reSee.it - Related Post Feed
@newstart_2024 - Camus
Russell Brand tells Tucker about the harmful effects of COVID lockdowns Source: Fox News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TF-U34MAFaM https://t.co/pXnbTGCR2x
Video Transcript AI Summary
Yesterday, we spoke with Russell Brand about the COVID lockdowns. He believes COVID-19 provided an opportunity for increased surveillance and control. He argues that the response wasn’t solely about public health, but also about consolidating power and furthering the agendas of corporations and governments. Brand points to the prioritization of monetizable solutions over non-monetizable ones, suggesting a profit motive influenced decision-making. He sees this as a convergence of interests, not a conspiracy. He emphasizes the need for forgiveness, moving forward, and love among people in the face of geopolitical tensions and the threat of nuclear war. These values, while seemingly simple, are crucial for overcoming the current crisis. We have no choice but to find them within ourselves. Watch part one now, part two on Fox Nation at 7 AM.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: So as we told you, we sat down yesterday with Russell Brand, the comedian, actor, and now, frankly, kind of a public intellectual for about an hour and a half on our show Tucker Carlson today. We wanna share more of it tonight. In particular, Brian spent a lot of time thinking about and telling us about the COVID lockdowns. And the point of them was maybe the clearest explanation we have heard of what we've just lived through. Here it is.
Speaker 1: I think COVID provided a lens through which we could scrutinize the machinery of power and how the intentions and agenda of power are able to play out coalesce and let's call it conspire when a crisis occurs. How a tendency a globalist tendency to increase surveillance, a big tech appetite to capture data, and a comparable appetite within government converges. The great American comedian George Carlin used to say there is no need for conspiracy where interest converge. It seems that even if at its advent, it was a legitimate crisis and I certainly won't make any contention around that. It was opportunistically handled in order to enhance regulation and control, a time where regulation and control are increasingly difficult to implement as people are more suspicious of institutional power.
So in a sense, the best way to understand COVID, I believe, is to take COVID out of it and look at how the institutions both corporate and government behaved around it. How did they benefit? How did they utilize it? What narratives did they, disseminate and which narratives did they text messages from our health minister at that time, Matt Hancock, you can explicitly see it was exploited. Oh, no.
We need to scare people. Is there any way high net worth individuals can get to the country? All these conversations that many people that are cynical about the behavior of the powerful believed were happening were indeed happening. The way that natural immunity was discussed proved to be true, I e that natural immunity is effective. They probably understood earlier than they admitted that natural immunity was effective and for reasons that well, what what could it be?
What could be the reason that a monetizable solution to COVID was prioritized over a non monetizable? Is there anyone involved in the situation that has a profit motive? Let's look at the data. And, like, you know, so what it it was just revelatory like the apocalypse always will be. The apocalypse is revelation of all what was always there, corruption, convergence of interests, alliances.
This is not conspiratorial. This is the moot recital of economic interests and the ordinary movements of the powerful. If people can, honor one another and talk to one another in good faith and recognize that anybody is there, like, there's the whole debate between like that I've that I've sort of felt a little bit around me even for coming here. I feel like it used to just be normal that someone in your family would be a conservative and someone in your family would be liberal and someone in your family would be socialist and someone in your family would be trans and someone in your family would be gay and different races are coming together. Is this part of who we are?
And if it isn't a part of who we are, it's certainly part of who we need to become. And it's something that we need to deeply, deeply encourage, immediately in the moment now. And you
Speaker 0: think that can be done?
Speaker 1: It's the only option and therefore it cannot be discussed, it must be implemented. Because the alternative we can see from the tendency towards geopolitical disaster, a set of centralized interests who seem to unconsciously be directing us towards nuclear Armageddon, if not with Russia then with China. They have to be interrupted. It simply has to it simply has happened. There is no choice.
And in a situation where there's no choice, human ingenuity and our collegiate spirit must take over. We have no option but to find it in ourselves, to forgive one another, to move forwards, to love one another. Values that may seem a little hokey and old fashioned because they pertain to things that are ineffable and difficult to describe, but are vital and that we all understand.
Speaker 0: Well, that was pretty intense. Definitely worth listening to you can stream part one of our conversation right now. Part two comes out 7AM on Fox Nation. Subscribe to the Fox News YouTube channel to catch our nightly opens. Stories that are changing the world and changing your life.
From Tucker Carlson tonight.
reSee.it AI Summary
Prominent figures targeted for their commitment to truth: Tucker Carlson, Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Elon Musk, and now Russell Brand. They faced backlash for speaking, revealing, and challenging the truth. Brand's unique approach of questioning the truth is inspiring others. The canceled share a common dedication to truth.
@stillgray - Ian Miles Cheong
The “canceled” have one thing in common: their commitment to the truth. They came for Tucker Carlson because he spoke the truth. They came for Joe Rogan because he had conversations about the truth. They came for Jordan Peterson because he challenged their lies. They came for Julian Assange and Edward Snowden because they revealed the truth. They came for Elon Musk because he allowed the truth to be spoken. Now they’ve come for Russell Brand because he’s showing others that it’s possible to engage with the truth by asking questions.
@DrEliDavid - Dr. Eli David
Wonder why Russell Brand is being attacked right now? Watch this clip
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker brings up the fact that the pandemic created many new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry. They mention that pharmaceutical companies funded the 2020 election and made huge profits, with Pfizer alone making $100 billion. They also highlight that the public funded the development of vaccines but did not benefit from the profits. The speaker questions the economic system where companies benefit from crises, leading to perpetual crises that serve the interests of the elite rather than ordinary people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello? Yes? Out of respect for you and your show, I've brought some facts. Would you like that, actually You just you just get the fuck out of it. That is not the point.
Because you like facts. No. We do. We like facts. Love that.
I wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm English, and you know that politeness is our fundamental religion. I mean, yeah. But they do pertain to this you. So may I say something?
Please, please. If they inconvenience you, I'll stop saying them. The pandemic created at least 40 new far big pharma billionaires. Funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election. Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Time Magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money?
And, of course, Pfizer made $100,000,000,000 in profit in 2022. And may I just mention, finally, and these are this is also a fact, that you, the American public, funded the development of that. The German public funded the BioNTech vaccine. When it came to the profits, they took the profits. When it came to the funding, you paid for the funding.
All I'm querying is this. Yes. Is if you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war, where energy companies benefit from energy crisis, you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis you so the interest of ordinary people Oh, yes. Separate from the interest of the elite.
@OliLondonTV - Oli London
If you are wondering why the Mainstream Media has suddenly done a coordinated ‘Trial by Media’ campaign against Russel Brand…then this video will tell you exactly why.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker brings up the fact that the pandemic created many new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry. They mention that pharmaceutical companies funded the 2020 election and made huge profits, with Pfizer alone making $100 billion. They also highlight that the public funded the development of vaccines but didn't receive the profits. The speaker questions the economic system where companies benefit from crises, leading to perpetual crises that serve the interests of the elite rather than ordinary people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello? Yes? Out of respect for you and your show, I've brought some facts. Would you like that, actually You just you just get the fuck out of it. That is not the point.
Because you like facts. No. We do. We like facts. Love that.
I wouldn't have mentioned it. I'm English, and you know that politeness is our fundamental religion. I mean, yeah. But they do pertain to this you. So may I say something?
Please, please. If they inconvenience you, I'll stop saying them. The pandemic created at least 40 new far big pharma billionaires. Funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election. Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Time Magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money?
And, of course, Pfizer made $100,000,000,000 in profit in 2022. And may I just mention, finally, and these are this is also a fact, that you, the American public, funded the development of that. The German public funded the BioNTech vaccine. When it came to the profits, they took the profits. When it came to the funding, you paid for the funding.
All I'm querying is this. Yes. Is if you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war, where energy companies benefit from energy crisis, you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis you so the interest of ordinary people Oh, yes. Separate from the interest of the elite.
@KatTheHammer1 - Kat™ The Hammer ⚒️
Here is the real reason Russell Brand is being canceled!!! He lit up big pharma on Bill Maher’s show!!! Listen to this! EPIC!
Video Transcript AI Summary
During the pandemic, pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made massive profits from COVID-19 vaccines. Many members of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies. Pfizer's chairman claimed they developed the vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money, yet the company made billions in profit. Additionally, the public funded the development of the vaccine, but the profits went to the companies. This highlights an economic system where pharmaceutical companies and other industries benefit from crises, creating a divide between the interests of ordinary people and the elite. For example, the COVID testing industry became profitable, leading to reluctance in giving up that source of income.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I bought some facts. The pandemic created at least 40 new big pharma billionaires, pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made a $1000 of profit every second from COVID-nineteen vaccine. More than 2 thirds of Congress received campaign funding from Pharmaceutical Companies in the 2020 election. Pfizer chairman Albert Baller told Time magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money. And of course, Pfizer made a $100,000,000,000 in profit in 2022.
And may I just mention finally, and these are, this is the also a fact that you, the American public, funded the development about the German public, funded the BioNTech a vaccine. When it came to the profits, they took the profits. When it came to the funding, you paid for the funding. It's difficult not to I
Speaker 1: I will just add one thing. It is possible that these are leading capitalists. It made a lot of money.
Speaker 0: All I'm querying exists. Yes. Is if you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war, where an energy company's benefit from energy crisis, you are going to generate states of perpetual crisis with interest of ordinary people Well, yes. And separate from the interest of the elite
Speaker 1: and out of industry. And I'm bills. Once you create an industry, like like checking you, I still get stacked to see if I have COVID because it's a cottage industry. People started making money by sending a nurse to my house, and now no one wants to give up that gravy tree.
@WallStreetSilv - Wall Street Silver
This is why Russel Brand has become a target in the corporate media right now. He started sharing too much info. He poked the bear and this is what happens. They all received their orders and came after him. He didn’t follow the approved narrative. That is why this is happening. Never forget that
Video Transcript AI Summary
The pandemic has led to the emergence of 14 new billionaires in the pharmaceutical industry. Companies like Moderna and Pfizer made massive profits from the COVID-19 vaccine, earning $1,000 per second. In the 2020 election, over two-thirds of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies. Despite Pfizer's chairman claiming their vaccine was developed for the good of humanity, the company still made a staggering $100 billion in profit in 2022. This economic system benefits pharmaceutical, military, and energy companies, creating perpetual crises for ordinary people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Affecting you and your show, I've bought some facts. The pandemic created at least 14 new big pharma billionaires. Pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made $1,000 of profit every second from the COVID nineteen vaccine. More than 2 thirds of Congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election. Pfizer Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Time Magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money.
And, of course, Pfizer made and $100,000,000,000 in profit in 2022. When it came to the profit, they took the profits. When it came to the funding, you paid for the funding. If you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war, where and And energy companies benefit from energy crisis. You are going to generate states of perpetual crisis for the in-depth of ordinary people.
reSee.it AI Summary
The British government seeks to allow @rustyrockets to monetize on TikTok. However, this move is not solely about Russell Brand. It serves as a political pretext for governments and social media companies to gain complete control over dissenting voices online.
@thevivafrei - Viva Frei
The British government is now asking TikTok if @rustyrockets is able to monetize his content on that platform. This was never about Russell Brand. This was a political pretext so governments across the world can coordinate with social media companies to acquire total control over dissenting voices on the Internet.
@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson
The real reason Russell Brand was attacked. The #WEF2030Agenda #GlobalistParasites like #BillGates took the decision to destroy #RussellBrand Why? Because he got too close to the truth. When you fly over the target expect the flak to be at its most intense. #UK #GlobalResistance
Video Transcript AI Summary
Bill Gates is accused of being a hypocrite for advocating climate change while using a private jet. In response, Gates claims to offset his family's carbon footprint and contribute to solutions. He argues that his funding of Climeworks for direct air capture exceeds his family's carbon footprint. Gates also defends his travel, stating that he learns about farming and malaria in different countries. However, critics argue that Gates is not only part of the problem but also manipulates the media and stock prices. Despite his explanations, it appears that Gates does what he wants and justifies it later.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Bill Gates epitomizes this trend. I've got no particular thing against Bill Gates, but he does represent a certain mentality. I'll do what I wanna do. You do what I want you to do. That's the Bill Gates way, and today, we're gonna work out who's contributing more to climate change, you or Bill Gates?
Let's see. Bill Gates has shrugged off allegations that he's a hypocrite for climate campaigning while traveling by private jet. In an interview with BBC's Amal Rajan, Gates addressed the accusation by saying he offset his family's carbon footprint and contributes to solutions. Oh, I didn't realize that. Yes, that's cool.
Let's have a look.
Speaker 1: What do you say to the charge that if you are a climate change campaigner, but you also travel around the world on a private jet, you're a hypocrite?
Speaker 2: Well, I I, by the gold standard of funding Climeworks to do direct air capture That far exceeds my family's carbon footprint. So, you know, should I stay at home and not Come to Kenya and learn about farming and malaria?
Speaker 0: Yeah. You know how you're just making up a reason for why you should be able to do what you wanna do? Everyone feels like that. We all feel like we should be able to do what we wanna do and that we make mistakes, and we're not perfect, so we try our best to make it up how we can. And guess what?
That's what you do as well. So in a way, you should've stopped doing as well to do, shouldn't you?
Speaker 2: Anyway, I mean, I'm uncomfortable.
Speaker 0: Comfortable with that? I bet you are, 30,000 feet reclining on a beige La Z Boy.
Speaker 2: With the idea that not only am I Not part of the problem by paying for the offsets, but also through the billions that my breakthrough energy group is spending That I'm part of the solution.
Speaker 0: You are part of the solution. He's definitely not part of the problem. He isn't part of the problem when he's making massive donations to the media for favorable reporting. He's not part Problem, when he's funding vaccine organizations then getting out just before stock prices drop. He's not part of the problem when he's giving 1,000,000,000 to the WHO.
He's not part of the problem when the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is accruing more money than they spend making a not For profit organization? Well, you could say profitable. I'm sure Bill Gates has got some explanation. Maybe he's offsetting that profit in some way by helping us in ways that we're Too stupid to understand. But on the surface, it looks like Bill Gates does what he wants then justifies it afterwards.
@simonateba - Simon Ateba
Russell Brand, not backing down, releases a new video message, disclosing concerning information about censorship, and moves to Rumble after YouTube demonetized him. WATCH.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker expresses gratitude for support and acknowledges the British government's request for big tech platforms to censor online content. They mention the Online Safety Bill, a UK law granting surveillance and censorship powers. The Trusted News Initiative, a collaboration between big tech and legacy media, is discussed as a means to target and control independent media. The speaker urges viewers to follow them on Rumble, a platform committed to free speech. They mention upcoming discussions on deep state and corporate collusion, military-industrial complex, big pharma's influence on government policy, and media corruption and censorship. The speaker asks for support on Rumble to maintain their independent voice.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello there, you're awakening wonders. Obviously, it's been an extraordinary and distressing week. And I thank you very much for your support and for questioning the information that you've been presented with. By now, you're probably aware that the British government have asked Big tech platforms to censor our online content and that some online platforms have complied with that Request. What you may not know is that this happens in the context of the Online Safety Bill, which is a piece of UK legislation that grants Sweeping surveillance and censorship powers and it's a law that has already been passed.
I also don't imagine You've heard of the Trusted News Initiative. Now as is often the case when a word like trusted is used as part of an acronym to describe an unelected body, Trust is the last thing you should be offering. The Trusted News Initiative is a collaboration between Big Tech and legacy media organizations to target, control, choke and shut down independent media organizations like this one. We'll be talking about that on our show on Monday on Rumble. But just to give you an idea of what the TNI is, this is A quote from one of their spokespeople.
Because the actual real rivalry now is not between the BBC and CNN globally, it's actually between all Trusted news providers and digital platforms. It's clear that these organizations collaborate in constructing narratives, whether that's around the war or the pandemic and, of course, there are other examples. And it's very clear to me that we have to be very, very cautious indeed. That's why I'm asking you to follow me on Rumble. Rumble have made a clear commitment to free speech and Rumble is the primary platform that we will be streaming from.
We'll be back this Monday. And as usual, We'll be talking about deep state and corporate collusion and how ordinary democracy is anathema now, how it's shut down, ignored and avoided. We'll be talking about a military industrial complex that is able to facilitate and start wars that seem sometimes to be little more than money laundering Operations, and that's with all respect to the hundreds of thousands of victims of the numerous ongoing wars in the world at the moment. We'll be talking about the role of big pharma and how big pharma have been able to influence government policy around the world and how they've been able to evade due liability and necessary scrutiny, how they've been able to avoid media investigation that perhaps ought to be due them. And, of course, we'll be talking about media corruption and censorship.
So please follow me on Rumble, because that's the only way we can keep our voice. You can go to rb.rumble.com to support me directly and keep me and our channel independent. And I need your support now, more than ever, and more than I ever imagined I would. So, follow me. Support our channel if you can, if it's within your means.
@VivekGRamaswamy - Vivek Ramaswamy
Episode 6: Alex Jones. The most censored man in the world. https://t.co/8CqK9LR8Nm
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speakers cover a wide range of topics including censorship, free speech, and the globalist agenda. They discuss how misrepresentation and censorship can lead to a loss of identity and the creation of straw man arguments. The importance of open debate and critical thinking is emphasized. The speakers also share their personal journey, background in sales, and early experiences with government intelligence. They express their passion for seeking the truth, their involvement in media, and their fight against globalist agendas. The dangers of weaponized judiciary and the preservation of American freedoms are discussed. Additionally, the concentration of wealth in the United States, the hypocrisy of politicians, and the need for an alternative vision are addressed. The weaponization of financial markets, the problem of the captured establishment, and the risks of entering a broader regional conflict in the Middle East are mentioned. The possibility of World War 3 is also touched upon. The speakers stress the importance of competent leaders who prioritize American interests, advocate for peace, prosperity, and national pride, and uphold individualism and faith.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When they censor you and deplatform you, they can instill your identity and misrepresent what you've said and done and then build a straw man and transferring the power themselves. That's the new world order. That's global. Actually the old world order. It is.
You're right.
Speaker 1: It's really just the old world order in new world clothing. Don't let anybody back. Amen. Just do it. The presidential candidate, Vivek Ramaswamy.
Speaker 0: Vivek Ramaswamy, the Republican running
Speaker 1: for president. He should not be apologetic to stand up and Speak for the truth. Let's talk truth. I'm talking today to somebody who I'm meeting for the 1st time. I met him a few minutes ago for the 1st time.
I actually don't know a lot about him. The number one thing I know about him is that everybody has told me not to talk to him, which is what Made me wanna actually sit down and talk to him. The United States of America were founded on free speech and open debate. It's in the 1st amendment for a reason. And so you know what?
It's wrong that we've become a culture that wants To censor free speech and open debate. And I think that part of the American way of life is we don't just embrace moderate ideals. That is an extreme idea. The idea that you get to speak your mind as long as I get to in return, that's a wild idea. For most of human history, it was Done the other way.
And that's what makes America great. That's what makes America itself. And so If somebody tells me, don't listen to this person, my reaction is, you know what? I don't listen to him. I'm gonna keep an open mind and hear what every person has to say because I'm a human being.
Each of us as Americans as a human being, we can judge for ourselves what we believe the actual right way forward is for our country. So with that said, I'm I've been looking forward to this conversation for a long time. I'm excited about it. Alex Jones, it's good to see you, man.
Speaker 0: Vivek, thanks for doing this because When they censor you and deplatform you, they can then steal your identity and misrepresent what you've said and done and then build a straw man. Yeah. And that's why they fight so hard. 99% of the things they say about me aren't true, and they never show a clip. They just say I've done these things I haven't done.
And it it reminds me of them saying that Trump said after, the thing It happened, in Virginia and Charlottesville that he said, Hispanics are horrible criminals, bad people. He didn't say that. He said they're wonderful, good people, but There are also a lot of bad people coming across the border. They wouldn't show the clip. They would just say he said that, but he had a big enough bully pulpit to override that.
And so it doubled the number of Hispanics when he first got elected towards the end of his, Understood that that that it was a lie, and they then embraced him because of that. But that was because he could show them the actual clip and show them that that there'd been a lie. I'm not as big as from. I'm probably, like, 5% of the police got. And so I have been successfully in many ways, destroyed.
I mean, they built another Alex Jones. That's not Not me. And that's why they say don't ever interview Alex Jones because they're gonna hear something that probably most people are gonna agree with.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So it's it's it's interesting. I think that I mean, I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the fact that, you know, somebody came up. I don't know if it was someone from your team or someone who's part of your, You know, one of your followers or something suggested it. And I said, okay.
Well, several people are saying suggest to talk to this guy. Let's see if that's something we're open to. And then the reaction that I get is, no. No. No.
No. This is a guy You don't wanna talk to it. It's gonna be politically toxic for you. And my view is no. No.
No. We're the United States of America. So I have no idea if I'm gonna agree with everything you're gonna say or not. But Well, I
Speaker 0: mean, here's your comeback.
Speaker 1: Serious about this. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Here's your comeback. Lester Holt last week did a really important interview or 2 weeks ago with the Ayatollah, Khomeini, the the the leader of Iran. Now that guy is praising the attacks on Israel. It's terrible. I think he's a bad guy.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Khomeini is not Good guy.
Speaker 0: It doesn't mean I want World War 3 with with them either and Hezbollah Amen. Who's got sleeper cells in America and our open border. But that said, everybody doesn't attack Lester Holt interviewing the leader of Iran, the the the the religious dictator. Okay. So, you see Hamas publishing videos of kidnapping Israelis, killing Israelis, Dead bodies, whole houses shot up with dead families.
That's posted on Twitter. That's okay. I actually think that's, I mean, I guess, free speech as long as it has an adviser going on. The kids don't see it. Okay.
It's horrible. First amendment, I don't agree with it, but I understand it needs to be shown.
Speaker 1: That's where I'm at. Is free speech an open debate? I haven't killed anybody.
Speaker 0: I'm not storming Israeli towns and murdering people in mass or coming on, you know, powered hang Otters slaughtering people, but they don't want this to be heard because when I see your message, and I'm not kissing your ass, it's true, you are the most informed and the leaders to attack him, which is true. Geopolitically, you name it, compared to anybody I've ever basically interviewed. And and Tucker Carlson's super smart, and I would say has more charisma, but he I mean, he's a close second. Your grasp because I see the random questions you're asked of just a wide spectrum of things that is amazing. And your understanding that America, The idea of a free market competitive culture is something the globalist can't have because they have a competing corporate, oligarchy or or or or tyranny and and and cashless society, social credit score they're setting up with the ESGs.
And that's the potential of America is so powerful because people aspire to that. America has to be wiped out the political correctness, all the rest of it so that the whole world can be leveled down to 1 giant population that BlackRock and the mega corporations can exploit and control and, quote, control our behavior as Larry Fink said. So congratulations on the work you've done. The number one candidate I support Donald Trump, if something happened to him, I would support you, for president, and I'm very, very impressed. A lot of people say, well, 5 years ago, his views were were a little bit different.
Well, so were mine. And and so people saying, well, he wasn't perfect in the past. Well, I'm not perfect today. We have to be ready as the world awakens the real political system for to have converts to liberty and freedom in Americana. And and and so the fact that you are a leading light, really promoting the truth is amazing.
And the few people that criticize you saying, well, you know, he, you know, he just showed up on the scene. Well, that's that that that that's what happens with innovation and ideas. Of Of course, you didn't just show up with a scene, but exploded on the national scene. And so I really appreciate your campaign. I think it's the best thing out there when you watch these Republican debates.
They're unwatchable except for you. My listeners all agree, the the the the crew all agrees that you why don't we just have you up there for 2 hours instead? Because if there's nothing but talking points and canned garbage from the rest of them, because I can tell you run your campaign. All the rest of these people are told what to say and and and and they're looking at polls and numbers, and it's it's it's synthetic with US real. They're puppets,
Speaker 1: and that's not even their fault. Actually, I've realized at At first, I would think I'm running against these other candidates. They're puppets of a broken super PAC puppet master system, and that's just The state of American politics today. And my view is, you know, if you look at some of the stuff that I've written in my books, my first, you know, book, Woke Inc even years ago, I I agree with 90. Still 99% of what I said, but I moved a little bit.
And that's good. We're human beings. That's why I'm having this conversation. That's why people listen to Contrary voices is we're human beings, not partisan hacks.
Speaker 0: Well, exactly.
Speaker 1: Respond to information and think about it And evolve our views. That's what it means to be a thinking human being, at least to me.
Speaker 0: Well and the globalists have come out in the open.
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I
Speaker 0: was talking to Carlson just the other day. I went and visited him in Maine, And we did some hunting and stuff, and he was like, man, I'm more radical than you now. We were sitting there talking because the world it's out in the open. The globalists have taken the mask off.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: So I know you've been a pro freedom of speech, liberty guy for a decade or more. All I'm saying is what you say is dead on. I mean, I sit there and I watch it. I go, gosh. I wish I could nail it.
And I'm not kissing your ass. It's true. I appreciate it. Nail it. Nail but nail it.
And regardless of what happens, we need people like you, you know, at at the top of government that actually know the subjects and aren't just getting talking points from the donor ass.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So so let's just since we're meeting for the 1st time, just a few minutes. I mean, your audience is probably very well familiar with this. But In your own words, it's just to hear it without I didn't Google any of this beforehand. It said, I don't wanna be biased.
What's your Journey to the views that you have now. I mean, what gets you going in terms of your mission? You're clearly passionate guys, wanna revive The essence of our founding ideals of the free exchange of ideas not be controlled in a way that impede the sovereignty of the United States. I know these topics animate you, but what Personally got you to that place right now.
Speaker 0: I had a lot of family, that worked, in the sharp end of the stick in US intelligence, And they never really told me any of the classified or secret stuff. But, like, my uncle was high level. I ran contrite, a bunch of other stuff. And
Speaker 1: Oh, really? So I wouldn't have ever guessed that. You your, What parents or uncles Just a lot
Speaker 0: of people. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Okay. A lot of people in your family were in US intelligence.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, back during the seventies, eighties, and stuff before they went from like intelligence. There was a mobilization of the population against the Russians and others.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And and and and so yeah. I mean, I had a lot of family. And I went to a family reunion. It was like a soldier of fortune convention. And, and and and and they would just talk about what the government was doing, what was going on.
They were patriots, but but it's like we sell these whistle blowers now, the government. They didn't like what was happening. So it's not that the government's our enemy. It's the criminals at the top We captured it. So when you're a child growing up hearing all this, I just kinda absorbed it.
I wasn't even really listening to it until later I realized how true it was. And then I started to go to college a little bit, but I was already very successful in business. By the time I was, like, 19 as a salesman, And boom. I saw really this anti American, race based brainwashing that we'd see out in the open now that was going on, you know, here in Austin, the college campuses. And so I decided When
Speaker 1: was this? Just so we track
Speaker 0: This is at about 1993. Okay. And I've been on air since 1994, officially 95. Okay.
Speaker 1: But you're a salesman before that. You were started college. Where was call where was that at?
Speaker 0: I was actually with local community college.
Speaker 1: Here in Austin.
Speaker 0: I was figuring out what I wanted to do.
Speaker 1: Here in Austin.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. I mean, I
Speaker 1: But you were already A successful salesman, so then you decided to find your way out of college.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I'd had jobs when I was a kid. Might have had, you know, money and stuff. My parents, you know, were were were were We're successful. And, I would say, I want a new shoes.
I want, you know, to I I I wanna get a new wakeboard because we, you know, we're living the lake. And and my dad would say, well, they'll go get a job. So from the time I was about 13, I had jobs, and then, I I got into different sales. But the biggest thing is I was selling gym memberships and stuff when I was 18, and I was making $150,000 a year to $1,000 a year. And then I was going to community college, figuring out I wanted to go to main college, and it was just insane.
I went and sat in on some UT courses on RTF, radio Radio television films, I thought I might wanna do that because I wanna be politically involved, and they were teaching 20 year old stuff. I was like, you're not talking about the Internet, these classes. Why am I here? Like, well, first, you gotta take all these other classes. So I started out on access TV, in 1994.
Got my own show in 95. Got a website in 97. Got a local radio show in 96. Called up satellite companies, bought the equipment, the station let me put in, the connection of the satellite, syndicated myself when I was
Speaker 1: You're in your early twenties doing Just decide you're gonna do all this stuff.
Speaker 0: Myself at 22, got on suddenly, like, 50 something radio stations. It was insane. Hit the national news immediately, decided to set us on coffee. What were you talking about? Well, instead of selling coffee mugs and, like, newsletters like other talk shows did to supplement their income, I said, I'm gonna make films.
And so I would go and show the UN taking over the national parks and show the UN signs and show what that treaty meant that it was taking control of US, land under UN treaties, kinda like the UN, you know, treaty on health care and and things that's happening right now. And so I just basically exploded, onto the underground scene with conservatives and, people that were aware of of what was going on. And in about 1990 six. I was already reaching millions of people, and so it's been a long long term operation, 29 years on air.
Speaker 1: Ever since?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. We've, you know, 911 happened, and I and I questioned 911. And I was on almost 200 radio stations. I've been offered, you know, by major companies, You know, the next big wrestling ball style deal. I guess Glenn Beck took that deal.
Nothing against him. You know, overall great guy, really smart. And I went from Almost 200 affiliates to 30 something affiliates in 1 month when 9/11 happened. And I wasn't for radical Islam, and I believe Islamists were involved, but I knew about the norad stand down. I knew out building 7.
I knew about a lot of the stuff that I that I was talking to police about that were on the ground that that that they knew it was coming bare minimum. Kinda like I'm against the attack on Israel, and and And Hamas is terrible, but something like 85% in major polls of Israelis think the government knew and let it happen now. So it's the Same thing. But when I said that then, the radio network owners I was on, GCN came to me and they said, listen. We just lost 50 affiliates today.
They're all gonna dump you if you don't stop. And I said, well, it's the truth. I'm gonna keep questioning it. So that just shows I never did this for for for monetary gain or or just to be popular, though I do need monetary operations to fund my operation and be free and independent, I'm not for sale. And so I've already been up and down.
That's why when they Deplatformed me in things and thought I would just give up. I didn't. So I started out on acts of television. And so, I've I've I've started from the very, you know, mail room of media, And I've you know, at 1 point in 2016, 17, much bigger show than Rush Limbaugh, much bigger show than Joe Rogan. Undoubtedly, the the number one independent or independent media show, in the country, over 30,000,000 viewers and listeners.
2016, 2017. Okay. And then that's what they deplatforming because I was just number one. I mean, every day, over 25,000,000 listeners conservatively. And so that's when they said, well, we gotta stop this guy, then that's when they go tax game.
But I've survived that, and now we're we've rebuilt. And In many ways, they were stronger than ever. We're definitely more influential.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, you said the motivation's not monetary. I do find that people who are successful, I can see you're passionate. What is that mission? What is it that calls you?
I mean, you've been doing this now For a few decades now, you're clearly called by something. What is it?
Speaker 0: Well, when I was at I mean, 5, 6, 7 old. Friends and family would come to the house about how we play chess with them or poker. And I hear all these guys, you know, FBI agents, army colonels, you know, spooks, talking about the new world order and the global government getting rid of the border and selling out America, and this plan for regional governments, this plan for a computer to run everything. And then as I got older, I I started seeing that in publications being pushed by the media, and then I read books by David Rockefeller and Henry Kissinger. And and really for a few years, when I got out of high school, would actually go to the UT library and actually pull up the microfilm.
They're like, they would have a head librarian come and say, we've never seen a young person come and ask for us to be pulled. Why are you looking up the New York Times? And they they weren't upset. They thought it was cool. And there I was reading the New York Times, the 19 seventies.
They had a Rockefeller praising Mao Zedong and saying we need that here in America. Mao Zedong was the greatest mass murderer in by triple Hitler and and and and Stalin killed more than what both have been killed, combined. So I I really started reading their plans for global government, casual society, depopulation, the club of Rome. I learned about the Bilderberg group. I learned up with him and grove of all these weird rituals and things.
So I said, well, let me see if this is real. So, you know, 2000, I snuck in there. And sure enough, right, when they said The ritual happened. They did this weird mock human sacrifice, Faustian slash Babylonian, Canaanite, you know, Moloch mock ritual. And and and and so it it was really the adventure of it and the the Mystery of it being told this when I was growing up, kinda ignoring it, then seeing a lot of what I was told come true, and then getting into the books of the establishment, but also reading books that were ring it and saying, I wanna find out, if this is true.
I wanna find out if they're really doing this. I wanna find out, if I mean, I remember they had all these military drills all over Texas in the country with black helicopters in the mid nineties. And when people We'll talk about it. They said that doesn't exist. So we got tips from the military, went and caught it on footage, of them.
You know, they covertly lease a building that was gonna be demolished later, then they'd basically attack it and blow it up and do you they're training. It's okay. They need new training grounds. But then they would deny in the little town where it happened or even the big city that it just happened. So by then, we were catching it on video.
And whereas people had caught it on video before, there wasn't really web streaming of video. 96, 97, 98, that was all coming on board. And so we would go catch footage of that. So, I mean, it was really like ghost hunting, but hunting real ghost. And and and and so I was basically doing private independent Pro American intelligence work for the people, and it was just super exciting.
And because I was so prominent early on and was on shortwave Even satellite and a bunch of radio stations. All these old timers sent me stuff. And, I mean, the former head of the FBI in LA would come on the show and advise me in General Benton k Parton, the former head of the air force weapons development would come on. And so I really starting at about 96, 97, Got the brain trust of all these heavy hitters who are on their own dime would fly to Austin or drive in their RVs. The former head of the star wars program, Doctor Bob Bowman, they get their RVs and drive from wherever they lived.
And sometimes they'd stay at my house, and we do a week on air. Them just data dumping because they've been trying to write books and magazine articles A little obscure things. And so I was thrown right in the middle of this excitement, and it was interesting, and it was fun. And back then, it was more academic. Yeah.
The globalist were getting a lot of things done, but I'd read stuff in the mid nineties about they plan to ban beef, and they plan to have a carbon credit, and they plan to track everywhere you go with switches in your cars. And, you know, they They plan to listen to you through microphones, your cable box, then we bust a cable box open with an engineer on my local TV show, and there'd be the microphone with attics and and just and, of course, now, like, oh, that's voice analysis. That's a voice prompt, but they didn't tell you for a decade that was in there. So so so it was it was just so Exciting to be in a war in my own country against these multinational corporations that wanted to take America over. And so I was always saying, is it real?
Is it real? I gotta tell you. 95% of what the old timers told me, because these old timers were just like my uncle And just like some other family, what they've been telling me, but a lot of these guys were even higher up in it. And so I learned from people that were on the inside what was going on. So I had a long education over the last 29 years.
This has really been an education. Mhmm. And and and so I just get deeper and deeper into my understanding of how it all inter
Speaker 1: man. What I'm hearing is a story of a journalist. Yes. Guy who's curious, records things, describes them, and and and shares them with people. Now Now let me ask a question.
I'll tell you where I'm going with this. You're you're in this to seek underlying truth that other people aren't getting to. That's the what I'm hearing you in telling story. Now once in a while, that means you're gonna find something that looks like it's gonna be one way. It wasn't exactly the way you thought, and so maybe you were wrong.
Speaker 0: I've made a lot of mistakes.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and so what do you what do you do in that scenario? Let's say you're a journalist. Because I know how the I know how mainstream media deals with it right now. That's a different way.
They sweep it under the rug. Let's say you're wrong and you just you realize that you had 1 thesis and you're getting to the bottom of it, but then you get to the hard facts And you say, hey. You were wrong about it. Give me give me an example of where that happened actually. I think that's kind of interesting.
Well, well talk about.
Speaker 0: Also, what I've noticed is they've had a lot of national man. TV characters like Homeland and and the and the newer x files that came out 2016 where they admit it's based on me. And Oh, really? And and and Homeland? Oh, yeah.
Oh, wow. And and a bunch of them. You look you look it up. And they'll they'll create the straw and where I'm lying on purpose and I'm getting things wrong on purpose. I never meant I'm wrong.
I always when I said I thought I knew something I was wrong, I always admitted it. And so Give you an example. In the case of Sandy Hook, long before they sued me, long before they came after me, I barely talked about it. If you look at my live as a timeline, At first, I thought it was official and thought it happened, then some professors and people came out with a bunch of anomalies and thought it might have been staged. Just like people are questioning whether Hamas cut babies heads off right now.
You You know? That's the big thing going on. And and I don't think there's really proof to that, but they they blow them up. They shoot them. It's the same thing.
So so Now people are on Twitter saying, oh, we need to sue the people that said they cut babies heads off or we need to sue the people that say it didn't happen because you're not allowed to debate was just small. It really attacked, which we now know that was fake. Or, you know, so many of these other events like operation Northwoods and things where the government did plan to do atrocities or did plan to stage atrocities and blame on an enemy. And so with that, I I started saying, Oh, 2 or 3 years before I got sued. I said, I don't wanna talk about this.
I think the people that said this, it turns out are lunatics. I think the info they put out in there, they were professors and and school safety experts. I found some of what they said the anomalies wasn't true. I think school shootings happen. And because every time there was a school shooting, people would say Alex Jones is saying this isn't happening, whether it was Parkland, any of that.
So I was saying, no. I think it's happening. And then the media and the system went, oh, he's weak on that because they would never they would sweep it over the rug if they were wrong. Let's get him. So then they then they resurrected it.
I was the platform for other stuff. Let me look it up. Then they resurrected it and then blew up a straw man of things I didn't say or do with no proof. I went to their houses, some people in their houses, peed on graves, no proof. Then they sue me.
They get all the discovery. Did you
Speaker 1: ever do any of those things?
Speaker 0: No. Of course not. There's there's there's Start asking. Of course
Speaker 1: not. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Never even been to Connecticut till I was there for court.
Speaker 1: So so where are they getting this this kind of nonsense? Just make it up.
Speaker 0: I mean, that's all the thing is I was I I I cover stories, and then I move on. Mhmm. So I'd done they introduced in court, like, 22 minutes of video of me over 10 years on Sandy that was it. It was not it was not something we made money off of. It was not something that was even a big deal.
We had, like, 1 debate where somebody thought It happened. Didn't thought it happened to to newspaper editors. Callers are calling about it sometimes. It was a big viral story up front. People questioned it, like, 11 years ago.
I didn't get sued for, like, 6 years later.
Speaker 1: Until long after you had already said, hey. I wasn't necessarily right on that one. I wasn't No.
Speaker 0: I mean, I mean, I said I thought I mean, I think Happen. I think it happened. And, I mean, if people track this, it's it's just amazing how it works.
Speaker 1: So you you it's interesting. So this is After years later, after you admitted you were wrong on it, that they chose to come after you.
Speaker 0: Yes. And then the judges in Texas and Connecticut defaulted me, which which is supposed to be if you never show up for court and you're not there, they can default you. And they this is all on the record. Just like the Trump judge, they passed the law in New York. So it's not called the default, but it's the same thing.
The judge doesn't give him a jury, and the judge has found Trump in the real estate, fraud case has found him guilty. Got the loans, paid the loans. Obviously, our logo is not worth 18,000,000. It's worth 100 of 1,000,000. The judge says, no.
It's not. I find that fraud. And the appeals court had to block him taking his hotels and golf courses in New York. 1 judge Yeah. No jury Said, I'm taking everything you've got in New York, and we're gonna take more stuff outside the state.
And Trump said, I would like a jury trial, and they said no. So I had a jury trial, but they found me guilty. The judge did, and they would not let us put on evidence. It it was only a trial on damages. They put on a financial expert and said he's worth $400,000,000.
I had, like, $3,000,000 in the back of the time for emergency backup money. That's gone now. And then they put me through. They told the bankruptcy court they had all this money. And, of course, it was proven.
I told the truth. Obviously, I got a jail about lying there. And they don't care because they said, we want to take him off the air. We want to silence him. We want to end his free speech.
These are quotes that that they said in Connecticut, in the court, outside the court, and in Texas inside I don't score. So now I wanna move on from that because there's bigger things than me, but this weaponization of the judiciary, Giuliani was, basically She defaulted in New York because there wasn't evidence they were asking for. The judges said you're guilty. Fox in its, January 16th
Speaker 1: defaulting business.
Speaker 0: They have in law mean? That a a a default means it's called it's called I
Speaker 1: should know this.
Speaker 0: It's called the death penalty. Pick somebody who Well, it's You shouldn't know it's not supposed to be used.
Speaker 1: But I don't know about it.
Speaker 0: It's called a death penalty sanction. Okay. And so if they say you don't participate in In a civil trial, the judge can find you guilty by default. They still have to have a trial of the damages. They didn't even give me a real trial of the damages.
So this is a fraud on America, And it's very dangerous, and they're defaulting people across the board now. If
Speaker 1: you don't show up.
Speaker 0: Yeah. But I did. And then and with me, they said, well, you didn't give us discovery because it didn't exist. They said, show us the marketing material for San Diego. I don't do marketing material for shows.
I look at a bunch of news articles, some video clips. I go on air. I didn't do A a marketing study with you for this?
Speaker 1: This is this is new to me.
Speaker 0: We talked
Speaker 1: for 2 minutes. We talked
Speaker 0: for 2 minutes before we went on there. Right?
Speaker 1: You maybe 2 minutes, minute. You know? A minute
Speaker 0: and a half. He walks in. Boom.
Speaker 1: Sits down. Get on there. Yeah. But But the no. No.
No.
Speaker 0: No. The Dutch says give me the marketing material. Tell me about your plan with Alex. Tell me about the the the secret, plans you guys had in this thing, all the marketing, all the Google Analytics. Tell me about your meeting.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's it's
Speaker 0: Wait a minute. You you don't you're not gonna give me the evidence? You're defaulted.
Speaker 1: This I I I'm just gonna say, I was personally a little bit blushing here. I don't I don't even know about this legal procedure. I I I That's because
Speaker 0: they're not supposed to use it.
Speaker 1: But But they're literally so so it's not even that you don't show up and you default. That's what it's supposed to do. If you're not participating in The process Yes. According to the standards that they set.
Speaker 0: And they they set a bar against you and reach.
Speaker 1: Judge. I'm I'm gonna go I mean, I'm gonna go back and learn the heck about this because this is That's a I mean, if what you described is true, that is a real danger to the integrity of the judicial system. I'm gonna I'm I'm very competitively learn about this myself. But but the point is they can default you even if the judge deems you not Actively or sufficiently participating in discovery.
Speaker 0: Yes. And civil
Speaker 1: trial. Depends on which state I
Speaker 0: see. Like I was telling people, Hey. The judge department, the CIA are involved, was in government documents, running the censorship of us. In the last 6 months, it came out of congress. People thought, oh, yeah.
I know what's on the air showing them The legislation showing them the funding, you know, for the ministries of truth and all this stuff. I'm telling people they're defaulting everybody. They're they they defaulted Trump by the law. How does a judge do this and take what you've got? They they're they're defaulting everybody else where the judge finds you guilty.
So so you, like, you see the headlines. Trump already guilty in New York.
Speaker 1: And then it's just jury trial for damages.
