic scale from the earliest days of the pandemic.
00:46:39.000Those were the ideas that were central to the Great Barrington Declaration that I wrote with Sinatra Gupta of Oxford and Martin Kulldorfer of Harvard in October 2020.
00:46:47.000The idea was to lift lockdowns and focus protection of vulnerable older people.
00:47:08.000The idea that if you took the vaccine, there were some group of people, specifically young men who had myocarditis and other Other side effects.
00:47:17.000Even patient groups that were talking to each other online were suppressed and labeled as misinformers just for, you know, telling people about their own experience.
00:47:29.000The idea that there isn't robust evidence in favor of masking, and in fact, places that have had masks, remandes, and others that don't, had very similar spread.
00:47:40.000These were not radical ideas, Russell.
00:47:42.000These were scientific discussions to be had with honest looking at the data, rather than having the government put their thumb on the scale and say, look, Jay is saying that there's such a thing as natural immunity.
00:47:54.000You obviously appear to have been hugely vindicated in the intervening years.
00:48:01.000Just to run through that list again, natural immunity, myocarditis, the increased likelihood of myocarditis after vaccination, to be more specific.
00:48:12.000The impact of children, of COVID and whether or not there's a need to shield them and likely that there wasn't a need.
00:48:19.000the particular vulnerability of the elderly or people with comorbidities
00:48:23.000and the inefficacy of lockdown and the likely tangential problems,
00:48:28.000whether they're financial or psychological or even pathological,
00:48:33.000and their impact on other long-standing diseases like heart disease or cancer
00:48:37.000and the people that forewent treatments.
00:48:39.000All of those ideas, you appear to have been significantly vindicated on.
00:48:43.000So let's now focus on the fact that those were the ideas that were censored.
00:48:47.000You went all the way to the Supreme Court to contest the government's right
00:49:30.000So, again, I hope I'm not being hyperbolic unnecessarily, but I just want to justify that.
00:49:37.000If you look at what the Supreme Court actually did, Russell, they said that I and my co-plaintiffs, Many of whom were arguing ideas similar to what I was arguing.
00:49:52.000So the lower courts, what they said is they ordered the Biden administration to stop censoring, to stop coercing social media companies to put labels and to censor and to suppress and de-boost and, you know, sort of toss people off of the platform for spreading those, saying those ideas.
00:50:09.000The lower courts actually called it an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.
00:50:14.000The Supreme Court said that because there is not an email that specifically says, from some functionary in the government to social media, censor Jay.
00:50:24.000Instead what you have is emails that say, censor these kinds of ideas, or else.
00:50:28.000If you don't censor these ideas, we're going to go after your company in effect.
00:50:32.000They have lots of emails like that, but nothing that says, from Government Functionary to the social media company CensorJ.
00:50:39.000Therefore, I don't have a standing to sue.
00:50:42.000And in fact, only if you have that email chain that specifically says, you know, CensorRFKJr or something, then you have standing to sue.
00:50:53.000And so on that basis, they invalidated the preliminary injunction that told the Biden administration that they're not allowed to censor anymore.
00:51:03.000Currently I'm in the process of acquiring Freedom of Information Act-related data, and it's so plain that the obstacles and roadblocks that can be thrown down are so favourable to the set of interests that constitute modern power that the entire exercise is all but futile.
00:51:24.000Except here and there, as with quantum physics, You can sort of trace the outline of what may be inferred from the movements that you see elsewhere.
00:51:36.000You can see that, well, if a particular department says we haven't got any correspondence relating to Russell Brown, because I know that, you know, in addition to the censorship you experienced, You experience vilification, condemnation, problems at the university, Stanford University where you work, personal attacks.
00:51:54.000Now, back to my point about Freedom of Information Act requests, if you ask a particular government, department or member of parliament, me being a UK citizen, Give us the information you have on Russell Brand, which is mine, that you haven't got the right as a tax-funded organisation to keep that information, and they say, we don't have any, when it's a matter of public record that they communicated with X, Rumble, YouTube, then you know they're lying!