Speaker 0: Yes. But in Trump's case, just like they passed the law so So that woman could sue him saying he sexually assaulted her, and they changed the law. You need to go back decades. New York has passed a law where judges, It's not even default. It it's a new form of it where the judge just says you don't get a jury trial.
Speaker 1: See, this was very concerning to me because, I mean, every a lot of what's happened in the country is very concerning, but the judicial system is the last bastion of protection.
Speaker 0: Totally weaponized.
Speaker 1: It's it's the last frontier For us to be able to say, okay, executive branch badly taken over by 3 letter agencies that nobody ever elected with any backstop of political accountability. Forget about congress. Think about prosecutorial power and the executive branch abuse. But the judicial system is our last best hope for the last ultimate line of defense. But if That itself can sidestep basic principles of confronting witnesses.
Basic principles of being judged by a jury of your peers Rather than by a single judge. This is basic first amendment for I mean, was it bill of rights?
Speaker 0: And that's why they still did the stuff. That's why they still did the How much is show trial where people said his lawyers are terrible, Alex Jones. No. They weren't. They were given a list of things like you can't say you're innocent.
You can't say Yeah. You can't question the witnesses about this or that. So when they're up there with no here's an example. There was an FBI agent in Connecticut. Never saw his name, never showed his picture, never talked body, but I didn't talk about him.
He got up there and said, I got one phone call by somebody asking if I was really an FBI agent because he was there without his FBI You know, holding a gun by the barrel. The Internet question, they might know who he was. He sued me 1.90 plus $1,000,000. Never said his name. Never said his name.
So so here's how this works. With most people, I can come on here. Yeah. I can come on here and and if people like this, they go, I'll go find Alex Jones' show on x or or on Facebook or or on the podcasting thing. I've been delisted from everywhere.
So I have to sit here and point out to viewers. If you wanna find I'm actually saying infowars.comforward/show. And in normal etiquette for a talk show, that's like somebody pitching themselves. No. I'm isolated, surrounded, did can only communicate when people like you let me out of of prison to walk in the yard for a little while, and I can desperately try to, you know, get messages out by Smoke signals to people about what's happening to me, which they admit is the model to shut everybody else down.
So you're a smart guy, one of the smartest. Everybody Those are true by just saying it. I hope you'll go look into this, and I hope you'll find out about it because it is incredible. It is because they I've
Speaker 1: already learned something today. That's that's frightening.
Speaker 0: Now But there's so many bigger things than me. I mean, there's these wars and there's the cash flow highity and the open borders and the I mean, and and and and and all the race baiting. I mean, we're being divided and conquered. That's why your message of coming together or to celebrate Our our hard fought American freedoms is so essential.
Speaker 1: Well, one of the things that's true about the American way is that We're not founded on moderate ideals. Right? The the ideals that set this country into motion. I love that we have a map behind this. Right?
Old world England had a different view. And let's just smoke it out. We could say agree or disagree before we get to the agree or disagree. At least let's get the best Version of the view on the table, which is that people, ordinary people, cannot be trusted To sort out their differences on climate change or racial injustice or whatever it was back in that era For their own good. It's not just that the kings or the aristocrats say, hey, I wanna enrich myself and do it at the expense of the people.
That's what many who are frustrated with monarchy might say.
Speaker 0: It's an arrogance.
Speaker 1: But but it's actually it's actually an arrogance found in what they think of as benevolence. Right? Right? Which is to say that no. No.
No. We're not doing this for us, for our power, and and we'll come to the modern version of this in a second. We're doing this For the sake of people who cannot be trusted and left to their own devices because it's for them we're doing it, which is even more dangerous than somebody who comes in and says, Oh, we're just doing it for my own rich my own private personal gain. No. No.
No. That's not the view. The view is the people cannot be trusted Sort out their differences through free speech. I mean, the idea you get to speak your mind as long as I get to in return. The idea that there's a republic where And that's
Speaker 0: why they can't compete because the rest of the world starts aspiring to that. You've gotta bring that down so people stop aspiring. So that British empire model. Now the BlackRock global banking empire, which which they admit with the ESGs, everything you're you're absolutely dead on. And and if you expand on that But
Speaker 1: But I sorta get the view on the table so people understand because I there's a lot wrong with it. But at least to understand, put yourself the way I am, Alex, is You could try something on like a set of clothes. I agree. And then see
Speaker 0: this general gets in the mind of the enemy.
Speaker 1: Yes. Yeah. And and and and then you say, okay. Here, I I gotta understand why it fits. I gotta really try it on.
Understand why it doesn't doesn't fit, then it doesn't fit you put it back on the rack, Then you understand your own views.
Speaker 0: That's right. This fair competitive system is way more sexy. And in 1950, we had half the world's wealth who were 4% of the population. Now we become globalist and and and and crony capitalist.
Speaker 1: Give me those facts again. Sorry. You're you're going pretty fast there. That sounds interesting.
Speaker 0: In 1950, the United States had half the wealth in the world. Is that right? Because of our invention
Speaker 1: Immediately post World War 2.
Speaker 0: And our yeah. Absolutely. Post World War 2, we had half the world's wealth. We were 4% of the world's population.
Speaker 1: As measured by GDP problems.
Speaker 0: Measured by GDP. So so that's that's GDP of
Speaker 1: the world. What is it today? I should know these things.
Speaker 0: I don't know. Down a lot. I think it's in the late high twenties, early 30th.
Speaker 1: Sounds about right. Maybe a quarter to 3rd.
Speaker 0: I haven't looked at it in a while, but what I'm getting at here is what you said is so Dead on. In fact, I need to make that point more. You could pull these clips up. Remember when Obama went to Latin America the last few months of his
Speaker 1: administration. Yep.
Speaker 0: Then he went to a bunch of countries in Africa, and he gave the same speech, Vivek, in every country. He said he said, quote, you can't have cars in air conditioning, the world's gonna heat up and burn up. Now here's a guy flying on a giant jet with dozens of aircraft. After that, he he has private jet. He has houses at basically sea level in Martha's Vineyard and and, you know, Hawaii, though he said we're already supposed to be underwater by 2000 team.
Though they keep just buying Al Gore, all of them, you know, oceanfront property. Right? You know, not up on cliffs or something.
Speaker 1: You know, like Martha Stewart. They're bearing that cross.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: They're bearing that cross for the rest of us.
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, that's it. They're on private jets. You know, people like Ted Turner has, That's like 5 kids. He says, I wanna depopulate 90% of the world's population. Look it up.
Him on Charlie Rose. Well, he has 5 kids. He has jets. He has palatial compounds, But you in Africa, you can't aspire. You need to live in this will eat the bugs, WEF, Rationing for the good of the earth while the ruling class lives like kings and goes around their giant super yachts.
Speaker 1: To mountaintops in Davos.
Speaker 0: With with carbon footprints Thousands of times an American, and an American's car carbon footprint is 30, 40, 50 times than somebody in Congo.
Speaker 1: Yep. Yep.
Speaker 0: So in Congo, you don't get anything. And so it's the decision to not industrialize those countries, and that's how they control third world countries. And then they sit back and say, well, that's why you're in squalor because you're not as good as us. We're gonna, you know, take care of you. But but but now that same inherent elitism beyond racism is now being used against the west, and they're now impoverishing the west as a political tool of control.
Speaker 1: Yeah. So this is the modern old world European ugly monster rearing its head again.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Which is fascinating. Right? Because We thought that in 17/76, we said on this side of 17/76, on this side of the Atlantic, we do things differently. Well, you know what? We The People do sort out our differences in a constitutional republic, where every citizen's voice and vote counts equally with free speech and open debate.
That's what we thought. And Every little while, that ugly monster rears its head again. World War one was in in some ways the physical conflict of that old world European monarchical
Speaker 0: role. The British Empire, who was the villain of that war, not in World War 2. Hitler was the bad guy there side treaty. They literally said the German problem, the Austria Hungary empire because it was dominant in industry science. It was taken over not with the military, but with all of its inventions.
So it was kind of the new America, but it was run by another royal only. So they had to kill the archduke Franz Ferdinand and start roll once you're dead on.
Speaker 1: And so so this this this battle plays itself out every century or so in different ways. And I think right now, we live in another one of these 17/76 months. Turning. Yeah. That's one way to put it.
I've I've heard I'm familiar with the
Speaker 0: with the It's dead on it. The evolution. Let's use the analogy of America, the United States, and India. I call it I'm sending it for 20 plus years. That's why they do want me off here in US.
What do I stand for? Americana, freedom, soft power, people aspiring to be like America, making us the best.
Speaker 1: American exceptionalism.
Speaker 0: American exceptionalism. Take India, you know, controlled by the British, kick them out, now wildly successful, because, you you guys actually got control of your government, had your own resources. Same thing. I would call that 17/76 worldwide, and that's not America controlling things. It's the idea of freedom, Idea of the people, the idea of loving your nation, empowering the individual, and a meritocracy where the because, I mean, I looked at who used to be.
Speaker 1: What a word. Well, it's it's a bad word these days.
Speaker 0: It is. Well, I mean, I go back and I look at World War 2, and almost all of our generals got there through meritocracy and grew up on little farms or in poor areas of cities. And there were I mean and there was almost nobody whose dad or granddad was an admiral who was there. In fact, it was almost discrimination against or see was what America was doing because George Washington was being discriminated against by by the aristocracy even though he was really, really part of it. He was mad.
That's was one of the Reasons that even the, quote, elites of America, bought the British elites because they were tired of saying, well, I'm actually your cousin, but I'm not a lord, So I can't ship products out of the colonies. And and so if the rich guys want freedom and they finally set up for themselves, that will have to trickle down. And And that's why they could point America's beginning and say we weren't perfect, but it was the idea of the process.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: And as more people get into that, That's the victory. So now you look at who is the leaders of the military. They'll have some token people. Oh, look, a black guy, you know, a white lady or whatever. But that's But if you actually look, it's a bunch of blue bloods whose grandfathers were in control at the end of World War 2 when America absorbed the British empire and became this new globalist system.
So America is like the engine and the brain along with the British intelligence of this very evil thing. I love America. I I mean, I've got Jones. I mean, I'm a got Welsh last name on against I'm I'm not an anglophile, but I'm not an anglophobe. But the system of the British Empire and the ghost of it through BlackRock And it's World Institute of International Affairs and the CFR and these corporate management boards are devolving the governments while they expand them and transferring the power themselves.
That's the new world order. That's global. The old world order. It is. You're right.
Speaker 1: It's really just the old world order in new world Clothing.
Speaker 0: That's exactly it.
Speaker 1: And that's we gotta understand. And so so, the optimistic side of me says that what a special time It would have been to be alive in the spring of 17/76. I mean, it's a special time to be alive. You got Thomas Jefferson, the age of 33. People say I'm old.
I'm young. Well, I'm old compared to Thomas Jefferson. He was 33 when he wrote the declaration
Speaker 0: of independence. Genius.
Speaker 1: You have people who are the pioneers, the explorers, the unafraid That said, you know what? We are going to not just be victimized by this. We're gonna chart a new way forward.
Speaker 0: Well, 33 was old. We live in. I totally agree. 33 was old back then because people a lot of people died young. You either live you die young or live a really long time, but the average was we we didn't live as long.
You're absolutely right. People were married by 16. People were explorers by 16. And, you know, Thomas Jefferson lived a long time. About 33, he was leading a revolution against the empire that had never been there.
Speaker 1: And he was inventing things. He was an engineer. He met with the swivel chair, and met a bunch of other things too while he's running the declaration of independence. That spirit in some ways would he would Would history have produced the Thomas Jefferson's and the Alexander Hamilton's of the world if it weren't for the fact that they had this oppressive Regime to stand up against. I think probably not.
Speaker 0: No. I totally agree. You're talking about the hook.
Speaker 1: So this is an opportunity, the moment we live in. I because I I am sick and tired even myself of you you may have I don't know if you've read some of the books I've written or anything like this of pointing out the problem of that, But this is our opportunity now. We're not just gonna throw up our hands and complain about it. Oh, my wife's This is our moment to revive.
Speaker 0: I agree. My wife's a huge fan.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Tell her. Thank you. What's her name?
Speaker 0: Erica.
Speaker 1: Erica, tell her.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Up this morning, but we don't have anybody to take care of my daughter. She's gotta get her to school. But How old's your daughter? 6a half.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's good age.
Speaker 0: You have one I've got 4 children, 3 of my first wife, and then one with her.
Speaker 1: A good for you.
Speaker 0: 6a half. But but I'm and I mean to interrupt. You're so dead on. I see you talk about this is our 17/76 moment. I really mean that.
This is an Opportunity it is. Yeah. Instead of being left the leftist mind and we're being attacked, we're being oppressed. Let's give up a complaint. Let's innovate.
Let's out Communicate. Let's get let let's use this pressure, like lifting weights or jogging or climbing a mountain to get stronger. That which doesn't kill me only makes me stronger quote needs to come through. And and this is 17/76 part 2 for the whole world. And it's very exciting.
Speaker 1: You know, and I think we've gotta go through stages of this, and and you've been doing this in my own corner of the world. I've been doing this To point out the problem and see it with clear eyes. You can't win a war unless you know that you're in one. That's the first step. Okay?
And you got a bunch of people on that Republican Party stage that have no clue. I mean, they're these are clueless
Speaker 0: They don't even know what exactly. They're just I'm a politician. Yep. No clue. Be rich and powerful.
Speaker 1: Here are my well, my Super PAC provided talking points literally.
Speaker 0: They're like they're like going to a whorehouse and the whores are lined up showing you what they got and telling you their specialty. I mean, mean, they're literally in front of the corporation saying, I'm good at this. I'm good at that. I will
Speaker 1: Mother's milk for them. It's money is a mother's milk of politics. So put them to one side. But My view is you can't win a war unless you know you're in 1. And part of my job has been laying out the weaponization of financial markets, The weaponization of our capital, the weaponization of basically every sphere of our lives.
This fringe minority view has taken over institutions from k through 12 education To our universities, to Wall Street, to Silicon Valley, to our u US military. Now I I I think it's worth pausing. I was gonna get to the positive part before I do that. I think it's worth answering the question of Why this other side has managed to take over every institution? And I have an unconventional theory of this one, Alex.
I think that it's worth seeing. You know, you and I may be you know, we're conservative. People may classify us as being in the right, but take take those labels off
Speaker 0: of the populace.
Speaker 1: I mean, just take I hate I hate labels. They're they're not useful.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: The reductionist. So let's just look at the substance of this. People who would have identified as being on the old left, Right. Occupy Wall Street challenging the bailouts. The old left version of break up big tech.
The old left that was critical Of colleges charging way too much money for providing far less in return. The people who have criticized schools in the inner cities failing to serve black kids in inner city or whatever. Even Even our military, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a lot of that criticism used to come from what was perceived to be the old left. What happened was each of those institutions, what they did was, If you're Wall Street, you don't wanna occupy Wall Street, but I'll do the new woke stuff. Diversity, inclusion, climate change.
Great. If you're Silicon Valley, I don't like the left wing break up big tech. I'll censor hate speech and misinformation as you define it, but I don't do it for free as long as I get to get you off my back. The US military, if you're Mark Milley, you don't wanna talk about accountability for Iraq and Afghanistan. Forget about that.
I'll talk about white rage and systemic racism. So part of this is a deeper arranged marriage. It's more like I mean, use the whorehouse analogy. It's more like mutual prostitution. Well, that's right.
The power's from strange bedfellows.
Speaker 0: That's right. The power structure has failed. They're not the aristocrats that are doing it for own good. They know they're a fraud. The system's coming apart.
Speaker 1: And and and They know it's a fraud, but it's an arranged marriage that allows them to keep their power in that.
Speaker 0: It.
Speaker 1: So so we've so anyway, You you've you've talked about some of those things.
Speaker 0: Happen though? Yeah. I mean, look. There's a meme. It's totally true.
History shows it. Bad times make hard men. Hard men make good times. Good times make weak men. Weak men make bad times.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: It's a cycle. So A lot of it is our fault. We can't just blame the globalist and the aristocracy. Their rot
Speaker 1: Thank you. Their rot
Speaker 0: is our rot. And so
Speaker 1: That's That's what I'm talking about.
Speaker 0: There's so much entertainment, so much food.
Speaker 1: We gotta look in the mirror and ask ourselves why is it that we bend the knee? Because, yes, there I mean, when when the when the Israelites Escape from the pharaoh. They're lost in the desert, yet to find the promised land. What did they say? We wanna go back and be ruled by the pharaoh.
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And so we can complain about the pharaoh all we want, and and and it exists. You know, the he has the global ESG movement, modern Stateful.
Speaker 0: To build our own system. That's actually
Speaker 1: What is it that makes us wanna bend the knee?
Speaker 0: That's actually what this book, the great awakening comes out next week. It's available in Infowars right now preorder. This is really important book, defeating the globalist and launching the next great renaissance. I wouldn't even bring the book up till you brought this up. This book is not just about how they're bad.
That's half the book. The rest is solutions. So I I'm really impressed with your work and research. I hope you'll read it. Copy?
Please, sir. For me. Take a couple for your crew as well.
Speaker 1: So Absolutely. I'm gonna,
Speaker 0: But, I mean, you're totally nailing it, and I I I watch and listen to you. That's how I was able to steal your thunder and say You're absolutely in fact, you influence this book. In in me hearing you, we've gotta talk more about solutions. And I was already on that kick, but you're right. That I gotta write a book about solutions and the system we can build that's alternate.
Speaker 1: This is the moment now.
Speaker 0: Now is our moment to blow this up. We gotta have an An alternative vision Yes.
Speaker 1: Of our own. Right? So I think that for me and it doesn't mean we we can't have competing visions. This is the conversation we need to have. If the left is feeding us race, gender, sexuality, climate, How about reviving the individual?
Yes. How about the family?
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: Nation. That not not some nebulous global citizen fighting climate change. I'm a citizen of this nation, the United States of America, and I'm proud of it. I'm not gonna apologize for it. And and by the way, God, I think plays a big role in this too.
I think Revival of faith is something that
Speaker 0: I totally agree with this. I got some books about. And and, again, I'm not against gay people, you know, rainbow flag stuff, but it's it's the new flag. They're even talking about getting rid of the American flag. They're they're not trying to take George Washington statue down, in New York.
They're now, you know, doing all of this, And and this is all unfolding, and and we're having our symbols that rec that recognize who we are and what we stand for away from us and giving us a new one That is a government corporate directed sex cult. I don't care if it was a heterosexual cult showing me their flag and taking down our flag and telling my kids about it. I mean, if if it was some new flag about NASCAR, I'm not against NASCAR, but it was NASCAR stuff everywhere. Them telling my kids pledge allegiance to NASCAR. I'd say this is a NASCAR cult.
Get it out of here. And then what it is
Speaker 1: Cult is interesting. It's an interesting use of the word. So so a cult is a religion that has not withstood the test of time. Okay? So so it's short term.
And so there's old saying actually. I think it came from Blaise Pascal. He was a scientist of all things, but because if there's a hole the size of God in your heart and God does not fill it, something else will instead.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And my my civic version of that.
Speaker 0: They kicked God out and now
Speaker 1: Something some other poison fills the void. Demon is filling it. And and and so my version of that in a civic sense is, If we don't pledge allegiance to the American flag or to a true flag of of our nation, we're gonna pledge allegiance to a different flag instead. I said that as a matter of analogy, but now literally there are different flags. I mean, the transgender flags.
Speaker 0: And more and more were being divided and conquered That's right. Where everybody And and and they they call it the broken coalition strategy. This came out in the Clinton documents in their in their library in Little Rock. And this as they're about to win the presidency, they're having meetings, the papers are public now. We've gotta create the broken coalition strategy nationwide where no group can be powerful and organized.
So the parliamentary system's weak because look at Justin Trudeau. He only gets 30% of the vote, but he has coalitions with the broken Coalition strategy to then have the tyranny of different minorities getting together against the majority.
Speaker 1: Oh, it's such an interesting interesting indication of that because That describes our current moment right now in this country. We have in the name of protecting against a tyranny of the majority, We have created a new tyranny of the minority.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And
Speaker 1: that minority has captured every institution.
Speaker 0: That's what you told the transgender. See, I'm quoting you back. You've fought
Speaker 1: me a lot. You remember that. And I gotta tell
Speaker 0: you, Viv. Of course, I do. I watch you every day. You and Tucker Carlson are 2 of my favorite people, and I tell my listeners who are real alley and don't trust the system. They're like, well, how do we know this guy is good?
And I'm like, there's no way Vivek's saying all these things. That's like High noon or holy water to a vampire. He's not one of them. You do not say these things. This irrevocably damages the lie.
He is good by the very fruit of the tree as Christ said.
Speaker 1: And my view is people should be skeptical.
Speaker 0: I I I You
Speaker 1: know, it's fine if he's always skeptical. But we gotta we gotta We gotta do something about it.
Speaker 0: We gotta
Speaker 1: move on. We gotta do something about it.
Speaker 0: I mean, take RFK Junior. I would say I agree with about 90% of him. I agree about 99% of you. Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: Climate stuff is a little bit off the reservation.
Speaker 0: Well, he used to say we're gonna arrest people the question.
Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And it's really hard to walk that back. He's gotta something, but then he says it's out of context, and I kinda He was talking about corporations that lie like
Speaker 1: like cigarettes. I think the climate agenda itself is is a hoax.
Speaker 0: Oh, of course.
Speaker 1: That's as Well,
Speaker 0: I mean, climate change is a constant.
Speaker 1: I think the the any person who leads the United States going forward cannot be somebody who accepts the premises of the climate change agenda as a fixed principle for how long
Speaker 0: it takes. Fear mongering for the cult
Speaker 1: It's disqualifying for the rest.
Speaker 0: You're bad to give control of your life over to them. And let me just Some briefly here. I'm not a petroleum geologist, but I have family that is. They told me this 30 years ago. It it it's not coming from dead whales and dead dinosaurs.
They now have the the devices and systems. They keep finding oil deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper, 50, 60,000 feet all the way down to the mantle through the crust, and And they're hitting oil and gas deposits that are so big. They don't have pipes that can contain what's coming up. And what it is is if they if you look at Mars, scientists now believe that it wants that atmosphere, but it's this is a short short science lesson, but it it once had an atmosphere, but its gravity wasn't big enough to hold the atmosphere and had water. We know there's water to the surface.
There's water to the surface of the moon. That's been confirmed. India confirmed that. What what our folks confirmed back in the sixties. So That's going on.
So there's actually giant reserves, and they're saying these gases are bad. The earth used to have way higher concentrations of methane, Carbon dioxide, oxygen, all these things, but it's off gas in the space, and it has retreated underground. So if you look at a 1000000 of years ago, you know, now what what carbon dioxide's, you know, 0 point whatever for, I mean, it's a fraction of a percent, and things used to be healthier. Plants can take 10 times the carbon dioxide. They grow faster, less water.
We need this. So it's really a magic moment talking about God existing that right as the Earth starts to slowly lose its atmosphere. It would probably still be a few 1000000 years. We come along and are digging all this up and terraforming, geoengineering putting it back up. It's good folks.
They wanna ban cows because they off Cast methane, so do you. Methane helps hold heat in. We're we're due for another ice age at 12,000 years cycle.
Speaker 1: Know what's funny, Alex? Is you go to you You might you probably know this, but if you go to the Newsweek cover magazine or Time magazine in the 19 seventies
Speaker 0: Freezing.
Speaker 1: World global ice age. That's what they were saying. And and if you don't abandon our modern way of life for that, for the different direction, we're gonna have a global ice age. More people are gonna die this year of 8 times as many people actually this year are gonna die of cold temperatures rather than warm ones. Absolutely.
So these are facts you don't hear in the ordinary climate Discourse. Yeah.
Speaker 0: They also lie. They also lie. They, you know, they say, hottest time ever, Death Valley. No. It's a 134.
It it had a 131 this year. They said Texas, hottest ever, longest spell. And And and then I went back and looked at the books because I remember playing football in, like, you know, 1990. They had to cancel 2 a days because it was a 112, and people were dying all over the city of Dallas where I lived. And and And then it's also in Austin.
So so and I'm but I look at the records. They're just lying. Yeah. So so
Speaker 1: so that's that's I think that's what our Pro American movement needs to learn as we've been lied to 360 degrees so much That it can create first the first form of laziness is just believing what you're force fed. But now our movement understands That you gotta reject whatever you're force fed. I don't care if it's even force fed by mainstream establishment on the left or on the right or whatever. Reject what you're force fed.
Speaker 0: Everything.
Speaker 1: Question everything. It's phase 1. But then at some point, you're not gonna get anywhere just by sitting and questioning. That's the first step. So that's what I was saying.
We we've seen the problem with clear eyes. We understand the pharaoh. We understand to be skeptical. Now I get this. I'm not coming from a place of personal frustration, but when I'm coming on the scene aiming to lead this nation forward, people say, well, you came out of nowhere.
Didn't you co work at a you know, start a biotech company? And at some point I'm gonna say listen people, once we see the problem with clear eyes, we can't just spin our wheels and throw our hands up. We need competent leaders Who share our understanding of the problem.
Speaker 0: The whole power
Speaker 1: actually move this country forward.
Speaker 0: The whole power structure came after you, then they did that whisper campaign that you really secretly establishment because you're going around networking. I mean, I've met with group members. I've met with people that are a day, but it says we not agree with them. But but the whole and and you're not endorsing their system.
Speaker 1: Hell no.
Speaker 0: You're not so but the system has come after you. You've been the main target the last 2 debates. That's the endorsement. Just like people go, wait. They're indicting Trump for no reason that endorses him.
You are the next biggest targeted person.
Speaker 1: Do you see this Hannity interview last night by chance?
Speaker 0: No. I missed it.
Speaker 1: Oh, man. Oh, man. Yeah. I mean, look, I'm making the case say I think it's saying that on one hand, absolutely, Israel is our ally. What happened to them was wrong.
It was barbaric. It was medieval. And, of course, they have a right to national self defense. But I've also said that we should not want to enter a broader regional conflict in the Middle East that doesn't advance US interests because we have to learn from our prior mistakes in this country. And that's arguably not good for Israel, but it's definitely not good for the United States.
And so I also pointed to others in the Republican Party Like Nikki Haley who screech, finish them. Finish them. Talking about Hamas and Iran as though there's no distinction. Finish them. Okay.
What are the consequences of that for the United States of America? I see it. Well, here's the problem. So so so I think he so so interestingly, this guy, Hannity, I was Very disappointed. Comes after me for pointing out that Nikki Haley has made $8,000,000 after her time as the US ambassador to the UN As a military contractor and otherwise, I mean, just that was the one that was the wake up call for me is to see even a purported conservative voice Buy into what is the captured establishment Super PAC puppetry.
Last night, you should watch this one.
Speaker 0: I will. Let me
Speaker 1: say something. Unbelievable.
Speaker 0: Let me powerful. Let me say something to Sean Hannity because I know him. Hey, Sean. The border's been completely wide open for two and a half years. The border patrol admits tens of 1,000 conservatively of Hezbollah and Hamas fighters have gotten across.
They've caught a bunch of them. If these are 90% military age Do you know what Hamas will do? They're here in our country. You know what Hezbollah will do? So so It's
Speaker 1: in the United States of America that we need to bring up.
Speaker 0: Look at black lives matter endorsing the attacks on Israel. So we have this problem, and Iran has a high-tech military. And it's not that I'm, quote, scared of Iran, but We need to support Israel, but obviously not have our aircraft carriers attack Iran. And then now we're fighting Russia through NATO, and we're fighting Iran. What's gonna happen, Sean?
Use your head. This is how World War 3 starts. Just like World War 1, World War 2. Once World War start, other people say, hey. They're tied down.
China is gonna go into Taiwan, dummy, and we can't take on China too.
Speaker 1: And the the saddest part of this is that if There are Republican presidential candidates who stand to make money off of it because they're on the boards or have been on the boards of Boeing and are collecting Stock options while they're running for president and have had family military contracting businesses and made a habit of making money off their time in government. This is why we have 1 crime family right now in the Biden family that has sold off our foreign policy to make their family rich. I could care less if you have an r after your name
Speaker 0: Or a d.
Speaker 1: And you're gonna do the same thing.
Speaker 0: And that's why it's so refreshing when you're on the stage. Because, literally, we've said this on air. We've covered it live. I was doing it super crowded. I'm like, Vivek's the only guy Let's do this.
This is all talking points crap. They're all gonna do what the military industrial complex says. Again, military industrial complex, they said a year ago with Biden in December, we can't You have tanks and f sixteens and cruise missiles, that'll escalate to World War 3, but they went ahead and violated their own RAND Corporation threat manipulation boards. So so, see, your money is not gonna be worthy then in your golf course stock options if we have World War 3 cuckoo. And and now China China is messing India India's got aircraft carriers out there about to go to war.
Pakistan We
Speaker 1: are marching our way to World War 3. I am increasingly worried that there are people in the United States rooting for it, and this is our moment to say, hey. We can actually now we've seen the problem. We can't just spin our wheels and complain about it. We have a chance to lead this country to shut Down the deep state, declare independence from China, end World War 3 and our path to it, protect our own homeland because that's That's our job and the moral obligation
Speaker 0: Peace, prosperity, American way. And then pride.
Speaker 1: And pride. Provide pride in this country, and I think that we have a chance to do it.
Speaker 0: Well, you know, the International Bureau of Atomic Scientists forget the exact name of their doomsday clock have and and were very respected. They've never moved the clock this close. I mean, folks, China and India are basically already at war. Pakistan's ready to go. Iran is already in a proxy war with Russia against us.
China's getting ready to move into Taiwan. The minute that China's moving all the way down the Philippines, they're in gun battles with with the Vietnamese trying to take Their waters and oil fields, I mean, the the the these are the crazy times that that that that it kicks off, and it's already begun. In fact, Most analysts say we're already in World War 3. The question is, will it go nuclear? And that's why, Vivek, I am really glad you are the most successful person on injecting these topics.
Because I see you inject topics at the national level that would have never been there that are so vital. And and so, I mean, I they make assassinate Trump. So, you know, if you're, I mean, I'd like him to get elected, but but but if not you, I think, Kennedy, it is gonna pull more from the Republicans, if he runs independent, which he is. So I like a lot of his ideas, but I think it's, destructive. And now so I'm not gonna support Kennedy as a third party candidate because that'll pull from the Republicans.
So, again, I hope nothing happens to Trump. But if something does happen
Speaker 1: Oh, god forbid. Yeah. We don't want we don't want that. I I think I think we what we want is to advance the interests of this country and the people of this country to once again be in charge of who leads our nation.
Speaker 0: Absolutely.
Speaker 1: That's all I ask. And I'm gonna play my part to make that happen. I'm glad we met, man. We met literally 1 or 2 minutes. We chatted before we just this is the first conversation we've ever had.
Speaker 0: Well, Well, I'm impressed. I mean, you're showing up here, like, 6:45 in the morning. We're taping this, and you're I I hear you're off the border?
Speaker 1: Yeah. I'm going to the border, and then I'm going to New Hampshire. And we're all over the place, but I'm I'm around the clock.
Speaker 0: Well, you're a business man.
Speaker 1: Pulling me out of here, actually.
Speaker 0: Alright. Well, thank you. Hey. Remember, I
Speaker 1: We're gonna go past from here.
Speaker 0: I'm an Internet prison, so infowars.com. Banned out video has all our banned videos. Banned out video, the book, the great awakening. I hope you'll read it. I hope you'll come on my show soon and tell me what you thought.
I'm a big fan of your work.
Speaker 1: Thank you, man.
Speaker 0: Good luck. It's man. God bless you, man. Be safe.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Alex Jones predicted 9-11, in detail and on camera, months before it happened. How did he do that? And why did the government decide to destroy him after he did? The full interview Thursday. https://t.co/BIzM3BDtAz
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Joint Chiefs of Staff were willing to destroy airplanes, as reported by the Baltimore Sun. They believed that if a terrorist group, like the one responsible for the World Trade Center attack, were to strike again, they would know who to hold accountable. Additionally, if there was an external threat, such as Bin Laden, who had ties to the CIA in the past, he would be portrayed as the necessary villain.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We know the Joint Chiefs of Staff wanted to blow up airliners, Baltimore Sun, or if you let some terrorist group drew it like the World Trade Center, we know who to blame. And And if there was an outside threat like a Bin Laden who was a known CIA asset in the eighties, he's the boogeyman they need.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ep. 60 Is the lesson of the Covid disaster that we should give its architects more power? Bret Weinstein on the WHO’s plans for you. https://t.co/ku3O5BdeoF
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the COVID-19 pandemic and the role of the pharmaceutical industry in promoting vaccines. They explain how pharma owns intellectual property and profits from widespread diseases. They also discuss the mRNA technology used in the COVID-19 vaccines and its potential safety flaws. The speaker raises concerns about the long-term effects of the vaccines and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process. They suggest that there is a larger agenda at play, with powerful forces seeking to control and manipulate the population. The speaker emphasizes the importance of speaking out and standing up against these forces.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're speaking in grand terms that 3 years ago, I might have laughed at. I'm not laughing at all. You're also choosing as, you know, a 50 year old man, to say this stuff out loud and to pursue the truth as you find it and then to talk about it. Why did you decide to do that?
Speaker 1: I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror if I didn't say what needed to be said, I call the force that we're up against Goliath. Goliath made a terrible mistake and made it most egregiously during COVID, which is it took all of the competent people, all of the courageous, and it shoved them
Speaker 0: out
Speaker 1: of the institutions where they were hanging on, and it created, in so doing, the dream team. Creative every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil.
Speaker 0: Amazingly, it was 4 years next month that the 1st stories appeared in the American news media about a virus spreading through a city in Central China, Wuhan. The virus didn't have a name. Over time, it was named COVID, and it changed world history. It wasn't that long ago, but we don't talk about it very much anymore in the way that you don't talk about traumatic things that happened to you. But that doesn't mean it's over, and it doesn't mean that huge decisions aren't being made right now that will affect your life and the lives of your children.
Those decisions are being made. The story is not over, and so we thought it would be worth taking just a moment to explain what that looks like, and there's no better person to do that than Bret Weinstein. He's an evolutionary biologist. He taught at the college level for many years. He's got a fascinating bio, which she should look up because it's an amazing story.
He's now the host with his wife of the Dark Horse podcast and the author of a best selling and very excellent book, that came out not long ago. He joins us now. Brett, great to see you.
Speaker 1: It is great to see you.
Speaker 0: So instead of peppering you with all kinds of pointed questions, I'm I wanna guide you and sit back mostly as you tell the story of COVID in condensed form. What of the outlines of what we know now, and where are we going? What's the next chapter in the story?
Speaker 1: Well, first, let me just respond to something you said upfront. Nobody wants to be thinking about COVID anymore. It was a traumatic and exhausting experience. I don't wanna be thinking about COVID anymore either. But what I fine is that every time I look away and move on to other topics, things move just out of our sideline, And these things couldn't possibly be more important.
So I'm gonna try to explain where we are and how we got here and what the implications are in the present that people are largely not noticing.
Speaker 0: Perfect.
Speaker 1: Alright. So I thought maybe it would be worth starting with just some parts of the education that we all got, during COVID. I know that I learned a tremendous amount about not only, viruses and pandemics and public health, but also about pharma, which is something frankly I thought I knew a lot about. I had, run into it earlier in my academic career. So I thought I was something of an expert, but I got, schooled over the course of COVID.
What I've come to understand is something I call the game of pharma. If you think about what pharma is, we we tend to imagine that it is an industry that is, hell bent on finding drugs that will make us healthier. Yes. That's not what it is. In fact, pharma is healthy when people are sick, and many people have noticed instead of of course, it depends on ill health, so it has a perverse incentive.
But what I think most of us did not realize is how elaborate its bag of tricks is and what the nature of that bag of tricks is. And to, to describe it, I would say, pharma is a an intellectual property racket, Or at least that's what it has become. That essentially, pharma owns various things. It owns molecules, compounds, it owns technologies. And what it's looking for is, a disease to which these things plausibly apply, and its profits go up to the extent that the disease is widespread, to the extent that the disease is serious, to the extent that competing drugs are unsafe or ineffective to the extent that the government will mandate a drug, to the extent that the medical establishment will declare it the standard of care.
All of these things.
Speaker 0: You've just described pandemic response.
Speaker 1: Well, that I did. And that's where I learned all of these tricks. Was that basically every day of the year, pharma is engaged in, portraying the properties that it owns as more useful than they are, safer than they are, and persuading the medical establishment, the journals, the societies, the hospitals, the government, to direct people towards drugs they wouldn't otherwise be taking. So that's, what the the racket is, and and it it is necessary to understand that because you need to realize that before COVID ever happened, pharma was expert at figuring out how to portray a disease as more widespread and more serious than it was. It was excellent at, portraying a compound as more efficacious that is safer than it is.
And so when COVID happened, all of this occurred at a different scale. COVID was bigger than anything that had ever happened before, but none of it was new to pharma, and all of it was new to us in the public trying to understand what we were supposed to do about this, ostensibly very serious disease. So I'm now going to put a hypothesis on the table about why things unfolded the way they did. And it involves that game of pharma. What was pharma thinking?
Why was it so obsessed with making sure that we all took, the so called vaccines that were on offer. Why was it so obsessed with making sure that we didn't take the alternative repurposed drugs that so many doctors claimed were highly effective.
Speaker 0: As treatments.
Speaker 1: Right. Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, these things were demonized, and we were, told not to take them, and we were mocked if we distrusted that advice. So the question is, what was all that? Why would that have happened? And again, this is this is not certain, but what I've pieced together is that pharma owned what was potentially the, the biggest pharmacological cash cow conceivable.
It owned a beautiful technology, and I mean that sincerely, something truly brilliant, that would potentially not only allow a bright future from the perspective of, creating new treatments and new I hesitate to use the word vaccine because it doesn't really apply, but new vaccine like technologies, but that it could do this indefinitely into the future, and it could allow you to reformulate every vaccine currently on the market. And what's more the property in question would allow this whole process to be streamlined at an incredible level because effectively all you needed was a sequence, a genetic sequence from a pathogen, and you could literally type it into a machine and produce a vaccine that was Already in use, but for the swapping out of the antigen in question.
Speaker 0: So it's like Legos.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's exactly like Legos. And presumably, with some justification to the extent that this technology was safe, pharma would be able to argue, well, we don't really need to go through thorough safety testing of the entire platform each time we deploy it. All we need to do is figure out if the antigen that we've loaded in this time is in some way, more dangerous than the last one. The problem so that the technology in question is the mRNA transfection platform, which was wrongly in this case called a vaccine, and it is ingenious. It solves a really important problem from gene therapy, which is oftentimes you want to get the body to do something.
Let's say that you are missing a functional copy of a gene that produces some product like insulin that you need. Well, you could take insulin, or it would be great if we could convince your body to produce the product itself like a healthy person does. Very hard to do that though because the body is composed in adult humans 30 trillion cells or so. So how do you get cells to take up the message and produce enough of the product to matter? Well, the mRNA technology Allows you to, induce cells to take up an mRNA message, which they will then automatically transcribe.
And, it does this by encapsulating these messages in lipid nanoparticle. Lipid just means fat. And may remember from basic chemistry, like attracts like, like dissolves like. And so these fats get taken up by cells, very regularly for simple chemical reasons, and then the message gets transcribed, and voila, you've gotten cells to produce something that they didn't know how to produce in the 1st place. Useful for, vaccine like technology, useful for curing deficiencies.
The problem, however, is that this amazing technology, which It's very hard to estimate how much money pharma might have made. I think 100 of 1,000,000,000 of dollars is absolutely certain. 1,000,000,000,000 of dollars is not off the table given That this would allow patentable drugs to be produced indefinitely into the future. But the technology itself has a terrible safety flaw that, in my opinion, never would have gotten through even the most cursory safety tests. And that flaw is that there's no targeting of the lipid nanoparticles.
Lipid nanoparticles will be taken up by any cell they encounter. And while that's not perfectly random, it will be haphazard around the body. Now if they were limited, if they simply stayed in the injection site as we were told when the vaccine rollout began, the the vaccines, the so called vaccines stay in the injection site. Well, then the cells that took up these messages would be in your deltoid, and what happens next wouldn't be terribly serious. The problem is we learned very quickly and should have predicted from the get go that they weren't gonna stay in the delta.
All of anything you inject in that space is going to leak out, and it's gonna circulate around the body. And here's the problem. Forgive me, this is a little bit technical. I know that. But, it involves understanding how immunity naturally develops.
So when you become sick, let's say with a virus, some, particle has gotten into a cell of yours, and it has hijacked it. And it has started it has tricked that cell into producing copies of itself, more viruses, which affect were infect adjacent cells. And if the virus is an effective one, they will also figure out how to jump out of you, like when you cough and get inhaled by the next person and infect their cells. The body's response to seeing a cell of yours, which it recognizes as yours, that is producing an antigen that is to say a protein that it doesn't recognize is to assume that that cell is virally infected
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And to destroy it. That is the only correct thing for the body to do when it encounters a cell of yours making foreign protein. Now this transfection technology, the mRNA vaccine technology as they called it, does exactly this. It tricks your cells into producing foreign antigens, which the immune system cannot help but recognize as an indicator of infection, and it destroys those cells. If those cells are in the muscle in your arm, not a huge deal.
It's not good for you.
Speaker 0: You get a sore arm.
Speaker 1: You get a sore arm, presumably, we might be able to measure a decrease in your strength, but it's not gonna shorten your life. However, if these transfection agents circulate around the body as we know they do and get taken up haphazardly, then whatever tissue starts producing these foreign proteins is going to be attacked by immune system.
Speaker 0: So you definitely wouldn't want any of this getting near a person's heart or brain.
Speaker 1: Definitely not. And, very bad if it happens in your brain. It particularly critical if it happens in your heart because your heart, for reasons we can go into if you want, has an incredibly low capacity for repair. In fact, your heart doesn't really repair. What it does, you get a wound, if loose cells from your heart, your heart then scars over, and that will affect your heart rhythm, your capacity to transport c o two around the body.
It will, potentially shorten your life, and it will also create a vulnerability that you won't know that you have.
Speaker 0: Until you're like playing soccer or something.
Speaker 1: Exactly. So if you imagine somebody has received one of these transfection shots And, especially in the, unfortunate case where it has been injected intravenously, which isn't post to happen, but the instructions on this shot were not to aspirate the needle. A proper injection should involve pulling back on the plunger in the syringe in order to see if there's blood. If there's blood, that indicates that you've landed in, a circulatory vessel, and that you should back the needle off or plunge it farther so that you're not injecting it directly into a vein. But in the case of these shots, amazing as this sounds.
The advice was don't do that because it requires the needle to be in the person's arm longer, might create extra pain, and they didn't wanna create vaccine hesitancy See what's their excuse. So anyway, you might get a big bolus of, this material, and it might flow right through your heart and get taken up by a bunch of cells.
Speaker 0: And just for perspective, do we have any guess as to how many of these shots were given out globally?
Speaker 1: It's definitely in the billions.
Speaker 0: Billions.
Speaker 1: Yeah. It's in the bill.
Speaker 0: With the mRNA technology.
Speaker 1: Yes. Which is an amazing fact. I mean, the In addition to the technology itself being remarkable, the rate at which this was scaled up is positively incredible. Now it had terrible downsides. I don't know if we'll have time to get to the downsides of the way they scaled up their production on these.
But if we can separate the marvel of what they did, yes, there's an awful lot of stuff here that's beyond wizardry. It's It's just incredible what they what they accomplished.
Speaker 0: Could Sue I I'm sorry to I don't wanna take you off track, but you were describing what would happen if it went to various organs that would damage them. Could it cause cancers too?
Speaker 1: We can get back to that. We clearly are seeing an uptick in cancers, and an uptick in cancers that are unusual, especially in their speed. So, maybe we maybe if we have time, we can come back to the reasons that that might be occurring. There's a lot of discussion amongst the medical dissidents about why that pattern exists and what it implies. But, yes, clearly cancers are one of the failure modes of the body and this highly novel technology clearly had that as a risk even if we didn't know what mechanism it would happen.
But, yes, if you let's say you're a soccer player and you've been injected with, this stuff and a bolus of it has hit your heart and caused a bunch of your cells to be destroyed by your own immune system, by, cytotoxic t cells and natural killer cells. Well, now you've got a wound if you manage to survive to have it scar over, then that wound will be less of a vulnerability than it would otherwise be. But if in the period after you've been damaged, before your heart has fully scarred, you were to push yourself to some new athletic limit. Now let's say you're in the middle of a particularly intense game. Right?
That would be exactly the time when a weakness in a a vessel wall might cause a a critical failure, and you, you know, you could die on the field. So this is very plausible mechanism to explain the pattern of, sudden deaths that we have seen oftentimes in people who are unusually healthy and outlived. Yes. So go back to the the original story. Pharma had a potentially, tremendously lucrative property that it couldn't bring to market because a safety test would have revealed this unsolvable problem at its heart.
And so what I'm wondering, my hypothesis, is that it recognized that the thing that would bypass that obstacle was an emergency that caused the public to demand, a remedy to allow them to go back to work and to living their lives that would cause the government to streamline the safety testing process so that it wouldn't spot these things. And indeed, one of the things that we see in addition to a lot more harm in those safety tests than we were initially allowed to understand, but also the safety testing was radically truncated so that long term harms were impossible to detect. So the hypothesis in question is, pharma used an emergency to bypass an obstacle to bring an incredibly lucrative technology, to normalize it in the public and the regulatory apparatus, to sneak it by the things that would ordinarily prevent a dangerous technology like this one from being widely deployed.
Speaker 0: So I think that sounds entirely plausible. In fact, likely. Very likely. But the downside for pharma, and of course, the rest of us, is that if you roll out a harmful product evading the conventional safety screens, you're gonna hurt a lot of people, and then what? So just first part of the question, what do you think we're gonna see in terms of a a death toll and injury toll from this vaccine, so called.
Speaker 1: A lot has gone into preventing us from answering that question, and some very dedicated people have done, some very high quality work, and, the numbers are staggering. Now I'm hesitant to say what I think the toll might be because is not my area of expertise and, I would leave it to others. I would say John Campbell would be an excellent source to look at. There's some new material out of New Zealand, which is jaw dropping. I haven't had time to look at it in-depth, so I'm a little, concerned about putting my weight on the ice.
But, let's say here's here's what we here's what we know. Joseph Freeman and his colleagues, including Peter Doshi, did a, an evaluation of Pfizer's own safety data from its safety trials. These trials were absurdly or in fact, Pfizer only allowed 1 month before it vaccinated its controls and made it impossible to detect, further harms. And what they found was a 1 in 800 rate of serious adverse event. This is not minor stuff.
This is serious harm to health. 1 in 800 per shot. That's not per person. That's per shot. 1 in 800 rate, which in 1 month, that suggests, a very, a very high mortality risk.
And in fact, we saw mortality in the safety trials. What happens over the long term, we've certainly seen such a range of pathologies that have crippling effects on people's health that, I shudder to think how many people have actually
Speaker 0: So I'm not a math genius, but 1 in 800 shots times billions is, you know, a lot of people.
Speaker 1: Yep. There was, a press I was recently at a conference, in Romania on the COVID crisis. And so there was a lot of work trying to unpack what we actually understand, and I saw a credible estimate of something like 17,000,000 deaths globally from this technology. So
Speaker 0: 17,000,000 deaths from the COVID vaxx?
Speaker 1: Well when, you know, when you scale up to 1,000,000,000, it's not hard to reach a number like that with a technology this dangerous. Now to your deeper question, I think let's steel man.
Speaker 0: Just for perspective. I mean, that's like the death toll of a global war.
Speaker 1: Yes. Absolutely. It is this is a a a great tragedy of history, of that proportion. And amazingly, there is no way in which it's over. I mean, we are still apparently recommending these things for healthy children ever stood any chance of getting any benefit from it.
Every chance of suffering harms that are, not only serious, but tragic on the basis that children have long lives ahead of. If you ruin a a child's immune system, in youth, they have to spend the rest of their presumably shortened life in that state. So never made any sense that we were giving this to kids in the 1st place. The fact that we're still doing it when the emergency to the extent there even was 1 is clearly over. And, when there's never been any proper justification of administering it to healthy kids.
It just, you know, healthy kids don't die of COVID, and the shot doesn't prevent you from catching or transmitting it. So there wasn't there was just literally no justification you could come up, But I think a lot of us maybe call us normies have a hard time imagining the, the breathtaking evil that it would take to allow such a tragedy to unfold or to, cause it to unfold for profit. I still struggle to imagine.
Speaker 0: I do too.
Speaker 1: But think about think about it this way. Pharma on a normal day is composed of people who have to become even if they were doing their job exactly right. They have to be comfortable with causing a certain amount of death. Right. If you give a drug to people, if the net effect is positive, but it's gonna kill some people who would have lived if they never got it.
Somehow you have to sleep at night having put that drug in into the world. And, you know, we want, if we had a healthy pharma industry, we would want them to produce the drugs that had a net benefit, and that benefit includes some serious harms. So once you have stepped on that slippery slope, though, once you have become comfortable with causing deaths, Then I believe it becomes very easy to rationalize, that the greater good is being served by x, y, or z. And then there's some point at which you're causing enough harm and you're, you know when pharma takes an old out of patent drug and, supersedes it with a new highly profitable drug. They've done something that's negative.
We should almost always prefer the older drug unless the evidence is dreamly convincing. The new drug is just worlds better because an old drug, we know something about its interactions with other things. We know something about its safety profile. New is not better when it comes to molecules that you're going to be taking into your your biology.
Speaker 0: Fair.
Speaker 1: But pharma has to be in the business of getting you to take the new and having you distrust the old. And so, anyway, I think I think there's a way in which the rationalization has no limit, and they've gotten to the point that they are willing to cause a huge amount of death apparently. And even at the point that it's been revealed in public, they don't stop, which is another amazing fact. You would imagine that they would have been embarrassed Into stopping this vaccination program at this point.
Speaker 0: So the problem, though, I would say for for pharma and for the politicians who, support and promote them in the media who do the same, is that, there are people like you who are not crackpots, who are scientists and physicians, long time researchers with fully credentialed work histories, not too many, but a sizable number who will not let go, who are completely dogged in the pursuit of more data about this. So, like, what do they do with you and people like you.
Speaker 1: Well, I think the astonishing thing is that a, as you point out, small group of dissidents upended their narrative. Uptake rates on the new boosters are in this low single digits. So a large
Speaker 0: Single digit. Yes. So nobody's taking it.
Speaker 1: Nobody's taking it. Now I'm troubled by the fact that at the same time, we don't see, a massive majority acknowledging that vaccination campaign was a mistake in the 1st place.
Speaker 0: Because they got it, and they don't wanna think about it.
Speaker 1: And I get it. I get it. I wouldn't wanna think about it either, but the problem is it's a moral obligation. Mean, we're still injecting these things into kids, for god's sake. So it is important to stand up and say I was had, and I think all of us were.
I I believe that this vaccine was likely effective when it first came out, and the thing that triggered Heather and me to question it was the fact that we were also told that it was safe, which couldn't possibly be true, might have been harmless, but they couldn't say safe because nobody on earth knew what the long term impacts would be. And when you say safe, you're not, if I say, I drove home drunk, but I made it without harm, so it was safe. You know that I have said something foolish. Yes. And in this case, even if the thing had turned out to be harmless, nobody could know that it well.
So it wasn't safe and for them to assure us that it was was a lie from the get go. That's what caused Heather and me to start looking into it and the deeper we dug, the crazier the story got. Not safe and ineffective. In fact, harmful and, shockingly ineffective at everything that you might want it to be effective at. So the story is an odd one.
The fact that that small number of dissidents was able to upend the narrative, was able to bring people's awareness to the massive levels of harmony ineffectiveness of the shots is in some ways, the most surprising element of the story. And I think it truly surprised, pharma and its partners in social media, in government, in nongovernmental organizations. I think they thought that they owned enough of the media that they could sell us any narrative that they wished. And I think, surprising as it is, they didn't really understand that podcasts could possibly be a countervailing force of significance.
Speaker 0: If you own NBC News, it's enough.
Speaker 1: You would say. Alright? You know, it's a it's a it's failing to update from the buying by the barrel
Speaker 0: Totally.
Speaker 1: Aphorism. So what happened was it turned out that a number of us we're willing to make mistakes and correct them in real time, to talk about this in plain English with the public, to do so, you know, in Joe Rogan's man cave. And the fact is people listened because, of course, this was on everybody's mind and what they were supposed to do to protect, you know, they've been terrified, and they what to do to protect your family's health was a question that everybody wanted to know the answer to. So our ability to reach millions of people surprised those who thought they were just gonna shove this narrative down our throats. And this gets me to the the WHO, the World Health Organization and its pandemic preparedness plan modifications.
What I believe is going on is the World Health Organization is now revising the structures that allowed the dissidents to upend the narrative. And they are looking for a rematch, I think. What they want are the measures that would have allowed them to silence the podcasters, to mandate, various things internationally in a way that would, prevent the emergence of a control group that would allow us to see harms clearly. So that's the reason that I think people, as much as they want to move on from thinking about COVID, maybe stop thinking about COVID. But do start thinking about what has taken place with respect to medicine, with respect to public health, with respect to pharma, and ask yourself the question, given what you now know, would you want to relive a pandemic like the COVID pandemic without the tools that allowed you to ultimately, in the end, see clearly that it didn't make sense to take another one of these shots, or to have your kids take.
Right, we want those tools. In fact, we need them, and, something is quietly moving just out of sight in order that we will not have access to them the next a time we face a serious emergency.
Speaker 0: So you're saying that an international health organization could just end the first amendment in the United States.
Speaker 1: Yes. And in fact, as much as this sounds I know that it sounds preposterous. But
Speaker 0: It does not sound preposterous.
Speaker 1: The ability to do it is currently under discussion at the international level, and it's almost impossible to exaggerate how troubling what is being discussed is. In fact, I think it is fair to say that we are in the middle of a coup. That we are actually facing the elimination of our national and our personal sovereignty. And that that is the purpose of what is being constructed. That it has been, written in such a way that you are your eyes are supposed to glaze over That's
Speaker 0: right.
Speaker 1: As you attempt to sort out what is it, what is under discussion. And if you do that, then come May of this year, your nation is almost certain to sign on to an agreement that in some utterly vaguely described future circumstance, a public health emergency, which the director general of the World Health Organization has total liberty to define in any way that he sees fit. In other words, nothing prevents, climate change from being declared a public health emergency that would trigger the provisions of these modifications. An in the case that some emergency or some, pretense of an emergency shows up, the provisions that would kick in are, beyond jaw dropping.
Speaker 0: So before you get into it, and I I just wanna thank you, by the way, for taking the time to go through this proposal because you're absolutely right. It's it's impenetrable. It's designed to be. To to cloak what they're saying rather than eliminate it, what's it called?
Speaker 1: Well, the funny thing is actually, I was looking, this morning to find out what the current name is, and the names have actually been shifted slightly. Clearly a feature.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's a shape shifting
Speaker 1: It Yeah.
Speaker 0: With agreement.
Speaker 1: It is. So what I would do in order, and and I'm it's unclear to me how much that's just simply designed to confuse somebody who tries to sort it out And how much that's designed to, for example, game the search engine technology that might allow you to crack that changes because to the extent that the name has shifted. So
Speaker 0: Smart.
Speaker 1: I call it the, World Health Organization pandemic preparedness plan. Right? And what is under discussion, are some modifications to the global public health regulations and modifications to an existing treaty. But all of this makes it sound minor and procedural. What has been proposed our, and again, the number of things included here is incredible.
It's hard even for those of us who have been focused on this to track all of the important things under discussion and to deduce the meaning of some of the more subtle provisions. But, they, the World Health Organization and its signatory nations will, be allowed to define a public health emergency Any basis that having declared one, they will be entitled to mandate remedies. The remedies that are named include vaccines, gene therapy technology is literally named in, the set of things that the World Health Organization is gonna reserve the right to mandate, that it will be in a position to, require these things of citizens, that it will be in a position to dictate our ability to travel. In other words, passports that would be predicated on one having accepted, these technologies are, clearly being described. It would have the ability to forbid the use of other medications.
So this looks like they're preparing for a rerun where they can just simply take Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine, off the table. They also have reserved the ability to dictate how these, measures are discussed. That censorship is described here as well, the right to dictate that's that, of course, misinformation is how they're going to describe it.
Speaker 0: Well, in fact, I wanna ask you to pause and play a a sound bite from, in which he alludes to this, and I wanna get your assessment. But here it is.
Speaker 2: We continue to see misinformation On social media and in mainstream media about the pandemic accord that countries are now negotiating. The claim That the accord will cede power to WHO is quite simply false. It's fake news. Countries will decide what the accord says and countries alone. And countries will implement the accord in line with their own national laws.
No country will cede any sovereignty to WHO. If any politician, businessperson, Or anyone at all is confused about what the pandemic accord is and isn't, we would be more than happy to discuss it and explain it.
Speaker 0: So he's going to be more than happy to discuss and explain the misinformation that you're Yeah. That is That's now spreading.
Speaker 1: That is comforting. Well, on the one hand, I must say, I have not seen that. And, it is tremendously good news actually. What it means is that once again, we have managed to raise awareness of something in time that there is conceivably a better outcome still available to us. So.
Speaker 0: They're spooked enough to bother to lie about it.
Speaker 1: There's there's You couldn't have said it, more accurately. Yes. Those were clearly lies, and of course, his saying that into a camera is supposed to convince you, you know, nobody could possibly lie so directly, so there must be some truth in what he's saying, which is, of course, nonsense. And anybody who goes back to, Matt Orfalo's compendium of various things that people have said into cameras over the course of COVID That they then swear they didn't say, you know, months later, knows that these folks are very comfortable at saying totally false things into a camera. It doesn't cause them to to think twice or sweat or anything.
But it's great that we have managed to raise enough awareness that Tedros is actually addressing, our spreading of what it actually is is malinformation. You're aware of this, this extension? No. Yeah. Oh, it's beautiful.
Speaker 0: So I was I was I'm so old that I was still stuck in the truth or falsehood binary. Yeah. Where what mattered was whether it was true or not?
Speaker 1: No. And no, the, malinformation is actually exactly what you need to know about to see, how antiquated that notion is because, this is actually the Department of Homeland Security actually issued a memo, in which it defined 3 kinds of, I kid you not, terrorism, misdis and malinformation. Misinformation are errors. Disinformation are intentional errors. Lies and malinformation are things that are based in truth but cause you to distrust authority.
Speaker 0: So malinformation is what you commit when you catch them lying.
Speaker 1: Yes. Exactly. Yeah. It is it is discussing the lies of your your government, is malinformation and therefore a kind of terrorism, which I should point out as funny as that is and as obviously Orwellian as that is, it's also terrifying because if you have tracked the history of the spreading tyranny from the beginning of the war on terror. You know that terrorism is not a normal English word the way it once was.
Terrorism is now a legal designation that causes all of your rights to evaporate. So at the point of the Department of Homeland Security says that you are guilty of a kind of terrorism for saying true things that cause you to distrust your government. They are also telling you something about what rights they have to silence you. They are not normal rights. So, these things are all terrifying.
And I do think as much as
Speaker 0: My jaw's open.
Speaker 1: The the COVID pandemic caused us to become aware of a lot of structures that had been built around us. Something that, former NSA officer William Binney once described as the turnkey totalitarian state. The totalitarian state is erected around you, but it's not activated. And then once it's built, the key gets turned. And so we are now seeing, I believe, something that even outstrips William Binney's description because it's the turnkey totalitarian planet.
Right, the World Health Organization is above the level of nations and it is going to be in a position if, these provisions pass to dictate to nations how they are to treat their own citizens, to override their constitutions despite what Tedros has just told you. So that is, frightening. It's not inherently about health. What I think has happened is the fact of a possible pandemic causes a loophole in the mind. It's not a loophole in our governance documents.
Our constitution doesn't describe exemptions from your rights during time of a pandemic emergency. Your rights simply are what they are. And they're not supposed to go anywhere just because there's a disease spreading. But nonetheless, people's willingness to accept the erosion of their rights because of a public health emergency, has allowed this tyranny to to use it as a Trojan horse. Yes.
And I think that's also, it's something people need to become aware of. That, there are a number of features of our environment that are, basically, they are blind spots that we can't see past. Vaccine was 1, and I know I was an an enthusiast about vaccines. I still believe deeply in the elegance of vaccines as they should exist. But I'm now very alarmed at how they are produced, and I'm even more alarmed at what has been called a vaccine that doesn't meet the definition.
Right. That because many of us believe that vaccines, were an extremely elegant, low harm, high, efficacy method of preventing disease. When they called this mRNA tech technology a vaccine, many of us, gave it more credibility than we should have. If they had called it a gene transfection technology, We would have thought, wait, what? You know, that that's that sounds highly novel, and it sounds dangerous.
And how much do we know about the long term implications? But because they called it a vaccine, people were much readily much more willing to to accept it. Public health functions the same way. If you think about it, public health step back a second. Your relationship with your doctor, your personal health, ought to be very important to you.
But there are ways in which things that happen at a population level affect your personal health and your doctor's not in a position to do anything about
Speaker 0: right.
Speaker 1: So somebody dumping pollution into a stream from which you're pulling fish, you know, you might detect the harm at the population level. You might need a regulation at a population level in order to protect you. Your doctor's not in a position. Right. And you have pill to correct it.
So the idea that public health is potentially a place to improve all of our well-being is real. But once you decide that there's something above doctors relative to your health, then that can be an excuse for all manner of tyranny. Public health has been, adopted. It's like, It's like the sheep's clothing that has allowed the wolf to go after our rights because in theory, it's trying to protect us from harms that we would like to be protect.
Speaker 0: And it generates such fear it's such a huge scale that it it weakens people's moral immune systems absolutely things they would never accept
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And, as you know and as as I know, when we raised questions about what was being, being delivered to us under the guise of public health. We were demonized as if we had a moral defect. It wasn't even a cognitive defect, where we were failing to understand the wisdom of these vaccines. It was a moral defect, where we were failing to protect others who were vulnerable by questioning these things.
And so, the idea that health is at stake in some vague larger sense that requires us to to override the natural relationship between doctors and patients is itself a coup against medicine by something else. And we need to become aware of that.
Speaker 0: So just to just to check kind of, like, the souls of the people who are running all of this, public health establishment international public health establishment. Now that, you know, some researchers believe up to 17,000,000 people could have been killed by these mRNA shots, as any international public health official said, well, hold on a second. We need to get to the bottom of that? Has that provoked any response the people in charge of our public health?
Speaker 1: Well, I'm trying to think globally whether they're good examples. There are certainly some folks who have stood up in the European parliament.
Speaker 0: But I mean, in World Health Organization, CDC.
Speaker 1: No. I don't think so. I don't think we we have not seen an acknowledgment of the harm and error.
Speaker 0: They don't have internet access? They don't know? Like, what is that?
Speaker 1: Well, that's the incredible thing is I still see claims, that just simply if they initially had believed them, then they are long ago falsified, but they're still being advanced for whoever hasn't noticed, you know, the idea that it's a good idea to vaccinate your kids with mRNA shots being one of right, to the extent that there was a panic that caused us to give these, shots to people who couldn't possibly benefit from them, you would expect us to have backed that off extremely rapidly as it became impossible, to defend those shots. And yet, because there's still presumably some market for it, we are we are still doing it. So we are living some crazy story in which things that are perfectly obvious are, still somehow have not lodged themselves in the official public record. And, you know, I think that has a lot to do with, frankly, the death of journalism. Yes.
A lot of us are doing jobs that we didn't train for. Heather and I are doing some journalistic job that we certainly didn't train for. We trained to think about biology and, you know, we do that in front of a camera, and so that functions as a kind of stand in for journalism. But the handful of journalists who still exist, I think without exception, are not scientifically trained. Right?
You know, Matt Taibi, Glenn Greenwald, you. We don't have very many people doing investigative journalism, and the ones who are doing it. They don't have the skill set that would make this a natural topic to investigate. So we have to boot up some kind of new institution that will allow us to do this job well. And presumably, that will While taking the few investigative journalists, who remember how to do that job and the few scientists and doctors who are willing to still do their job and, you know, put us together.
Right? Podcast is in the right place to do it. If that's all we got, that's all we got. But, there's got to be a better a better method.
Speaker 0: So if this is ratified or signed on to by the United States in May, 6 months from now that sounds like that's it
Speaker 1: we don't know I will say I have very little hope that the US will derail this. I have the sense that whatever has captured our government, is driving this as well. And so in in effect, the US wants this change. It will, in fact, you know, in the same way that the five eyes nations agree to mutually violate the rights of each other's citizens because That was not prevented in any of our constitutions. I think the US wants something to force it to violate our constitutional protections, And the World Health Organization is going to be that entity.
That said, I have recently been to the Czech Republic, and I've been to Romania, and I've heard from other parts of the former Eastern Bloc that there is resistance that people who have faced tyranny in living memory, are much less ready to accept these changes and that they are actually beginning to to mount a response. I worry that it will be too thin and easily defeated, especially if they Do not understand that actually the world is depending on them. That the traditionally the countries we traditionally think of as part of the west are compromised. And that, these countries which have more recently joined or rejoined the west are the best hope we've got. That they are in a position to derail, this set of provisions, and that we are depending on them to do it.
Speaker 0: So I I I just wanna end for a few moments on your on the overview here. So you have all these remarkable things converging in a single 12 month period. You have war, pestilence, political unrest, apparently unsolvable political unrest. What do you think we're looking at in the West? Like, what is this moment?
And how does it end?
Speaker 1: Well, so I have long been interested in questions of good governance and the west. And, I'm sad to report that I think the west has actually collapsed. And what we are left with is now, a nebulous echo. The values of the west still function, but they function, in a vague way. And we have seen that they can evaporate quickly under the right circumstances.
I suspect and I really don't know I don't think anybody knows but I suspect that some powerful set of forces has decided that, consent of the governed is too dangerous to tolerate, and that it has begun to unhook it. And we do not know how this works. We can see some of the partners who are involved in this, but I don't think we know ultimately who's driving it or where they're going. I think many of the notions that we picked up about, nations, and who our friends are and who our enemies are are, they are now more misleading than they are informative. In other words, I don't think the US has an enemy called China.
I think there are elements within the US that are partnered within, with elements within the Chinese Communist Party for practical reasons. And so are, you know, the the notion that these, 2 parties are competing with each other just distracts us from what's actually taking place. But Let's just put it this way. We have a large global population. Most people have, no useful role through no fault of their own.
They have not been given a, an opportunity in life to find a useful way to contribute. And I wonder if the rent seeking elites that have ordered so much power, are not unhooking our rights because effectively, they're afraid of some global French revolution moment as people realize that they've been betrayed and left without good options. Is that what we're seeing? Certainly feels like we're facing an end game, where important properties that would once have been preserved by all parties because they might need them one day, are now being dispensed with. And we're being, you know, we're watching our governmental structures and every one of our institutions captured, hollowed out, turned into a paradoxical inversion of what it was designed to do.
It's not an accident. Whether they, you know, the the thing that worries me most actually is that whatever is driving this is not composed of diabolical geniuses who at least have some plan for the future, but it's being driven by people who actually do not know what kind of hell they are inviting.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: They're going to create a kind of chaos from which, humanity may well not emerge. And I get the sense that, unless they have some remarkable plan that is not obvious, that they are just simply drunk with power and putting everyone, including themselves, in tremendous jeopardy by taking apart the structures on which we depend.
Speaker 0: How do you see my last question. How do you see your I mean, you're you're you're speaking in in grand terms that 3 years ago, I I might have laughed at. I'm not laughing at all, and I think you're absolutely right. But you're also choosing as, you know, a 50 ish man year old man to say this stuff out loud in to pursue the truth as you find it and then to talk about it. Like, so how do you why did you decide to do that?
And how do you think that ends?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, we are all the products of whatever developmental environment produced us. And As I've said on multiple topics where my family has found itself in very uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous circumstances, because we speak out. I don't think I had a choice. I just I I literally cannot understand how I would sleep at night, how I would look at myself in the mirror if I didn't say what needed to be said. And, you know, I heard a a very good speech, By Bobby Kennedy junior.
He though neither of us are libertarians, he was at the Liberty Conference in in Memphis. And the last thing he said in that speech, struck me to my core. Something I've thought often and said almost never. But there are fates far worse than death. And I think, for my part, I have I have lived an incredible life.
I have I there's plenty I still want to do, and I am not eager to leave this planet any earlier than I have to. I have a marvelous family. I live in a wonderful place, and I've got lots of things. Bucket list, but I got lots of things on my bucket list. However, humanity is depending on everybody who has a position from which to see what is taking place, to grapple with what it might mean, to describe it, so that the public understands where their interests are.
It is depending on us to do what needs to be done. If we're to have a chance of delivering a planet to our children and our grandchildren that is worthy of them if we're gonna deliver a system that allows them to live meaningful, healthy lives, we have to speak up. And I don't know. I don't know how to get people to do that. I'm I'm very hesitant to urge others to put themselves or their families in danger, and I know that everybody's circumstances are different.
Some people are struggling to simply to feed a family, keep a roof over their heads. Those people obviously have a great deal less liberty, with respect to to standing up and saying what needs to be said. But this is really it's what we call in game theory a collective action problem. If everybody responds to their personal well-being. If everybody says that's too dangerous to stand up, you know, I'm not suicidal.
I'm I I can't do it. Then not enough people stand up to change the course of history. Whereas if people somehow put aside the obvious danger to their ability to earn and maybe to their lives of saying what needs to be said, then we greatly outnumber those we are pitted against. They are ferociously powerful. But I would also point out this interesting error.
So I call the force that were up against Goliath, just so I I remember what the battle is. Goliath made a terrible mistake, and it made it most egregiously during COVID, which is it took all of the competent people, took all of the courageous people, and it shoved them out of the institutions where they were hanging on. And it created, in so doing, the dream team. Created every player you could possibly want on your team to fight some historic battle against a terrible evil. All of those people are now at least somewhat awake.
They've now been picked on by the same enemy. And yeah, alright, we're outgunned. It has a tremendous amount of power, but but we've got all of the people who know how to think. So I hate to say it, or maybe I like to say it, but I don't think it's a slam dunk, but I like our odds.
Speaker 0: I've never met a more fluent biologist. I have to say. Brett Watts that. Amazing conversation. Bless you.
Thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any 1 person or any 1 organism. Societies are defined by what they will not permit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@NanLee1124 - NanLee Marie Carissimi
🚨WATCH EPISODE 70🚨@TuckerCarlson interviews @rustyrockets! “Governments colluded to shut down and destroy Russell Brand. This is his first interview since that happened. It's one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world you'll ever hear.” https://t.co/K0zBaQq7XY
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a multi-year campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. Governments and intelligence agencies, including the US and UK, orchestrated attacks, falsely labeling me a Chinese propagandist and coordinating censorship efforts through organizations like Coda Story, which has ties to the CIA. My critiques, informed by academic sources, presented alternative perspectives on mainstream narratives, exposing the homogenized views of powerful institutions. This coordinated attack, which even involved Moderna tracking my content, reveals the lengths to which powerful interests go to suppress dissent. The accusations were made anonymously, and my own government contacted online providers to demonetize and censor me. This shows that independent media is a threat to those in power, and the open contest of ideas is a sham. The ongoing attacks are terrifying but also reveal the struggle for control over information.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man, a sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent, but the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us.
What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace. And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand?
Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left, and to most people, a cultural figure. Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat.
So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services, and their policymakers. And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be.
Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of twenty twenty two, '2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you, I thought, said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of twenty twenty two, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still at this point struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and how I would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy. I've just got relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical mal matters in the South Asian seas.
It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for.
Speaker 0: So, it happened though. Yeah. And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss. But these in my reading of it is and we haven't, by the way, talked about this off air, but my reading of it is these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes and demonetizing and censored as a result of that. But looking back, so you were, accused by a group called Coda Story.
It published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter. Now Coda Story is connected to the UK government, but it's also connected to the CIA. How does it make you feel to know that you were in the crosshairs of two of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to me ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content, that true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk. That companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. The Dame Caroline Dionidge whose husband is a psy ops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques. And to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in The UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities, even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine.
All we've essentially done is listened to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in twenty fourteen in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO, that some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions. This is information that because of independent media is available and perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled is been to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful. That no opinions can be allowed into that space. And I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded.
There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I'd be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on. But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads to independent politics and independent thought. And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition. I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is, but it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar clandestine non government organizations and think tanks that take their money from the industrial complex, from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game.
They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan. They have a vested interest in destroying those organizations. In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that have decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the one. Those days are gone.
It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out. I think it even uses the word choke independent media. And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way. And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level.
Absolutely terrifying, particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced. But also revealing more importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years.
Speaker 0: What I love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did fifteen years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country Mhmm. For life.
How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are? And how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised here in the West made the best idea win is a sham.
Speaker 1: Yes. It's, well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a Denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kind of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or combination of those events, I really felt like, coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, Gray. It's kind of like a place where it's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since, you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I've felt like that I was able to deploy the skills learned through working in entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began, with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose Glenn Greenwald did have a day, and he goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interest in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you?
Speaker 0: I know.
Speaker 1: I know, but because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it? You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance, underhanded, insidious activity. And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, devoid it. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite a powerful territory. But while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip, so these organizations it is something did it surprise me to find that the the British government through the department of culture and media and sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted the height of these, allegations and attacks on me that contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized.
But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations. They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security bill. For second. Just Yeah.
Of course.
Speaker 0: I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared. There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes. And then your own government, which you pay for
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: But what a betrayal by your own government.
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with government is. That they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent, somewhat nationalistically oriented populist movements present because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We can see what they'd and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people who aren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of things that you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company. It's part of big pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what you think they did to you.
Speaker 1: During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines, recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that. People within the FDA took positions at Moderna.
We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making a thousand dollars, like a second or a minute, just like we reported a lot. We reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Baller explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna. They had like us on a high risk category.
This is the reporting of Lee Fang from on his substack, not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation for by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing disinformation or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice. Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary. The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices.
And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received millions of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around in particular COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in The United States, apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning.
It seems that that that this group received government money in order to control online spaces.
Speaker 0: So if you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots Yeah. Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Censored by them.
Speaker 1: That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the, in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was, you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information. The category in fact of malinformation is information that's true, but but harmful to the agenda or powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, de amplify information that is harmful to that agenda.
This seems totalitarian. Yeah.
Speaker 0: To control what people are allowed to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: What I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently, as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I of course recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views from one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in a the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom. We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience, and it seems that this process is radically escalating.
And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and to use your term, hot, a hot war with Russia. And that that's being reported on in my country right now. It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance.
That the ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting, these think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when you look at where they get their money, big pharma, or the government, or the military industrial complex, or the kind of people they employ. People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda. So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the twentieth century militarism guys in medals with mustaches, thumping their fists on a desk.
We'll be calmly told by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair, or elegantly speaking ladies that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you, and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing? This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He, he was 12 old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very, very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse, and it's certainly not how I would live now. The I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family, the value of friendship, the value of being able to speak publicly. I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends.
Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very, very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced. But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. It's very easy to talk about God.
I talk about God all the time. But when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the the the reality of your powerlessness. This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you.
And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people, they're in the exact same position. Yes. And you are shown what is real, and you are shown what is truthful, and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome and it's, as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies shows me like, oh, we there are look at all of these realities.
How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events? I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger. I was for risk. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I'd have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows.
The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd. But I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat. A big threat. I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like this I clearly have hit the third rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times with people.
Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that. And here you are.
You've clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward. Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Yeah. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I don't, I'm not probably going to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not like, feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like, you know, you know what, that kind of psychological baggage that comes with, but I feel like, what is the purpose here?
What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've, in a way, lived a pretty amazing life. I, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous. I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected.
I actually feel incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as nazis, right as whatever language is required to delegitimize the rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different. You know, I didn't think that. I don't think like that. And it's not, out of bravery.
It's out of it's something beyond that because I think some you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even under those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen it quite a bit. Dynnich, you mentioned a person called Dynnich.
Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you.
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of, like, some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynage, who sounds like a Downton Abbey regular. But actually though, Dame Caroline Dynage put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psy ops and now uses those very psy ops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized. They seem to have an extraordinary agenda.
Like, what the time Can I just ask you something? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes. I looked
Speaker 0: her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the conservative party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in 2024, the there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yes. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively. The COVID inquiries already cost a hundred and £45,000,000.
It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between two neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns, where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centralist neoliberal party. The party nominally of the right is a neoliberal centrist party.
They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified, but neither party will say, we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon. It's been concealed. The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance.
These kind of stories are never told. There are no the legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years. They are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not conducting investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns. Where are these investigations?
Even the
Speaker 0: the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London. It's such garbage. It's such garbage.
Speaker 0: So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country. It's even trying to answer the question, what was that? Where this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself, forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. The the but the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living.
Maybe in the police force or the fire service or as a nurse or as a teacher. Something that gives real value to your nation. The kind of things you might think, they're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention, incessantly and relentlessly, filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions, making you believe that some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative, as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war.
You know, like like do you know, like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like, with the hoofies and stuff. Like, and like, I'm being deliberately glib. But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies. Oh, the hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now.
And And you're like, you know, just to move a battleship into that region, think of the taxpayer dollars. And it's not as if the Pentagon are gonna be passing an audit anytime soon, and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 were spent on Afghanistan. And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was and now Afghanistan is It's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like, so what I'm saying is, is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right.
Two corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end. Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted. Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition?
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health, food supply CS, the water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, these with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've gotta return to my true love that's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism, But the ongoing sort of finger pointing and condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional metro metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they've found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist. Look at them in their MAGA hats.
Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist. For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right.
These things are happening organically and naturally anyway. And what I think is happening is that perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening. And I think that we're at this crux point.
Which way is it gonna go? Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with? Or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life. Increasingly, I think he's over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada.
And two of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God. You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land.
Our connection to our lands has been broken. Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands.
We are divorced from one another, and we and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies. And either that you said at one point, oh, you should, you know, this is this vast country. You could all have six acres each. Yes. And I felt like other crowd responding to that.
People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world. For surely, those pharma protests are happening in Sri Lanka, they're happening in India, they're not just happening in Europe or angliphonic countries, they're happening everywhere. They're happening everywhere. And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to. Sovereignty of the individual, sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land, maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones.
Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power. Can I ask you a question that
Speaker 0: you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: Oh, give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer it because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 0: your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them were crushed during COVID, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university and probably be okay. The greater your pharmacy, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of a country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have, which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist, and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate Yeah. Ideas, when it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet, appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them twenty, thirty years ago saying with the the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks and the WHO, like this it's extraordinary. And I it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, the demoralization of the public, to create people that just are weary and broken. And is, if not enslaved, then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery, cannot be inadvertent.
It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are. That there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you. That you are allowed to be who you are. And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now.
It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for twenty six years in New Jersey, thirty five years in the security first services. But these are people that give their lives for a country. So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation. And it's difficult actually sometimes. The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather coroning answer, figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theories, but then aren't we all these days, is the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics.
And it is hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion. But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expense, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The Earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not you know, obviously, the left and right are classically, almost at this point, divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if no one has a relationship with it? I think, like, 90% of in my country, 90% of the land is inaccessible to most people.
90% of the land is privately owned, like land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned. There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have risible So you're
Speaker 0: getting back to feudalism. Yeah.
Speaker 1: It That's what you're saying. Let's get back to good old feudal what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce. You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop with this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no? You know, like,
Speaker 1: I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for twenty one years. It's just in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God. It's the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is is descent into self centeredness.
When you are when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular. What I've observed, like, in this period from a personal perspective is that, like, I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing, beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with.
Like, oh my god. And another thing that's been amazing is like for a month, publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I'd go out in public and people like, Russell, hey. We support you. We support you.
And like, like one time I was wearing like sort of like a family of all their daughters that were aged between like sort of 15 and 19. Oh, can you do photos of us? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids. And like, people aren't. People aren't buying it.
People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up. People start to think, well, well, Jesus. Is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president?
The more they hate him, the more people like him. Yes. The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore. I was speaking from the perspective look.
This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery. I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a norm from a normal background. But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation.
A catastrophe is an invitation. And it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation. It will be an invitation because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty. What have we actually got to lose?
I think in a sense, but in a perhaps they are, you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening. And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it, rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes.
Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken. And I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Thanks,
Speaker 1: Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@CitizenFreePres - Citizen Free Press
Tucker Carlson Ep. 70 just dropped: "An interview with Russell Brand. This is his first interview since governments colluded to shut down and destroy Brand." https://t.co/aAxSa3BXTl
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, media outlets accused Russell Brand of being a sex criminal, sparking a widespread call for his censorship. This campaign, however, was rooted in his dissenting views on major issues like war and economic policy, which threatened powerful interests. Brand was labeled a Chinese propagandist for his critiques on Ukraine, a tactic used by government-affiliated organizations to undermine independent voices. He discussed the alarming connections between government, big pharma, and media, revealing a coordinated effort to suppress dissent. Despite facing serious allegations during a personal crisis, including his son's heart surgery, Brand emphasized the importance of family and truth. He believes that the current climate of fear and control could lead to a collective awakening against authoritarianism, urging a return to individual sovereignty and connection to nature.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man, a sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent, but the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us.
What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most Western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace. And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand?
Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left, and to most people, a cultural figure. Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat.
So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services, and their policymakers. And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be.
Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of 2022, 2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you I thought said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of 2022, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still, at this point, struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and how I would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy. I've just got a relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical mal matters in the South Asian seas.
It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for.
Speaker 0: So, it happened though. Yeah. And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss, but these in my reading of it is that we haven't, by the way talked about this affair but my reading of it is these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes and demonetizing and censored as a result of that but looking back so you were accused by a group called coda story it published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter now coda story is connected to the UK government but it's also connected to the CIA. How does it make you feel to know that you were in the cross hairs of 2 of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to be ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content. That true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk. The companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. The Dame Caroline Dionidge, whose husband is a psyops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques, and to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in the UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities, even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine.
All we've essentially done is listened to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in 2014 in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO. The some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions. This is information that because of independent media is available and perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled, has been to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion. Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful.
That no opinions can be allowed into that space, and I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded. There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I'd be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on. But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads to independent politics and independent thought. And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition.
I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is, but it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar clandestine nongovernment organizations and think tanks that take their money from the industrial complex, from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game. They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan. They have a vested interest in destroying those organizations. In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that have decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the war.
Those days are gone. It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out. I think it even uses the word choke independent media. And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way.
And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level. Absolutely terrifying. Particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced, but also revealing. More importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world, and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years.
Speaker 0: What I love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did 15 years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country for life. How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are?
And how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised here in the west made the best idea win is a sham.
Speaker 1: Yes. It's, well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle, which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kind of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it, as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or combination of those events, I really felt like, coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, gray. It's kind of like a place where it's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since, you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I feel like that I was able to deploy the skills learned through working in entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began, with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose Glenn Greenwald would have a date. He goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interest in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you? I know. I know, but because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it?
You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance, underhanded, insidious activity. And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, devoid it. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite a powerful territory. But while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip, so these organizations it is something did it surprise me to find that the the British government, through the Department of Culture and Media and Sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted the height of these, allegations and attacks on me, contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized.
But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations. They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security bill.
Speaker 0: What we're second. Yeah. Of course. I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared.
There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes. And then your own government, which you pay for
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: But what a betrayal by your own government?
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with government is. That they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent somewhat nationalistically oriented populist movements present because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We can see what they'd and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose, even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people who aren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of things that you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company. It's part of big pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what you think they did to you.
Speaker 1: During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that. People within the FDA took positions at Moderna.
We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making $1,000 like a second or a minute, just like we reported a lot. We reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Baller explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna. They had like us on a high risk category.
This is the reporting of Li Fang from on his substack, not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation for by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing disinformation or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice. Practice. Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary.
The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices. And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received 1,000,000 of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around in particular, COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in the United States.
Apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning, It seems that that that this group receive government money in order to control online spaces.
Speaker 0: So if you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots Yeah. Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Censored by them.
Speaker 1: That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the, in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was, you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information. The category in fact of malinformation is information that's true, but but harmful to the agenda or powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, de amplify information that is harmful to that agenda.
This seems totalitarian. Yeah.
Speaker 0: To control what people are allowed to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: Well, I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently, as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I, of course, recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views from one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in a the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom. We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience, and it seems that this process is radically escalating.
And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and to use your term, hot a hot war with Russia. And that that's being reported on in my country right now. It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're get being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance.
That the ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting. These think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when you look at where they get their money, big pharma, or the government, or the military industrial complex, or the kind of people they employ. People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA, that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda.
So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the 20th century militarism, guys in medals with mustaches, thumping their fists on their desks. We'll be calmly told what with by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair, or elegantly speaking ladies, that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing? This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He, he was 12 weeks old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse, and it's certainly not how I would live now. The I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family, the value of friendship, the value of being able to speak publicly. I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends.
Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very, very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced. But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. It's very easy to talk about God.
I talk about God all the time. But when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the the the reality of your powerlessness. This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you.
And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people, they're in the exact same position.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And you are shown what is real, and you are shown what is truthful, and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome and it's, as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies shows me, like, oh, we there are look at all of these realities. How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events? I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger.
I was for risk. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I would have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows. The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd. But I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat. A big threat. I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like this I clearly have hit the 3rd rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times with people.
Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that, and here you are. You've clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward.
Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I'm I don't I'm not probably to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not I feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like, you know, you know what that kind of psychological, baggage that comes with.
But I feel like, what is the purpose here? What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've, in a way, lived a pretty amazing life. I, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous.
I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected. I actually feel incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as nazias, right as whatever language is required to delegitimize the rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different. You know, I didn't think that. I don't think like that.