00:52:24.000And I know that you were subject to similar measures, although of course there was a very particular flavour to the attacks that I was the recipient of, and certainly I have to bear responsibility for the lifestyle that I indulged for a long while.
00:52:39.000Even though I, of course, strongly deny the allegations that arose from those attacks and those media activities, the long-standing and long-practiced media activities.
00:52:54.000So, what I'd like to say is that when you get a Supreme Court ruling that says that the government can continue acting that way, And when you have, like, you know, I'm asking you the questions, I suppose, with this particular hue, Jay, because it is the Democratic Party National Convention, and we've seen Joe Biden given an exceptional send-off.
00:53:15.000We've seen the sort of hypocrisy of the Obamas, the sort of incredible kind of...
00:53:25.000Grandstanding of Hillary Clinton, and it makes me wonder, say like at the beginning of the COVID crisis, Trump was in office, they were in opposition, and in my country, Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party were in office, now Keir Starmer's in office, you know, there's been a transition of government in both nations, but neither party, you know, are able to say, Now that we're in power, we're going to have an honest inquiry as to what went on during that period when it came to censorship, when it came to malpractice and pharmaceutical deception, perhaps on behalf of the pharmaceutical companies, the obvious problems of the regulatory bodies.
00:54:05.000None of these inquiries are going to take place.
00:54:08.000They always sort of seem like phatic exercises or they come to early secession.
00:54:15.000So what does that tell us about these kind of self-congratulatory parliamentary or congressional figures and parties that they are unable to address this?
00:54:26.000What does it tell us about the systems themselves, Jay?
00:54:33.000So if you have a set of ideas, as nice as they sound, as important as they may be, if they cannot stand the challenge of people freely discussing them online and elsewhere, Then what good are they?
00:54:54.000So if you have a party, and actually, by the way, I agree with you, it's not just one party.
00:54:59.000I mean, this is actually, I think, a function of our government, which is not just who's in office, but the sort of the bureaucracies that underlie them.
00:55:08.000The instincts of the bureaucracy is that the bureaucracy is right, and anyone that challenges the bureaucracy must be intentionally misinforming the public or trying to harm the public.
00:55:19.000Well, that can't work in a democratic society because the ideas on which the bureaucracy functions require challenge.
00:55:29.000And it's free speech that allows that to happen in the first place.
00:55:34.000Free speech will certainly allow lots and lots of people to say wrong things here and there, but the danger from the bureaucracy itself Embracing the wrong ideas, putting policies in place without the challenge of having to justify themselves, essentially using their vast, almost totalitarian power to suppress challenge.
00:55:56.000What that says is that our societies are fundamentally, at their core, irrational, Russell.
00:56:08.000Any idea that doesn't allow itself to be challenged, even with false ideas, that can't respond to those challenges, they almost certainly are not going to work.
00:56:19.000They're going to end up worse than that, Russell.
00:56:22.000They're going to end up harming people.
00:56:25.000By the way, you mentioned something in the question.
00:57:12.000We are a more judgmental society than when Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote the Scarlet Letter in the 19th century.
00:57:20.000What you, I suppose, are illustrating there, Jay, and what your case in particular demonstrates, is that what the state has assumed is a kind of moral and spiritual power that is akin to a god, ultimately, if they have the power to say, this person now is marked, you cannot trust that person.
00:57:42.000They've kind of ultimately socially executed you.
00:57:47.000And if they have such omnipotent control, forgive the tautology, of various systems of censorship, government and adjudication, that amounts to a kind of deist power.
00:58:02.000I wonder sometimes, given that you've alluded to the extraction of grace from that purview, if that is what we are ultimately facing.