And it's not, out of bravery. It's out of it's something beyond that. Because I think some you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even on those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen it quite a bit. Dynnage, you mentioned a person called Dynnage.
Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you?
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of like some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynage, who sounds like a Downton Abbey regular. But actually though, Dame Caroline Dynage put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psyops, and now uses those very psyops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized. They seem to have an extraordinary agenda.
Like, what the time Can I just ask you something? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes. I looked
Speaker 0: her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the conservative party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Let like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in 2024, the there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yes. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively. The COVID inquiries already cost £145,000,000.
It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between 2 neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centrist neoliberal party. The party nominally of the right is a neoliberal centrist party.
They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified, but neither party will say, we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon. It's being concealed. The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance.
These kind of stories are never told. There are no legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years. They are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns. Where are these investigations?
Even the
Speaker 0: the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London. It's such garbage. It's such garbage.
Speaker 0: So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country. It's even trying to answer the question, what was that? Where this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. The the but the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living.
Maybe in the police force, or the fire service, or as a nurse, or as a teacher. Something that gives real value to your nation. The kind of things you might think, they're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention, incessantly and relentlessly, filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions, making you believe that's a a some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative, as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war.
You know like like do you know like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like with the hoofies and stuff. Like and like I'm being deliberately glib. But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies. Oh, the hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now.
And And you're like, you know, just to move a battleship into that region, think of the taxpayer dollars. And it's not as if the Pentagon are gonna be passing an audit anytime soon, and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 was spent on Afghanistan. And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was and now Afghanistan is It's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like, so what I'm saying is, is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right.
2 corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end. Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted. Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition.
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health, food supply, CS, water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, these with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've gotta return to my true love that's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism, But the ongoing sort of finger pointing and the condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional met metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they've found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist. Look at them in their MAGA hats.
Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist. For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right.
These things are happening organically and naturally anyway, and what I think is happening is that perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening. And I think that we're at this crux point. Which way is it gonna go?
Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with? Or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life. Increasingly, I think he's over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada. And 2 of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God.
You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land. Our connection to our lands has been broken.
Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands. We are divorced from one another, and and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies.
And either you said at one point, oh, you should, you know, this is this vast country. You could all have 6 acres each. Yes. And I felt like other crowd responding to that. People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world.
For surely, those pharma protests are happening in Sri Lanka. They're happening in India. They're not just happening in Europe or anglophonic countries. They're happening everywhere. They're happening everywhere.
And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to. Sovereignty of the individual, sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land, maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones. Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power. Can I ask you a question that
Speaker 0: you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: Oh, give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer it because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 0: your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them are crushed during COVID, by the way
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university and probably be okay. Greater your pharmacy, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of a country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist, and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate Yeah. Ideas, when it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet, appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them 20, 30 years ago saying with the the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks, and the WHO, like this it's extraordinary. And I it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, the demoralization of the public, to create people that just are weary and broken. And is, if not enslaved then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery, cannot be inadvertent.
It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are. That there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you. That you are allowed to be who you are. And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now.
It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for 26 years in New Jersey, 45 years in the security first services. Like, these are people that give their lives for a country. So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation and it's difficult actually sometimes. The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather corolling answer, figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theorists, but then aren't we all these days, is the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics. And it's hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion.
But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expense, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark. Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not you know, obviously, the left and right are classically, almost at this point, divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if they're inaccessible to most people. 90% of the land is privately owned, like land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned.
There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have been risible
Speaker 0: So you're getting back to feudalism.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what you're saying. Let's get back to good old what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce.
You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop with this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no? You know, like,
Speaker 1: I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for 21 years. It's just in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God. It's the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is, is descent into self centeredness.
When you're when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular. What I've observed, like, in this period from a personal perspective is that, like, I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing, beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with.
Like, oh my god. And another thing that's been amazing is, like, for a month, publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I'd go in public and people like, Russell, hey. We support you. We support you.
And like, like one time I was wearing, like, sort of like a family of all their daughters that were aged between, like, sort of 15 19. Oh, can you do photos of us? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids. And, like, people aren't. People aren't buying it.
People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up. People start to think, well, well, Jesus. Is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president?
The more they hate him, the more people like him. Yes. The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore. I was speaking from the perspective look.
This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery. I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a norm from a normal background. But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation.
A catastrophe is an invitation. And it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation. It will be an invitation because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty? What have we actually got to lose?
I think in a sense, but in the perhaps they are, you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening. And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes.
Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken. And I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Thanks, Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@unhealthytruth - Erin Elizabeth Health Nut News🥜
This is Russell Brand’s first interview since the government tried to collude to shut him down. And with Tucker Carlson. A must watch. https://t.co/XskEraYLO3
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, headlines falsely labeled me a sex criminal. This wasn't isolated; it was the culmination of a multi-year campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. Governments and intelligence agencies, including those of the US and UK, were involved. My critiques, though not pro-Russia, challenged Western narratives and my ability to persuade a broad audience was perceived as a threat. Organizations like Coda Story, linked to the UK government and CIA, and others funded by Moderna, tracked and suppressed my content. This censorship extended to social media, orchestrated by my own government, without trial or named accusers. The attempt to discredit independent media is a broader effort to control information and suppress dissent, effectively creating a one-party system. This experience, though personally painful, especially during my son's heart surgery, has only solidified my commitment to truth-telling and challenging authoritarianism. The fight for free speech is ongoing and I believe a global awakening is on the horizon.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man, a sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent, but the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us.
What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most Western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace. And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand?
Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left, and to most people, a cultural figure. Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat.
So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services, and their policymakers. And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be.
Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of 2022, 2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you I thought said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of 2022, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still, at this point, struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and how I would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy. I've just got a relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical mal matters in the South Asian seas.
It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for.
Speaker 0: So, it happened though. Yeah. And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss, but these in my reading of it is that we haven't, by the way talked about this affair but my reading of it is these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes and demonetizing and censored as a result of that but looking back so you were accused by a group called coda story it published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter now coda story is connected to the UK government but it's also connected to the CIA. How does it make you feel to know that you were in the cross hairs of 2 of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to be ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content. That true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk. The companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. The Dame Caroline Dionidge, whose husband is a psyops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques, and to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in the UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities, even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine.
All we've essentially done is listened to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in 2014 in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO. The some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions. This is information that because of independent media is available and perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled, has been to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion. Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful.
That no opinions can be allowed into that space, and I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded. There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I'd be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on. But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads to independent politics and independent thought. And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition.
I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is, but it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar clandestine nongovernment organizations and think tanks that take their money from the industrial complex, from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game. They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan. They have a vested interest in destroying those organizations. In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that have decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the war.
Those days are gone. It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out. I think it even uses the word choke independent media. And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way.
And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level. Absolutely terrifying. Particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced, but also revealing. More importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world, and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years.
Speaker 0: What I love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did 15 years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country for life. How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are?
And how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised here in the west made the best idea win is a sham.
Speaker 1: Yes. It's, well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle, which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kind of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it, as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or combination of those events, I really felt like, coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, gray. It's kind of like a place where it's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since, you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I feel like that I was able to deploy the skills learned through working in entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began, with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose Glenn Greenwald would have a date. He goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interest in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you? I know. I know, but because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it?
You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance, underhanded, insidious activity. And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, devoid it. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite a powerful territory. But while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip, so these organizations it is something did it surprise me to find that the the British government, through the Department of Culture and Media and Sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted the height of these, allegations and attacks on me, contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized.
But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations. They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security bill.
Speaker 0: What we're second. Yeah. Of course. I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared.
There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes. And then your own government, which you pay for
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: But what a betrayal by your own government?
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with government is. That they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent somewhat nationalistically oriented populist movements present because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We can see what they'd and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose, even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people who aren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of things that you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company. It's part of big pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what you think they did to you.
Speaker 1: During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that. People within the FDA took positions at Moderna.
We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making $1,000 like a second or a minute, just like we reported a lot. We reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Baller explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna. They had like us on a high risk category.
This is the reporting of Li Fang from on his substack, not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation for by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing disinformation or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice. Practice. Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary.
The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices. And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received 1,000,000 of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around in particular, COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in the United States.
Apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning, It seems that that that this group receive government money in order to control online spaces.
Speaker 0: So if you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots Yeah. Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Censored by them.
Speaker 1: That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the, in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was, you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information. The category in fact of malinformation is information that's true, but but harmful to the agenda or powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, de amplify information that is harmful to that agenda.
This seems totalitarian. Yeah.
Speaker 0: To control what people are allowed to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: Well, I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently, as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I, of course, recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views from one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in a the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom. We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience, and it seems that this process is radically escalating.
And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and to use your term, hot a hot war with Russia. And that that's being reported on in my country right now. It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're get being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance.
That the ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting. These think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when you look at where they get their money, big pharma, or the government, or the military industrial complex, or the kind of people they employ. People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA, that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda.
So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the 20th century militarism, guys in medals with mustaches, thumping their fists on their desks. We'll be calmly told what with by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair, or elegantly speaking ladies, that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing? This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He, he was 12 weeks old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse, and it's certainly not how I would live now. The I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family, the value of friendship, the value of being able to speak publicly. I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends.
Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very, very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced. But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. It's very easy to talk about God.
I talk about God all the time. But when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the the the reality of your powerlessness. This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you.
And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people, they're in the exact same position.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And you are shown what is real, and you are shown what is truthful, and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome and it's, as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies shows me, like, oh, we there are look at all of these realities. How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events? I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger.
I was for risk. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I would have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows. The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd. But I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat. A big threat. I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like this I clearly have hit the 3rd rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times with people.
Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that, and here you are. You've clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward.
Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I'm I don't I'm not probably to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not I feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like, you know, you know what that kind of psychological, baggage that comes with.
But I feel like, what is the purpose here? What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've, in a way, lived a pretty amazing life. I, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous.
I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected. I actually feel incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as nazias, right as whatever language is required to delegitimize the rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different. You know, I didn't think that. I don't think like that.
And it's not, out of bravery. It's out of it's something beyond that. Because I think some you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even on those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen it quite a bit. Dynnage, you mentioned a person called Dynnage.
Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you?
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of like some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynage, who sounds like a Downton Abbey regular. But actually though, Dame Caroline Dynage put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psyops, and now uses those very psyops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized. They seem to have an extraordinary agenda.
Like, what the time Can I just ask you something? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes. I looked
Speaker 0: her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the conservative party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Let like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in 2024, the there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yes. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively. The COVID inquiries already cost £145,000,000.
It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between 2 neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centrist neoliberal party. The party nominally of the right is a neoliberal centrist party.
They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified, but neither party will say, we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon. It's being concealed. The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance.
These kind of stories are never told. There are no legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years. They are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns. Where are these investigations?
Even the
Speaker 0: the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London. It's such garbage. It's such garbage.
Speaker 0: So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country. It's even trying to answer the question, what was that? Where this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. The the but the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living.
Maybe in the police force, or the fire service, or as a nurse, or as a teacher. Something that gives real value to your nation. The kind of things you might think, they're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention, incessantly and relentlessly, filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions, making you believe that's a a some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative, as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war.
You know like like do you know like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like with the hoofies and stuff. Like and like I'm being deliberately glib. But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies. Oh, the hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now.
And And you're like, you know, just to move a battleship into that region, think of the taxpayer dollars. And it's not as if the Pentagon are gonna be passing an audit anytime soon, and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 was spent on Afghanistan. And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was and now Afghanistan is It's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like, so what I'm saying is, is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right.
2 corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end. Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted. Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition.
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health, food supply, CS, water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, these with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've gotta return to my true love that's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism, But the ongoing sort of finger pointing and the condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional met metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they've found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist. Look at them in their MAGA hats.
Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist. For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right.
These things are happening organically and naturally anyway, and what I think is happening is that perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening. And I think that we're at this crux point. Which way is it gonna go?
Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with? Or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life. Increasingly, I think he's over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada. And 2 of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God.
You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land. Our connection to our lands has been broken.
Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands. We are divorced from one another, and and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies.
And either you said at one point, oh, you should, you know, this is this vast country. You could all have 6 acres each. Yes. And I felt like other crowd responding to that. People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world.
For surely, those pharma protests are happening in Sri Lanka. They're happening in India. They're not just happening in Europe or anglophonic countries. They're happening everywhere. They're happening everywhere.
And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to. Sovereignty of the individual, sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land, maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones. Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power. Can I ask you a question that
Speaker 0: you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: Oh, give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer it because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful
Speaker 1: to
Speaker 0: your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them are crushed during COVID, by the way
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university and probably be okay. Greater your pharmacy, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of a country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist, and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate Yeah. Ideas, when it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet, appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them 20, 30 years ago saying with the the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks, and the WHO, like this it's extraordinary. And I it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, the demoralization of the public, to create people that just are weary and broken. And is, if not enslaved then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery, cannot be inadvertent.
It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are. That there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you. That you are allowed to be who you are. And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now.
It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for 26 years in New Jersey, 45 years in the security first services. Like, these are people that give their lives for a country. So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation and it's difficult actually sometimes. The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather corolling answer, figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theorists, but then aren't we all these days, is the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics. And it's hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion.
But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expense, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark. Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not you know, obviously, the left and right are classically, almost at this point, divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if they're inaccessible to most people. 90% of the land is privately owned, like land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned.
There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have been risible
Speaker 0: So you're getting back to feudalism.
Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what you're saying. Let's get back to good old what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce.
You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop with this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no? You know, like,
Speaker 1: I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for 21 years. It's just in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God. It's the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is, is descent into self centeredness.
When you're when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular. What I've observed, like, in this period from a personal perspective is that, like, I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing, beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with.
Like, oh my god. And another thing that's been amazing is, like, for a month, publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I'd go in public and people like, Russell, hey. We support you. We support you.
And like, like one time I was wearing, like, sort of like a family of all their daughters that were aged between, like, sort of 15 19. Oh, can you do photos of us? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids. And, like, people aren't. People aren't buying it.
People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up. People start to think, well, well, Jesus. Is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president?
The more they hate him, the more people like him. Yes. The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore. I was speaking from the perspective look.
This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery. I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a norm from a normal background. But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation.
A catastrophe is an invitation. And it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation. It will be an invitation because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty? What have we actually got to lose?
I think in a sense, but in the perhaps they are, you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening. And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes.
Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken. And I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Thanks, Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
reSee.it AI Summary
I had a phenomenal interview with Tucker Carlson and Russell Brand. We discussed how governments colluded to shut down Russell. It's his first interview since then, and he offers one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world. Check out the full video and more on the Tucker Carlson Network.
@ShaunRickard67 - Shaun Rickard
Phenomenal interview with @TuckerCarlson & @rustyrockets "Governments colluded to shut down and destroy Russell Brand. This is his first interview since that happened. Watch it when you get a minute. It’s one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world you’ll ever hear." Full uncompressed hi-resolution video, transcript and more excellent content can be found on the new Tucker Carlson Network: https://tuckercarlson.com/
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, media outlets globally labeled me a sex criminal, omitting accusers' names. This was the culmination of a years-long campaign to silence my dissenting views on geopolitical issues, particularly regarding the war in Ukraine. My critiques, initially dismissed as Chinese propaganda, were the target of governments and intelligence agencies. Coda Story, linked to the UK government and CIA, played a key role.
My reporting, which included concerns about Moderna's profits and the handling of the pandemic, led to de-platforming and demonetization. This censorship, orchestrated by my own government, revealed the sham of open discourse in the West. The attack on me demonstrates the vulnerability of even high-profile individuals to these powerful forces. The response confirms the threat I pose, a threat to those in power. The battle continues, and I choose to remain steadfast.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man. A sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent.
But the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us. What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most Western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace.
And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand? Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left, and to most people, a cultural figure.
Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat. So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services and their policy makers.
And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be. Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of twenty twenty two, '2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you, I thought, said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of twenty twenty two, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still at this point struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and how I would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Yes. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy.
I've just got relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical matters in the South Asian cities. It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for. So, it happened, though.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss. But these in my reading of it is and we haven't, by the way, talked about this off air, but my reading of it is that these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes, and demonetizing and censored as a result of that. But looking back, so you were accused by a group called Coda Story. It published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter.
Now Coda Story is connected to the UK government, but it's also connected to the CIA. How does it make you feel to know that you were in the crosshairs of two of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to be ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content. That true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk. That companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. That Dame Caroline Dionich, whose husband is a psy ops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques and, to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in The UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine.
All we've essentially done is listen to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in twenty fourteen in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO. The some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions. This is information that because of independent media is available. And perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled is being to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful.
That no opinions can be allowed into that space. And I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded. There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I would be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on. But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads thought.
And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition. I'm not sure and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is. But it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks expenditure on peculiar clandestine nongovernment organizations and think tanks that take their money from the military industrial complex from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game. They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan. They have a vested interest in destroying those organizations.
In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the those days are gone. It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out. I think it even uses the word choke independent media.
And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way. And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level. Absolutely terrifying, particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced. But also revealing, more importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years. What I
Speaker 0: love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did fifteen years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country your wife. How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are, and how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised
Speaker 1: here in the West, may the
Speaker 0: best idea win, is a sham?
Speaker 1: Yes. It's a well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kind of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or a combination of those events, I really felt like a coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, gray. It's kind of like a place that's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I feel like that I was able to deploy entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose it's Glenn Greenwald the other day. He goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interests in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you? I know. I know.
But because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it? You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance and underhanded insidious activity. And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, avoided. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite territory. But while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip.
So these organizations it is something does it surprise me to find that the British government through the Department of Culture and Media and Sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted, the height of these, allegations and attacks on me that contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized. But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations. They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security of it.
Speaker 0: For saying just Yeah.
Speaker 1: Of course.
Speaker 0: I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared. There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes. And then your own government, which you pay for Yes.
Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: But what a betrayal by your own government.
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with with government is. That they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent, somewhat nationalistically oriented populist movements present because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We could see what they and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people aren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of Yeah. That you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company as part of Big Pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what you think they did to you.
Speaker 1: During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines, recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that. People within the FDA took positions at Moderna.
We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making a thousand dollars, like a second or a minute. Just like we reported a lot we reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Bourla explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna. They had, like us, on a high risk category.
This is the reporting of Li Fang from on his Substack, not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation from by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing disinformation or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice. Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary. The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices.
And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received millions of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around, in particular, COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in The United States, apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning.
It seems that that that this group received government money in order to control online spaces. So if
Speaker 0: you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah. Censored by them. That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information.
The category, in fact, of malinformation is information that's true but but harmful to the agenda of the powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, de amplify information that is harmful to that agenda. This seems totalitarian. Yeah. To control
Speaker 0: what people are allowed to to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: What I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I, of course, recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views Yes. From one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in a the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom.
We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience. And it seems that this process is radically escalating. And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and to use your term, a hot war with Russia. And that's being reported on in my country right now.
It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance. But the ongoing stoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting, these think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when you look at where they get their money, big pharma or the government or the military industrial complex or the kind of people they employ.
People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda. So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the twentieth century militarism. Guys in medals with mustaches thumping their fist on a desk will be calmly told what with by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair or elegantly speaking ladies that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing? This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He he was 12 old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse and it's certainly not how I would live now. But I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family. The value of friendship. The value of being able to speak publicly.
I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends. Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced.
But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. Yeah. It's very easy to talk about God. I talk about God all the time. But when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the the the reality of your powerlessness.
This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you. And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people that are in the exact same position.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And you are shown what is real and you are shown what is truthful and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome and it's a as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies, shows me that, oh, they're look at all of these realities. How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events? I couldn't have you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events?
I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger. I was periscuous. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I'd have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows. The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd, but I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat.
Speaker 1: A big threat.
Speaker 0: I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like, this I clearly have hit the third rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times.
Speaker 1: Have
Speaker 0: you? Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that.
And here you are. You clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward. Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Yeah. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I'm I don't I'm not proposing to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not I feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like you know you know what that kind of psychological baggage that comes with.
But I feel like, what is the purpose here? What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've, in a way, lived a pretty amazing life. I've, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous.
I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected. I actually been incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as Nazis, right, as whatever language is required to rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different. You know, I didn't think that. I don't think like that.
And it's not out of bravery. It's out of it's something beyond that because I think, you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even under those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen that quite a bit. Dynage.
You mentioned a person called Dynage. Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you?
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of, like, some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynige, who sounds like a Downton Abbey regular. But actually, though, Dame Caroline Dynige put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psy ops and now uses those very psy ops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized, they seem to have an extraordinary agenda. Like, what the time
Speaker 0: Can I just ask you something? Yeah. I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes. I
Speaker 0: looked her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the Conservative Party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in '24. But there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yeah. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively.
The COVID inquiries already cost a hundred and 40 5 million pounds. It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between two neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centralist neoliberal party.
The party nominally of the right is a neoliberal centralist party. They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified. But neither party will say we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon.
It's been concealed. The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance. These kind of stories are never told. There are no the legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years, they are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not conducting investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns.
Where are these investigations?
Speaker 0: Even the the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London.
Speaker 0: Such garbage. So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country that's even trying to answer the question, what was that? Where'd this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself, forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. But the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living, maybe in the police force or the fire service or as a nurse or as a teacher, something that gives real value to your nation.
The kind of things you might think, They're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention. Incessantly and relentlessly filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions making you believe that's a a some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war. You know, like like, do you know, like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like with the hoofies and stuff, like and, like, I I'm being deliberately glib.
But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies. Oh, the hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now. And you really like, you know, just to move a battleship in to that region. Think of the taxpayer dollars.
And it's not as if the pen they're gonna gonna be passing an audit anytime soon and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 was spent on Afghanistan. And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was and now Afghanistan is it's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like so what I'm saying is is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right. Two corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end.
Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted. Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition?
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health Mhmm. Food supply CS. Water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly, ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, sort of with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've got to return to my true love that's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism, but the ongoing sort of finger pointing and condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist. Look at them in their MAGA hats.
Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist. For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right.
These things are happening organically and naturally anyway. And what I think is happening is that perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening. And I think that we're at this crux point.
Which way is it gonna go? Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with? Or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life? Increasingly, I think, is over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada.
And two of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God. You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land.
Our connection to our lands has been broken. Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands.
We are divorced from one another, and and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies. And I you said at one point, oh, you should you know, this is this vast country. You could all have six six acres each. Yes. And I felt like, oh, the crowd responding to that.
People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world. For surely, those farmer protests are happening in Sri Lanka. They're happening in India. They're not just happening in Europe or angliphonic countries. They're happening everywhere.
They're happening everywhere. And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to. Sovereignty of the individual. Sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land. Maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones.
Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power.
Speaker 0: Can I ask you a question that you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: Oh, give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer it because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful to your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them are crushed during COVID, by the way
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university, and you'd probably be okay. Get rid of your farmers, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of a country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have, which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate Yeah. Ideas. When it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them twenty, thirty years ago saying with the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks and the WHO, like this it's extraordinary. And it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, demoralization of the public to create people that just are weary and broken and is if not enslaved then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery cannot be inadvertent.
It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are, but there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you, that you are allowed to be who you are. And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now. It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for twenty six years in New Jersey, thirty five years in the security first services. But these people that give their lives for a country.
So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation. And it's difficult actually sometimes. The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather coroning answer figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theories, but then aren't we all these days? Is it the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics. And it's hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion.
But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expanse, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark. Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The Earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgment of the sacredness of the earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not, you know, obviously, the left and right are classically almost at this point divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if no one has a relationship with it? I think like 90% of in my country, 90% of the land is inaccessible to most people.
90% of the land is privately owned. Like land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned. There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have been risible that So
Speaker 0: you're getting back to feudalism?
Speaker 1: Yeah. What you're saying? Let's get back to good old what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce.
You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop at this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no?
Speaker 1: You know, like, I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for twenty one years. It's just, in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God. It's the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is is descent into self centeredness.
When you're when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular. What I've observed, like, in this period from a personal perspective is that, like, I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with.
Like, oh my God. And another thing that's been amazing is like for a month publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I'd go out in public and people are like, Russell, hey. We support you. We support you.
And like, like one time I was wearing like sort of like a family of all their daughters were aged between like sort of 15 and 19. Oh, can you do photos of that daughter? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids. And like people aren't. People aren't buying it.
People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up. People start to think, well, Jesus, is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president? The more they hate him, the more people like him.
The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore. I was speaking from the perspective of look. This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery.
I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a from a normal background. But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation. A catastrophe is an invitation. And it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation.
It will be an invitation Because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty. What have we actually got to lose? I think in a sense, but in the perhaps they are you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening.
And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes. Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also, it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken, and I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Tucker.
reSee.it AI Summary
I just watched Russell Brand's first interview since the government collusion against him. It's an incredible discussion that brilliantly explains the modern world. Highly recommend checking it out when you have a moment.
@KMGGaryde - Gary D
~ Tucker Carlson ~ Ep. 70 Governments colluded to shut down and destroy Russell Brand. This is his first interview since that happened. Watch it when you get a minute. It's one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world you'll ever hear. It’s an Incredible interview that explains a lot.
Video Transcript AI Summary
In September, media outlets falsely labeled me a sex criminal without naming accusers. This was the culmination of a years-long campaign to silence my dissenting views on major geopolitical issues like the war in Ukraine. My critiques, while not pro-Russia, questioned Western involvement. This led to accusations of being a Chinese propagandist by a US government-linked organization. Subsequently, the UK government, connected to the CIA, pressured social media to censor and demonetize me. This coordinated attack, involving organizations funded by Big Pharma and government, reveals the suppression of independent media and dissenting voices. The open contest of ideas is a sham, with governments actively working to silence opposition, even using taxpayer money against their own citizens. My experience exposes the fragility of free speech and the lengths to which powerful entities will go to maintain control. The fight continues, and the stakes are high.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Back in September, media outlets around the world, almost all of them here in the West, in the English speaking world, ran headlines that shocked a lot of readers and viewers. Russell Brand, the movie star, the comedian, now the podcaster, was a sex criminal, a bad man, a sex criminal. Now none of the outlets ran the names of the accusers who had been sexually abused by Russell Brand. That was conspicuously absent, but the judgment was overwhelming. This is a very bad man, and he needs to be taken out of public view for the sake of the rest of us.
What was interesting about this is that, in fact, it was the final scene in a long movie that had been playing out for the preceding couple of years outside of public view. This was an attempt to make Russell Brand shut up. Russell Brand has views that diverge from those of most western governments on big issues, not small things, big issues, questions of economic policy and war and peace. And they decided we have to make this man be quiet. Why Russell Brand?
Well, because in contrast to a lot of us who give our opinions for a living, Russell Brand had the capacity to win people over from the other side. He hadn't spent a life identified with the far right, just the opposite. Russell Brand was a man of the left and to most people, a cultural figure. Everyone knows who Russell Brand is. And so he had the power, the capacity to persuade, and that was the threat.
So we thought it'd be interesting to go through in some detail what happened to Russell Brand. None of this has ever been aired before. The censorship campaign against him began with governments, not private organizations, but governments, their intel services, and their policymakers. And as we said, it played out outside public view, and we thought it would be very interesting and important for people to know what exactly happened. And so to find out, we are now joined by Russell Brand himself, and we're grateful to be.
Russell Brand, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tucker, thanks for having me here.
Speaker 0: So, I I I didn't know any I just wanna say I didn't know any of this, and I was I experienced you because I didn't know you as a viewer. And I remember thinking, boy, that is one of the most articulate critiques of the brand new war in Ukraine I had ever seen. I saw one of your videos on the war in Ukraine, and this was in the winter of twenty twenty two, '2 years ago. And you were making kind of a remarkable case, not against the Ukrainian people and certainly not in favor of Russia, but that there might be real implications for the West if we get involved in a war that is not our own. And you you, I thought, said it so well.
What I missed, and I'm now seeing, is that in March of twenty twenty two, you were denounced by an organization connected directly to the US government as an agent of Chinese propaganda for your views on Ukraine. So let me just ask you your experience of this. Did you know that you were being attacked as a Chinese propagandist for your views on Ukraine?
Speaker 1: I actually didn't and still at this point struggle in to see entirely what the connections are between those two issues and
Speaker 0: how I
Speaker 1: would develop and cult and cultivate a strong affinity with China. I've never been to China. I don't purport to understand China. Certainly don't advocate for Chinese policy. I've just got a relatively superficial dilettantes knowledge of geopolitical mal matters in the South Asian seas.
It's not something that I would like to tie my colors to the mask for or be willing to be publicly shamed, attacked, and even jailed for. So, it happened, though. Yeah.
Speaker 0: And and a lot happens on the Internet that we miss. But these in my reading of it is and we haven't, by the way, talked about this off air, but my reading of it is these were the early seeds of a very deceptive plant that flowered more than a year later in September when you were accused of these crimes and demonetizing and censored as a result of that. But looking back, so you were accused by a group called Coda Story. It published a story on its anti disinformation newsletter. Now Coda Story is connected to the UK government, but it's also connected to the CIA.
How does it make you feel to know that you were in the crosshairs of two of the most powerful governments in the world and their intel agencies?
Speaker 1: It seems to me ridiculously grandiose to even imagine that I would stir and arouse the interests of such powerful agencies and groups that the British government, if indirectly, would would spend considerable sums on observing and de amplifying content, that true information shared through our platforms in the period of the pandemic was censored, was cited as high risk, that companies like Moderna had spent considerable revenue tracking our content and, again, de amplifying it. That Dame Caroline Dionidge, whose husband is a psy ops expert that worked abroad in terrorism before deploying those methods and techniques, and to some degree, those teams to observe what they call disinformation and misinformation in The UK. I recognize that the new emergent media spaces present a lot of possibilities even with your kind compliments about our reporting on the Ukraine. All we've essentially done is listen to brilliant academics talking about the history of NATO and the coup in twenty fourteen in Ukraine and Putin's explicit declaration that he would prefer, let's put it mildly, that Ukraine were not invited into NATO. The some of the regional disputes, how they're escalating tensions.
This is information that because of independent media is available. And perhaps the function that we, our media organization have fulfilled is being to collate that information and convey it directly in an accessible manner to give people an alternative perspective than to the homogenized mainstream opinion Yes. Which amounts to, I've learned over the last few years, the amplification and normalization of the agenda of the powerful. That no opinions can be allowed into that space, and I'm astonished by how jealously it is guarded. There are points in my life where my personal self regard would have loved the idea that I would be considered important enough to attack on this scale, to spend this amount of revenue and resources on.
But I'm now seeing that independent media itself is an extraordinary threat. That independent media inevitably leads the independent politics and independent thought. And we appear to be at some precipitous moment of radical transition. I'm not sure, and I'm not sure if anybody could be sure of where this is all heading, what the exact teleology is, but it seems to be to do with mass centralization, globalization, significant attempts to control the information space that are so rigorously adhered to and protected that even what you might imagine to be a marginal voice is considered a significant enough threat to warrant coordinated media attacks, expenditure on peculiar clandestine non government organizations and think tanks that take their money from the military industrial complex, from the legacy media, who, by the way, when they're critiquing independent media, they got skin in the game. They're not able to independently assess your work or my work or the medical opinions of Joe Rogan, they have a vested interest in destroying those organizations.
In the last few years, I've learned about the Trusted News Initiative, which has extraordinary connections again to big pharma and sets of interest around the reporting on war that decided and determined that they are no longer competing with one another. You, in particular, come from a journalistic background where it would have been commonplace for the great institutions of American media to compete with one another for scoops, the New York Times versus the war. Those days are gone. It explicitly states on the Trusted News Initiative website, we are no longer in competition with one another. We have to curtail and stamp out.
I think it even uses the word choke independent media. And it's clear that there are now sets of globalist organizations funded by government, but also corporations that are making deliberate, profound attempts to shut down any dissent in an astonishingly aggressive way. And to be sort of caught up in it is, terrifying on one level. Absolutely terrifying. Particularly due to the nature of allegations I faced.
But also revealing, more importantly, it's revealing about the way the the way that I believe the world and in particular this space will be affected and the way these events will continue to unfold in the coming years.
Speaker 0: What I love about your critique is that you're coming to all of this pretty cold since you had a midlife career change. You you're doing something very different from what you did fifteen years ago. And I'm wondering if your assumptions haven't been completely blown up. You're you're a British citizen, lived in the country Mhmm. Your life.
How strange is it to know that your tax dollars are being used against you by your government, which they are? And how bewildering is it to find that the open contest of ideas that we were promised here in the West made the best idea win is a sham?
Speaker 1: Yes. It's, well, I suppose I went into the entertainment industry really with the giddy trajectory that propels a lot of people into those spaces, believing that there might be some fulfillment and certainly there would be excitement. And when I was a Denizen of that world, I was fostered and adored and celebrated and facilitated and lived the kind of lifestyle, which I think is kind of common for people in that area, for single people, in my case, drug and alcohol free, but certainly with, an appetite for a promiscuous lifestyle. When I was part of it, I found it empty and unfulfilling, of course, as it would be as anyone who's had those kinds of experiences ultimately realizes. When I departed it as a result really of various spiritual crises or commercial failures or a combination of those events, I really felt like, coming home to the type of values that I grew up with.
I grew up in a normal blue collar town, gray. It's kinda like a place that's like New Jersey, I guess. Kind of suburban, outside of the city, normal people, good values kind of place. And what I feel like happened is like, well, since I've had a family, since, you know, I've got a young son, I've got a couple of daughters, is I feel like that I was able to deploy the skills learned through working in entertainment as a man in recovery in a new space. And what simply began, with myself and my partners is tell the truth about things you care about.
Kind of over time, it began to I suppose it's Glenn Greenwald the other day, and he goes, you know, you shouldn't be surprised that if you attack the most powerful interest in the world, the deep state, powerful corporations, the machinery of war, that you yourself are the recipient of attacks. Why does that why is that surprising to you? I know. I know, but because sometimes it does feels speculative, doesn't it? You're talking about these really powerful organizations and the way that it's funded and the way that it crosses over and their malfeasance, underhanded, insidious activity.
And then as it starts to become more popular, as more and more people realize that it's actually true, as more and more people become willing to take back control in their own lives, as more and more people refuse to consent to being treated in this sort of infantile way, having their autonomy and personal and mental and spiritual freedom undermined, their connection to their land undermined, their connection to nature, avoided. You start to realize that you're actually operating in quite a powerful territory, but while power is very serious and it has to work very hard to maintain its grip. So these organizations it is something did it surprise me to find that the the British government through the Department of Culture and Media and Sport, the very person, the very people that sponsored the new rather draconian online safety bill personally contacted, the height of these, allegations and attacks on me, contacted social media platforms and asked if I would be demonetized. But they're the body that regulates them. They have the ability to find those organizations.
They're the the very person who is sponsoring the online security.
Speaker 0: Were saying just to be honest. I understand what you're saying. So these accusations appeared. There were I don't know if this has changed, but at the time, there were no names attached at all. You were accused anonymously of committing crimes.
And then your own government, which you pay for
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: Reached out without telling you to online service providers and media organizations and and said, please kick him off and censor him and take his money away. That's is that what you're saying? Yeah. That's right. Any kind of trial, before any proof that you were guilty, before any names were attached.
Yeah. That that happened.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's the same people that are sponsoring online safety bills, which amount to facilitating further censorship.
Speaker 0: What a betrayal by your own government.
Speaker 1: Well, it's astonishing if you regard your government to be in a position of service rather than a position of domination and control. But what's become apparent in recent years is what the nature of our relationship with government is, that they are there to rule and control and dominate. And whilst they may now do it with an aesthetic of care and with the language of inclusivity, I believe the threat of authoritarianism is far, far greater from those that use the language of liberalism than these emergent, somewhat national istically oriented populist movements present. Because they are leveraging that power now. They're interested in censorship.
They're militarizing the police force. They're introducing protest laws. They're introducing censorship laws. Through their actions, we can observe them. Through their fruits, can we know them?
We can see what they and if you try to dissent, if you try to oppose even what I consider to be a relatively marginal scale, then the consequences are severe and immediate and robust and terrifying.
Speaker 0: It I I think what makes your specific case so compelling is that if they could do it to you, a person who had the admiration of a lot of people who weren't interested in politics and was pretty famous and had some means, etcetera, then the average person stands no chance against these forces. So with that, let if you don't mind, can we get specific about a couple of things that you mentioned? The first is Moderna, which is a drug company. It's part of big pharma. Tell us how you intersected with pharma and what you with Moderna and what
Speaker 1: you think they did to you. During the pandemic period, we reported continually about some of the clinical trials that Moderna conducted and whether or not they ought be deemed sufficiently rigorous to warrant the level of measures that were being implemented, if not entirely mandated. We talked about a a government official called Jonathan Van Tam, who was the public face of the government saying, you know, we should be taking vaccines, recommending that the measures escalate. Jonathan Van Tam subsequently took a position at Moderna. We reported on that.
People within the FDA took positions at Moderna. We reported on that. We accurately reported that both Pfizer and Moderna were making a thousand dollars, like a second or a minute, just like we reported a lot. We reported accurately and thoroughly about the degree to which big pharma were profiting from a situation in which Albert Bourla explicitly said it would be inhumane to profit from this global crisis. This meant that we were tracked by agencies employed by Moderna.
They had like us on a high risk category. This is the reporting of Li Fang from on his substack. Not just me, Jay Bhattacharya, Michael Shellenberger, Alex Berenson, a number of what you might call anti pandemic measures voices or strong critics of the way that the pandemic unfolded were under observation for by agencies that were either funded by big pharma, sometimes the government. And in a sense, what I've started to realize, Tucker, is this cartilage between the state and the corporate world is often provided by these unusual organizations that are claiming to be observing this information or monitoring, but they're actually crushing dissent. That's what they're doing in practice.
Dissenting voices are being aggressively crushed by almost any means necessary. The media organizations are collaborated in a a way that is unprecedented in order to shut down dissenting voices. And it it appears to me that this is part of something I don't know that we've seen anything like this before.
Speaker 0: So what you're saying is that these organizations which purport to be independent are not actually independent from government. They merely give government, the politicians and the intel agencies, especially some some plausible deniability, some distance Yes. From what they're doing. Is that what you're saying?
Speaker 1: I'm saying that, Tucker. That seems to be the function. There's a group called Logically, and Logically have received millions of pounds of taxpayer money. And what they do is observe dissenting voices around in particular, COVID and pandemic measures. But they are now working in The United States, apparently, in order to regard misinformation around election campaigning.
It seems that that that this group received government money in order to control online spaces.
Speaker 0: So if you're worried about the security of electronic voting machines or absentee ballots Yeah. Who are denounced by these people and
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Censored by them.
Speaker 1: That's that's precisely how it works. And, of course, they employ former FBI, agents, CIA agents. In a way, I suppose, what happened during the pandemic period, because of, like, the Twitter files, for example, we started to learn the degree to which the deep state were involved in the in social media companies, the degree to which they were censoring and shutting down information, information that we now know to be true, which it was, you know, of course, you'll be aware that Mark Zuckerberg said we did censor true information. The category, in fact, of malinformation is information that's true, but but harmful to the agenda of powerful. Well, it seems like groups like Logically and the Public Good Project are specifically empowered to control, censor, deamplify information that is harmful to that agenda.
Speaker 0: This seems totalitarian. Yeah. To control what people are allowed to think is I think that's the definition of it.
Speaker 1: What I've started to I suppose that's what in essence, what I've started to feel and report on consistently, as you noted at the beginning of this, I'm not someone who's affiliated organically with conservatism or what you might regard as right wing politics. Although I of course recognize the legitimacy of a whole variety of political views and the right of people to hold different views from one another. But it seems to me that authoritarianism now is being deliberately veiled in the insidious language of care, concerns, safety, and convenience. It seems to me that we are in a time where we lurch from one crisis to another, that the crisis is always used to legitimize certain solutions, and a docile or terrified public is willing to participate in this proposed solutions that usually involve giving up their freedom. We are continually being invited to give up our freedom in exchange for safety or convenience, and it seems that this process is radically escalating.
And I feel that this is something that we will see yet more of in the coming year. I feel like, you know, you've spoken publicly about this, that we're potentially on the precipice of serious, and then to use your term, hot, a hot war with Russia. And like that's being reported on in my country right now. It's like we're being prepped, groomed, primed for war is coming. That we're being kept in a state of constant anxiety in order to induce compliance.
That the ongoing spoking of cultural tension is to ensure that people don't begin to recognize that actually we have far more in common with one another than we do with these curious sets of establishment interests that seem to be transcendent of national democracy. To to be explicit, I'm talking about organizations like the WHO, NATO, the WF, and their astonishing influence. Added to that, the types of groups we've discussed already that have been exposed due to Li Fang's reporting, these think tanks and apparently independent organizations who are not independent when
Speaker 0: you look at where they
Speaker 1: get their money, big pharma or the government, or the military industrial complex, or the kind of people they employ. People from deep state agencies such as the FBI and CIA that have extraordinary affinity with the legacy media and their ongoing agenda. So what I suppose I'm sensing is that totalitarianism now will not bear the inflections or aesthetics of the twentieth century militarism. Guys in medals with mustaches thumping their fists on a desk, will be calmly told what with by gentlemen with beautifully coiffured hair, or elegantly speaking ladies, that just for our safety and just for our convenience, we will be returning to our homes. And anyone that has an audience or a base or an ability to communicate with people to disrupt those types of narratives will be identified and destroyed.
Speaker 0: Well, there's certainly, they've identified you, and they're trying to destroy you in the most obvious way, in a way that hurts not just you, but your family. Was there ever a moment when this happened in September where you thought, you know, it's just kinda not worth it to be doing what I'm doing. This is so painful and so threatening to my family that maybe I just bow out and stop talking.
Speaker 1: My son was born with a heart condition. And while this was happening, he was undergoing heart surgery. He, he was 12 old. And I suppose what that did, Tucker, is it revealed that that what we were experiencing was a public concoction. I am aware that I put myself in an extremely vulnerable position by being very, very promiscuous.
That is not the kind of conduct that I endorse, and it's certainly not how I would live now. The I I've been shown a good many things as a result of these events. The value of my family, the value of friendship, the value of being able to speak publicly. I mentioned my son because throughout it, I saw I was able to maintain what is really important in life. And as you have actually said, we all know how this ends.
Attacks like this, a crisis like this, hurtful though it is to be accused of what I consider to be the most appalling crimes, to be accused of this is very, very painful and very hurtful. But I am being shown that there is a con there are consequences for the rather foolish way that I lived in the past. Although, of course, again, to reiterate due to the nature of the world we live in, of course, I deny deny any allegations of the kind that have been advanced. But what I've seen is the significance of family, the importance of having values that are transcendent of this, the importance of God. It's very easy to talk about God.
I talk about God all the time, but when you need God, it's not when the outside world shows you the, the, the reality of your powerlessness. This is this can just happen. This can be undone. This can be unspooled at you. And with our boy and to be in environments as you understandably and obviously are when you have a sick child, you're in environments with other people, they're in the exact same position.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And you are shown what is real, and you are shown what is truthful, and you are invited to look at life very differently. So there are many things that I am grateful for as a matter of fact, even though it's not a situation that I welcome. And it's, as I say, these are allegations that I object to in the strongest possible terms. The fact that it happened concurrently while I had the opportunity to see the strength and dignity of my wife and the beauty of my little son and the reality of the people that in this world that care for sick children, that perform heart surgery on tiny babies shows me like, oh, there are look at all of these realities. How can you live in the ridiculousness of their version of events?
I couldn't have been more open and public about the way that I lived when I was younger. I was for risk. If anyone wanted to have sex with me, I'd have sex with them. I publicly announced it at the beginning of all shows. The idea that that was a some sort of a smokescreen for criminal conduct is absurd.
But I recognize now that unless you're willing to be a participant in these systems of compliance and distraction, then you you pose some kind of evident threat.
Speaker 0: A big threat. A big threat. I mean, obviously, the response proves the power of the threat that you posed and still do. But, again, just to quickly back to my question, because this was so intense and it happened as your son was born and under undergoing the surgery, did it ever cross your mind like this I clearly have hit the third rail, and I'm out. I've seen that happen a number of times with people.
Yes. I have. And, yes, with well known people. And but you didn't do that. And here you are.
You've clearly thought about it, and you've decided that you're gonna continue forward. Was that a hard decision?
Speaker 1: Do you sometimes think that there is no choice? You have no choice. Did you ever really have
Speaker 0: Yes. I do feel that way, strongly.
Speaker 1: There is no choice. We have no choice. Something strange is happening. Something ulterior is moving. Something very important is happening.
I'm I don't I'm not probably going to be a person that lacks self interest. I'm not I'm feel fear. I feel anxiety. I'm a recovering drug addict. I like, you know you know what that kind of psychological, baggage that comes with.
But I feel like, what is the purpose here? What are we doing here? I've been shown to get I've in a way lived a pretty amazing life. I've, like, grew up in a normal background. I've got super famous.
I experienced all of that giddiness, all of that hedonism, found it empty and hollow, and have been returned to a position where people could actually be connected. I actually been incredibly optimistic because of things like the ongoing agricultural protests around the world, the trucker protests, the the lengths that people will go to to criminalize not just an individual like me, but whole movements will be criminalized as far right as nazis, as racist whatever language is required to delegitimize the rejection of this global authoritarianism is what will be deployed. So, when I say, no, I didn't think for a second about doing anything different, You know? I didn't think that. I don't think like that.
And it's not, out of bravery. It's out of it's something beyond that. Because I think some you know, sometimes I would like to just be with my little daughters and my wife and my son and just live peacefully. But I don't know, Tucker. It doesn't seem like there's a choice.
Speaker 0: There isn't a choice. There isn't a choice. But, you know, even on those circumstances, some choose cowardice. And, again, I've certainly seen that quite a bit. Dynage.
You mentioned a person called Dynage. Can you explain, what you mean by that, who this person is, and what role she plays in what has happened to you?
Speaker 1: When you become accustomed to dealing with American politics, it's huge sums of money. It's powerful agencies that you see depicted in Hollywood movies, characters played by great movie stars. And so when you return your gaze to British politics, you feel like you're dealing with some sort of drudgery, some sort of, like, some, like, ludicrous heritage porn. Who are all these dames and baronesses entitled individuals? They can't be doing anything serious.
Someone called Dame Caroline Dynage, who sounds like a Down and Abbey regular. But actually though, Dame Caroline Dynage put forward the online safety bill. She's married to a dude that does, that that does military psy ops, and now uses those very psy ops in this in in with the domestic population. She's the person that got in touch with the social media platforms demanding that I be demonetized. They seem to have an extraordinary agenda.
Like, what the term Can I just ask you something? Yeah.
Speaker 0: I looked up because I'm not as familiar with your politics as I should be.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: I looked her up, and, I think what I was so struck by was that she's a member of the conservative party. Right. And that suggested to me that there isn't a choice in British politics. There's really just one party.
Speaker 1: Of course. Yeah. Absolutely. It's a uni party.
Speaker 0: They're not even pretending at this point.
Speaker 1: They're not really pretending. Let like, here's a sort of an an extraordinary thing that appears to be playing out. In addition to just being casually informed by the legacy media that we're on the precipice of war with Russia and that conscription might be reintroduced in 2024. The there was a part there was a COVID inquiry in our country, which, by the way, I don't imagine for a second would have happened without independent media reporting without voices like Jay Bhattacharya Yes. Who was shut down, or voices like Michael Shellenberger or Berenson, people that have been shut down and vilified at large and extensively.
The COVID inquiries already cost a hundred and 40 5 million pounds. It's been booted off and delayed indefinitely, but at least until after the general election. Like many countries, there's an election in our country this year. But as usual, it's between two neoliberal, what you might term centrist parties that are ultimately dominated and controlled by the same concerns where an extraordinary focus is spent on the tiny minute differences. But it's the party nominally of the left is ultimately a centralist neoliberal party.
The party, nominally of the right is a neoliberal centralist party. They may quibble about some issues that seem significant, and certainly those issues are stoked and amplified, but neither party will say, we are going to have a thorough investigation into what went on in that pandemic. That clearly was a lab leak. It looks like it was a bioweapon. It's been concealed.
The people that we entrusted with our response to that pandemic are likely explicitly linked to the leak in its in the first instance. These kind of stories are never told. There are no legacy media organizations that worked in conjunction with one another to attack me evidently and by their own reckoning over a series of years, they are not conducting investigations into Epstein Island. They're not conducting investigations into the the nature of the pandemic, how it was funded, where the money went, where it came from, the efficacy of lockdowns. Where are these investigations?
Speaker 0: Even the the fabled Times of London?
Speaker 1: The fabled Times of London.
Speaker 0: Such garbage. It's a story. So there's nobody in and pardon my ignorance. I'm I'm I'm peering in from the outside, but there there really isn't any big media organization in your country. It's even trying to answer the question, what was that?
Where this virus come from? No one's doing that.
Speaker 1: Do you know one of the things that I find terrifying about becoming more educated about this space, Tucker, mostly by listening to, more educated voices than my own is that many of the things a person might instinctively feel such as you feel like, you know, yourself, forgive my ignorance. I don't know much about British politics. The the but the way that one might intuit, hey. Should we not be provoking Russia into a war? Don't they have nuclear weapons?
Should we think very carefully about that? I mean, how much do we want Ukraine in NATO? And do we even need NATO anyway? The kind of things you might think if you didn't go to university. If you're a regular blue collar person working for a living, maybe in the police force or the fire service or as a nurse or as a teacher, something that gives real value to your nation.
The kind of things you might think, they're true. Those ideas are true. And in order to prevent you from reaching those ordinary everyday regulations, a machine is put to constant work to conquer the space of your attention, incessantly and relentlessly filling your mind with dumb ideas and dumb distractions, making you believe that some sugar or a screen might be a convenient palliative, as your children are marched off into an unwinnable forever war. You know, like like Do you know, like the I saw we've been thinking lately before, you know, like, with the hoofies and stuff. Like and like, I'm being deliberately glib.
But it's like you go from not ever having heard the word hoofie to being invited to hate the hoofies.
Speaker 0: Oh, the
Speaker 1: hoofies. We gotta hate the hoofies now. And you're like, you know, just to move a battleship into that region, think of the taxpayer dollars. And it's not as if the Pentagon are gonna be passing an audit anytime soon, and telling you where this money is actually going. And $2,000,000,000,000 were spent on Afghanistan.
And if you think of the before and after picture of Afghan Oh, well, thank God we spent that $2,000,000,000,000 because before Afghanistan was And now Afghanistan is It's very difficult to fill in those sentences, isn't it? And like, so what I'm saying is, is like your sort of easy dismissiveness of what British politics amounts to is probably right. Two corrupt parties pursuing the same ulmer end. Keep people tyrannized. Keep people distracted.
Keep them turned on one another over minor issues that will not ultimately affect their lives or the lives of their children so that the agenda of the powerful can be pursued without opposition?
Speaker 0: War, the economy, public health, food supply, sea water supply. I mean, these are the energy. These are the things that matter, and they're the things that are are never discussed openly, ever.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have conversations about that? Like, these sort of with the the global farming protest, it's not accurately reported on. When it is, it's reported on with a particular accent and with the always with the insinuation that farmers have suddenly moved their attention from the raising of crops to racism now. The farming's more of a hobby. I've gotta return to my true love That's having strong views about varying ethnicity.
There's no question that a rise in, nationalism is an understandable response to rampant globalism. But the ongoing sort of finger pointing and the condemnation of ordinary people I identify with, I recognize it because I grew up in those communities. Professional metro metropolitan people don't like working class people, don't like ordinary people, and now they've found a way to legitimize their hatred. Oh, they're all disgusting. They're all racist.
Look at them in their MAGA hats. Look at them with their white vans and their flags. Look at them with their perspectives, with their unearned views and their belches and their beer. It's a kind of legitimization of a loathing of the people that are most connected to the nation. People that, generally speaking, a couple of generations ago were asked to sacrifice the lives of their sons and daughters for the for the idea of nation, an idea that they're now being told doesn't exist.
For me, what we need to see is an emergence of a different type of populism that transcends the boundaries of left and right. These things are happening organically and naturally anyway. And what I think is happening is I perhaps it's odd, isn't it? Because the Internet is ultimately a creation of the military. Clearly, they didn't accurately understand that whilst it was going to be a brilliant means for control, and clearly that's one of the wars that's being fought now, it is also a tool for informing and awakening.
And I think that we're at this crux point. Which way is it gonna go? Are people going to wake up to the reality that we are being confronted with, or are we going to sort of nervously cling on to the idea that somehow through comfort and panaceas, we might hold on to some old life. Increasingly, I think, is over. I watched some of that speech you did in, Ottawa or wherever you were in Edmonton, Canada.
And two of the things I thought were important is knowing that you are not God. You are not God. You are it's not about you. You have to have some purpose in your life. And secondly, people must relearn a connection to their land.
Our connection to our lands has been broken. Now many countries, particularly in a post colonial world, have complex relationships with their land. Sometimes that is a a relationship with a land that had inhabitants prior to the our our arrival or the arrival at least of of settlers in your country, for example, or in Canada that you were describing outlining. But we are divorced from nature. We are divorced from our lands.
We are divorced from one another, and we and we are fed such an empty, hollow, vapid, phatic diet of lies. And I you said at one point, oh, you should, you know, this is this vast country. You could all have six acres each.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And I felt like, oh, the crowd responding to that. People are frightened of the people of Britain or the people of America or the people of Canada or Australia or people all over the world. For surely, those farmer protests are happening in Sri Lanka, they're happening in India, they're not just happening in Europe or anglophonic countries, they're happening everywhere. They're happening everywhere. And I feel that what's that's precisely the direction we need to return to.
Sovereignty of the individual. Sovereignty and sanctity of the connection between people and their land, maximum amount of power in your own life and the life of your community and and your loved ones. Not this transition of power to increasingly centralized forces and this, infantilization and neutralization and castration of individual and familial power. Can I
Speaker 0: ask you a question that you may be able to answer that I've been meditating?
Speaker 1: I'll give it a go, Tucker. I'll tell you that.
Speaker 0: Well, you're just uniquely positioned to answer because you've seen both sides. But, so the things that the people in charge hate include nature Yes. And the class of people who are most useful to your nation. You describe them. Cops, firemen, teachers, nurses, all of them are crushed during COVID, by the way.
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 0: And farmers. And it's indisputable that if you don't have those people, you don't have a society. You could get rid of every think tank and every sociology department and every liberal arts university and probably be okay. Get rid of your farmers, you starve to death. So it's not obvious why the leadership of the country would hate the very people they need most and hate the most beautiful and valuable thing they have, which is nature.
Why do they hate those things?
Speaker 1: It terrifies me to contemplate, Tucker, that people like Alex Jones and in our country, David Icke, who aside from some views that are impossible to corroborate around quite occultist, and shall we call them marginal ideas, difficult to corroborate
Speaker 0: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Ideas, When it comes to the subject of globalization and the increasing authoritarianization of our planet, appear to have been ahead of the curve. You can see them twenty, thirty years ago saying with the the empowerment of NATO, the empowerment of World Banks and the WHO, like this is extraordinary. And I it seems to me that the disempowerment of ordinary people, the condemnation, the demoralization of the public to create people that just are weary and broken, and is if not enslaved, then so dependent it amounts to a form of slavery, cannot be inadvertent. It seems to be a denial of something fundamental that I, in my language, I would call spirit. The the right to be who you are, that there isn't something fundamentally ugly or wrong with you, that you are allowed to be who you are.
And I see that as a universal principle that will be applied all the way from the left to the right across various ways that people claim their individual identity now. It seems to me that, yes, that if you start to attack those pivotal infrastructural roles I was struck when speaking to some of the people that you work with, man, as you know, that's been a cop for twenty six years in New Jersey, thirty five years in the security first services. But these people that give their lives for a country. So to tell those people that your country doesn't mean anything or to alter the meaning of what a nation is or alter what your contribution has been, it seems to be about a kind of disorientation. And it's difficult actually sometimes.
The reason I mentioned at the beginning of this rather coroning answer, figures that are broadly condemned as conspiracy theorists, but then aren't we all these days? Is integrate the reason I mentioned them is because they talk specifically about ideas to do with spirituality, morality, and ethics. And it's hard for someone like me to consider that the goals of this global establishment are anything other than power, finance, dominion. But when you talk about this loathing of nature, whether that's human nature or botany or the great expense, it's difficult to think that there isn't something dark Yes. At its core.
Speaker 0: Because there's no rational explanation for that. How could you want to despoil nature? How could you hate human nature? How could you want to hurt people? There those are not rational responses to anything.
I mean, there's gotta be I mean, clearly, what we're watching are the fruits of spiritual war. I'd if you're gonna give a better explanation, let me know.
Speaker 1: Certainly, the solution seems to me to be spiritual. And even when they're talking about ecology and evoking words like Gaia, like the spirit of the planet, it seems oddly utilitarian. The Earth is a resource even when claiming to care about the types of energy industry that might be most beneficial and those which might not be as beneficial. I don't see reverence. I don't see an acknowledgement of the sacredness of the Earth.
That the that the Earth is not a resource. It's not you know, obviously, the left and right are classically almost at this point divided around the subject of climate change. And what I feel is, who or or who among us or not love our planet and behave respectfully and reverentially and lovingly to our planet? And how is that gonna happen if no one has a relationship with it? I think like 90% of in my country, 90% of the land is inaccessible to most people.
90% of the land is privately owned. Like, land that used to be commonly held is now all privately owned. There has been successive law after successive law that has moved power and control and the land and nature herself into the hands of an elite. And is this, I suppose, even where it would have been risible So you're
Speaker 0: getting back to feudalism
Speaker 1: Yeah. Is what you're saying. Let's get back to good old feudal what was wrong with feudalism? Why are we making such a fuss about it? It's like the idea that you and I are people that operate on different sides of a political spectrum becomes exposed as ridiculous when the anti authoritarian aspect of what we both clearly believe in has to become the clear and pivotal point around which all political views have to now start to coalesce.
You you are either going to oppose what's happening when it comes to globalization and centralized authoritarianism, or you are going to be crushed by it individually and collectively.
Speaker 0: How do you see and I'll I'll stop with this, compound question. How is how are your family and friends holding up in the face of this assault on you and your family? And how do you see this playing out, the battle that you just described? Are you hopeful or no?
Speaker 1: You know, like, I because I've been subject to personal attacks, it's very, one thing like, I have a program of recovery. I've been in recovery for twenty one years. It's just in a sense, it's what enshrines and helps me practice my relationship with God is the most important thing to me. The thing I have to most be observant of and have to keenly avoid is, is descent into self centeredness. When you are when I am very frightened, it's very easy for me to drift into becoming quite myopic and insular.
What I've observed, like in this period from a personal perspective is that, like I'm incredibly fortunate. I've got an amazing wife. I've got amazing beautiful children that are healthy and doing well. I've got incredible people that I work with. Like, oh my god.
And another thing that's been amazing is like for a month, publicly, continually, I was like, you know, called the worst names you can call a man. And then I've got in public and people are like, Russell, hey, we support you, we support you. And like, like one time I was wearing like sort of like a family of all their daughters that were aged between like sort of 15 and 19. Oh, can you do photos of us? I was thinking if there were one group that would be negatively affected by what's just been publicly said about me, it would be the parents of teenage kids.
And, like, people aren't. People aren't buying it. People aren't buying it. That's the problem. People are waking up.
People start to think, well, well, Jesus, is there gonna be a better example than your former and perhaps future president? The more they hate him, the more people like him. Yes. The more people like him because what they know is they don't trust the establishment anymore. They cannot trust the establishment anymore.
It I was speaking from the perspective look. This isn't the first time I've known personal crisis. I'm a drug acting recovery. I'm a product of a single parent family. I've come from I'm a normal person from a norm from a normal background.
But what I would say is that in a sense, a crisis becomes an invitation. A catastrophe is an invitation, and it seems like whether you're on the left or right, everyone believes catastrophe is coming, and it will be an invitation. It will be an invitation because if what we are being offered is a slow grind into endless war and more and more authoritarianism and more and more control of our personal lives and our ability ability to worship, our ability to affiliate, our ability to pray. If what's being if we're what we've been invited to accept is the colonization of the self, of our ability to think freely, then what have we got to lose when all they're offering us is more war, endless pandemics that are being legislatively enshrined even now through the WHO treaty. What have we actually got to lose?
I think in a sense, but in a perhaps they are, you know, if there is one God, one all powerful God, then surely that God is at work now. And surely that God is creating the perfect conditions for our mutual awakening. And perhaps what's required is the spur, the ignition of something so unbearable that people will awaken rather than endure it, rather than endure it any further. And perhaps that's what we're being offered now. Yes.
Of course, it seems like we're on the precipice of catastrophe geopolitically and from various potential health pandemics. But also it seems to me like a potential offering to awaken. And I don't think we have any choice other than to see it that way.
Speaker 0: Russell Brand, you have not been broken. You are at your very best. Your very best. And I really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Thanks, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not permit. Total blockchain is the total inversion of virtue.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
Globalist Plan To Destroy Civilization and How We Can Save It: Dr. Bret Weinstein Full Interview Spread this far and wide! https://t.co/rTKqE2Wh1v
Video Transcript AI Summary
This video discusses a range of topics including the need for a system that liberates individuals, the impact of technological change on society, the Fukushima nuclear disaster, the dangers of mRNA vaccines, the migration crisis in the Darien Gap, the fall of Rome, the unfairness in society, the World Health Organization's proposed pandemic preparedness treaty, Tucker Carlson's interview with Vladimir Putin, and the role of independent media. The speakers emphasize the importance of accountability, caution, environmental stewardship, collaboration, and unity in addressing these challenges. They also highlight the significance of open dialogue and the support shown by Joe Rogan and Elon Musk for controversial figures like Alex Jones. Overall, the video encourages critical thinking and unity to overcome the challenges faced in the 21st century.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What we want is a system that liberates individuals as meaningfully and as broadly as possible. That should be our guide. That's classically liberal. It is it is classically liberal, and I believe it is also actually liberal, and it is a perfect match for what I find my many conservative friends believe as well. That this is the metric that we can use to test any system that we put in place.
Does it liberate people or does it constrain them? If it liberates them meaningfully over the long term, it's a good thing. What they have recognized is that they have no use for us. And I wish that was an exaggeration, but you can see this so clearly in what they did to the public over COVID. I don't think we really have any choice but to rescue Western civilization.
It is the best tool we've got, always has been. It's not to say that it can't use upgrading here and there, but we have to save it because your children, my children, and all of the grandchildren that we might ultimately have are depending on us to do it. And, the idea of hyper novelty is that although human beings are the fastest evolving animal species that has ever existed, That is largely the result of the fact that we evolve in a different way. We are actually able to evolve culturally, which is much more rapid than genetic evolution. But even though, we are the fastest evolving animal species that has existed, the rate of technological change is so fast that even our evolutionary capacity
Speaker 1: We can't catch up.
Speaker 0: We cannot keep up, and that is resulting in us being sick physically, psychologically, socially. And what you're detecting as the the collapse of civilization is really a manifestation of many different kinds of hyper novelty that is making it, difficult for us to see what's in our interest. They are gambling with a planet that isn't theirs to destroy, that is actually it is the the birthright of every living person and it is the entitlement of all the people who will eventually live here. They are they are gambling with it and they obviously don't know what they're doing. It is likely that many of the deaths that occur as a result of these shots, it's the result of the mRNA platform itself.
That anything you loaded onto that platform would produce many of these pathologies because the platform itself is deeply flawed.
Speaker 1: Former professor Bret Weinstein is in studio with us for an in-depth interview. We're taping this on Sunday while everybody else is watching the Super Bowl. I'm really excited about this interview. I've been trying to get him on the show for a couple years. He's a very busy guy.
He was just in town for the Joe Rogan number 1 podcast in the world, which I'm sure will have already aired by the time this interview goes out. But I just wanna point out, I love football. It's great. But our society is in so much trouble because of all the bread and circuses. The people make their main focus sports and entertainment.
That'd be fine if society and civilization wasn't in such a crisis. So I'm honored that he would spend Super Bowl Sunday. That's a religion to so many, including my family that's all watching it right now and wondering why I'm not there. Well, it's because this, quite frankly, is way more important. A game comes, a game goes.
But this affects the entire future of our species on this planet that has never been in greater crisis in my view. And when I first learned about the doctor and former professor at Evergreen University in 2017, he was standing up against really horrible racism against white people saying they couldn't be on campus on certain days. And so I just wanna remind folks of of where we really started seeing this guy, explode out there. And since then, he's obviously, been everywhere where the top guest on Joe Rogan has his own hit, podcast as well that everybody should search out. That's the Dark Horse podcast.
We'll put all that on screen for folks. Darkhorse.locals, dotcom, and also on Rumble. And it's a show that I routinely watch because I do a lot of research, but I certainly don't know, a lot of what's going on the world. It was a famous Greek philosopher said, I know that, I know nothing. Anybody that tells you that they know everything is either a fool or a liar.
The more you learn, the more you don't know. But I learned a lot, from doctor Brett Weinstein, and it's great to have him, here with us. Now I've literally got dozens of topics I wanna hit. Everybody knows half the time I do an interview, it's me doing half the talking. I really wanna give you, doctor, a chance to start wherever you want, to to to to to cover the borders.
You were just out of the Darien Gap, with investigative journalist, war correspondent, Michael Yon. You should do an amazing podcast, with Tucker Carlson. I watched the whole thing once and then watched the clips again. We we played them on the show. You really nailed what's happening.
And and we were just talking before we started taping, you should listen. We have to save western civilization. We're in a crisis. We've got to transcend these, labels of left and right. I totally agree with you.
So we're gonna cover the waterfront here today, and I really appreciate you you, taking the time to make yourself available. So, let's let's start.
Speaker 0: Well, thanks. I'm really glad to to be here and to meet you finally long been a fan of yours if a bit cryptically and in fact maybe that is a place to start many years ago I guess it would have been something like 20 11 I was part of the movement got ridiculous quickly and I I wish I had realized where it was headed earlier I was paying attention actually to your coverage of it and something that impressed and surprised me was that as the occupy movement was being targeted by the federal government you covered that targeting and you were incensed by it and I was I was heartened to see you defending people who obviously ideologically were not closely aligned with you and I felt I felt at the time and I feel even more strongly now that you're a patriot and I really appreciate that you see all Americans as worth defending. So thank you for that.
Speaker 1: Well, thank you, I think. But look. If if I don't defend everybody, I'm not gonna get defended. It was that famous, you know, quote by the pastor in Nazi Germany that he didn't stand up for this group when they came after him, then he stand up for that group. And finally, when they came for him, there was nobody left to stand up for him.
Speaker 0: I exactly agree with this, and I think that really is the team that needs to assemble. All of the patriots who respect the principles on which the US was founded and indeed the Western civilization is founded need to put aside ideological differences so that we can fend off what threatens Western civilization and at the point that we've succeeded in doing that we can go back to fighting over ideological issues. But for the moment, they're they're beside the point.
Speaker 1: Now I didn't really go into your bio, and and most people know who you are and they know a lot about you. But maybe we should just real quick talk about, your background, what you've done, your best selling book, the hunter gatherer's guide, the 21st century, and and and and then kind of your political process and what you would call yourself today. And then let's talk about that big attack on western civilization and then launch into what wherever you wanna go.
Speaker 0: Sure. You want me to tell people my background?
Speaker 1: Just about yourself. Yeah. Sure.
Speaker 0: I'm an evolutionary biologist. I studied bats as part of my dissertation work, but that work led me quickly to the study of biological trade offs. That is to say oftentimes anybody who's managed a system knows that you can't have everything you have to borrow from one thing in order to accomplish something else and it turns out that that's the way biology functions too. So anyway that became my focus and it has an important implication to this day in terms of how I see civilization and other complex systems functioning. I taught for 14 years at the Evergreen State College, which was a very strange place.
It was the most liberal college in the country, I believe, by almost any measure. And there was a lot to it that was crazy, but there was also a lot to it that was quite brilliant. The founders of the college had thrown out every single structure that would exist in a normal college or university and replaced it with something else. And half of what they built, didn't really work, but half of it actually allowed for professors who were very serious about teaching to innovate entirely new ways of doing that. We had total freedom to teach anything we wanted in any way we wanted.
Students took one class at a time, full time. Professors taught one class at a time, full time. And that meant that we knew every student, not just by name, but we knew who they were and how they thought. And that allowed us to teach right to each individual, which is a very powerful way of doing it, which that that strong connection with students is why when I was confronted May 23, 2017 by 50 students that I had never met accusing me of racism, I wasn't concerned. There were too many people who knew that that accusation had no reality to it.
And so, I knew it wasn't going to stick. So that allowed me to stand up to them, and the protesters who came after me made the mistake of proudly filming everything they did. And when they released that footage to the internet, people looked at me being confronted by students who weren't willing to even have a conversation with me, and they knew something was wrong in this, diversity, equity, and inclusion movement.
Speaker 1: Just to interrupt, it felt like a malice struggle section.
Speaker 0: I think it it was in every way, except that the students who were confronting me, I don't think knew very much about now. But in every other way, yes.
Speaker 1: Keep going. Sorry.
Speaker 0: So, anyway, I was teaching evolutionary biology. The college had hired a new president who was interested in remaking the college, according to very different rules, But he had a problem because at Evergreen, the faculty had the power to stop him. And so he effectively used racism to eliminate his opponents. And I became public enemy number 1, not because there was anything wrong with my teaching, but because I was gonna be an obstacle to his plans. And, that resulted in the dramatic confrontation that, many of in your audience probably probably witnessed at the time.
Speaker 2: Dialectic means you are using disagreement to discover what is true. I am not interested in debate. I'm interested only in dialectic, which does mean I listen to you and you listen to me.
Speaker 3: No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. No. No. No.
No. No. We don't care what terms you wanna speak on. This is not about you. I'm talking about
Speaker 4: all about them.
Speaker 3: On terms of white privilege. This is not a discussion. You have lost that one.
Speaker 2: I am talking about terms that serve the truth. Those are the top
Speaker 3: Are you guys telling her? Alright. Talk to to see this color. That you I think we have
Speaker 4: less time. Are targeting. Have a few have a few
Speaker 2: Do I think that black students in sciences are targeted here? Do I think they're targeted anywhere?
Speaker 3: I hear you. I don't speak to what you know here. Speak to the
Speaker 2: Okay. I do not believe that students of color are targeted in the sciences here. Why? But maybe I misunderstand what you mean by targeted.
Speaker 3: Do it. So wait a second. Can hear.
Speaker 2: To me, targeted means something different than what I just heard you define it as. I do not believe that anybody on our faculty with intent, especially targeted the
Speaker 3: I mean, you may heard of any question. Yeah. Okay. Wait a second. First of all first of
Speaker 2: all, day of absence has been here longer than I have. I have never protested
Speaker 3: No. I'm
Speaker 2: not. No. I'm not.
Speaker 3: The email. First of all, I You're prohibited. I'm not. I'm not.
Speaker 1: So so this sounds like almost like also like a French revolution purge going on that once they killed the royalty and the rest of it, then it was just inner factions battling for control.
Speaker 0: Yes. All of these things have historical echoes. There were elements of what happened at Evergreen that were new, but, of course, most of it were was just a refresh of of historical chapters and, you know it it was about something else. Race became an excuse for a battle that was desired by powerful forces that weren't interested in sharing their plan with the faculty, students, or anybody else.
Speaker 1: It seemed like Everdeen wetted the mouth too or or or the taste buds because then it seemed to be like the bellwether, and then it spread across academia everywhere and and was defended by the media. Now here we are 6, 7 years later. Now everybody who's gotta have a brain, the vast majority didn't say no. Academia, major colleges have turned into nut houses.
Speaker 0: Well, the fact is they were they were already, and indeed, that wasn't new either. When Heather, my wife, also a biologist, also actually she was evergreen's most popular professor, but when we were in college ourselves we faced the first iteration of what would later go on to be called diversity equity and inclusion at the time it was political correctness and it had taken over anthropology and when Heather and I took an anthropology course we found an evolutionary perspective unwelcome and so we fought back against that actually failed the course because the professor was not interested in having any any pushback but it in any case this has been going on for decades and it finally completely took over the universities and has left them in a state that's actually totally upside down I mean that used to be the universities made students smarter. Now, they're actually making them fools. They're teaching them things that just simply aren't true and enforcing their acceptance of those things.
Speaker 1: Like trying to make biologists, tell their class that too many can have a baby?
Speaker 0: Precisely. I mean, this is just this is just so biologically nonsense nonsensical that you would imagine every university in the country would have a group of biologists saying, I don't know how you reached that conclusion, but it just isn't right. And yet, one struggles to find any university in which anybody is standing up against such claims. And that's really because the ones who would stand up have been forced out.
Speaker 1: Two words, nitric boost. Ladies and gentlemen, this product without us even promoting it has become one of our top 3 because people get it and it blows them away. The health, the energy, the immune system, the bedroom department. What it does with the vasodilation alone, not to mention the immune system, exercise performance, you name it, is incredible. And the product is now back in stock at infowarsstore.com for 40% off.
Secure your model now of nitric boost@infowarsstore.com, and it funds the M4 which is an added bonus. Nitric boost. Nitric boost. 40% off. In stock.
Ready to ship. Infowarsstore.com. Nitric boost. Thank you all for your support, and you need this product. Wow.
So thanks for spending some time on that. There's so many places to segue. So many place. Walk us through then in the present world and how you would describe just in a larger just just called the world today, and why you're so concerned about really the collapse of civilization.
Speaker 0: Sure. There's a feature of complex systems that I think people don't really appreciate. There are many systems that are incredibly powerful, like Western civilization, but they are also in their own way fragile. The fact is certain conditions have to be present in order for west western civilization to function. The consent of the governed being key among them.
We have to be able to throw people out when they don't do the job correctly. And to the extent that that control of the citizenry over governance is considered threatening by people who wish to use governance for their own objectives they subvert democracy and they leave us with something in which yes elections take place but our ability to control in which direction policy moves is, ever less obvious. So that's where we are. We've got a system with no rudder, or if there is a rudder, it's under the control of something that we can't see headed in some direction we don't know.
Speaker 1: And there's thousands of parallels to this, but The globalist can't win this fight against humanity if the people have a voice. And banned on video is one of the most important voices out there. So share this report you're watching and also financially support its sponsor that has great products at infowarsstore.com. Again, thanks for keeping us on air. Please share the video, and please visit infowarsstore.com.
Now the insanity that's been incubating or chest dating inside of the colleges and funded by the big corporations, I guess there's a mode of control, has spilt out the FAA is gonna try to put schizophrenics flying jumbo jets, and they're they're literally gonna hire mentally handicapped people. When I first saw that news a few months ago, I didn't believe it. I went and looked it up. Now they have major FAA meetings and major airline meetings that that have leaked just the last few weeks. Whether it's sitting there saying, it's gonna make everybody uncomfortable, but we're not gonna go for who the best pilots are.
And you're watching this just thinking, I I I don't care if they're black or white or older, young or gay or straight or male or female, but you better damn well pass the highest test scores.
Speaker 5: What what do you think are some of the key points that we need to remember, as we as we embark on this challenge going
Speaker 4: forward? Your whole program And so let's be willing that is today what it is. And then let's talk about what could the future look like if if if you really had this program that was representative of the whole, country, right, of the whole world. And, sometimes those are challenging or, you know, difficult, or I would say people get a little bit uncomfortable, talking about that. And, like, hey.
We're not gonna make change unless we get a little bit uncomfortable. And let's be uncomfortable together, and let's do the right things and support each other moving forward.
Speaker 1: This is insane.
Speaker 0: Well, when I was driven out of Evergreen in the early days after that, I was asked to speak in numerous places about the free speech crisis on college campuses. And at some point, I ended up testifying to congress on this, And I told them the same thing I had said each other time I've been asked, which is it's not a free speech cry crisis, and it's not about college campuses. That's simply the first place you're seeing it. This is somehow an attack on Western civilization and the wrong headed ideas that, are alarming when you see them in a classroom become dangerous when they migrate out into civilization and they take over engineering firms. They take over literally everything because almost all of the jobs in civilization are done by people who pass through these colleges and were ideologically captured as they went through.
There's no question that those wrong headed ideas are going to destroy everything that functions if we don't, get our wits about our get our wits about us quickly. And even then, even then you're talking about a problem that is going to take a couple of generations to correct. Even if we started doing everything right today, we have to clear the people who are so confused about the way mathematics and biology work, and we have to put people in important positions who know what's going on. But given the complete collapse of the university system, there isn't there isn't an obvious source for those clear headed people.
Speaker 1: And doctor, that's one kind of level I'd say down at the grassroots, Thousand foot level, 500 foot level, 100 foot level. But I saw you on Tucker Carlson's podcast. I think you went further. I've seen you saying, no. This is very dark.
This is very planned. If if you go up to the 1,000,000 foot level and and look down and you listen to Klaus Schwab and the globalist, they say, we're building a post industrial world. We have to have an angrier world to blow it up, and we're gonna do this for depopulation. And then somehow, they're gonna try to, like, secret away the knowledge in some Alexandrian, you know, vault, and then roll it out later. And and I'm a lay historian who's the common sense guy that researches, and I've talked to a lot of their experts in in every field, military, finance, you name it.
They say no. If they keep cutting off fertilizer and food, and if they continue destabilizing western countries to collapse those, the war games go from horrible to Armageddon into the world. So, I mean, we're talking about cataclysms, and then you've got all these big billionaires like Zuckerberg and others building huge underground, bunkers. And then all the locals built it and hate them and say, as soon as things go to hell and I'm literally in Hawaii and ran into the a a main contractor and then the workers and all of them saying, we're gonna go get that son of a bitch. And they're telling me this, and I'm like, you know, I'm a can I say that?
Well, don't say our names. And I'm just sitting there watching them building this that's about to be raided in a new French revolution, and these globalists think, have they stolen all the wealth, consolidated power, created a oligarchical fascist, you know, system, with with their computers and their flash trading and, you know, this vertical integration, and they're gonna use some leftist ideology to try to control people when what they're doing is just scientific insanity, scientific consolidation for the consolidation, and then they think their plan of imploding civilization, that that somehow they're not gonna have blowback from that. They are go and and, again, they thought they could do all this and never be the target. They thought we would all kill each other, but now that we've identified the globalist and most thinking people now know about them, and there's a huge mass accelerated awakening happening with no one can deny, they should know your plan would never have worked before. One chance out of a 1,000 in my view.
Now there's no way it works. But as you said, if we tried to put the brakes on this and the globalist or the elite suddenly realized how insane they were, it'll take generations to turn it around. They've already set in motion a countdown to doomsday. I mean, I don't I've got 4 children. I I wanna fix this, but I am mightily freaked out.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I I agree. My impression is that they are clever enough to wreck the systems that work, and they are far from clever enough to rebuild something, in their wake. So, yeah, I I think they are they are heading us for disaster and that they are going to discover how much hubris has been driving them when it's too late for them but I don't think we really have any choice but to rescue Western civilization it is the best tool we've got always has been it's not to say that it can't use upgrading here and there but we have to save it because your children, my children, and all of the grandchildren that we might ultimately have are depending on us to do it.
Speaker 1: The way you just took my 3 minute rant and crystallized in 30 seconds, that's why I'm a fan. The enemies of humanity have been very good at dividing and conquering us. But if we simply start thinking about things according to the definition of is it prohuman or is it antihuman, we start to win. And that's why I had the idea for team humanity. I brought it up to Elon Musk.
He loved the idea. What would you call the debate and discussion about a pro human future? Just team humanity?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Team humanity. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And so we have the t shirt. Team humanity with a nuclear family standing against the globalist. This shirt is a great conversation starter, but it also is a fundraiser. Keep in force on the air. So you can promote and support team humanity.
I wanna thank you all for your past support, but I wanna encourage you all now to understand that this is a revolution against the globalist. And it is so critical now to signal the fact that you are part of team humanity. We're told humans are the problem. We're told we're killing Earth. We're told all this garbage so we hate ourselves and stand down and roll over and die.
We're not gonna do that. Get your team humanity shirts now at info warsstore.com. And I thank you all for your support. We'll let you. In fact, I'm gonna shut up now.
Let's just go. Where do you wanna go? Darien Gap? The collapse of the border is a great microcosm. The wars, Tucker Carlson and Putin.
I mean, there's just a go wherever you want, doctor.
Speaker 0: Well, let let's, cover something you asked, upfront, which is how do I see myself politically because I think this is going to be an important potential sticking point for your audience and and it shouldn't be So I will let's say the worst part up front, which is that I regard myself not just as a liberal, but as a radical. Now I describe myself as a reluctant radical because I've studied complex systems, and I know that any attempt to improve things invites the danger of unintended consequences. This is the problem for liberal thought, is that when you try to fix things, you create phenomena you don't see coming. So, I'm aware of that, and I would not be enthusiastic about changing a system that works if I didn't think that we had to do it and that the system that we have built is not capable of managing the scale of the processes that we are utilizing today so we have no choice but to change but we should be very careful about the unintended consequences we should go in with our eyes open, and we should monitor the consequences of we're doing of what we're doing so that we know when we're making an error and we can stop as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: What you're saying is you wanna change the previous system and fix problems, but this new Klaus Schwab fix is is not the fix. It's death.
Speaker 0: It's death. It it is death. And it's not that I want to fix the prior system. Frankly, I think the prior system was pretty amazing, and that what I ideally would like is for that system to go through a process of, upgrading slightly so that we could detect the consequences of what we're changing. I just think at this point, civilization has technologically changed to an extent that many of our governance principles are inadequate for dealing with the risks.
And, you know, you can see this in the COVID crisis, for example. The biology involved in understanding the risks of the mRNA shots, for example, is, pretty deep and protecting, informed consent. Informed consent, in fact, needs to be, in some sense upgraded and enhanced because of the types of risks involved in a novel technology like that. So in any case, I'm not enthusiastic about changing civilization. I'm a huge fan of what we had going, but technology is going to force our hand, and we need to be careful going
Speaker 1: forward. You're not trying to fix problems in the old system. You're saying it's colliding with all these great new changes and automation, robotics, and supercomputing, and quantum computing, all the rest of it. So we have to be honest, and instead, Klaus Schwab and those guys literally go, it's magic. Once the AI is in control, we'll fix it.
But we've gotta bulldoze everything that was already there because we're gonna imagine this big beautiful palace we're gonna build, and then it's creating a perfect storm like a black hole of destruction.
Speaker 0: Yes. And I would say the way to think of the problem is to separate the values from the structures and mechanisms that bring them about. And this is a place where I believe that there is no distinction between properly thinking liberals and properly thinking conservatives. What we want is a system that liberates individuals as meaningfully and as broadly as possible. That should be our guide.
Speaker 1: That's classically liberal.
Speaker 0: It is it is classically liberal, and I believe it is also actually liberal, and it is a perfect match for what I find my many conservative friends believe as well. That this is the metric that we can use to test any system that we put in place. Does it liberate people or does it constrain them? If it liberates them meaningfully over the long term, it's a good thing. And I do mean meaningfully.
I don't I'm not talking about people being liberated to frivolously engage nonsense. I'm talking about people who actually have enough power over their lives that they can pursue meaning or beauty and compassion. All of the best things about empowerment. Yep. Exactly.
Speaker 1: So so just my my little thought on this, and only because I've read the writings of the think tanks, the Gates funds, and the UN, the people who are running it in Klaus Schwab, the Club of Rome. They just say humans are done. There's too many of them. We're when you get a bunch of freedom, you become decadent trash. We wanna bring feudalism back for whoever we let live, and then we're gonna sit up here like Mount Olympus and and and direct well, I mean, I mean, it's the hunger games, but in the real world.
And so that's why they wanna destabilize the human system so that we're so inept that we've gotta have machines come in to basically run our lives as a process of them phasing out the human errors. You've all know Ari talks about, you know, the posthuman world, the world's the future is not human. And again, you look at that, it's it's not working. It that that plan would never work in my view, and and it and it's incredibly risky. Plus, billions of people are gonna go along with it.
That's called war.
Speaker 6: Please welcome Yuval Noah Harari. Calling is critical because this is what convinces people to accept, to legitimize, total biometric surveillance. We want to stop this epidemic. We need not just to monitor people. We need to monitor what's happening under their skin.
What we have seen so far, it's corporations and governments collecting data about where we go, who we meet, what movies we watch. The next phase is the surveillance going under our skin. We now see mass surveillance systems established even in democratic countries, which previously rejected them. And we also see a change in the nature of surveillance. Previously, surveillance was mainly above the skin.
Now it's going under the skin.
Speaker 3: Embedded in his hand is a microchip that serves as his keys, his ID, and his wallet.
Speaker 6: Governments want to know not just where we go or who we meet. Above all, they want to know what is happening under our skin. What's our body temperature? What's our blood pressure? What what is our medical condition?
Speaker 3: In a matter of seconds, the chip is inserted. Transformation is complete.
Speaker 0: When scanned, all of a person's information about their vaccination status is shown on a reader or phone.
Speaker 6: Now humans are developing even bigger powers than ever before. We are really acquiring divine powers of creation and destruction. We are really upgrading humans into gods. We are acquiring, for instance, the power to reengineer life. Humans are now hackable animals.
Speaker 1: You will own nothing, and you will be happy.
Speaker 6: I think that fake news have been with us for 1000 of years. Just think of the Bible. You know, the the whole idea that humans have, you know, this they they have this soul or spirit, and they have free will, and nobody knows what's happening inside me. So whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will, that's over.
Speaker 1: To me, this is the central issue of it all. When you were on Tucker, you explained. You said, listen. There's not words to describe, I'm paraphrasing, how dark this is. The open borders, this need to the the the devaluation of currencies, the the destabilization.