00:58:11.000A set of systems that have annihilated the role of God, the meaning of God, the purpose of God, the principles that one might consider to be godly, that they may themselves now In an extraordinarily Luciferian move, appoint themselves as a comparable and enthroned adjudicator that can, you know, and I would love to use these assets, like this is, you know, in 2023 acknowledge that what happened in particular with your case and the other
00:58:46.000Great Barrington Declaration contributors, they censored you illegally and impeded your First Amendment rights.
00:58:56.000And then we'll have a look at having, you know, once we have a look at that, we'll have a look at the subsequent Supreme Court reversal, really, from, you know, from 2024.
00:59:07.000So firstly, just have a look at what happened in the first place.
00:59:11.000Department of Justice is reviewing a federal judge's injunction that could have major implications for First Amendment rights.
00:59:18.000The order from the judge, appointed by former President Trump, puts restrictions on when Biden administration officials can contact social media companies as the legal challenge moves through the court system.
00:59:29.000Republican attorneys general in Missouri and Louisiana filed a lawsuit claiming that the White House went too far in pressuring social media companies to remove misinformation about America's election security and the COVID-19 pandemic from their platforms.
00:59:46.000I mean, it really... Look, the only pandemic we have is among the unvaccinated.
00:59:51.000It's pretty astonishing, isn't it, to see Biden make that claim in the context of controlling misinformation.
01:00:04.000That person is no longer president, not going to be president anymore, almost as if they never were.
01:00:10.000president and so that was the moment where it seemed like there had been government overreach
01:00:16.000that the judicial institutions of America would address but that's not how it played out of course
01:00:22.000is it Jay? Well so first that you see in that clip demonization of a vast class of people right you
01:00:30.000You see based on a false claim about the scientific basis of that claim is that somehow that the vaccine stops you from getting and spreading covid on that basis.
01:00:42.000You can you can then move to say that that vast class of people is somehow inferior.
01:00:50.000It's an incredibly dangerous thing that essentially the othering of a vast number of people, a creation of a class of unclean people, a new caste system, if you will.
01:01:01.000Yes, it's a kind of, I would say, the foundational argument for a new rationalist eugenics.
01:01:12.000The idea that these unvaccinated people, inverted commas, well let's have a look at those demographics and see what kind of races and economic classes those people are primarily drawn from, are, as you say, inferior and therefore, in a kind of Foucaultian idea, killable, excludable.
01:01:33.000It just absolutely shocked me to hear a President of the United States speak in those kinds of ways, speak in those kinds of terms.
01:01:41.000The other thing about that is that in July 2023, the judge that He made that order.
01:01:49.000Yeah, he was Trump-appointed, but he was following the First Amendment.
01:01:52.000He was saying, look, the Supreme Court, I'm sorry, the Biden administration, the government should not be allowed to go to tell social media companies, essentially coerce them, force them to take down people, label them with a scarlet letter, just for the crime of disagreeing with the Biden administration.
01:02:10.000That's essentially what was happening.
01:02:13.000And that, I mean, that's a very, very American idea.
01:02:16.000Like that the government, there are limits to what the government ought to be able to do.
01:02:20.000This goes back to what you were just, what you were saying earlier, Russell, that the idea that somehow the government, the bureaucracy, the deep state science itself is somehow a replacement for truth.
01:02:32.000I mean, it's not that they don't have some truth in them, but they are not the truth.
01:02:37.000Any entity, any human entity that claims that status is automatically suspect in my eyes.
01:02:44.000And that's essentially what they're saying.
01:02:45.000They're saying that they have the hold of the truth to such a degree that they can dehumanize vast populations that disagree with them.
01:02:56.000That's not the basis for a healthy society.
01:02:58.000No, one can almost sense beneath the rational rhetoric a far more primal loathing waiting to be expressed.
01:03:08.000Just give me the reason to be able to condemn and hate these people.
01:03:17.000Is it that they won't take their medicine?
01:03:20.000The hate is ready to go, just give me the portal to squeeze that hatred through.
01:03:25.000Let's have a look at the subsequent video, this is from June 2024, which amounts to sort of a reversal of the contemplated measures that we saw in the last video.
01:03:35.000So the Supreme Court has ruled that the White House can pressure social media companies to remove content that may contain disinformation.
01:03:44.000The case in question dealt with the Biden administration's decision to do that during the COVID-19 pandemic.
01:03:50.000In a 6-3 decision, the justices said the plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit didn't have legal standing.
01:03:56.000So with respect to the private people who sued and said I was kicked off of Facebook or other social media platforms, or the states that sued and said the Biden administration pressured me into, or excuse me, impermissibly pressured these social media platforms into making certain content moderation decisions, what the court said here with Justice Barrett and the majority is You can't link any alleged injury to government action, and so you're not the right people to bring this claim.
01:04:30.000So it's really interesting in the sense that this case was supposed to be a fairly big First Amendment case, but I'm not going to teach it in my First Amendment class.
01:04:38.000I'll teach it in my constitutional law class about what you need to show in order to prove standing.
01:04:44.000So in terms of precedent, it doesn't answer that big question of how much can a government entity, in this case, a presidential administration, say to, for instance, Facebook during a pandemic, I really want you to take these steps when it comes to content on your platform.
01:05:04.000What does it tell us about the direction your country is heading in, Jay?
01:05:12.000I've been saying a lot of pessimistic things.
01:05:13.000Let me just say one optimistic thing here, because it's worth saying.
01:05:17.000So the case actually, because it was ruled on standing, which says that I need to show an email from some functionary to a social media company, and that censors me particularly, we didn't have that.
01:05:33.000So the majority of the court didn't rule That it's okay for any administration to censor.
01:05:39.000What they ruled was that I didn't have the right to sue to stop them from censoring, right?
01:06:03.000I see, so you're going to become co-plaintiffs, then you'll have standing.
01:06:08.000Thanks for explaining that distinction, that it's not about whether or not the government has the right to censor, it's whether you have the right to sue when they do censor.
01:06:16.000So it's sort of not as dreadful as it might first sound.
01:06:20.000But, Russell, The problem is that usually a lot of courts will sort of use standing as an excuse not to rule on the fundamental substance of the thing.
01:06:29.000And the substance of the thing is just black and evil, right?
01:06:33.000It basically says the government ought to have the right to censor anyone it wants, any idea it wants.
01:06:38.000And so, in fact, the standing ruling has substance.
01:06:42.000What it means is that the government, in order to get around this ruling, can essentially say to social media companies, censor these ideas.
01:06:50.000What they'll say is, censor interesting discussions about spirituality and politics.
01:06:56.000I mean, they'll say specific ideas that you say, and then you'll get censored.
01:07:02.000And you will not have the right to sue to stop them.
01:07:04.000Even with the demonetization on YouTube where it was a matter of public record that the Department of Culture, that ultimately the regulatory body that have the right to fine and sue social media companies, publicly demanded that my content be demonetized and effectively taken down without there being any judicial process.
01:07:27.000Do you know that we have information that suggests that the phrase innocent until proven guilty ...was being censored.
01:07:34.000So it's, and you know, obviously prior to the extraordinary allegations, there was a period of, he's a conspiracy theorist, he's right-wing, and I'm very sensitive to what you're saying about the sort of scarlet letter, because once there's been a ferrari of that magnitude, you know, people like, there's gonna be a lot of people like, well, I can't sit and watch this guy, you know, on the basis of that.
01:07:55.000And the fact is, is that YouTube did demonetize.
01:07:57.000Thankfully, Rumble, you know, with their CEO, Chris Pavlovsky, took a stand.
01:08:02.000And thankfully, X, under Elon Musk, took a stand.
01:08:05.000Obviously, these are two men that understand the way the wind is blowing.