When you look at it, it's there is organization by the administrators, as you said. It's easy to dynamite destroy things when you're the administrator and and have all this BlackRock money. But notice they can't ever actually build anything. They're sitting there going, look what a great artist I am, smashing things. And then society looks like a Jackson Pollock, but how are they ever gonna paint a Rembrandt?
Speaker 0: They're not. What they have recognized is that they have no use for us. And I wish that was an exaggeration, but you can see this so clearly in what they did to the public over COVID. They were unconcerned about delivering novel they're not vaccines, but novel so called vaccines into people who stood no chance for benefiting from them. Healthy young people, there was never an argument that made any sense for delivering those shots to help the young people about the best you could say was that you might do that in order to protect vulnerable infirm people that's not something at a rational civilization would do but at least that's a logical argument but at the point that we discovered that these things did not in any way control the disease, they didn't control people contracting it, they didn't control people transmitting it, The logic for inflicting them on healthy young people who were not threatened by COVID and stood to gain nothing evaporated.
And yet, we're doing it to this day. Harvard apparently just, reinitiated their policy of requiring those shots for their own students. So, driving doesn't care that it is going to kill people who have long potentially important, contribute long lives of potentially important contributions to make.
Speaker 1: That's that's powerfully said. And, well, I've got a 100 angles I wanna go with. But but but, doctor, where should we go next? People can find all your work at darkhorse.locals.com. They can also find you at dark horse on Rumble.
They can find your book, which was amazing about it years ago. The hunter gatherer's guide to the 21st century, from a former professor at Evergreen State College. Where should we go next? Because, I mean, I'm happy to, direct this. You wanna get into Tucker and Russia and the war, the borders, what's gonna happen with the election, Biden?
I mean, you can see it everywhere. Things are unraveling.
Speaker 0: Well, let's, briefly just talk about the central concept of the book that Heather and I wrote. Yes. The central concept of that book, and in fact, it would also have been a good title, is hyper novelty. And the idea of hyper novelty is that although human beings are the fastest evolving animal species that has ever existed, That is largely the result of the fact that we evolve in a different way. We are actually able to evolve culturally, which is much more rapid than genetic evolution.
But even though we are the fastest evolving animal species that has existed, the rate of technological change is so fast that even our evolutionary capacity
Speaker 1: We can't catch up.
Speaker 0: We cannot keep up. And that is resulting in us being sick physically, psychologically, socially. And what you're detecting as the collapse of civilization is really a manifestation of many different kinds of hyper novelty that is making it difficult for us to see what's in our interest, to figure out what to put in our mouths, to figure out what we should think about various issues. We are we are like a fish out of water.
Speaker 1: That that's the analogy I use. Or or also even our best men and women trying to go to Mars, they're gonna lose a lot of their muscle mass, heart mass. They're gonna have serious health problems once they get once they get there, they're gonna be very lucky that it has a lower gravity because they're gonna be a lot weaker. And and so what we're all going through is is is such a change. Whether people believe in classical evolution or not, it's it's clear humans are evolving.
We do control our environment like another like any other animal out there. We're able to do amazing things. But with something this accelerated, we can't do it. But I read a lot of globalist writings. They're very nihilistic.
They sit back and say, screw it. It won't matter if 1,000,000,000 die in this evolution. Some humans will accelerate evolution. We'll get the uber mention out of this battle of the gods, Guderdammerung. And I'm like, boy, I heard this from Hitler before.
I mean, this is real megalomaniac crap.
Speaker 0: Yes. And in fact, I heard you recently talking about the fact that there are more 100 more than 400 civilian nuclear reactors on planet Earth. What people may or may not realize is that those reactors require constant vigilance to keep them from melting down their design requires that heat to be removed from them constantly and so a civilizational breakdown threatens to take all of the material in these reactors and expel it into the world somehow I don't think the people who are recklessly steering us into such danger have considered the fact that they are living on a planet that is rigged so that they need people to to maintain of those reactors even for them to have a planet worth living on. So it looks purely reckless to me, and I don't think that there is a super clever secret plan that we are not in on. I think they think there is, but I think they're wrong that it actually makes sense.
Speaker 1: Oh, you're absolutely right. I mean, I've no folks that have gone to Davos, have been around about. I'll leave it at that. It's literally prostitutes, drugs. They're delusional.
They think they're all powerful. They believe this, and they have no plan even 30 years from now to have robots running these reactors. And and it's crazy. If you look at the designs of these general electric systems and others, they'll use outside power to then run the cooling and dump it into a cooling pond instead of the reactor's own power to run the system to use it in the cooling pond. And I'm not a nuclear physicist or any of this, but I read what they say.
They're literally built the cheapest and the worst you could. And the minute the power goes off and the minute there's a crisis folks, nuclear reactors are not like a 100 megaton bomb going off over Dallas or Austin, and there's a flash at 5,000 feet and it vaporizes and, you know, destroys most of the city. But there's very little radiation after that. When a reactor goes off like Chernobyl or like Fukushima, it's it's it's much worse, and we those were partially contained. We're talking about 100 and 100 of reactors blowing up.
And even if you are half a mile underground, it's gonna end up getting to you, and the service of the earth will be unlivable for eons. The the the as you said, I've looked at every angle. There's no way the so called globalist that pretend they're masters of the universe have even looked at this one problem.
Speaker 0: Right. This one problem already tells you that that these are effectively mad men. Because if they weren't, they would at the very least have arranged to put all of the material that had been out of the reactors long enough, and I believe it's 5 years, into dry cask storage so that it did not have to be, actively cooled in order to
Speaker 1: Instead, they store it in the open tanks.
Speaker 0: The worst possible place you could put it. And, you know, Fukushima taught us every if you knew how to pay attention to the Fukushima story, it should have taught us everything we needed to know. Because, in fact, as bad as Fukushima was, and it's far worse, in my opinion, than most people realize, it was a fraction of as bad as it might have been. And the thing that separated what happened from what might have happened was luck. Right?
They just barely managed to keep it together, and it is not hard to imagine scenarios in which, for example, a fuel pool had cracked and drained, causing a fire that would have made the site unmanageable. So they are gambling with a planet that isn't theirs to destroy, that is actually it is the birthright of every living person, and it is the entitlement of all the people who will eventually live here. They are they are gambling with it, and they obviously don't know what they're doing.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows I'm not around. I'm taking on the new world order. And if you wanna energize yourselves and take your energy next level, then you need to get foundational energy. This out of all our products is the mother load. Get it now, foundationalenergy@infowarsstore.com or go yourself.
And by the way, I'm not the huge environmentalist in that I follow that cult. I actually care about the earth as a conservationist. It's also all the other creatures on this planet. Yep. This is sick.
And I I watch them saying, oh, we're gonna cut the carbon dioxide. That's the most evil thing. I'm like, you won't even get control of the nuclear reactors, assholes? I mean, I'm sorry. It makes me mad.
Speaker 0: Well, I must tell you this is, one of the things I I like about you best is that you're looking at this logically speaking, not ideologically. And I find, in fact, many conservatives are not aware of the hazard of the nuclear reactors, and they are frankly deaf to environmental concerns, because environmental concerns have been abused by those selling climate change as the biggest threat to humanity. And what I'm hoping will emerge from a partnership across ideology is a recognition that irrespective of where you think the diversity of the earth came from, that we have an obligation to steward it well, and we are doing a terrible job of that. That we have an obligation to if we're going to have nuclear power, it has to be built on a different basis than the reactors that we are currently continuing to run right and that these are this is just common sense it's not liberal it's not conservative it is common sense. And, I don't know how we can gather under that banner, but I know that the need to do so is absolutely urgent.
Speaker 1: Well, I made the point, and I and I guess you saw a part of what I said last week because it did get picked up and got a lot of views, couple of million views. I I just said, if you sign up with the executive over a nuclear power plant, badly made euthanasia legal, well, just say then, you agree that if it melts down or there's a big problem, you agree to be executed. The no court, no nothing. You signed on. You're the steward.
You agreed to run this right, and and and the shareholders are sitting out there. They need to be held responsible. And I don't wanna run around killing people. I'm not salivating. I'm just making the point that these people are running things that just a few of these completely melting down will kill 100 of millions of people of horrible cancers and stuff, and and and they should be held accountable.
Speaker 0: Well, at the very least, if you want the system to evolve in the direction of producing benefits for humanity, there has to be accountability for people when they make avoidable errors.
Speaker 1: Well, how do we have accountability for the nuclear power industry? Because I I get it's a real science. It can be done right. I've I've read a lot of books to see what experts have said. But when I look how they run it, they run it like it's a pig farm or something.
I mean, it's just like just like you said, Fukushima is what I was thinking about. They they're they've got, like, all the nuclear waste stored inside the building and inside the water when you're supposed to remove it.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I mean, the design was preposterous, and, you know, it was preposterous at at many levels. You know, the fact that it existed, below the known level of tsunamis meant that the flooding of the the the generators that were supposed to keep the cooling water flowing was perfectly predictable. And yet, nobody cared about it. And, you know, as you point out, I don't think anybody who was responsible for that design, was held accountable.
In fact, we've just we've obscured the harm that did come from it, and we certainly haven't talked about the harm that might have come from it.
Speaker 1: And don't forget, the Japanese built it on the worst fault line of their country.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. It was a completely predictable catastrophe.
Speaker 1: So on a fault line, in a tsunami zone.
Speaker 0: Right. With the reactor with, generators that were unprotected from a flood that would you know, wasn't a matter of if. It was a matter of when.
Speaker 1: Well, I used to talk to a lot of people in congress still do and, like, military generals people. I still do, but they would say, Jones, you don't understand how incompetent the elites are. You didn't have got all the power and control. They don't. They got all the money, so they're in charge.
But they let me tell you something. They are not paying attention. And I think that's more frightening than some actual supergenius because at least a supergenius wouldn't wanna destroy themselves.
Speaker 0: Right. No. The this is my exact concern is that even the elites, what I call the rent seeking elites, who we are clearly fighting, even they are depending on us winning Because they don't know how enough to run the system. They don't have the proper caution in their model. They don't understand the systems that they're playing with.
Frankly, they can't distinguish between a complicated system and a complex system, and they keep upending themselves.
Speaker 1: Explain that.
Speaker 0: So a complex system is impossible to predict at a high level of precision, which means that it requires a whole different level of caution than something that is just simply complicated like a computer, where it may be beyond your ability to understand what's going on in there, but it is all understandable. Right? You can say what a computer is gonna do when you alter this, that, or the other thing. A complex system is a special entity. And, you know, in the case of, COVID, you had multiple nested complex systems, Right?
You had a disease interacting with the immune system, which is a complex system inside a human body, which is a complex system inside of civilization, which is a complex system. No wonder they screwed it up. They just simply didn't know enough about that system to to manage it. And of course, it got out of control. And, frankly, those of us who did appreciate the complexity of the system were able to, reveal their foolishness publicly just simply by treating the systems in question with the proper level of analytical respect.
Speaker 1: And I get upfront because you didn't know exactly what's going on the time. You wanted more data. You were going along with it at first, but then once you saw what was happening, you changed course. That takes more courage, you know, than than than people that are partly wrong and they never admit they're wrong. But but if we pull back from this, how did they think because this up in a lab, How did they think when all the scientists scanned it and said, yes.
It's obviously man made. And then they bring out a shot, which even their own internal people go public saying this isn't gonna work. Even the FDA had a memo out in in October 2000 saying, we think it'll have all these problems. And then the big money people just said, we don't care. Bring it out there.
Do it. And now I watch the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation events. I watch the congressional hearings. I watch the hearings, with all the other big think tanks, like the Clinton Global Initiative. And there's Chelsea Clinton going, it's true.
Everyone hates us now and doesn't believe us, and now no one's taking any of the shots. It's like 3% uptake on the on the new boosters. And, like, I was I was telling him. I'm like, whether they did it on purpose or not, regardless, it shows that they didn't know that this would absolutely screw the pooch. I mean, because they have they I mean, they are hated now.
Speaker 0: Well, and and rightly so. You know, it it would be one thing if they had made all of these errors, and then upon the revelation that these things were wrong had changed course. But the fact that they don't change course tells us they didn't care in the first place whether what they were saying was true. Maybe they didn't believe any of it to begin with.
Speaker 1: So whether they did it on purpose or not, which you can debate all day, they certainly now know and have bought into keeping it going, so now they are behind. Right.
Speaker 0: I mean, the fact is those shots should never have been injected into a human being. There it was absolutely clear that we didn't know what the long term consequences were going to be, that the evidence that they had benefits was misrepresented so that people would accept them with, you know, simple accounting tricks and the like. But, yes. The fact that they are still inflicting these shots tells us that they didn't care about the public in the first place. And we ought to take that lesson to heart.
Now, to your point about having bought it at first, there's no question that I, along with most other people, bought something about this story at the beginning. And to the extent that people have woken up, that's something that happens over time. But I I know very well how I how my process of awakening began. It literally took one hour almost to the minute.
Speaker 7: Hello, Americans. I want to share with you a story. A story about inflammation, the silent menace that lurks within our bodies affecting our health and well-being. Inflammation, the root cause of countless ailments, quietly wreaking havoc over time. Long term exposure to inflammation has been linked to a myriad of health issues, from heart disease to arthritis, even cognitive decline.
But fear not, for there's a beacon of hope found in the wisdom of nature, a remedy that has stood the test of time, turmeric. Recent studies have uncovered the extraordinary health benefits of curcuminoids, the active compounds in turmeric. And now I present to you Bawdees from infowarsstore.com, a powerful blend crafted with precision boasting 95% curcuminoids extracted from turmeric. But it doesn't stop there. Audis incorporates a symphony of ingredients meticulously chosen to enhance the absorption of curcuminoids, ensuring your body reaps the full benefit.
1st on the stage, organic black pepper extract, nature's enhancer. It contains piperine, which studies suggest can boost curcumin absorption by up to 2 1000%. A remarkable duo working hand in hand to maximize the benefits of turmeric. The final crescendo, Badees' core, 95% curcuminoids extracted from turmeric. Once absorbed, curcuminoids unleash their anti inflammatory magic, targeting the very pathways that fuel chronic inflammation.
It's not just a supplement. It's a natural force working with your body to restore balance. You see, it's not just about what you take. It's about what your body can absorb. Now let me throw it over to a man who needs no introduction, Alex Jones.
Speaker 1: Body's ultimate turmeric formula is back in stock. I wanna explain something. It's turmeric concentrate. It's 95% curcuminoid. We went to the top lab and said, what's the strongest you put out?
They said, like, 87%. Most companies put out raw turmeric. It's 5%, 4%. This is 95% cucuminoinoid. Okay?
So this is like I guess, examples like, instead of eat you you have to eat, like, you know, 10 of those other pills just to get what is in one of these. It's good for your heart, your brain, everything. It is 40 percent off, back in stock. Bodies ultimate turmeric formula, infowarsstore.com.
Speaker 7: Bodies, an ally in the battle against inflammation. Visitinfowarsstore.com now and seize the opportunity to take control of your health. Now you know the rest of the story. Until next time, good day.
Speaker 8: Good day. Good day. Good day. Good day. Good day.
Speaker 0: And what happened to me was Heather and I were actually working on our book in a remote location in the Amazon, in Ecuador. And our so we weren't connected to the world because, our phones didn't reach anywhere. And when we emerged from the Amazon, our phones came awake. We saw for the first time that there was some novel coronavirus circulating, that the claim was that it was from bats. And,
Speaker 1: And you're a bat scientist.
Speaker 0: I'm a bat biologist, so I looked at it, and I thought
Speaker 1: I would You're Batman.
Speaker 0: I guess. But I I looked at this, and I I looked at the paper in question, and I thought it would be good. It would be reassuring to tell my Twitter followers that I'd looked at this, that I knew the bat family in question, that, it made sense to me that this virus would have, emerged in a contact between, people and these bats, etcetera. And so I put out a tweet. And one of my followers came back and said, are you saying it's a coincidence that this virus emerged on the doorstep of a biosafety level 4 research lab studying bat coronaviruses in Wuhan?
And I said, what the hell don't I know? That that's shocking, that level of coincidence, and I retracted my tweet. And the point is that's where my awakening started. Now, I did believe that masks had a potential value. And in fact, that's not such a crazy belief because we didn't know at first whether this virus transmitted by what's called fomite transmission on surfaces.
And if it did, then not coughing droplets onto surfaces would have been useful. Turns out it doesn't transmit that way. Turns out the evidence is that masks don't play an important role, and so I got that wrong.
Speaker 1: Well, let's let's let's let's let's let's let's clear. Because people attack you with us because they're jealous. You're really smart. You're entertaining. You're informative.
I like your show. Everybody I know likes your show. I told family you were coming on. They were really excited about it. But you're popular.
People love you. And you're a good guy, and you're smart. The fact that you got some things wrong early on out of trying to be cautious and then reverse yourself and become a prominent person, fighting it gives you more credibility, not less.
Speaker 0: Well, frankly, this is if I'm looking to figure out who I should be paying attention to, the ability for somebody to improve their model as evidence emerges is the key question.
Speaker 1: That's science.
Speaker 0: That's how it's done. And so, yeah. I'm I would love not to have gotten anything wrong, but that's, I think, inconceivable. I assumed that something we were being told was true. I now think, at least at the level of the the advice we were given, that essentially you wanted to do exactly the opposite of what you were told to do, and that would have been the best possible thing.
They told you to go home. Don't go home. Go outside. Make vitamin d.
Speaker 1: But see, you're in the Amazon writing a book. I'm reading Rockefeller Foundation documents. I'm so and I I'm interviewing the guy that wrote the US biological weapons law. So that's why we were just like, do the opposite.
Speaker 0: Do the opposite. Well, actually, you know, it's funny. I'm I'm reading, Robert Kennedy Junior's new book, on bioweapons and the connection to Wuhan. Oh. And it is absolutely frightening, the history that most of us do not know about our own biological weapons program.
And if you had known
Speaker 1: Talk some about that.
Speaker 0: Well, I'm learning from Bobby Kennedy, so I would recommend people read this book just like his last one, the real Anthony Fauci. You know, it's the kind of I
Speaker 1: read the last one incredible.
Speaker 0: It I mean, it frankly, it's a book that throws everybody who reads it. And I think through Bobby, when he wrote it, that even just compiling the evidence of what was going on with Anthony Fauci, is shocking almost no matter how awake you are.
Speaker 1: It's it's staggering.
Speaker 0: Yeah. It's staggering. And so the same thing I would say is true with this, his new book about, bioweapons and Wuhan. But I just highly recommend people look at it, and they come to understand, for example Then
Speaker 1: you learn they're all over the place.
Speaker 0: You learn they're all over the place. You learn that there is a direct connection from the Japanese bioweapons program during the the during World War 2 and the program that was then built in the US. It's really a strange story. And then the maybe the most important aspect is that what we see as a pharmaceutical industry and a campaign to generate vaccines that control disease has a very close relationship, just in terms of the people involved, as a very close relationship with that bioweapons program. That is something every citizen needs to be aware of, that these two things are not distinct.
Speaker 1: I remember reading about it. It's very well documented. At the end of, World War 2, they led a bunch of the Japanese war criminals that did the baton death marches and all the biological testing on British, Australian, Canadians, because a lot of them were over there, and and US sailors and people. It was it was mainly British Empire troops. And they let up most of them off.
I guess they hung a few of them, and they brought them over here just like the Nazis and and got all the technology.
Speaker 0: Right. And if you think that, the Nazis were the height of diabolical in terms of their medical experiments. The Japanese were involved in literally infecting people or having people infect other people and then dissecting them live without anesthetic.
Speaker 1: The Japanese are really cool people and very interesting. But if you go back to Japanese imperial brainwashing and how they worked, if you were rude to your boss, you know, you would he'd say kill yourself and you would. Their thing was these troops surrendered even though they were all shot up and stuff. You're not a human anymore. You surrendered.
That's why they were flying their planes into our aircraft carriers and committing suicide before they'd give up when they were wounded because that's like to them, like, oh, you you surrendered. You know, I got 3 bullet holes. You're subhuman. It goes back to that.
Speaker 0: Well, that's one lesson. The other lesson I would take is that this is actually a set of circuits in the human animal that can be triggered. And when we look at something like the response to COVID of the official governmental apparatus and the international community. And we look at the evidence, and it suggests that actually these people did not care about the suffering and death of citizens of any country, then what prevents us from making the connection is that it seems impossible for anyone to be so callous. But the evidence that that kind of callousness exists, that we have well documented, historical evidence that that not only exists, but that it recurs through history.
The question is, is that where we are now?
Speaker 1: Well, I I I want you to expand on that because one of the biggest mistakes of the Canadian military, the US military, and I'm not blaming the average troops, but the higher ups and and and and the European Union military is I'm sure you saw it. In about 2,021, by the end, they came out during the dancing nurses and all of it and said, we brainwash the public and use psychological warfare systems to scare everybody to submission so they do the right thing and take the shots. And, actually, our militaries ran this, and we know now the Pentagon was involved in developing the vaccine, and we're so proud of it. So they admit they were running a sign up.
Speaker 0: They do. What I don't know yet is what the purpose of this was. They seemed absolutely dedicated to getting a shot in every arm. That, in principle, I suppose, could be driven by greed, but it does not feel like a satisfying explanation. There was something driving them to want to vaccinate everybody, even children who stood no chance of getting any benefit from this.
What was that about? That's the question that keeps me up at night.
Speaker 1: Alright. So do this, doctor. And and I'm gonna try to you're so polite. I'm gonna try to give you the floor here. I saw you do a great job on Tucker, but even more has come out since you were on a a month or so ago.
You you break down and do a great job explaining, that we're talking about 17,000,000 dead, not from the COVID virus, but from the so called shots. And and then now more information's coming out, and there's an active cover up going on. Could you can you kinda repeat that but also expand on it?
Speaker 0: Sure. Now I wanna be careful. People have taken me to task for saying that 17,000,000 people died, which I didn't say. What I
Speaker 1: said show that number's gone up.
Speaker 0: Well, Dennis Raincourt did, what I think is a credible estimate. It's well published. I think you had him on. And so it suggests that something like this magnitude, of death has occurred. Now, of course, let's say that his estimate is accurate.
That's still a, a number in the midst of the development of whatever the pathologies will be. Right? We're still dealing with a a wave of excess death that has not ended. So we don't know ultimately that what the number would be. But my point would be, what we need is an active conversation about how much excess death happened and what were its causes.
Clearly, some of it was caused by things like, lockdowns, which prevented people from getting regular medical care. But what we need to know is what is the right order of magnitude, for that effect? And what is the nature? Now, this is forgive me. This is a little complex, but I want people, to think about it carefully.
Because a lot has been, put on the spike protein. People imagine that the spike protein is the cause of the pathologies. And while I think the spike protein was a very poor choice for these shots, that it does create pathologies of its own, I don't think it's the majority of what's going on. And in fact, what I believe is it is likely that many of the deaths that occur as a result of these shots, it's the result of the mRNA platform itself. That anything you loaded onto that platform would produce many of these pathologies, because the platform itself is deeply flawed.
And that, matters a great deal, because one of the things and I don't know what level in the explanation it serves, but one of the things that is true is that the COVID pandemic, whatever its nature was, from complete SIOP to entirely biological, allow the normalization of the mRNA platform, being brought and used on the public with minimal testing, which made the flaws in the platform, disappear.
Speaker 1: It's good for your heart, your brain, everything. It is 40% off back in stock. Bodies, ultimate turmeric formula, infowarsstore.com.
Speaker 7: Bodies, an ally in the battle against inflammation. Visitinfowarsstore.com now and seize the opportunity to take control of your health. Now you know the rest of the story. Until next time, good day.
Speaker 8: Good day. Good day. Good day. Good day. Good day.
Speaker 0: The fact that we were in a hurry to get out of COVID allowed them to normalize the m r the mRNA platform. And that that platform, from the business perspective, allows you to reformulate virtually any vaccine that you wanted. And
Speaker 1: In lifetime.
Speaker 0: Right. Presumably, to repatant it to create vaccines very quickly for new pathogens, whatever their origin might be. And what we in the public need to be aware of is that they haven't figured out how to solve the problem with it. So any time they deploy it, we need to say no. That and so let me just describe a little bit about why that flaw exists.
The mRNA message, this is a genetic message loaded into this platform, is surrounded by something called lipid nanoparticle. If those lipid nanoparticles stayed in your deltoid muscle, then their consequence would be localized. And although this consequence would be negative in your deltoid, it wouldn't be devastating to your health. But they, of course, don't stay in your deltoid, which we learned very early. They circulate around the body.
And the problem is that that lipid nanoparticle, lipid just means fat. And because like dissolves like, the fat on these, these tiny particles causes the mRNA to be absorbed into any cell they encounter. All of your cells are covered in a fat layer. So wherever these things circulate around the body, they get absorbed. And when they get absorbed, they trigger the cells that have taken them up to produce this protein.
Now, this is the important part. Your immune system is built so that it recognizes any cell of yours that is producing a protein that you do not ordinarily make, and it targets that cell and destroys it.
Speaker 1: Like it's cancer?
Speaker 0: Like it's virally infected.
Speaker 5: No.
Speaker 0: So basically, their their mRNA shots are a pseudovirus. They infect cells, cause those cells to make this protein, and then the immune system treats them like they are virally infected cells into tourism, which if that happens in your liver, maybe it's not that serious. You can afford it. If it happens in your heart, it's potentially devastating because it creates a wound, which is then a vulnerability. If you're a soccer player and you're running particularly hard, you know you can get a you can get a blood vessel that bursts in your heart causing a devastating pathology causing your death for example right this is a predictable consequence of a shot that has no ability to target which cells take it up and therefore no ability to protect you from your own immune system system destroying the cells that have taken it up and giving you, a lethal wound.
Speaker 1: We're taping this now, but that gives me the luxury to go back and add these clips in. But there were 3 or 4 C SPAN programs with Fauci and others in 2017, 18, 19 with all the different federal heads up there. They're like, we're gonna use a novel virus out of China, and I'll I'll play the clip, to blow up the old FDA system, and we're just gonna bring in mRNA. Well, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a doctor.
I'm not a, you know, biologist like you. But I've sit here every day, and I read Scientific American, and I read studies, and I read it. I remember I've been on there 30 years. I remember reading 20 years ago about, hey, mRNA cancer trial or mRNA this. And, like, one kid was a study in New York died.
And and they're like, well, we think it's promising, but it kills so many people. We can't do it. And so in in in lay terms, that's the platform itself is so dangerous. Yeah. Maybe you can do something, but we can't use the whole public as guinea pigs.
And I just see them trying to pollute the whole system with so much death and illness that now we don't know what hit us, and they can then use all of us, the the, you know, big corporate system as guinea pigs because they themselves want life extension, and they themselves want the cure to cancer. But they're saying we've gotta do this, and and now Tony Blair has got a company and so does Bill Gates. Oh, they've got a new mRNA vaccine cures cancer. Oh, didn't know cancer was communicable. No, folks.
They've changed the definition of of vaccines, to where it it it just means something that we put into your body that lessens the disease. But just 5 years ago, it was totally different. So I even had my 15 year old daughter this morning at breakfast, and she's arguing me about vaccines. And and, you know, and and she's reading stuff online and, you know, she and and, you know, she goes to school, and and I I try to explain things to her. And she says, dad, a a vaccine is just something that lessens the disease.
And I said, no, honey. Before that, if you've got a real vaccine, it's a real technology, Your body learns how to beat it. They they they give you a broken version of it or a weakened version, and you beat it. Mesa love side effects. Sometimes you might have an allergic response, but if they had good clean stuff, I'd take the risk.
I'd be taking it all like it was pumpkin pie. She's like, dad, how do you know all this? And I said, well, fine. I got a Snyder's coming on. I'm gonna make you watch it in a couple days.
She said, I'll find out. I'll watch it. So this is the level we're dealing with here, but but am I right in what I said?
Speaker 0: Yeah. You're right in what you said. They changed the definition, and they utilized an emergency in order to speed it past the tests that I believe would never have allowed it to be used, on humans or frankly even, farm animals. They they use the panic that was in the public. Panic which they themselves induced in order to sneak it, past the controls.
And I do have to wonder how much they saw this coming. Either they waited for an emergency or it's possible they created the emergency. Those are 2 distinct hypotheses. But, nonetheless, they used the fact that, people urgently wanted to have their fear of the virus lessened to to sell a lie. And in fact, this is where, you know, I talked a little bit about how I woke up at the point that my my Twitter follower told me that there was a biosafety level 4 lab studying these viruses in in Wuhan.
The place where that process really kicked into high gear was at the point that they said these so called vaccines were safe. Heather and I knew for certain that that could not possibly be the case. And the reason that can't possibly be the case is because safe does not mean without harm. It means without risk. If a person gets in their car drunk and drives home and they don't hit anything, it was still not safe.
The fact that they did no harm doesn't mean anything. It was dangerous. So when they told us that these so called vaccines were safe, they had to be lying, and they had to know it. And yet, they they looked right into the camera, and they told us that. So
Speaker 1: Safe and effective.
Speaker 0: Safe and effective. Effective turned out to be equally, nonsensical, but safe had to be a lie. And at the point that they were lying over that, then it raised questions of informed consent. Because, of course, at the end of World War 2, the allied powers tried Nazi doctors, and we literally hung 7 doctors. We killed them because they had violated informed consent of their patients, even though informed consent had not been formally codified yet.
So for public health authorities in 2021 to be telling us that these shots were safe when they knew better meant they weren't interested in informed consent. They had somehow given up on that principle, and that was, effectively a declaration of war on the public.
Speaker 1: And and then you add all the pressuring and all the intimidation and all the mandates. Now I noticed in Australia and Germany and the UK and Canada, like, we never told you you had to. Well, they fired 100 of thousands of nurses worldwide and persecuted people. No. You guys just Joseph Mingolett.
You you literally just violated the Nuremberg Code. Correct?
Speaker 0: Absolutely. And in fact, I was, I had not read the Nuremberg Code until I started looking into this question, And there are 10 provisions in it, and they not only did they violate Nuremberg code twice. Right? It wasn't consent. It was con it was coerced, and it wasn't informed.
They lied to us. But they violated every provision in it. Right? This was they torched the Nuremberg code, and we still haven't had that conversation publicly.
Speaker 1: And notice how smart because I I read that on air, like, 3 years ago, how good those lawyers were back then because they covered every angle a tyrant would try. Absolutely. And you read it, you go, oh my god. That's what they just did. Yep.
It's like instead of saying don't violate it, they went, this is how we do it.
Speaker 0: That they it is it is possible they used it as as an instruction set, And that tells you what kind of contempt they must hold us in. For them to have looked at a a pillar of Western civilization, an achievement that, you know, was, represented something of the sacrifice of at least 6,000,000 people in the death camps. Right? That they would torch that so willingly really tells us what we're up against.
Speaker 1: Alright. Doctor Bret Weinstein, stay right there. I wanna come back to the time we have and hit a whole bunch of issues. Tucker, Russia, the wars, the border, all of it with you. Amazing.
We'll be right back, folks. Stay with us. 2 years ago, we began developing this game that came out so much better than thought it would. It's now a number one hit. I imagine the control freak left attacking it, But I didn't know that right when the game came out with perfect timing, Elon Musk would release me on x.
And the whole world will be waking up and the day those group will be confronted at their own events by world leaders calling out their tyranny. This is the planets aligning. And now MSNBC, the corporate press, media matters, George Soros, they're all calling for it to be banned.
Speaker 9: Is there a way to counter the types of, of hate that people like Alex Jones, promote and now they do in video games. I mean, this is this is a party that talks about video games being dangerous for our kids. And yet here he is with a video game that promotes Because let's be honest here. When he is talking about killing globalists, we know what globalists now means for the Republican party and what that is code for. Because they understand they're reaching a bunch of young guys who are getting this sort
Speaker 5: of message beaten into them right now.
Speaker 0: Today, I'm playing the unhinged Alex Jones video.
Speaker 5: I saw it was released on Steam, so I'm like, well, that kinda opens the floodgates. This game is actually good fun.
Speaker 3: This is insane. Go to all the blood. Go to all these zombies.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'll eat your rat.
Speaker 3: Ass. Okay. So that is what he says. I'll eat your ass.
Speaker 1: And I I don't know
Speaker 5: what the characteristics of the game are beyond that he's involved and that it's killing globalists. This is the kind of thing that that will become a normalization lever in teaching people, oh, yeah. It's okay to kill it's okay to kill the globalist. This is pretty amazing.
Speaker 3: Jump around. Jump around. Jump around. Jump oh oh oh.
Speaker 0: Alex Jones, you are
Speaker 1: a hero.
Speaker 5: This is supposed to be Justin Trudeau, I think.
Speaker 3: Come on, Mark. Oh, shit. Mark Zuckerberg, kill me. We'll get him crawling away. Wait.
Speaker 2: What them dolls gonna do? They get
Speaker 3: oh, they ate his ass.
Speaker 1: Find out what they're scared of at alexjoe'sgame.com. Follow the link from there to Steam and download it and share it. It's 17/76. It funds the info war. It is key in the culture war.
We need to be engaged and involved in books and films and universities and Hollywood and everywhere, and we are. So get Alex Jones, New World Order Wars right now before they ban it. Make it such a big hit, they continue to shit their pants. And all the control freaks, I wanna echo what Elon Musk said to your censorship. Go yourself.
Before we go any further in the time, because now I wanna run through a whole bunch of topics to get your take on them, because I really, wanna hear your view on things. How do people, not that most folks don't know about it or don't listen, find your podcast, find your show, find your book. We're gonna put it on screen. Darkhorse is is is the name of your podcast. Darkhorse.locals.com.
You also have dark horse, on Rumble. We're putting that on screen right now, but, what else would you like to tell the viewers and listeners about where they can find you?
Speaker 0: It'd be great if you would sign up for my Twitter feed. I'm at Brett Weinstein. Brett has one t. And, yes, do sign up on for our locals community and on our Rumble channel. That helps us.
It's free to you, and we really appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And I'm glad you raised that because I I know your Twitter. I know your ex been following it for years. But even when I was kicked off, to Twitter before Elon brought me back, and I still sometimes run on to the fake accounts.
Speaker 0: There are fake accounts, and there is something algorithmically going on inside of Twitter, which is also very strange when you see it from my side of the screen. I don't know what it is. I suspect it's not Elon doing it. But let's put it this way. He said that he had, in fact, purchased a crime scene, and I think that is a very apt description.
There's a lot about Twitter that is not straightforward.
Speaker 1: When I was able to speak to him for over 2 and a half hours, like, 6 weeks ago, he said, listen. It was set up to run these shenanigans. The very fabric of it is a fraud. We're trying to fix it. Yep.
It's like a ghost of the machine.
Speaker 0: There are that's in fact exactly the phrase that I, used to try to convey this to him. There are things that I can see from my side that I think he's unaware of. So anyway, I hope he does fix it. At one point, he was talking about having to rebuild it in order to get all of the ghosts out of the machine, and I don't know where he is with that thought process.
Speaker 1: But Because I have contacts not as good as yours, but I'm able to call some of those top people when they block us or won't we put my website out? He goes, yeah. We'll fix it. It's fixed in an hour, and then somebody turns it back on. They built a lot of back doors.
Speaker 0: Right. There's a there's a lot going on in there that is not about the front end of Twitter.
Speaker 1: Alright. We got 40 minutes left. Let's run through it all. You just went to the Darien Gap. Again, that's where North America ends or Central America ends.
It goes into South America. They're officially building this giant UN operation. You you you you you did a great summation when you were on Tucker, but can you expand on that for viewers?
Speaker 0: Sure. So the Darien Gap is a gap in the Pan American Highway. It's about 60 miles in length, where the highway has never been completed. This is a highway that goes from Peru Bay, Alaska to the southern tip of South America, and there's a jungle. In fact, there's a national park In the Darien province of Panama.
And what has happened is that for various reasons largely in courage by the international community, various NGOs, there is a massive migration of people coming through the Darien Gap. And this is a disaster at an environmental level. This is extremely destructive of this, unique forest, and it really is a unique forest. It is a humanitarian catastrophe as well. People are dying in the jungle because almost all of them enter it unprepared, and it's a it's a an extremely difficult habitat to cross.
And it's also, I'm not even sure what the word would be, but politically, the implications of the huge number of migrants, almost all of whom are coming north to the US or gonna cross our southern border, the implications are utterly profound. And what I told Tucker was that I wasn't exactly sure why I went to look at this in person, because there's plenty of documentation from Michael Jahn about what's taking place. But something told me that I needed to see it in person in order to understand it. And that turned out to be true, that actually looking at it in person changed what I understood. And I came to the conclusion that there is a massive migration.
But there is also something my hypothesis is that it's actually an invasion of Chinese migrants who are motivated by something entirely distinct from the people migrating from elsewhere in the world. The migrants from elsewhere from lot of them are from South America, some of them are from the Middle East, but those migrants all tell the same story about being motivated by the economic collapses in their home countries and what they perceive as economic opportunity in the US, the Chinese migrants aren't interested in talking at all. In fact, they're extremely cagey. The extent that one gets anything from them and is a kind of hostility. There is a distinct male bias in the population of Chinese migrants.
So we're talking about young military military age males, most of them very fit, unwilling to talk about what they're doing, and oddly enough, housed separately in Panama. So
Speaker 1: And we know there's some Chinese government sponsorship.
Speaker 0: It certainly looks like the Chinese government would have to be aware of these migrants. Presumably, it would have had to let them leave China.
Speaker 1: And they've got complex apps?
Speaker 0: They have yes. This is a strange combination of low tech and high-tech. There are, apps that appear to tell them where to go and how to make the migration. They are using things like Western Union in order to bring money from home so that they can buy bus tickets that allow them to travel through Central America. It's a very odd circumstance, and the international community has, its fingerprints all over it.
You can see American flags. You can see the IOM. That's a UN, body that, if you read their website, they clearly believe that migration is inherently a good thing, and it is their job to bring it about. So this organization is inviting people to try to cross the Darien Gap, some of whom don't make it. Mothers are leaving the jungle, having lost children.
Children are leaving the jungle, orphaned. It's it's a catastrophe. And, why the international community is encouraging it is to me completely mysterious.
Speaker 1: And no media covers you other than you and Tucker Carlson and Michael Yahn. And it's a, you said, a humanitarian disaster. You you made a point on Tucker. I forget the exact quote, but it was powerful. You said, it's almost impossible to overstate how dark and organized this is.
Speaker 0: Yes. It's visible on the ground, but nobody goes to look at it. And I must say, I'm grateful to Michael Yon for having invited me and having given me effectively a guided tour. He he brought in fact, me and my son, we, we traveled to Darien, and he knew exactly, where to take us so that we could look at it for ourselves.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's also you going home because I think Jan told me you actually, for part of your bat research, lived down there for a while.
Speaker 0: Right? I lived in the Panama Canal in Lake Gat Gatun on Barrow, Colorado Island for 18 months while I was studying bats. So I I know Panama reasonably well. And what is taking place in in the Darien Gap and moving north is, in its own way, an inversion of what was true in Panama when I was there in the late nineties. So the
Speaker 1: Maybe the US military was still in control? And
Speaker 0: Well, the handover was in process, but the US had not handed the canal over, and its military presence was still there. And these things were well understood. The canal was an American achievement. The military's presence there, was both symbolic and important to the protection of the canal, which was understood to be vital to the interests of the United States. And now in Fort Clayton, which was the Army South, headquarters when I was there, that has now been taken over by the international community and turned to the purpose of encouraging this migration, thereby jeopardizing the security of the United States.
Speaker 1: So it's a UN globalist invasion port.
Speaker 0: You know, it seems to be. It's very hard for me to imagine. I don't know what story these people tell themselves about what they are doing. But, yes, it appears to be that what was once what was built to protect American interests and to facilitate our well-being is now being turned to its exact opposite purpose.
Speaker 1: Like everything else, I don't see how the powerful financial interest interest the world are using American power to continue their corporate empire, but at the same time, schizophrenically, paradoxically, moronically attacking it.
Speaker 0: Yes. I mean, I think we're always left to struggle for what they could possibly be thinking. And I think where you began this discussion is exactly right. We have to take into account that, diabolical, yes. Geniuses, I don't think so.
I think these people are reckless, and they do not understand that they are having a much easier time breaking these systems than they will have rebuilding them.
Speaker 1: I think they're looking only first order. They're not looking 2nd, 3rd, 4th order.
Speaker 0: Well, it's almost like they have the mentality that they can, you know rebuilding the system isn't high on their priority list because they know that they have to break the systems, that allow citizens some control over their own well-being and their own future.
Speaker 1: So that's the crazy gamble. They think they can wreck it and then rebuild it.
Speaker 0: Yes. And in fact, it's not unlike what the diversity and equity inclusion diversity, equity, and inclusion folks are thinking. Right? They are very focused on tearing down a system, the evils of which they believe themselves to be thoroughly familiar with.
Speaker 1: Even though they're in control of it. That's the mental illness is they're in control of it. Well, like, it's kinda like when the fall of Rome finally happened in 4:10 with Alaric, and they burned down almost everything. They were so shocked by one building, they left them alone. But it it never came back, basically, because they just said, well, we'll just burn it instead of saying, well, we run this now.
Speaker 0: Right. And the fact is, Heather frequently points out that this is really a mistake that could only be made by people who have not traveled the world. Because once you've seen how successful our system actually is, yeah, there's unfairness in it. No question about that. But you would address the unfairness at the level that it exactly that it actually exists rather than imagine that if you tear it apart, that something better will replace it.
Speaker 1: Let me use a silly analogy. Here's American Western success for GDP and human freedom and medicine and mobility and human empowerment. It's up here. And then it's got a lot of unfairness to it, so it's got unfairness down here. The game changing nootropic is now back in stock at infowarsstore.com.
You need to experience Brain Force Ultra for yourself. It's special. It's available at infowarsstore.com. But the system they're gonna create has a ceiling way down here way worse than even what people live in in the unfairness.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. There's almost no way that they could exceed what western civilization has already done to bring about fairness, which doesn't mean that it has arrived at fairness.
Speaker 1: But the truth But we don't blow up the best thing we got.
Speaker 0: Right. It it's it's like you're on a ship at sea, and you decide that you've you don't like something about its construction, so you're gonna sink it in hopes that something better comes along.
Speaker 1: That is you just drowned. Right.
Speaker 0: That's what you're gonna Now
Speaker 1: you take it into port. You buy the ship. You change it.
Speaker 0: Right. You you you upgrade the ship or you trade it for something. You don't destroy it in the hopes that a better one is gonna arrive because that's not gonna happen. You're you're gonna drown as a result of that folly.
Speaker 1: This is an incredible interview. We only got 30 minutes left, but you're hitting on all cylinders. And and we're all seeing the same reality. It's not we're following some script of music or some directive we got. It's right there.
Speaker 0: Right. I mean, in fact, that's the best indication that you have that a story is true is that people happen on it from multiple different starting points. That's how you know that you're really on to something. And so, I love the fact that you and I have arrived at a similar place from very different starting points. That's confirmation that it's real.