01:08:10.000But it's, as you are pointing out, we are, I suppose it's just a rising tide.
01:08:17.000And what COVID offered us, it was an opportunity to see, and forgive me for the kind of glee in this, but I'm glad that there's people like you that are like, Hold on, this guy's a Stanford University scientist who's only saying, oh, excuse me, it's not even extreme.
01:08:32.000You don't, it's not that you're saying that there should be no such thing as vaccines.
01:08:35.000It's not these, everything that you're saying is perfectly reasonable and referring again to the list from the beginning of the show.
01:08:54.000Although, again, you know, to the more fundamental ...problem of science's objectivity.
01:09:00.000Who is gonna conduct the clinical trials to show that lockdowns are not effective?
01:09:05.000Who's gonna conduct the clinical trials into increased myocarditis, turbo cancers, all of the new neurological conditions?
01:09:12.000Are Pfizer gonna pay for those trials?
01:09:14.000Are the universities that take significant funding from pharmaceutical companies gonna fund those trials?
01:09:19.000Is the nation going to fund those trials?
01:09:20.000Are the WHO going to fund those trials?
01:09:22.000Those trials ain't going to get funded.
01:09:24.000Those clinical trials will never be funded, won't take place.
01:09:27.000The empirical evidence will never be provided and that will remain as misinformation because they control reality more than just the judiciary and these institutions.
01:09:37.000I mean, you know, what you just said, the last point is so important, Russell.
01:10:05.000It essentially says that you have a set of functionaries that control what scientists can or cannot ask.
01:10:13.000And even if you gave the scientists all the money in the world, they still would never go there because they don't want to be labeled a misinformer.
01:10:19.000They don't want to be labeled as the kind of person that thinks these forbidden thoughts.
01:10:28.000Because as a Christian, I'm sympathetic to the idea that the Enlightenment era for all of its near miracles was, I heard this recently from Father Julian of the Brompton Oratory, it could be regarded as an amplification of the false light of Lucifer, enthroning, as it did, a kind of materialistic, rationalistic, individualistic, Facilitating reason, i.e.
01:10:57.000look at where it's led, look at where it has led.
01:10:59.000It's led to science being appointed and curated in order to reach conclusions that are favorable to the powerful.
01:11:07.000So it's very good to see illustrated the positive aspects of the Enlightenment, the positive qualities of reason, and to recognize that as long as science is subordinate to a moral authority that we all agree to, or to some degree at least recognize as being divine, sublime, or true, rather than a kind of utile weapon of the powerful, that there may yet be hope for us.
01:11:35.000I mean, I think that, well, I mean the Enlightenment is, I'm actually kind of a fan of the Enlightenment myself, but I do, I agree with you that it is the idea that the Enlightenment can, if it's functioning well, reveal every single truth.
01:11:52.000In fact, you might even say that the whole censorship idea, that the idea that there is a single man who knows all of science, you know, someone like Tony Fauci can autonomically say, if you question me, you're not simply questioning a man, you're questioning science itself.
01:12:08.000I mean, that itself is a product of the Enlightenment, if we're honest.
01:12:12.000And the idea that the Enlightenment can produce all truths, even truths that it doesn't have any capacity to reach, Truths about my relationship with God and my sort of fundamental... For instance, can science explain why I love my kids so much?
01:12:35.000I mean, even to the point where I'm willing to give up my own life for them?
01:12:39.000Can science explain why I'm willing to sacrifice my career because of the Because I see the harm that's done to other people's children from the policies that were followed.
01:12:49.000I mean, I don't see a scientific reason for that.
01:12:52.000What I see is a... I'm responding to a calling because my purpose here on Earth is beyond what can be explained by simple reason.
01:13:00.000The Tony Fauci claim is sort of deist and messianic and their counter-argument would be no because science is based on sort of empiricism and clinical trial.
01:13:12.000Well, we've just rather undone that tapestry of deceit and whoppers because Who's clinical trials?
01:13:23.000And are you censoring counter-arguments and legitimate voices in the space?
01:13:27.000So, in a sense, yes, it's functionally a religion anyway, in terms of it's who has power, who has the right to kill, control, Jail, censor, shut down.
01:13:40.000And why I find that so striking is if you were to watch it, you know, sort of any random five minutes of the DNC, you would think that you're in some sort of candy land of sort of spectral joy and glory because people seem so pretty upbeat.
01:13:57.000And there's a terrible lack of policy and a galling lack of introspection throughout the entire affair.
01:14:05.000Jay, just to touch on a few things before I sort of pivot a little bit to censorship elsewhere, and specifically my country, the United Kingdom, I just want to mention that while we're still on your cases and the cases you've been a participant in, Some of the facts that emerged from your various interactions.
01:14:25.000Employees of a dozen federal government agencies and the Biden White House directly pressured social media companies to censor viewpoints contrary to official narratives.
01:14:35.000Emails from the White House to Facebook show government officials threatening to use regulatory power to harm social media companies that did not comply with censorship demands.
01:14:46.000Just like, it's just when you sort of Look at the brass tacks.
01:14:50.000It's pretty authoritarian and pretty frightening.
01:14:52.000I mean, there was a federal judge looking at the case that called it what the federal media did or what the government did.
01:14:59.000They made an analogy to Al Capone, the gangster.
01:15:03.000I mean, Al Capone will go to Chicago businesses and say, well, that's a nice business.
01:15:08.000It would be a shame if something were to happen to it, and then gain protection money from them, right?
01:15:12.000That's essentially what the government did with social media companies.
01:15:15.000They essentially said, look, you know, Russell's saying terrible things.
01:15:21.000And the social media companies, if they were to say, you know, or else, or else, the or else would be, you know, we have regulatory power over you.
01:15:30.000It's a lovely social media company you got there.
01:15:33.000It'd be a shame if someone came along and demonopolized it, broke that up, balkanized it into several assembly run social media companies that responded to the communities.
01:15:44.000That would be a terrible thing, a terrible thing.
01:15:47.000Hey Jay, I wanted to talk about what happened in the UK.
01:15:52.000There was a kind of, obviously, the inciting incident was the murder of three children in Southport and the attack on several others and it kind of exploded into Race riots and anti-race riots and a kind of despair around migration and death and detachment and loss of meaning and purpose.
01:16:16.000There were so many things that were wrapped up in it.
01:16:18.000And my personal opinion is that even from a strategic perspective, non-violence is a non-negotiable that we have to Be non-violent and the targeting of different communities is kind of dumb and doesn't help although I'm very sort of I understand why people felt so enraged that their response was irrational and erratic but whilst it would be claimed in my country in the media that the far-right exploited the tragic death of those children
01:16:50.000It seems to me perhaps more significant that the government exploited the subsequent conflagrations in order to introduce legislation, again connected to censorship and the ability of the government to punish those Who stepped outside of its preferences, its narratives, its purview.
01:17:14.000Now again, just to clarify, because I am in the UK, that this is certainly not an endorsement of any acts of violence or hostility.
01:17:35.000Having experienced censorship firsthand, having such a unique insight into it, do you feel that, like, while it is overly simplistic to say, Any crisis can be exploited to legitimize further regulatory authority being granted to the government, whether it's a riot or a health crisis.
01:17:53.000And are we likely to see more things like that?
01:17:55.000And what are your personal views as an American on the kind of censorship that we have seen suggested and in some cases implemented in the UK?
01:18:03.000I mean, Russell, it breaks my heart to watch that violence.
01:18:06.000I mean, because as I share with you a commitment utterly to nonviolence, I think that's the way you make real social change.
01:18:13.000But I think there's a real irony here, Russell.
01:18:16.000The reason why these riots are happening is because there's a vast class of people in the UK that feel like they have no voice.