Speaker 1: Alright. Shifting gears out of that then. What do you make of the hysteria over Tucker? 100 of millions of views on x, billions of seeing clips of it, one of the biggest interviews ever. It's like moon landing level coverage.
And then you've got them calling him a traitor, Boris Johnson. Democrats want, the espionage act to be used. I mean, this is shameful. This is hysterical. This is what is your view as as as somebody's researched, what what freedom's about academia, all of this.
I mean, this is this is I mean, and and then the the Putin interview was really I mean, I thought him just kinda giving up saying, we'll never be friends. You never wanna stop. And and, basically, we're never you're never gonna dominate us, so that's the way it is.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I find the reaction to Tucker revealing. For one thing, I know Tucker, and I quite like him. He's a very decent guy, and I know
Speaker 1: Oh, when you're in person, you pick up 10 times stronger than he on TV. This is a real Santa Claus type, and this is a sweetheart.
Speaker 0: Well, like you, he is a conservative who, loves other Americans even who don't share his ideology. He very much appreciates nature and wants to see it protected. So, you know as far as I can tell this this this is a this is the real deal and of course the fact of a journalist going to interview a foreign leader who is in many ways hostile to the US and to the west that is perfectly in keeping with the principles that make the West work.
Speaker 1: Kennedy talked to Khrushchev. We didn't blow ourselves up.
Speaker 0: Right. So the the this is just a simply a matter of holding somebody to a different standard because it allows you to tear him down. You know, I I don't know what to make of what Putin said. I did find it, there was something interesting about how different culturally his approach to this interview was. You know, it was obviously mired in, you know, historical questions of, in my opinion, limited relevance to
Speaker 1: He was arguing his legal right, you know, because this is, yeah, this is ours, instead of using the opportunity.
Speaker 0: Right. But, nonetheless, as in terms of whether there's anything questionable about Carlson going there to interview him, no. I'm glad he did go there to interview him because we need to know. Even just need to know what Putin sounds like to himself. That's useful information from the perspective of protecting ourselves from from
Speaker 1: Exactly. And boy, wasn't a paradox to see Joe Biden, and you can't even string a sentence together, versus Putin. You got whether you love Putin, hate him, or or or neutral. This guy runs a nuclear power. This guy is e in charge.
You're talking to the leader, and this guy knows what he's talking about. Whether you agree or not, the the this guy's not an idiot.
Speaker 0: Right. It's I mean, you know, it's a fact finding mission, and he was doing the job of a journalist, And it was it was refreshing to see it. So I think the controversy over it is entirely synthetic and just designed to tear somebody down.
Speaker 1: But it also goes the incompetence because if the the Streisand effect I'm I'm not a rocket scientist, folks. I'm like, hey, Tucker. It's great being attacked if we do not Springer. If they just shut up, it would have 20,000,000 views.
Speaker 0: Right. They they did turn it into a phenomenon.
Speaker 1: So why aren't they smart enough to see first order you demonize Tucker, you're discredited, it only makes him bigger, and the interview is 20 times bigger. Like, a fool would know that.
Speaker 0: Well, so I actually think this goes to another set of questions. So I I, as a COVID dissident who watched us outfox the, official narratives and those who were spreading it, I think a lot about the force that we're up against. And my model, which I did talk about on my first interview with Tucker, a couple months ago, is that we are up against something that I call Goliath. And Goliath is partly, built of a cabal or several cabals, and it's partly an emergent phenomenon. It is ferociously powerful, but it's also stupid.
It is relatively easy to beat if it is not on territory where it is dominant, and so this means a couple things. One, it means those of us who are fighting that force should always keep in mind that getting Goliath on our territory, not its territory, is the way to beat it. You can beat it easily if it's if it's off its footing. And that's That's
Speaker 1: why we marched into a travel January 6th. We went into Goliath's territory.
Speaker 0: Right. Exactly. And it it was scripted. So the fact that Carlson, like you, like Joe Rogan, has established an outpost that is not supposed to exist. Right?
An unsanctioned kind of media. That's not Goliath's territory. And in fact, Goliath made a terrible error during COVID of imagining that off brand media didn't matter, when in fact, it mattered ever more as people detected that what they were getting on the mainstream channels was not true and in fact was capable of harming them. They started listening to other people who were making sense and piecing it together. And so, in any case, I think what's going on is that Carlson powerfully demonstrated that you could actually take the off brand media, and you could start doing the job that a newspaper might once have done with a newsroom full of reporters traveling the world, that sort of thing.
Speaker 1: Wow. I'm so impressed, man. I that's why I love your podcast because you say things in a in a really slick way that takes I'm sitting at home thinking this. I'm like, Tucker is taking real journalism for the first time and bringing it to the new space that is already no one trusts the old system, but there was an old thing for real journalists or real reports. But they've so wrecked themselves.
No one believes it even they said the sky was blue or or the ocean's, you know, wet. And so Tucker's actually going into the new independent media that is the new dominant force and restarting real journalism.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 10: Well, well, nitric oxide is a key. It's made by our own bodies again. It's made by l citrulline and and l arginine, the amino acids. So we're fed. You can you can get it from beet powder and other things.
The nitric oxide relaxes the endothelium, the vasculature. It relaxes the vein. It's a natural blood pressure. In and I feed myself the cardiomiracle, which is just for straight food. It's a different formulation than that one.
And the 2 together are a one two punch. So you get in your food the ability to make what you need and no more.
Speaker 1: That was doctor Judy Mikovitz, top research scientist without me even asking her, telling everybody how incredible this product is, and it's finally back in stock. Nitric boost is 40% off at infowarsstore.com, and it doesn't just have the vasodilation opening up your arteries and your veins to clean things out. It does so many incredible things. God gave us this compound. So many of the big things you see out there promoting the media are based on the natural ingredients that are already in this product.
So get your amazing nitric boost today at infowarsstore.com. You need to experience the health, the vitality, the stamina, the libido, everything that comes with nitric boost. You've looked at our formula. You you like it?
Speaker 10: I did, and I do. Yes.
Speaker 1: Well, I I'm not a scientist like you. What is what do these compounds do creating nitrous oxide? What does it do?
Speaker 10: It relaxes the vasculature. So the clot will go through and not restrict. It allows it to relax. It lowers the blood pressure. Has the, toxic, synthetic lipid nanoparticles similar to the one in the COVID shot.
Prior to the COVID shot, the deadliest vaccine, we saw athletes dropping dead on the field, passing out, falling down, all the things
Speaker 1: that we particularly the athletes?
Speaker 10: Because they operate at oxygen max, capacity max. They're they're operating at such a high level in their mitochondria. This is an energy production oxygen, necessary disease.
Speaker 1: So they create they that's what they're finding. They turbocharge the blood clots. Yep.
Speaker 10: And ischemia, lack of oxygen. So constricted blood vessels too because athletes are running. They're constricted. They're they're working so that the blood flows, and it doesn't flow, which is why your nitric oxide, product, that new products, I hope you'll show it because that's a very important thing to have for acute events. Be it dissolve under the tongue, give you an instant relaxing of your endothelium, your vasculature.
Speaker 1: Nitric boost, exclusively available. 40% off right now in stock, ready to ship. Nitric boost, infowarsstore.com. Try it. Support the Infowar.
It's a 3 60 win.
Speaker 0: Interestingly, I think that is creating a it it is taking a kind of institution that came about in the podcast space, that got, kicked into high gear over COVID. And it's moving it to the next level which actually reflects I was I was recently in the Czech Republic and I was thrilled to find that the values that I consider values of Western civilization are alive and well in the Czech Republic in a way I wasn't expecting to see. And anyway, I was trying to piece together why this was, what did the iron curtain protect, the spirit, in in the Czech Republic from forces in the market that have taken it apart here at home. In any in any case, I was thinking about Vaclav Havel, the the leader of the Czech Republic, and I was alerted that there was another Vaclav Benda, who I hadn't heard of, who actually makes this argument that the way, to win this battle is to build parallel institutions. So I wonder if that's not in effect what we're watching is, okay, if the media is gonna refuse to report the news, then we're gonna build it outside.
If the universities are gonna refuse to educate inside, those structures, then we're gonna do it outside on the Internet. Right? That's what's happening is the parallel institutions are rising to displace the feeble, broken, corrupted institutions that refuse to function.
Speaker 1: That's perfectly said. That's absolutely true. And they're exactly. Nietzsche said that which doesn't kill you only makes you stronger. And if you look at segregation, it was a horrible crime.
Jim Crow, terrible. But my dad grew up in in East Texas, and he said, no. Like, when I was a kid, the black people had better hotels or better as good a restaurants, everything. Because they were suppressed, they then had built their own thing. And and so we're not defending those institutions.
We're simply saying that because they were under communism suppression, they they'd already kinda been at the bottom, then they come out of it, but they're still not western, so they weren't infected by the neoliberal corporate, you know, mind control. And so they still had kind of that suppressed instinct of freedom left, and that was soil for it to Spirofro.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. And it also means that they are in a position potentially to save the world from what's taking place in the World Health Organization. The World Health Organization is involved in effectively rewriting the rules in preparation for some sort of pandemic rematch.
Speaker 1: Oh, that was my next question for you. Right here, Bill Gates planning overhead shot, guys. Real quick. That was my next question. You read my mind here.
This is we're simpatico. Bill Gates planning for pandemic 2 complete with new vaccines administered from a little patch. So they're and they're saying Tedros is saying it's imminent, so speak to that.
Speaker 0: So the World Health Organization is cryptically writing the rule set that would have allowed Goliath to win the COVID battle, where Goliath ended up embarrassed by those of us on the outside exposing the lies that were being told.
Speaker 1: So they see the last 4 years of war again?
Speaker 0: Well, I I always say that Goliath, has to be dragged onto territory that it doesn't know, But it now knows. COVID taught it what podcast space was. It taught us what the alternative media could do. And so Goliath is now learning that lesson. And Goliath is trying to, build the rules that would allow it to win COVID if it had it to do over.
So that's flowing through the World Health Organization. It will be voted on in May. There are two things. There is a pandemic preparedness treaty and international health regulations, and they are absolutely diabolical if you read the content of them.
Speaker 1: Oh, I've read it. It's it's it's scary.
Speaker 0: It's terrifying. And, I mean, it includes insane things like the right of the World Health Organization to mandate not only vaccines, but gene therapy to redistribute medical technology. So imagine that, you know, instead of the battle over ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine that we saw that the WHO could just dictate that those things be moved somewhere else, and you would have no access to them. So all of those rule
Speaker 1: So it's a biomedical corporate coup.
Speaker 0: It is. It's and it and it really looks like they're they're looking for a rematch. So we have to derail that thing. The chances that
Speaker 1: By the way, you convinced Tucker of this. And I'm not saying I'm smarter than Tucker. He's smarter than me in most ways. He's like, come on, Alex. We're talking on the phone, like, 6 months ago.
And when I saw him, like, 4 months, 3 months ago, he goes, they're not gonna try it again. We just beat their ass. And I said, they won a rematch. Everything I see is it was a war game. And he he now he he now but since you convinced him.
Speaker 0: Well, they are looking for a rematch, but the fact is they are now faltering because
Speaker 1: Because we're on the offense exposing it.
Speaker 0: We're on the offense exposing it, and folks in Eastern Europe, in fact, are recognizing that they are actually in a unique position
Speaker 1: Yeah. They've got prime ministers and stuff calling them all out.
Speaker 0: Right. In in Romania, there is a very live, resistance movement in
Speaker 1: It's all something to interrupt. Continue.
Speaker 0: Well, all I'm saying
Speaker 1: No. Start over. Start over.
Speaker 0: Look. To me, Western civilization is fundamentally about an agreement to put aside our lineages, our races, and to collaborate with each other on the basis that there are things to be accomplished. And that is that is the magic that made America as powerful as it was.
Speaker 1: Goals, not not race, religion. Goals.
Speaker 0: Exactly. And Outcome. Well, let's put it this way. How successful are you gonna be if you have to collaborate only with people who look like you versus how successful you will you be if you can collaborate with whoever has the most useful tools to bring to the future.
Speaker 1: Gotta have shared goals.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: If they take the goals away now, it makes it a weakness. With goals, it makes it a strength.
Speaker 0: Well, I would say those goals are values. Right? If we share values and then we collaborate on how to accomplish them, that's powerful. And it made, it made America truly great and
Speaker 1: What it is?
Speaker 0: Tremendously powerful. So America is now compromised by whatever has taken over our political structures. But folks in Eastern Europe are now beginning to recognize that they hold the values that we once held so dear, and that they're in a position to protect us from things like what's taking place in the World Health Organization. So that's what I'm hoping will happen is that they will they will shine, that they will rise to this challenge, and they will derail this diabolical proposal, to the good of all of humanity.
Speaker 1: Wow. Well, that sounds optimistic, and I and I think it is optimistic. But what do you make just of the cut and dry situation in Ukraine? NATO's been defeated. They're doubling down.
Putin's not perfect, but clearly they started the war. NATO started it. From my perspective, discreet told me 9 years ago. And it it it's one thing to go blow up the Iraqis, and I'm not saying Saddam was perfect, but lie about WMEs. Now you're starting a war with a highly sophisticated civilization that's a 1000 year history being invaded over and over again and doesn't give up.
I mean, it's like start the fight with Mike Tyson in his prime. It's just dumb. So what are they thinking?
Speaker 0: Well, that's always the question. What you know, you have to ask yourself the question, are they just being foolish, Or are do they know something we don't know? And I also wonder about how to categorize the force that makes these decisions. Right? I see the United States leadership making decision after decision that is obviously terrible for the citizenry.
Speaker 1: And undermines the establishment.
Speaker 0: Right. So is that that something has gotten into our system and is inducing us to to hurt ourselves? That's possible. Is it just stupidity? That's also possible.
So when when we pick a fight, you have to ask the question about whether whether there is an objective we don't know, or whether this is just insanity that has taken over, the system. And I really don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that the emergent part of Goliath. There are lots of things that can cause people to sign on to bad policy. So, for example, the fact that we had warehouses full of weaponry that meant that we didn't need to buy more. If you can unload that weaponry onto a foreign battlefield, then suddenly the orders flow
Speaker 1: Well, that's what it is. It's a council of different different factions who will come and all disagree with each other. Okay. You you wanna sell more weapons, get rid of your cash, you can start World War 3 and not think, well, wait. He'll and then blowing up Nord Stream.
Now Europe's collapsing. Everybody knows the CIA did it. Like, why it's it's it is scary.
Speaker 0: Yes. And I think it's the kind of thing that is very difficult to accomplish if people have a normal relationship with their own mortality and their own progeny. Right? If you if you love your children, you don't start World War 3, even if it makes sense on a balance sheet somewhere to do it. Right?
Yes. Maybe if you're in an elite position, you'll earn some money that your kids will inherit. On the other hand, you're wrecking their planet. And so that would give people pause. And I think
Speaker 3: I think
Speaker 1: you've answered the question, doctor. For 50, 60, 70, 80 years, a 100 years with robber barons, they've been hiring yes men and yes women that'll just do what they're told, but then they've graduated up to the command positions, and there are yes men who aren't even wargaming things, and it's a runaway train, And all they're doing is is be engaged in predator activity of just accumulating wealth, not understanding they're undermining the very civilization that would let them spend that wealth.
Speaker 0: Well, there's something at the core of this dysfunction that is about incompetence. And if you've lived inside a system, if you've been inside the university system, let's say, as a scientist, as I was, and you've watched the majority of every department is composed of people who although they are fully convinced they are engaged in behaving scientifically are just simply not they're not good at it so what is it that took something as important as science and hijacked it for purposes presumably mostly economic. What is it that caused us I mean, look at what we did with the mandates to our own military. Right? We inflicted something on the military that drove out all of the people who are likely to stand up.
Speaker 1: And they turn around and say, sorry. Come back. Right. But They weren't even thinking.
Speaker 0: The we don't know whether what they did was the result of massive stupidity or whether they were trying to create a compliant force.
Speaker 1: But we know it didn't work. They came back and said and reversed it.
Speaker 0: Well, they tried to. Yeah. I don't know how to
Speaker 1: You're right. It hasn't reversed the the the problem. I'm saying they reversed the policy.
Speaker 0: They reversed the policy. And but now people, you know, are loathed to join the military because they know that such a policy can come down the pike, and it can put them in a in a terrible bind.
Speaker 1: Alright. The 10 minutes we have left, I'm I'm a big fan. Love you on the show. Love seeing other shows, and and people been attacking you. We kinda started with this, but maybe we should end with it about, well, this guy, you know, didn't have a perfect pedigree fighting the new world order.
There's not many people out there that have been doing this 30 years like I am. There's some other great people out there who've done it as well, and we love to death. But my goal is to learn from other people, and then they learn from me, and then we have a consensus, and we fix things. I wanna win this. I don't wanna sit around and say, this is the most holy of all our people, and then this this person was always perfect, and this part no.
No. We need people like the doctor here who is smart, entertaining, popular, who's joined us when Joe Rogan known 25 years. He just wanted to have fun. He's been awake a few years. Now he's more hardcore than I am.
It's good for your heart, your brain, everything. It is 40% off, back in stock. Bodies ultimate turmericformula. Infowarsstoredot com. Bodies,
Speaker 7: an ally in the battle against inflammation. Visitinfowarsstore.com now and seize the opportunity to take control of your health. Now you know the rest of the story. Until next time,
Speaker 8: good day. Good day. Good day. Good day. Good day.
Good day. Good day.
Speaker 1: Tucker came here 11 years ago and said, man, I thought you were cooking wrong. I woke up. You're right, man. He's a big I've I've influenced him. He's influenced me.
I've learned my own personal power of persuasion. Not that I'm the grand poo bar or the best guy around, but I've seen the power of debate. I've seen we can win. I've seen we can come together. I I know humans are overall good, and and but this this holier than thou stuff folks is a disease.
And it's in the left where you've gotta prescribe to every leftist ideology that's put out by some think tank, and then then when that's all agreed to, now there's a new group wanting power over it that makes it even more radical. That is a disease. Can you speak to that?
Speaker 0: Sure. Yes. I I've been watching this, and I'm horrified by it because I have the sense that people are fighting over credit at halftime, and that they're gonna screw up the game. We're gonna lose it because we're fighting
Speaker 1: They're watching the scoreboard during the game.
Speaker 0: Right. But they don't they don't get that it's halftime. And the fact is, we all have everything to gain by leveling up together. That's what we should be doing. And, you know, for people to look at Joe Rogan or Tucker Carlson or me or you, and say, oh, they're controlled opposition because, they were taken in by, you know, the COVID narrative or something.
Speaker 1: Or x. Yeah. Just whatever.
Speaker 0: Right. The fact is, a, you know, you can start with a cynical position that says nothing anybody ever tells you is right. And, yeah, you will not buy any bullshit if that's where you start from. But you also won't be able to detect anything useful.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna leave your house. Right. If you're literally if you just think everything is controlled, it's not. Folks, I'm real. I'm okay.
I'm real. I know I've changed the world with working with you. I know there's good people. I know we can fix this. We've got to.
Damn it. There's not just evil. There's not just evil.
Speaker 0: No. In fact, there are great people who are interested, who share values, and are putting aside ideology, and that is an incredibly powerful thing. So look, in my case, what I want is I want people to judge my whole record. Was I advocating for people to wear masks? Yeah.
I was. I thought that stood a chance of actually reducing the spread of a disease that I thought was more serious than it turns out
Speaker 1: to be. Of caution. And when you learn you were wrong, you went public.
Speaker 0: I I changed it.
Speaker 1: So who cares?
Speaker 0: So the point And now you're
Speaker 1: a huge advocate for truth. So who cares?
Speaker 0: Well, look. There was a little bit of harm done by people wearing masks as a result of my advocating for them. But there was a lot of good done by, a, people watching me wake up to the foolishness of the mask.
Speaker 1: But but doctor, that's the globalist fear whistleblowers. They they fear people that at first were a little wrong. And if we don't embrace powerful, smart people like you when they join the the awakening, no one else is gonna do it.
Speaker 0: Right. Exactly. And so just all I would say is for all of us. Just just judge us based on the net impact we have had. There's no way that this is a limited hangout when we are doing damage to Goliath's narrative.
We are revealing what he wants people to believe.
Speaker 1: I go to the grocery store. I go to church. I see family. And they go, oh, we love that professor, that doctor, that that that that doctor Brett Weinstein. And he's really great.
You're people, you're a smart guy. You're entertaining. You're you're you're great. You can talk about any subject. You're a great guy, and this is something I wanna say.
I always sat back on air for 30 years in April and said, I don't think of myself as the best. And I'm doing this, trying to do this. I said, where are all these professional men and women I know and that I see that I know are smart and know what's going on. What be because they were asleep or they were only focused with blinders on, you know, kind of in a wormhole, a tunnel vision on what they were doing. But I believe, and I've said this for 25 years, that once things got bad, we would get the professors and the scientists and the researchers on our side.
And when it starts to happen and the avalanches to us, we just literally beat the hell out of big pharma. There are stocks going straight down. No one's taking their crap. We're winning. And then we turn to this this this, like like, Spanish inquisition or something going around to find out if somebody's a heretic or were they perfect.
Folks, the big win is here. We have got to stop because they're ready for a rematch. They're coming in for another attack. We better get together, and we better stop it.
Speaker 0: Yep. And it is the result, in part, of this very unfortunate fact, which is the people who are independent minded, the lone wolves who actually do see through things early are often not very good at teaming up. And it's it's something that It's
Speaker 1: a paradox because, you know, collectivists are very good at teaming up, but then a central system can pay them and do it. Whereas independent people are some of the best thinkers, but they'll never wanna team up. Right.
Speaker 0: So
Speaker 1: how do you deal with that paradox?
Speaker 0: Well, I mean, I look. I think a lot of this is solved metaphorically. And what I do is I think in terms of the stories in which we all appreciate this. You know the lord of the rings or the ragtag fugitive fleet from Battlestar Galactica and the point is look maybe you don't start out with that skill set but you can develop that skill set and if you think about it just quietly to yourself for a moment, you'll realize that the only way we're going to win is if we figure out who to team up with and how to do it. So anyway, that's a skill we can develop, and we should be working on it every day.
Because as Alex just said, the victory is there to be had, but we are going to end up going out of the frying pan and into the fire if we don't figure out how to overcome our tendency to attack each other.
Speaker 1: The time we've got, let's let's talk about the paradox of of of Elon Musk. Look. I I I've got Elon's number. I don't mean literally. I mean, I've got I I can see the cut of his, Jeb.
He's a scientist. He's a promoter. He's a salesman. He's a really smart guy. He has incredible energy, And he wants to dominate every scientific development that's out there.
He wants to be, you know, the the of George Jetson world, and he's all over the place. The enemies of humanity have been very good at dividing and conquering us. Us. But if we simply start thinking about things according to the definition of is it prohuman or is it antihuman, we start to win. And that's why I had the idea for team humanity.
I brought it up to Elon Musk. He loved the idea. What would you call the debate and discussion about a prohuman future? Just team humanity?
Speaker 2: Yeah. Team humanity. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: And so we have the t shirt. Team humanity with a nuclear family standing against the globalist. This shirt is a great conversation starter, but it also is a fundraiser to give info on the air so we can promote and support team humanity. I wanna thank you all for your past support, but I wanna encourage you all now to understand that this is a revolution against the globalist, and it is so critical now to signal the fact that you are part of team humanity. We're told humans are the problem.
We're told we're killing the earth. We're told all this garbage so we hate ourselves and stand down and roll over and die. We're not gonna do that. Get your team humanity shirts now at infowarsstore.com, and I thank you all for your support. But as they mess with him and go after him and and and and try to shut down his companies and make him bend and be their minion, he's come out against them and has has done a lot to free up x, has done a lot with his own account reaching 100 of 1,000,000 a day to do good work.
So I could sit there and say that's good work. Now do I know all his motives? You know? No. I mean, I I know myself.
I'm a good person, but I have an evil side too. And I sometimes go, are you really being a good person? So I can't judge Elon Musk when I even have problems judging myself sometimes because I'm, like, 90% good, but also, you know, you have a subconscious that goes on there. But this idea that that that that Elon Musk is working for the establishment when as you point out, there's a lot of different factions. They're, like, battling over the levers of control.
I just don't see as fair. And and and then okay. Say we don't trust Elon. We gotta see what he does long term. Judge a tree by his fruits.
But then don't spend 90% of your time saying Elon's a shill. Elon's a fraud. Say, okay. We don't totally trust. He provides a read the fine print, but boost all the great stuff he's doing.
Because I look at what he's doing, and it's enraging the EU. They're trying to indict him. He's got all these drug stories and all these attacks. I've been through this, but on a smaller scale, he's getting Trumpian level hate now. The the the globalist, the corrupt illegitimate incompetence do not like him.
Okay? You can't fake that. And so I see a huge opportunity here. We could lose Musk when he's trying to jump to our camp if we don't embrace him. Now if he does something wrong later, we go, hey.
Wait. But if we don't he's trying to jump to us is what I see. And if we don't grab him, he's not ours. Does that make sense?
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I would add 2 things to it. 1, assuming that his story is accurate, that he was injured by the mRNA shot.
Speaker 1: And a family member.
Speaker 0: Right. That tells
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan's crew, he told me who? That's an old story. That's 2. A whole 2 of people close to Joe, I mean, close had strokes after it.
Speaker 0: Right. So I I I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead.
Speaker 0: No. No. But my point would be this. If Elon got the shot and was hurt, then he's not on the list of people who was in the know about the danger of that shot.
Speaker 1: Exact he said that happened. I believe him.
Speaker 0: Right. I believe him too. So my point is this is incompatible with him being, you know, some 4 d chess shell. If that story is true, then the point is he's not on their team. He's, at least, sometimes on our team.
You know? He got he he was victimized.
Speaker 1: Yeah. He was on their team earlier because he was buying he was buying the chili. Now he's like, what the hell? Right. But his brother got super sick.
He got sick. Yeah.
Speaker 0: The second thing
Speaker 1: That'll wake you up.
Speaker 0: Like nothing else. Right? They literally injected something into you that makes you makes you ill. But the other thing is what he's done with Twitter, And believe me, there's plenty of fault left in Twitter. But what he's done is he has created an outpost of at least much freer speech.
And we say on our podcast, 0 is a special number. What we mean by that is that you can change these games by simply creating a single entity that departs from the rule. If you have one platform on which you can say what needs to be said, then every other platform has to follow suit. Because nobody's gonna wanna be on a platform where they treat you like a child, if there's a platform where you can be an adult. Same thing goes for universities.
If you have one university that's actually teaching you to think more clearly, then nobody wants to go to any other
Speaker 1: It'll change the whole paradox.
Speaker 0: Changes the whole game. Same thing goes for newspapers. And so, anyway, my point is, Twitter x is better than it was.
Speaker 1: It is a maverick, and it's got He bought this mess. He's done better than I thought he would.
Speaker 0: Right. He's done better than than you you would think he would. And what that tells you is he's not. I don't know how complex the chess board that he's looking at is, but he can't be totally on their team because he's created a space where Tucker Carlson can say what needs
Speaker 5: to be done.
Speaker 3: I'm not
Speaker 1: a rocket scientist or a biologist like you, but they the hate's legitimate. He's creating waves that even if they kill him tomorrow, God forbid, or shut it down, it's already devastated them. He look. Folks, listen to me. I've been on there 30 years.
Am I sure you're wrong? He is creating irrevocable harm to them. Like you said, this is real. Make chills.
Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I think it is real. And, and I think we we don't know who's working for whom. So the best we can do is say who is actually doing
Speaker 1: And he doesn't. Imagine his job. Double, triple agents, the betrayals.
Speaker 0: I can't imagine the complexity of what he has to look at. Right? It's it's mind boggling. And we are all of us who have never been in his shoes, which is frankly all of us, can't appreciate that level of complexity. So we owe it to him to at least give him the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1: Let's just see what happens.
Speaker 0: Absolutely. Alright.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for the time. Amazing, doctor. Is there anything else you wanna add to people?
Speaker 0: Yeah. There's one other thing, which is, obviously, I take a risk by coming here. I appreciate what you do.
Speaker 1: Oh, I I recognize that. You got a lot of courage. You're you're made a big ass target on you.
Speaker 0: Right. But I wanna make the point that my ability to be here is something that was carved out by Joe Rogan and Tucker Carlson, who took that risk first and, I appreciate their carving out the ability to have this discussion because at the end of the day, I believe you are a patriot and a very important force in this battle.
Speaker 1: And Well, thank you. Elaborate for people that don't know the specifics. Explain what you mean. They carved it out.
Speaker 0: Well, they were willing at the point that it was treated as unforgivable to talk to you. They did it anyway.
Speaker 3: Well,
Speaker 1: it was heresy.
Speaker 0: Heresy. That's a good way of putting it. And so in any case, I appreciate their courage and their willingness to risk their operations. They didn't have do that, but they did it because it was the right thing, and it did make it possible for us smaller fish to follow suit.
Speaker 1: And let's explain that in this paradox where they created this artificial Alex Jones. 10% of it was my fault. I did do some things that were wrong, but most of it was blown up, exaggerated, all controlled. But if Alex Jones is put up there as the symbol of evil, if he's allowed speech, everybody else is safe. And and and they you speak of NATO.
I know you saw the document, but NATO said 6 years ago, we're gonna ban Jones, and we're gonna ban WikiLeaks. And once we do that, well, everybody will follow suit. We'll ban it all. So they admitted that I was I'm not that important, but I became important when they picked me as the symbol of demonization and thought no one would stand with me. And now that Joe did and Elon and you came here knowing full on what you're doing, it's not that we agree on everything or any of that, unless you get the proviso out even though we agree on most stuff.
They'll they'll they'll they'll lie about something I said and say, do you agree with this? It's about agreeing to have a conversation and rediscovering what makes us great. So one more time, tell us about your book. Tell us how we follow you on Rumble and on Locals, doctor.
Speaker 0: The book is A Hunter Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century. You can get it anywhere. The podcast is Dark Horse. That's one word. Dark and horse are capitalized.
Find us on Rumble, and please sign up. That helps us. Find our locals community, Dark Horse locals community, and please follow me on Twitter at Brett Weinstein. Brett has one t.
Speaker 1: I bet the folks at the university jealous of you and your very successful wife that was the most successful professor there. If they weren't thinking one dimensionally, they'd have kept you around. But I bet I bet they're not happy they drove you off the reservation.
Speaker 0: Well, they drove almost all the students away too. They are struggling to keep the And I shut
Speaker 1: down, I heard.
Speaker 0: I I was expecting it to shut down earlier. The state infused the college with a lot of cash to keep it running, but they just simply don't have enough students to justify it.
Speaker 1: So what happened to the guy that was gunning for you?
Speaker 0: He stepped down. They literally
Speaker 1: So, see, he didn't think of that. It's a Pyrrhic victory. He got you, but he's gone.
Speaker 0: He's gone. But they interestingly, they couldn't hire a replacement. They had to hire somebody from inside the college because literally nobody would take the job after he wrecked the place.
Speaker 1: Which is why war isn't good. People think of war as just military. No. War is messing with people for no reason just because he gives you power. Yeah.
Instead of the that another university. Right? It'd be even bigger now.
Speaker 0: Right. No. The the the degree to which they had a a college that was special, and it could have been turned into something amazing and very popular, and instead, they, they destroyed it. It is actually, it is a cautionary tale. It is
Speaker 1: A metaphor for Earth today.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: We're gonna end this with the video or the footage of the great Rod Serling's Planet of the Apes ending scene, with the late great Charlton Heston when he learns he's actually back on earth, and they blew it all up. Let's not go there. Doctor, very impressive. I'm a big fan, and I love meeting in person. Thank you so much, sir.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Alright, folks. Great job of the crew coming in on Super Bowl Sunday. And, wow, more impressed in person. This guy is awesome. Anybody say he's a bad guy, you're just jealous.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Alex. That's true.
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, New Year's 2024 is here. We've just got 6 days left for storewide free shipping, double Patriot Points, points, and new products in, like foundational energy at infowarsstore.com.
Speaker 5: While other networks lie to you about what's happening now, Infowars tells you the truth about what's happening next. Visitinfowars.comforward/showandsharethelinktoday.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Ep. 76 As they lecture us endlessly about human rights in other countries, the Biden administration is trying to kill journalist Julian Assange for the crime of embarrassing the CIA. His wife Stella joins us from his extradition hearing. https://t.co/DetYUeaBFl
Video Transcript AI Summary
Julian Assange, who has been imprisoned for over a decade, discusses why he believes he is being held without being charged with a crime. He became famous for publishing classified documents and videos that embarrassed the US government, but the turning point was when WikiLeaks released information about CIA surveillance. Assange denies that anyone has been harmed or killed due to his publications and expresses remorse if that were the case. The UK government's role in his imprisonment is questioned, as he has not been charged with a crime in the country. His wife, Stella Assange, provides an update on his ongoing extradition hearing and emphasizes the need for a presidential pardon to protect the future of US constitutional protections. Assange's physical and psychological well-being is described as deteriorating due to his prolonged imprisonment.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Julian Assange has been locked away in one place or another for more than a decade. Julian Assange is so despised by elements within the permanent US government that at one point, CIA director Mike Pompeo discussed murdering him in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he was seeking asylum. Mike Pompeo has never been charged for that, which is a crime. Unelected bureaucrats can't just murder people they don't like, and he probably never will be charged for the crime. Virtually, the entire ruling class in Washington is opposed to Julian Assange, and that's the reason that he has sat for years now in Belmarsh prison in London.
Keep in mind, Julian Assange has not been charged with a crime in Great Britain, and yet he's being held there. So this fall, we went to Belmarsh, and we asked Julian Assange, why do you think you're being held as the most wanted man in America without ever being charged with a real crime? Here's what he told us. We talked about why he is in prison and my first question to him was what do you think this is actually about since you haven't been accused of a crime? And he said something that really struck me and and I think having spent my life in Washington is absolutely right.
He said he first became famous when WikiLeaks published, documents and videos that the US government had kept secret from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They were gravely embarrassing to the Pentagon. But that's that wasn't the red line. The red line was several years later when WikiLeaks published information about surveillance by the CIA. And so I asked him directly, are you aware of anyone being harmed or killed on the basis of of information he published?
He said, of course not. And and he said it in a sincere way. Like, by the way, I think if people were killed because of his publishing, because of the stories that he put online, he would feel bad about it. I mean, he seems like a humane person. He went to he withheld information about CA because he didn't wanna get people hurt.
He famously published the contents of Hillary Clinton's email account. I asked him, when you published these emails, did you realize how powerful Hillary Clinton was? We had a conversation about that, and I said, looking back, you know, do you regret doing that? He goes, honestly, it was fun. You'll notice that Julian Assange was not in that clip.
That was a recap of our conversation with Julian Assange, and the reason we did that was they wouldn't allow us to interview him on camera. So not only are they holding him, they hope until he dies, in a maximum security prison, but they're also preventing him from telling his own story to the world. All of this is a crime. Every person running for president of the United States should be forced to answer the question, will you pardon Julian Assange if he ever winds up on American soil? So far, no one has been forced to answer that question.
We hope that will change. The woman you saw in the clip is Julian Assange's wife, Stella. She has been, his greatest advocate, in the free world, and she is now leading the effort to stop his extradition to the United States where he would wind up in a supermax prison, never be heard from again until he dies. She is a lawyer, a human rights activist, and we're honored to have her join us now. Stella Assange, thank you so much, for coming on.
Can you give us an update, because I know this is taking place right now, it's in progress currently, what the status of this extradition hearing is?
Speaker 1: Well, look. We've just been in court for 2 days, and this decision could be the final one. We didn't know when we were coming into it yesterday whether we would have a decision today. And if the UK decides in favor of the US, then it will put Julian on a plane to the US. I mean, that is how imminent it is.
So, really, it's it's it's a very, very high risk moment for Julian. And what happened during, these 2 days is that, the the 2 judges said that they would withhold their their decision until well, they haven't set a date, but at least a week. And so we don't know what will happen next. This it remains the case that if he loses this round, then that's it in the UK. There's no further possibility for appeal.
He can try to go to the European Court of Human Rights, but last year, only one only one extremely rare cases. Of course, we say, this is one of them. So it's really just in, extremely rare cases. Of course, we say, this is one of them. This is one where there would be irreparable harm.
And, of course, the European Court of Human Rights, should stop an extradition if if the UK fines against him, but it's not a given. So, Julian could be on US soil within a matter of weeks. That's still the case.
Speaker 0: I'm I'm confused by the role of the UK in this. As far as I understand, he's never been charged with a crime in the United Kingdom, and yet the UK government is holding him, holding a journalist without charging him. I mean, this is what we accuse Russia and Iran and North Korea of doing. Why are British politicians degrading their own system in their history on behalf of the United States government? I feel like I'm missing something here.
Speaker 1: Well, this is the, this is the default state of affairs. The the UK views itself as a lap dog. I mean, it was obvious in courts at one point. 1 of the judges asked the US, well, if if, the your argument is that if the home secretary sees that there's that the US issued this extradition request, and that it's wrong on the face of it, that she wouldn't be able to do anything. And and the US lawyers said, yeah.
That's precisely right. It's completely lopsided. The US can do whatever it wants, basically. And that was part of their arguments in court. I mean, not to get too too much into the weeds of the court proceedings, but basically what they were saying was, you have to take these statements of these prosecutors at face value.
You don't, you know, you don't wanna offend the United States or ally. You would be implying that the prosecutors were lying, and, of course, that would never be the case. So, they were trying to convince the court that that they should just take it all at face value. And, of course, inside the courtroom, it's like they're running, 2 parallel cases. I mean, we're we're running, the case the the true reality, which is that Julian's a journalist that that exposed the wrongdoing of the country that's trying to extradite him.
And the US is, you know, just trying to attack Julian with all sorts of nonsense, the UK is a willing participant. Of course, his his imprisonment is, has gone for so long. He's been, you know, in high Belmarsh high security prison for almost 5 years, but before that in the embassy in in in the Ecuadorian embassy in the heart of London. And during this time, when he was in the embassy, it was surrounded by by British police. They were spending something like 1,000,000 and 1,000,000.
I think it was £5,000,000 a year on surrounding the embassy. And he was not charged with a crime at the time. It was a it was a show of force. And of course, it was a show of force on behalf, you know, by this British police, but to show, the United States that that they were, you know, that they were they were showing their their allegiance basically. And that's how we've had this this lawlessness for over a decade to hound Julian and to kind of send a signal.
And his his imprisonment in Balmarsh, you know, is is part of a game that they play, that the US says, well, the UK is keeping him. It's not really us. He's not in the u on US soil. And the UK goes, well, it's not really us because this is a US extradition request, and he's been there for almost 5 years. And so they play this game, and they, you know, he he he he's no one's responsibility.
And it it's just it's a game that they've been playing for years years.
Speaker 0: Does it I I know you live there, but you follow American politics. Was it surprising to you that Mike Pompeo, the neocon former CIA director who plotted to murder your husband, who'd not been charged with anything in the US at that point, that he was allowed to continue to be prominent in the United States. He ran for president, after that, and no one in the American media have said anything about it, really, with a few exceptions, But no one no one even mentioned that. You tried to murder your husband. What did you think of that?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the CIA is a is a rogue organization that everyone on every level of the US politics is is terrified of. That's true. And they are trained to assassinate. They are trained to to fabricate information and place it in the media and conduct propaganda warfare and to overthrow, you know, governments and so on. And, you know, not just abroad, it seems that there a credible, case that that they've done so domestically too.
I mean, looking at this objectively, you think, well, what on earth is this? You know, there's a whole spiel about about, you know, the US democracy and so on. And the CIA is is an agency that has, you know, caused all sorts of trouble for many countries around the world. But also, domestically, they are a force for destabilization and compromise. And, you know, Mike Pompeo's ability to, you know, move around Washington without consequence, I don't think is because of his his, I don't know, attractiveness to to the Washington circles, but rather, he's seen as a dangerous person.
But, you know, he tried to run for president, and that didn't go very well. And he wrote a book and no one bought it except for his pack or whatever. So there's that. But, yeah, he he's a dangerous individual. And even within the CIA I mean, we know the story about Julian and the and the murder plot because people within his organization said that he had lost the plot, that that he had become obsessed with Julian, that he wanted to kill that means that there was, you know, internal internal disagreement about about his his obsession.
And that's a that's a sign of hope, of course, within these organizations. There's always, you know, different types of people with with different levels of integrity and and commitment to the constitution and so on. And, the fact that many of them then spoke to these investigative journalists and exposed the crazy Pompeo murder plot is, you know, commendable, and and I'm I'm personally very, very thankful to them that they said something, not not, not just because of, the fact that it it we've been able to introduce it in court, but because, it shows that that it goes against, you know, very basic rules of of integrity and, that that this obsession with Julian that Pompeo had is part of, like, a serious collapse even within the CIA that occurred during this time.
Speaker 0: Yeah. He is a dangerous person. He should be in prison, and it's just striking that so few journalists ask him about that. None, so far as I know. So tell me if your husband is extradited to the United States, what do you think there's any chance he'll receive a presidential pardon?
Speaker 1: Any any president who looks at this case and understands how it is a danger to the the future of the US, not just the constitution, but the political culture that there has been in the United States that has been built on openness and a vibrant culture of opposition to centralized power.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: All of that will go out the window with this case. So any president who actually values these traditional constitutional protections should free Julian in whatever in whatever form that takes. If it's a pardon, then, you know, I welcome it. I frankly I don't care how he's freed. He just needs to be freed.
The the corruption and the lawlessness around Julian's case, it's politically motivated. It's it's rotten to the core. All of that is self evident. And whatever happens, as long as Julian's free, you know, everything else is secondary as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 0: And and my last question, how is he doing to the extent you can characterize it physically and psychologically?
Speaker 1: Well, he's not doing well. He wasn't even attending these hearings, and and this is, you know, the decisive hearing for Julian. As I said, if he if he loses this round, and we don't know yet if he's lost, then he'll be put on a plane to the United States, unless we can prevent it some some other way. But he wasn't even attending, not even in person, not even over video link. He was able to call his lawyers during the hearing, so he was following what was happening in court.
But if he hadn't been kept in Belmarsh high security prison during the past 5 years, he wouldn't be in this state of of deterioration and decline. He would have, of course, have attended his own hearing, especially one like this. And I think it's it's should be a wake up call, that Julian's life is at risk, that every day he spends in prison is a day that his health deteriorates. I mean, 5 years inside that prison, many people don't survive it. There have been many people in Belmarsh who have committed suicide during this time, including a friend of Julian's who was, also inside the whom he met in the prison and and who who became a friend.
And, you know, it's it's a harsh environment, and he's under enormous pressure. And he he's he knows that the United States, is the country that's plotted his assassination. So, like, the stakes the stakes could not be higher, but he knows there's a lot of support out there. He knows I'm doing this interview with Tucker, and, he knows there's a lot of support. So that is also something that keeps him afloat.
He's a fighter. And I think, you know, I think the world's waking up. I've seen a lot of support, actually. I've seen a lot of attention this time around. The press is, I think, starting to realize what the implications are, and how how serious this is.