01:18:24.000That they vote and their people don't get elected or there's a disproportion in the number of votes that they give versus how many representatives they end up having in the Parliament.
01:18:39.000How could it possibly be that silencing their voice further is the solution to that problem?
01:18:44.000You don't solve the problem of voicelessness by taking away the voices of the people that want to speak.
01:18:52.000And violence, I think, erupts from that.
01:18:55.000So I think the idea that censorship will somehow suppress the violence... No, what it'll suppress is the ability for people to talk about what their ideas are in public.
01:19:41.000The only way we go forward, if you really do commit to non-violence, is to allow people to speak to each other openly.
01:19:47.000Yes, that's why I suppose the foundational idea of non-violence is non-negotiable and absolutely necessary.
01:19:56.000It strikes me that when discussing globalism, which by its nature is going to be a diffuse, nebulous and difficult to tackle term, it's helpful to have the kind of examples that we've been circling.
01:20:09.000What did we experience during the pandemic, which of course required a global response to some degree as a result of literally what a pandemic means.
01:20:20.000We sort of learned how regulatory power was asserted, how censorship thrived, how profit was granted to some interesting institutions and bodies and organizations.
01:20:34.000And when we look at what happened around protest in that period, I'm thinking particularly about what happened in Canada and the trucker protests and the protests in this country as well, that those things were maligned and shut down.
01:20:44.000The demonization of people that were suspicious of vaccines, that was even alluded to in that short clip we watched relating to your case when Joe Biden says it was a pandemic Of the unvaccinated.
01:20:58.000I think that the pandemic was an interesting period to show us what globalism looks like and what its intentions and what its means and measures are.
01:21:06.000The case that we've just discussed of the UK riots and this odd response to it and the likelihood that that response will
01:21:14.000exacerbate the conditions that it was supposed to address seems curious. And I think too
01:21:19.000the area of agriculture and food production is another indicator because if you're seeing
01:21:24.000for example around the subject of migration you need to be to not be cryptic riots in Dublin then riots
01:21:31.000in London and across the UK one has to at least consider the possibility that there are
01:21:37.000some grievances that have to be addressed.
01:21:39.000And if when it comes to agriculture, the control of land, the patenting of seeds, top-down edicts around controls of fertilizers and other farm practices, and that you're seeing protests everywhere from Sri Lanka to The Netherlands, it's likely that what we're beginning to be able to observe are the consequences of centralized global authority.
01:22:03.000And it appears that if the problem is globalism that the solution might be forms of localism, which actually is only a Sort of novel term for democracy and applicable democracy, not democracy as a notion, as a gesture, as a shindig, as a party, but democracy as the will of the people as locally as possible, asserted and carried by majority rule, established by assembly and ongoing discourse and conversation.
01:22:34.000And again, we're at the point where we have to recognize how problematic censorship is, if you believe in democracy, even notionally.
01:22:45.000You know, Russell, it's interesting to watch the disparate reaction to the George Floyd protests, for instance, right?
01:22:53.000Essentially, there you had riots worldwide, even in places outside the United States, although the George Floyd murder took place in the US.
01:23:02.000If you think about it, what's happening is there's a disjunction between Between some protests, where it has the social stamp of approval, the authorities say, these kinds of protests, these kinds of riots, this kind of violence is okay.
01:23:19.000Whereas like vast chunks of the working class, when they protest, the truckers protest for instance.
01:23:25.000In Canada, you know, with Sikh truckers saying, look, I don't want this vaccine mandate.
01:23:31.000It's undermining my ability to do my job.
01:23:35.000Those protests are met with emergency powers act, essentially martial law to suppress them.
01:23:40.000So you have a social sanction for some kinds of protests and not social sanctions for others.
01:23:44.000Social sanctions for one kind of violence.
01:23:48.000And the question is, what's the dividing line that decides when is violence okay and when it's not?
01:23:54.000Rather than the basic principle that violence is not okay.
01:23:59.000That in fact, what has to be is an open marketplace of ideas where people can speak their minds honestly.
01:24:07.000And so that we can reason with one another.
01:24:09.000I view this as the fundamental to how our civilization ought to function, which you have now in this globalist order as you're talking about, Russell, is that it uses certain groups and the monopoly it has over violence in order to perpetuate itself while suppressing other groups and even the violence, which I abhor, of those other groups that challenge it.
01:24:38.000Even peaceful protests like the fundamentally peaceful protests of the Canadian truckers is suppressed.
01:24:46.000And the censorship is aimed in one direction.
01:24:51.000It's only aimed at the people that are challenging the order, right?
01:24:54.000So what you have then is essentially something that is very different than the traditional notion of democracy that I thought we lived under very naively before the pandemic.
01:25:04.000I mean, I think what you see is essentially a worldwide totalizing kind of approach to governance.
01:25:12.000And so, for instance, it makes complete sense that the EU, Thierry Breton, I don't know what role he plays, some high function in the EU, will write a letter ordering Elon Musk to not speak with Donald Trump on his own platform that he owns.
01:25:29.000I mean, it makes no sense, unless you think about it, is like these people think they have the right to order all of us, whether we live in their country or not, whether we voted for them or not, it makes no matter.
01:25:42.000They know what's right and what's good for us, and they control the ability to sanction violence.
01:25:47.000They control the ability to sanction speech.
01:25:50.000It's the kind of order that I really think that if people understood, they would rebel against it.
01:25:57.000To facilitate the imposition of order, it seems that you have to instantiate the condition of chaos.
01:26:07.000So the kind of events that might be facilitated or exploited, if not facilitated, are likely events that suggest, or indeed are, chaotic.
01:26:18.000I have noted, and it's so plain and almost phatic to announce, that war benefits the military-industrial complex, disease benefits the pharmaceutical industry, that censorship seems to benefit communication interests and the state, and the observable trend is the centralisation of power to For us to consent to the centralization of power when the technology exists for power to be uniquely aggregated through new networks requires the constant induction of crisis.
01:27:00.000I've been reflecting a lot lately that we've seen in the commercial sector, excuse me, the advent of, I'm going to take two examples, Uber that aggregates vehicles in order to facilitate rides or Airbnb That aggregates empty rooms to facilitate hospitality.
01:27:18.000Seems to me that already the technology exists to create consensus and connection.
01:27:25.000And the reason we're not seeing it applied to democracy, or to governmental institutions at least, is because it would be a de-monopolizing, de-stabilizing, power-sharing, decentralizing technology.
01:27:39.000And that cannot be allowed to happen because otherwise the game is up.
01:27:42.000That's why there can be no reckoning around Covid.
01:27:45.000There can be no reckoning around 9-11.
01:27:47.000There can be no reckoning because any sensible reckoning would reveal that the institutions themselves are Not fit for purpose.
01:27:56.000That's why it can't ever be truly addressed.
01:27:58.000It can only be performatively addressed.
01:28:00.000Because otherwise, we would all conclude, oh, well, you just have to get rid of these institutions.
01:28:04.000No point replacing the various apparatchiks and bureaucrats that occupy the roles within the system.
01:30:25.000I hope you enjoyed this conversation between me and Jay Bhattacharya.
01:30:27.000We will be back next week, not with more of the same, but with more of the different.
01:30:31.000Remember, come see me for this Rescue the Republic event if you want to come.
01:30:36.000Look at that, Jimmy Dore, Matt Tybee, Robert Malone, Pierre Corrin, some good people there, Bobby Kennedy, they're all participating in this event.
01:30:44.000Let me know if you want to attend, and indeed, if you are an Awakened Wonder, It's just one of those things you can come to.
01:30:50.000We'll provide a VIP experience for you, respond to the tickets at Russell Brand email, and we'll see you there.