And that it's not just about Julian, that it's actually threatening the press's ability to do its job in a very, very, real way, especially the press that does the most important work, the one that makes those in power, feel uncomfortable and worried about their future careers and and freedom.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Not many of those left, but but some. Stella Sanches, thank you so much for taking this time, and godspeed.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tucker.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.
@TaraBull808 - TaraBull
Russell Brand dropping FACTS. Share this everywhere!! https://t.co/58DPjCTKbe
Video Transcript AI Summary
The pandemic created 40 new big pharma billionaires. Companies like Moderna and Pfizer profited $1,000 per second from the COVID vaccine. Over 2/3 of congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in 2020. Pfizer made $100 billion in profit in 2022, funded by the public. The system benefits from crises, leading to perpetual emergencies for ordinary people, separate from the elite's interests.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Awesome facts. The pandemic created at least 40 new big pharma billionaires. Pharmaceutical corporations like Moderna and Pfizer made a $1,000 of profit every second from the COVID 19 vaccine. More than 2 thirds of congress received campaign funding from pharmaceutical companies in the 2020 election. Pfizer chairman Albert Bourla told Time Magazine in July 2020 that his company was developing a COVID vaccine for the good of humanity, not for money.
And, of course, Pfizer made a $100,000,000,000 in profit in 2022. And may I just mention that finally, and these, this is also a fact, that you, the American public, funded the development of that. The German public funded the BioNTech, vaccine. When it came to the profit, they took the profits. When it came to the funding, you paid for the funding.
It's difficult not to But I I would just add one thing. It is possible that these are greedy capitalists who made a lot of money. All I'm querying is this Yes. Is if you have an economic system in which pharmaceutical companies benefit hugely from medical emergencies, where a military industrial complex benefits from war, where energy companies benefit from energy crisis, you are going to incinerate states of perpetual crisis for the interest of ordinary people Oh, yes. Separate from the interest of the elite.
@BGatesIsaPyscho - Concerned Citizen
Joe Rogan discusses 1984 Britain & It’s rapid decline into a Totalitarian State. https://t.co/lQoXmmmK8j
Video Transcript AI Summary
In England, there is concern over government overreach with arrests for online speech, surpassing Russia. Thought crimes lead to arrests, even for retweeting. The definition of hate speech is subjective, leading to potential consequences. Calling someone by their former name can now result in a lifetime Twitter ban, showing a shift in what is considered hate speech. This trend raises concerns about potential jail time for violating hate speech laws.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Just terrible government overreach. You're seeing it now in England where people getting arrested for tweets.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: England you know, people talk about Soviet Russia, like how bad, Russia is in terms of, cracking down on thought police and cracking down on bad tweets and things like that. I think the statistics are I think England in the I think there's something like 4,000 people have been arrested in England for thought crimes where they've said things online that people find to be, a hateful thing or a problematic thing. And I think it's only 200 in Russia. Oh, wow. Yeah.
That says a lot. Yeah. Maybe in Russia, they're too scared
Speaker 1: to do it at all.
Speaker 0: Could be. Yeah. But the fact that they're comfortable with finding people who've said something that they disagree with and putting them in a fucking cage in England in 2024 is really wild.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Especially, they're they're saying you get arrested just for retweeting something.
Speaker 1: The the offense of incitement to racial hatred involves, publishing or distributing material, which is insulting or abusive, which is intended to or likely to start racial hatred. So if you retweet that, then you're republishing that, and then potentially you're committing that offense. And we do have dedicated police officers who are scouring social media. Their job is to look for this material, and then follow-up with identification arrests and so forth. So it's a really, really serious people might think they're not doing anything harmful.
They are, and the consequences will be visited upon them.
Speaker 0: And who's to here's the problem with that. Even if you say, yeah. Well, people shouldn't treat hateful hateful things. I agree. They shouldn't.
But who's to decide what is a hateful thing? That's the problem. It's subjective. It's very subjective. And it still shouldn't be a crime.
And in our lifetime, we've seen that get moved. Right? So it used to be, if a guy thought he was a woman and his name was Doug and you grew up with Doug and all of a sudden Doug wants to be called Debbie, if you call him Doug, it's no big deal. Like, yeah. Maybe you're being rude to call him Doug, but it's not a hate crime.
Right. Okay? Well, now a lot of people think it's a hate crime. And that that got you banned from Twitter for life. So if you dead name someone on the old Twitter, you are banned for life.
Dead name. Not even making up a name. You can call him an idiot. You can call someone an idiot. Okay.
Forget about a man in address. Maybe that's a problem. But if you call, like, a regular guy an idiot, you stupid fuck. Fine. No problem.
But if you call Doug Doug, you will get banned for life. Okay. That's the new hate speech. That's crazy. Now, if that keeps going, that didn't exist before, if that keeps going, maybe you can go to jail for calling him Doug.
Maybe they think it's okay to put you in jail because you violated their hate speech laws.
@itsalwaysrains - AlwaysSadButTruthful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrJhQpvlkLA @MikeBenzCyber great great interview. so many important points. possibly the most heavy podcast i've watched in a long time because of the truths presented..
reSee.it AI Summary
The US government has spent over a decade attempting to silence Alex Jones, not due to his alleged craziness, but because he speaks truths that challenge the narrative. In a series of discussions, he covers topics like the CIA's influence, the threat to free speech, and the legal battles he faces. He also touches on global conflicts and the spiritual state of society. Additionally, I share some paid partnerships, offering discounts on products that may interest my audience.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
The US government has spent the last 12 years trying to censor and destroy Alex Jones. They’re still trying, and it’s not because he’s crazy and dishonest. It’s because he’s telling the truth. Watch this. (0:00) How Alex Jones Predicted 9/11 (9:22) The CIA's Influence Over The X Files (13:33) The Globalists Are Hiding in Plain Sight (17:55) Why the Left Wants Trump Killed (20:50) The Burden and Responsibility Alex Jones Bears (25:37) The Spiritual Revolution (35:28) Why the Most Evil People Are the Most Unhappy (38:50) The Secret Undermining of the West (43:04) The Assassination of Infowars Journalist Jamie White (47:03) Have We Lost the War With Russia? (49:47) There Was a 50% Chance of Nuclear War and the Pentagon Didn’t Care (57:05) The EU’s 20-Year War Strategy (1:00:00) Why the Globalists Are So Scared of Donald Trump (1:09:57) The Plan to End Free Speech in the United States (1:14:10) Alex Jones Details the Legal Attacks Against Him (1:25:21) Why Obama Secretly Labeled Alex Jones a National Security Threat (1:29:59) The Fraudulent Auction to Sell Infowars to The Onion (1:34:42) The Real Culprit Behind the Lawfare Against Alex Jones (1:39:54) Will the New Department of Justice Help Alex Jones? (1:52:14) The Potential Nuclear Exchange Between Iran and Israel (1:55:41) They Want You Dull, Asleep, and Spiritually Dead (1:58:38) The Evils of the Transhumanist Movement Includes paid partnerships.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Alex Jones believes federal agencies are trying to destroy him because he predicted 9/11, specifically planes flying into the World Trade Centers, blaming Osama bin Laden, and warning the Bush White House. He claims he researched false flag attacks and saw preprogramming in the news. Jones says he specified the CIA would fly planes into the World Trade Centers and blame it on Bin Laden.
Jones says certain intelligence agencies tracked the supposed hijackers, who were trained in US military bases and given government money. He claims Bin Laden was a CIA asset used to destabilize areas. Jones says the FBI hired an operative to build a bomb to blow up the World Trade Center in the early 90s. He says Cheney wrote about needing a "new Pearl Harbor" event and race-specific bioweapons.
Jones says he was on cable access in Texas figuring this out while mainstream journalists didn't see it. He references a spin-off of the X-Files, "The Lone Gunman," which featured a similar plot. Jones says he predicted they would try to shoot Trump at a rally. He says the UN planned to use disease acts to bring in a global system.
Jones says he is taking them at their word and listening to people he disagrees with. He says Fauci spoke about a much worse respiratory virus. Jones believes Fauci was involved with creating COVID-19 and moving it to Wuhan. He says the UN planned to use collapsing migration flow from a virus to flood the West and use that crisis to bring a new Marshall Plan.
Jones says he is simply trying to get people to look at what he's pointing out. He likens the globalists to the adult table at Thanksgiving, admitting their plans because they assume the public is too lazy or stupid to notice. He says Phil Mudd from the CIA on CNN said they were going to kill Trump. Jones says 55% of Democrats support Trump being killed.
Jones says he has gifts from God and that more people have these gifts than they realize. He says he used to drink and eat too much to cope but has since embraced responsibility, stopped drinking, exercises, and lost weight. Jones says he wants to become obsolete, with more people understanding how the world works. He believes the globalist system is transhumanist and evil, and people need to choose a side. He says good has more power than evil.
Jones says the globalists had pretty much total narrative control after World War II, but now they are collapsing, and a new international order is forming. He says Trump is a chaos bringer to their system. Jones says it's a spiritual revolution, with the best and worst coming out of people. He says there's no room for anyone in the middle.
Jones says he sees more godliness and peace, but also more satanic energy. He says evil is writhing around trying to take us with it. Jones says he's seeing more serenity and focus in his own life. He says he no longer hates the destroyers but pities them.
Jones says he was told by Trump to contact the Secret Service after Mudd said on CNN that they were going to kill him. He says a long-time employee was assassinated. Jones says he was on the Ukraine hit list. Jones says the US is running the targeting in Ukraine.
Jones says the US lost a war with Russia. He says the Pentagon assessed that giving weapons to Ukraine to strike targets within Russia had a 50% chance of a nuclear exchange. Jones says Hillary Clinton ran ads talking about him and twisting what he had said about the Sandy Hook event. He says they created a demonized version of him to attack Trump.
Jones says the Democratic Party, DOJ, FBI, and CIA admitted to developing a plan to take him down. He says Obama illegally declared him a national security threat. Jones says the Justice Department paid over $4 million to the Sandy Hook Foundation. He says the US Trustee ordered a private security company to shut down his office.
Jones says Paul Weiss, a law firm, is running the whole thing. He says they confessed to Trump to try to destroy him illegally with lawfare. Jones says the Connecticut Supreme Court said they were not going to hear his appeal. He says the judge violated three laws.
Jones says the only reason he brings this up is because he worries about it every day. He says free speech is the foundation of a free society. Jones says his lawyers told him he could be shut down within two days or two weeks. He says they are coming to shut down Infowars.
Jones says Iran is plan B for the globalists. He says Netanyahu has been trying to drag us into war since 9/11. Jones says Israel will get blown off the map by this. He says the globalists are very reckless.
Jones says there's a spirit of dullness or fantasy, and smart people are no longer smart or aware. He says we are sleepwalking into Armageddon. Jones says the establishment is all about never actually making a decision they get in trouble for. He says Trump and Elon are conscious, awake, and sharp.
Jones says the future has been here for a while, it's just not evenly distributed. He says they want to turn humans into a commodity. Jones says we have to choose God, justice, and free will. He says if you're fighting evil, evil's going to come after you, but that's a blessing.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. So I want to impose my theory on you, and you tell me what you think. So for the past fifteen years, I've been watching the feds, the FBI, the DOJ try to destroy you, and I've watched as no group of gatekeepers or whistleblower protectors or journalistic, you know, ethics guardians have defended you on First Amendment grounds, which is pretty shocking. But the question has always been, why are the feds so intent on taking you out? And here's my theory.
So the February, you go on TV, time stamped, and say they're gonna someone's gonna fly planes in the World Trade Centers. They're gonna blame Osama bin Laden. Call the Bush White House. Warn them. You basically called 911 in detail.
You're the only one who did, and we can prove that. It's not a guess. We have the tape. I've played the tape. 09:11 happens in September.
There's a nine eleven commission immediately impaneled. They go and interview a bunch of people in the US government and outside and ask, like, were there signs of this was happening? They don't interview you. You're the one guy who predicted it in public. You're the only guy who predicted it in public, and no one calls you to ask, how the hell did you know that?
Which is the obvious question. Then they set about trying to destroy you rather than, like, hailing you as a prophet or at least asking the question, how the hell did Alex Jones know in detail this was coming? Like, how did you know? They never even asked you. And then they they mobilized DOJ and FBI against you, and I I think there's a connection between those two facts.
Speaker 1: Well, there certainly is. I'd already been researching false flag attacks, not just by our government, but other governments throughout history. The Gulf Of Tonkin to get us into Vietnam in '64 that was later declassified to have been staged. And, of course, The US's liberty between Israel and the Lyndon Baines Johnson administration wanted to get us into full war with Egypt, but the ship survived, became the most decorated ship in US history because of the valiance of the crew. And operation Ajax where the CIA and Kermit Roosevelt in '53 overthrew Mohammed Mosaddegh, who was a reformist and really pro west, but he wouldn't give them all the oil.
And they use radical Islamists to overthrow him and then put the shah in and then overthrew the shah. Over and over again, there's just hundreds and hundreds of historical real case examples of that being done by our government and other governments. And I saw a lot of preprogramming in the news. Oh, someone Bin Laden's gonna get us when he gets us. We need to give up all of our rights, and it'll be a new America, and we've gotta set up this police state.
So so I saw a lot of preprogramming.
Speaker 0: And But you called the specifics you called the specifics of nine eleven. I just can't get past that. And I've asked you in public and private, how did you do that? I've never gotten really a straight answer. I doubt I will now, but the fact remains the incontrovertible fact, the provable fact that you called it, and then they began a campaign against you.
And it's not because you're a racist. You've never been a racist or an antisemite or a crazy person, actually. You've never spewed hate, but you have for, you know, thirty years said the foundations of our system are actually kind of fake and rotten, and it's but it was 09/11. That's when they decide that's when they really decided this guy has to be stopped and and just basically eliminated the first amendment to stop you.
Speaker 1: Well well, just to be clear, it's not that I'm dodging how I knew it. That was twenty four years ago, and I I remember what I was covering and what I was doing at the time. And everybody's seen the July 25, where I went into detail, but but but actually my crew using Chad GPT scanning through all my old shows, found shows in April, and even before that in March where I get more specific, and I said the CIA is gonna fly planes into the World Trade Centers and blame it on Bin Laden.
Speaker 0: So I just think that's the most amazing fact I've ever heard in my entire life that you call that, and and we again, we can prove it because it's on tape with time stamps. And everyone's like, oh, yeah. Okay. Alex Jones is crazy. I hate her.
Okay. Whatever. And I think that's true, but you called 911, and no investigator ever called you to ask you how you called that? How you knew that? Not one.
No. No one from DOJ, Philip Zelikow of the nine eleven Commission No. You?
Speaker 1: No. Why? And well, I mean, obviously because certain segments of our intelligence agencies with other foreign intelligence agencies were tracking the supposed hijackers. They were being trained in US military bases. They were being given government money from our government and other governments.
They were being protected. Then two of their magic passports, all that rubble and hundreds of millions pieces of paper were found the next day to then connect them to it. It was all laid out. Then the Bin Laden family was thrown up was flown out of the country in the days after, and that was basically shut down in the news. You know, it was covered some locally here in Florida.
So I knew that Bin Laden had been CIA going back to really the Mujahideen being set up by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Jimmy Carter, then Reagan took that over. And then they kinda build that as blowback, but even recently, you've seen the USAID information and and and other documents come out in the Institute for Peace where they're directly paying massive amounts of money to Taliban, to Al Qaeda, to ISIS even in the last few years.
Speaker 0: Oh,
Speaker 1: yeah. And they use them as these proxy armies. So so that was well known in the research circles that that that Bin Laden was basically a multinational cutout used by Western intelligence agencies to destabilize areas, but also be a boogeyman. Then you see CNN in a mountain cave magically being able to find him, The US can't kill him and nobody else can. And I knew that CNN is literally the, you know, CIA broadcasting system.
For sure. Total mockingbird, thoroughbred. And there were hundreds and hundreds of points that went in, but okay, Bin Laden's work for the CIA and you got CNN interviewing him, and and and they're all scaring us saying he's about to attack us. And then I remembered how Ahmad Salam, who was an Egyptian intelligence agency operative working for the FBI and CIA, was hired to build a bomb in the early nineties to blow up the World Trade Center. But then when they said build a real bomb, he started recording them because he he sort of figured out it was a setup.
And then he had that press conference where he played it. I interviewed him a few times where where the FBI said, no. Just go ahead and let it go forward. And so you start adding all that together. They'd already tried to hit the World Trade Center before.
The World Trade Center had a lot of, issues in it with asbestos and also some of the structural issues. So they're already wanting to have a plan to get rid of it. And then you have the CIA and FBI in the Solomon Brothers Building, Building 7, the 47 story skyscraper. You have that right next door. So I looked at all of it and I thought where would the new Pearl Harbor be?
And the year before in, the project for American Century headed up by Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, Dick Cheney wrote in there that we need a new Pearl Harbor event to launch the Pax Americana, but it wasn't an American empire of freedom and liberty and justice like Trump's trying to, you know, launch. It was a globalist empire of military enforcement and tyranny. And so there was a lot of other data points that went into it. Cheney also writes in that same document, we need to look at, you know, race specific bioweapons to to have control and bring in our power, and that was actually picked up in the newspapers.
Speaker 0: I but I okay. So these are not minor issues. These this is these are like the biggest things happening in the world, the most important things happening in the world, and the end of one system ushering in of a new system, millions in the end died because of all of this, millions. And what you're on, like, cable access in Texas figuring this out. Like, where is everybody else?
I don't understand. Like, I don't where I worked at CNN at the time. I don't and we had a as you said, Peter Bergen went and interviewed Bin Laden. I'm not attacking Peter Bergen, But, like, how come you were the only one who figured this out?
Speaker 1: Yeah. By that time, I started out in '94 as a guest on Access TV and then my own show about '95, but I I was on local talk radio. I just started getting know, I've been syndicated a few years then, but I
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: But I mean, but you're right. I was on Access TV as well, and and and that's where
Speaker 0: the thing You were, like, way out on the fringe, and all the people at the very center of our business, journalism, like, they didn't see or didn't talk publicly about any of this. Like, none of this.
Speaker 1: Well, I saw Gary Hart on with another guest.
Speaker 0: Gary Hart, the former presidential candidate, senator from Colorado?
Speaker 1: I think it was the Hart Rubin Commission. Yeah. I saw him in congress with testimony earlier that year and also saw him on, I believe it was CNN or maybe it was Chris Matthews, MSNBC, but but the clip's famous, and they say the world's about to change. There's about to be big things happening. You know, big big attacks.
Speaker 0: When when was this?
Speaker 1: It was a it was in early July.
Speaker 0: Oh, it
Speaker 1: was before 09:11. Yes. And and and that's and they were very specific, so I should find that clip. You can crowdsource that. And that was the final catalyst because they were basically telling the establishment very thinly veiled what was about to go on.
So I sat back, I looked at it, and I thought years later, how did I come up with that? So I don't just say a bunch of stuff, then most of those come true. I'm very specific on predictions, almost all of them have come true. I thought that it was the spin off of the X Files, and I wasn't even an X Files fans, rarely watched it, called The Lone Gunman that it turns out had come out in the February that that I didn't even learn about because there wasn't, you know, Facebook and Twitter and X back then. So if you didn't watch those entertainment shows, you didn't know about it.
And then at six months or so after 09:11, listeners start saying, have you seen this? And I had listeners send me VHS recordings off Fox TV of this episode where a criminal group in the US government hijacks a jumbo jet in New York to fly it in the World Trade Center to blame it on a Central Asian terrorist show that they have a pretext to take it over domestically with a police state and launch wars in The Middle East.
Speaker 0: Wait. This was on the X Files?
Speaker 1: Yes. This was on the X Files. And and so later, I thought maybe I got it from that, but then we found tapes even earlier a month before that came out where I was already had put it together on the radio. But but but here's what's crazy. Then I got reached out by by some of the host of The X Files saying, hey.
Chris Carter told us that the CIA came to him with the plot of this and asked him some of the scripts that they would ask him as a favor to put this in as a TV program. And then later, I corresponded with Chris Carter via email. He talked about this in the, news, like, in in entertainment publications about, oh, Alex Jones is a really good guy. Then when they rebooted in 02/2016 again, he talked about the talk show host characters based on me. So I've I've talked to him, some of his crew, but he said, no.
I don't know why the CIA, you used to interview him, came to me and and said, here's the script for this show. So so it wasn't just Alex Jones saying that a government agency was gonna hijack a jet, fly the World Trade Center. The x files, spin off, lone gunman, one of its main episodes was about that specific story.
Speaker 0: This is just crazy. So I often get, you know, people I know say
Speaker 1: Oh, and they remote control and hijack the jet, the good guys, and keep it from crashing the World Trade Center. So why would why would the CIA come to Chris Carter and say we want you to write this, and then and then it's released months and months before nine eleven? So so so I'm not the only one. It was in the collective unconsciousness. I mean, I I mean, I don't know.
But, I mean, I said two weeks before they've shot Trump in Butler, I I went on air, and I said they're gonna try to shoot him at a at a rally. I mean, that was that's obvious to see how desperate they were. All the law fair didn't work. I mean, a lot of this is just studying how they operate. But being so much of it now is John Podesta in August 2020, New York Times wrote about it, had a big war game with top Democrats.
And they said, if Trump wins, if they weren't able to steal it, in my view, then then we're gonna have civil war conditions. We're gonna have blue states secede, blue cities, and we're gonna use social issues to foment a rebellion that we're gonna basically frame as racial, George Floyd on steroids, you know, 10 o, and then we're gonna drive Trump from office. Well, they were able to steal it in my view. The evidence I think is overwhelming, they didn't use that plan. Well, they started talking about that plan again in the months before this last election, last year.
So so so much so much of what I'm able to predict isn't really prediction. They admit it. I mean, the UN said for twenty years, we're gonna use disease acts to bring in a global system, a global central magnificent currency, a global social credit score, a global, vaccine ID that'll be used as the global Internet ID, global taxation ID. That's official Bill Gates, the UN, all these big bodies preparing how they'd roll this out. You know, the Rockefeller Foundation with Operation Lockstep two thousand ten, two thousand eleven describing locking down the sports stadiums, locking in your houses six feet apart, wearing mask for fear.
I mean, that's and then Bush, George w had that in the BioShield program that passed in, what, 02/2005 where they sent out kits, millions of them to everybody into the Red Cross with the six feet apart, with the mask, with all the stuff, but they didn't launch the the bioattack scare that they had, I think, locked and loaded. Then they waited till 2020. So basically,
Speaker 0: you're just taking them at their word. You're just paying you're doing what I don't do enough, which is listen to people I disagree with and sincerely try to assess what they're saying.
Speaker 1: Mean Yeah. Fauci just said last week, a much worse, way higher morbidity. It's respiratory. It's common. And you got hotes.
Oh, don't worry. Trump's gonna have a big problem. It's gonna come crashing in on him. We'll see how he tries to reboot the economy. And then, you know, then you learn Fauci and all of them are involved with with Obama and Chapel Hill and North Carolina creating COVID nineteen.
It was a big scandal 02/2015, gain of function SARS, and then they move it to Wuhan at plausible deniability so they can kinda blame the Chinese that they want. I'm not saying the Chinese are good. The communist Chinese are terrible. It was kind of a joint project. And and and then then they roll it out, then they've got their so called shot.
It's mRNA. I mean, this stuff is all very well planned. And so when you see him up there lying going, no, Senator Paul, it is you that is wrong. No gain of function. Then it's in all his emails.
This is gain of function, and he has public symposiums, you know, in defense of gain of function. I mean, he's mister gain of function. If he was a superhero, he would just, know, have gain of function on his chest and and the back of his cape. And he's like, I don't know anything about that. And so, I mean, these guys just treat us like children.
And so they kept saying, we're gonna use a virus. We're gonna use a scare to bring in our local government. I mean, mean, I remember Blue Dobbs and Judicial Watch two thousand and six sued, to get North American Union documents. And in it, they're meeting up at Banff Canada, and they're like, we're gonna use collapsing migration flow from a virus to flood the West and use that crisis to bring a new Marshall Plan. We're gonna use a disease x to, you know, finally get the world to accept this global government.
So they're just scheming constantly. They have event two zero one. But in public? In public. They have a sparge, war game, 2025, '20 '20 '8, that came out a few years before 2020 in the viral release that is actually set in 2020 to 2024, and it rolls out how they're all gonna do it.
The, tweets that are in there are almost word for. They just changed the name, spars to COVID nineteen. So so it's a blueprint, and and then if they get caught, oh, it's not a viral attack plan. Oh, it's just a war game. But the war game matches the exact rollout of the attack, so they're all on script.
Speaker 0: So in a normal world that rewarded, you know, excellence and impressions, you'd be a billionaire because of your predictive powers. I mean, huge companies, governments hire people who can piece together fragments of evidence to create an accurate picture of the future. That's that's a huge business. I know a lot of people in that business. George Friedman, guys like that are really, really smart people, but you have got the best track record of all.
Speaker 1: And I think it's so
Speaker 0: telling that rather than reward you for this or call you up and be like, Alex Jones, you're like, what do you think's coming next? They're like, no. We must, like, eliminate our own First Amendment to destroy your life, which is what they've done. That that seems like a pretty clear indicator of their guilt to me.
Speaker 1: Well, what they don't want is compartmentalize good people in industry and government, not just everywhere on the world, to listen to what I'm saying, go check it out for themselves, find out everything I just said is on record. Nobody can just type anything I said, and it's it's it's from their own documents. And then people will basically put the glasses on like they live and see it for themselves. I'm not telling them what to see like the corporate media does brainwashing people and and and selling them a lie that two men can have a baby, and there's no x and y chromosomes, and communism is great, and, you know, open borders are wonderful. No.
I mean, I'm simply saying see this for yourself. I I liken it to those hidden image paintings. And and when you first can't see the hidden image, you're like, I can't see. Once you do see it, you can't unsee it. So I'm only trying to get people to go look at what I'm pointing out and find out.
I liken this whole thing to like you have the adult table with the CFR, the club of Rome, the WF, and the UN, the think tanks, the RAN Corporation, and they're at the adult table at Thanksgiving. And the general public and even a lot of the politicians are compartmentalized and naive. We're over at the kids table, and we we'd actually listen to what the adult table because that's their arrogance. They admit 99% of this in their own battle plans as if we are too lazy or stupid ever go look at it. And that's part of a confidence game they have with their own people, their own corporate intelligence operatives, their own government intelligence operatives, their own networks, where they just basically admit all this stuff out in the open.
I mean, it's like, you know, mud from the CIA on CNN saying, foggy bottom's gonna kill this guy. We're gonna kill Trump. And then Trump had called me. This is back in his first administration. I said, listen.
You need to watch out. They've got Phil Mudd and and and all these other guys on CNN, MSNBC saying they're gonna kill you. And he goes, just a moment. He goes, I'm gonna a secret service call you. In about an hour, they called me.
They go, what's going on, Alex? Trump told us to call you. And I said, you don't know about this, this, this, this, this, this. So he goes, here's our email, and I sent the secret service this. As if the secret service doesn't know they were all over TV saying we're gonna kill Trump.
So so
Speaker 0: It's possible they caught that. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And and then Trump didn't catch it. So so and and I mean, now they're everywhere. You've got this new Rutgers study out where 55% of Democrats, Liberals are are asking, do you support Trump being killed? They're like, yes.
We want him dead. We he should be assassinated. This is like this week. And came out whatever the weekend. And they asked him, so do you see yourself as part of a assassination culture?
And they said, yes. So but then if you say, oh, the Democrats are fomiting violence. I mean, the view says all the time, he's killing people. Elon's killing people. They don't say how.
He's they're stealing your Social Security. They're killing old ladies, and so we need to ready to fight and die to take this guy out. Those are quotes. And and and then they just sit back and go, oh, no. No.
No. We're not calling for violence with Crockett and all of them, but but they're not gonna do it. They want lone nuts to do it because their other wind up operatives like Crooks and the other, guy here in Florida failed. But, I mean, they are they are crazy. And and if the establishment or what's left of it's falling apart thinks killing Trump is going to help them, they're delusional because if you look at all the scenarios that come out of that, it's much worse for them.
Speaker 0: No. I agree. I absolutely agree with that. Not all sleep aids are made by pharmaceutical companies. You probably heard about Eight Sleep by now.
They developed the country's most innovative products for sleep. Almost everybody in our office uses something they make called the pod, and they love it. And there's a reason that professional athletes and lots of other smart people do too. You add the pod to your mattress like a mattress cover and it helps you get a better night's sleep and fill with vitality at the start of each day in an intimidating way almost. It's amazing.
How does it do it? Well, uses advanced technology to track your sleep and automatically adjust the temperature of your side of the bed to what's perfect for sleep. And temperature makes all the difference. It's backed by over six hundred million hours of data. They've also used those insights to create their new product Sleep Elixir to help you get quiet before you go to bed.
Fall asleep faster and stay knocked out longer. No grogginess, no weird side effects, just better deep sleep. So if you're ready to take sleep and recovery to the next level, to eightsleep.com/tucker to get $350 off your Pod four Ultra full refund for thirty days if you don't love it. It works. Before I ask you what you think the signs are pointing to now, like, are your predictions for the next five years, and then I ask you how your battles with the US government are going in its attempts to silence you.
How do you like, if you have this ability, which you do, I'm not sucking up, it's just, again, it's provable, to put together a picture, an extraordinarily accurate picture of what the future holds. Like, what does that do to you? How do you sleep, and how do you live, and, like, why haven't you totally destroyed yourself? Like, that's not those are kind of not thoughts that most people, including me, are burdened with and don't really wanna be burdened with. But, like, how do you turn off the visions of the future in your head?
Speaker 1: Well, I I mean, I appreciate you saying nice things about me, and I'm and, obviously, God gives us all different gifts, I do have some gifts. But I think a lot more people have these gifts than than than really realize it.
Speaker 0: But you can prove it. That's why I've obviously, we're friends, and I like you as a as a man, but you can prove it in a way that others can't because it's on tape. So it's not really debate. Has Alex Jones had, you know, more accurate predictions of the future than any living person in the world that I know of? We can prove that.
We don't have to argue about it. I've got the freaking tape. So, again, it's not even a compliment. It's just an observation, and I don't know why I seem to be the only person who's obsessed with this. Like, how did this guy predict this?
No. Everyone's like, oh, he's great. Okay. Maybe he's crazy, but he predicted this. So my question is, like, what does that do to you?
Speaker 1: I mean, it is stressful, the responsibility of constantly researching and and and looking at all, you know, culture, pop culture. That's where a lot of the real brainwashing's at. That's where a lot of the predictive programming and manipulation goes on. Yes. But also in so called news.
But but I I mean, I did get to where I drank way too much, ate too much, got really unhealthy because I could, you know, go home at night and and have some drinks and, you know, and eat half a key lime pie and just kinda dial out and forget about Yes. Reality. But but things have gotten so intense and so dangerous that about the last nine months, I haven't drank, and I've been exercising every day, I've lost 63 pounds, I feel great. And I've just embraced, the responsibility. Plus, we're alive right now really in the great great awakening where more and more people are piecing things together and and and and and deciding to really get informed and engaged.
And so I'm I've always said I wanna become obsolete where people really start understanding how the world really works to such an extent that there are so many other journalists and researchers and pundits, just private citizens and people in business and and academia and life and and and in, you know, the ecclesiastical circles that they really realize that this globalist system is transhumanist. It is evil. It is a spiritual battle at the end of the day, and people need to really choose a side. And and so I think choosing the side and then saying, hey, God, I I I can't do this. You know, I'm I'm weak, I'm imperfect, but you know, through you I can and and really praying and asking God to lead God and direct you and give you discernment so to really answer your question.
I'll have all this data and this research and so so that my feeble human mind can understand really what God tells me, and then it's that final little ingredient of being sure about something that that's what they're intending to do, but we have real agency. Know, good has more power than evil. They always say the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world that he didn't exist. I think that's the second biggest trick is that he doesn't exist, and he does. His biggest trick is convincing people that there is no good out there and that and that and that there's not
Speaker 0: That's right.
Speaker 1: And and that god doesn't exist. So, you know, for me, so much of it again is in the old days, the globalist, the the the western propaganda after the end of World War two, and since then, when we won World War two, had pretty much total narrative control. And so anything they were preprogramming and preparing and hyping the people for, they pretty much always got what they wanted. So it was easy to follow those trend lines out and see what the probable main scenarios were. And then things would almost always come true that I predicted because they were still in charge.
Now that the globalist are really collapsing and a new international order and system is forming coming from the grassroots up. Politics is downstream from the the grassroots. And because Trump is such a, chaos bringer to their system, which is good, but with it also comes danger, but it's it's better than living, you know, know, on our knees and then and then ending up having our soles basically taken. It's it's it's it's it's better to fight down our feet. But in my experience, people that fight on their feet live a lot longer and have better lives than people that try to live on their knees.
People live on their knees actually die on their knees a lot more often than people who die on their feet in my experience. So now is really the global revolution. It's a spiritual revolution. The information, the culture, all of that comes out of that. And so now there's so many possible futures and and so many developments because there's been so many good people that actually care and wanna stabilize civilization, thrive, and have a future and and who are not based on conquest mindsets, but but are based on renaissance concepts, the great reset versus the great awakening, that right now anything is possible because America still has a world reserve currency, still has the biggest best military, still has the best energy system for raw energy, and still has a spirit that is being rekindled that was the apple of the world's eye and really the flower of the renaissance that that that that we're now rebooting.
It's powering back up right now, and that window is closing, but we're we're acting on it right now. And if we're just not weak and and and cowards, like Trump has said, and and and if we don't become panickens but remain Americans, then really anything is possible because as Elon has said, if America falls the central pillar in western civilization and western civilization falls, it all falls. Yes. And so for me, I don't do this out of courage. I do it out of direct self preservation for myself, my family, by extension, everybody else because we're all interconnected.
And people need to understand the true urgency that the globalist said they were gonna collapse the world economy and use that for social control as Larry Fink said to control our behavior. And we're gonna build something extremely hellscapish and and dystopic in their own admissions. I mean, all the horrible stuff we see is just the leading, you know, edge of it. And and so so to me, there's really even no choice but to fight with everything I've got.
Speaker 0: So you said this is you said two things that really struck me. One, that anything is possible right now, that this could go in in in infinite number of directions, some hellish and and some blessed, and so I think that that feels right to me. Second, you said this is a spiritual revolution. What are the signs that you see of that? What do you mean by that?
Speaker 1: Well, if you read the Bible, Old Testament, New Testament, it's all there, and then I see it happening. You know, it says that during these big times of change that that that you'll see the best out of the good people and the worst out of the bad people. And some people you thought were good are gonna really activate and show you their real cards, that they're really your servants of evil or really slaves of evil. And then you're gonna see some people you thought weren't good that are gonna be touched and make the decision to be strong for liberty that'll be some of our greatest champions.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 1: And that you're not gonna really see people in the middle anymore, that big middle of people passing the buck. God said you were hot nor cold. You were lukewarm. I spit you out of my mouth. And so we're we're going into really the beginning.
It's gonna get way more intense in my view. I mean, if any prediction, it's it's that people think things are wild now and tumultuous. It's it's this is gonna be seen as the calm before the storm, and so so there's gonna be nowhere to be in the middle. People are gonna have to choose the side, and those that have chosen evil, chosen the establishment, chosen the satanic world order, are are gonna get deeper and deeper into their devotion, their hysteria, their violence trying to prop it up because deep down, they're they're scared and they have a form of Stockholm syndrome where they go to the abuser and think if they prostrate themselves before it, somehow they'll be given deliverance when really they just need to repent and ask God to come in to their heart and cleanse them and and then rise them up, to be a soldier against this evil in this key time. But there'll be no room for anybody in the middle in the time we're in, and I'm I'm talking to so many people that weren't even Christian or weren't even religious or weren't even spiritual, who are saying it's it's good versus evil, and I talked to so many people I know that are professionals and they you know, Austin's full of a lot of, you know, particularly rich people and women, you know, just becoming demon possessed.
I mean, literally saying that they're demon possessed and and and I'm hearing about all over the country, all over the world.
Speaker 0: What is that? It's so noticeable, and I I'm so blessed to be surrounded by mostly by women who are just the opposite or wonderful, but I who are the rock. I mean, they're just the best. However, what you just described is just on display everywhere.
Speaker 1: Well, and and it's men too. You're about this soccer coach that just kidnapped a little kid and took him and killed him and threw him in the woods reportedly, allegedly. Yeah. I mean, it's just I mean, it's men too, but normally in history, it's men that do the really openly satanic stuff.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And and women, you know, 2% of violent crime. Now it's, know, they're it's it's it'd be because it's a crisis. And women particularly, but men as well buy into whatever they see as the power structure. That's a survival mechanism generally.
Speaker 0: It's exactly right.
Speaker 1: But when the power structure is a death cult, by increment, they get deeper and deeper. I mean, you look at these leftist and, you know, them in the hundreds of photos where they took their shot and they or they or they had their abortion or, you know, they wanna kill Trump, and you look at them.
Speaker 0: Or they're worshiping death in some way.
Speaker 1: Abs you could see it. They all look super unhealthy. They look totally insane in the eyes. They all look like Charlie Manson. And so so it's it's I've seen more and more love in people's eyes Yes.
More and more spiritual connection to God, more and more of that quiet place of just serenity in people, and then I'm seeing more and more of the satanic energy. So it's it's really a parting of the sea here.
Speaker 0: Yes. So to just linger on the first observation that you're seeing more of the serenity, the peace from God in people, that is including people in your orbit, people you know personally?
Speaker 1: Yes. But it's very paradoxical. I'm seeing just godliness, peace, understanding, and then I'm seeing confusion and hysteria. And, I mean, what we're seeing is evil writhing around trying to take us with it. It it it gets sensed that humanity's waking up and that all of its carefully laid plans to keep us in a trance, keep us asleep is is is is burning away.
Speaker 0: Do you is there any way to predict well, I'll just say my view, which is I I've been really shocked by people on both sides. There are people who seem totally seized by hysteria and rage and hate and the desire to commit violence. I never expected they would be that. And then there are other people who I'm equally shocked to see filled with the kind of serenity you're describing who are filled with love and understanding. And I just I couldn't have predicted who those people are in some cases.
Do you feel that?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I I mean, I've always had a lot of berserker energy and and True. And, you know, in the fight, but it was always focused, and and and I and I wouldn't say it was demonic, but it was, you know, of the flesh, but also had a big connection to god. Now more and more, I'm just have serenity, focus, clarity, and I'm more effective at breaking things down, not acting like a Tasmanian devil. And so in my own life, I'm seeing more and more of that serenity just really really intense the last few weeks.
And I picked up on that being around you and your crew and, you know, folks here in in in this little hamlet we're in. And then it really does make you feel sorry for people that serve evil. I mean, they torture us and they attack us and they wanna bully us and but at the end the day, you you actually realize that's on them. It is so sad that they live like this.
Speaker 0: They're being destroyed too. They're being destroyed too. That's like one of the main insights I've had in the past five years. I come to things really slowly because I'm not a genius, but I always kind of felt hate toward the destroyers in our in any society, hate destruction. I like building and creation.
And but the destroyers always were, I felt, my enemies. In my whole life, I felt this. And then it was only in the last couple years I realized they're being destroyed also. Like, they are suffering. They're not getting out of this unscathed.
Like, they think that they're getting power or whatever they money, whatever they think they're getting, but in but they're, like, in agony.
Speaker 1: Well, lot of them are cowards too, and they think survival of fittest is being as ruthless and mean as possible is what they have to do to win. And then when you no longer hate them, I and I because I was never driven by hate as my main force. It was just the old saying, you don't fight an enemy attacking your people because you hate them. You fight them because you love the people you're defending. Exactly.
But still, I would always hear, no. No. Forgive them. Still fight them. Still expose them.
But but but but really forgive them. That removes a spiritual connection that you have with them, and you see it when Christ says, you know, be kind and pray for those that persecute, it'll it'll heap burning coals on their head. Stalkers, you know, down at the kind of a low level. I've learned like once I didn't care about a stalker and I've had plenty and you just forgive them, they just freak out and go away. When they're getting to you, they're enjoying that energy.
So you still fight them with more energy than ever, but you do it from a position of just removing a damaged collapsed, you know, poor victim of the devil, that you have responsibility to protect yourself and your family from, but you don't give them the energy of being angry back at them and and seeing them as powerful because they're not their pawns. And these people that are influenced by satanic energy, by literal spiritual forces, demons, they are the slaves. And and when they're not out doing evil and persecuting people, they don't even feel like they're alive, and and they're desperate, and they're scared, and and and they're lost, and then they get driven forward, you know, by this dark force to to like, it'll alright once you just go out and once you take these people out. You know, it's the good people that are making you feel bad. It's it's it's them.
Destroy them, then you'll have peace. And and and that's the deeper understanding I've had of how this satanic system works.
Speaker 0: It's so clearly true. And and if you ask if there's anyone that you've really, like, focused on, I I don't know, George Soros or Larry Fink. I mean, just the other day, I was talking to someone who knows Larry Fink really well, and I was saying, I think Larry Fink is like, I don't know. I've never met Larry Fink, but, boy, he's responsible for a lot of suffering from my perspective. And, you know, this person said there's no one more unhappy than Larry Fink, like, And I was just with him in a car.
He was, like, screaming at someone on the phone. This guy's made billions of dollars and personally tormented. And I know a bunch of people because I know a lot of the of the people involved in things that I think are really evil, and there's not a happy one among them. Not one.
Speaker 1: And and beyond the fact that he's got billions, he's in control of more than anybody. You know, we're always hearing Elon Musk, the richest guy in the world. Well, he's a guy that has been good at keeping the companies under his control. So he independently is the most powerful person corp corporate science communications titan. But then they spin it like, oh, he's the establishment.
No. Trump, as you know, has a very small orbit of independent billionaires that are defending him because they wanna stabilize civilization, for for everybody's good. But when you look at the international power and the largesse, it's been against Trump. More and more, they realize they're losing because the people are with Trump. And we were just talking last night.
I hope you would repeat that, because you were asking me with some folks we were talking to about what my view is basically on the geopolitical new landscape, and I laid my my view. And you said, no. I think that's dead on. And then you said, basically, if you if you feel like repeating it that that we need to sell it very clearly. You're on this team or you're on that team because it really is team ChaiCom, EU globalist, new world order.
That's that's what's left. You know, The UK don't trust them who runs it, but they're trying to come in under a US alliance. And America and the world needs to understand there's a new international system forming the old one fell, and we better decide what this new system's gonna look like and who's gonna be in charge of it because that's the way it is.
Speaker 0: So think about how you'll feel when you achieve your biggest goals of all, whether it's starting a business, paying off your mortgage, sending your kids to college, having the money to pay for it. You'll be pretty proud when you've met these essential life goals, and you should be proud. All of us are when we do that. But what do you do next? So getting to the goals is one thing, but protecting them is an entirely different thing and maybe a bigger thing.
And this is where life insurance from Policygenius comes in. Now, Policygenius makes finding and buying life insurance really easy. You probably want life insurance, but it's expensive. How do you even get it? Policygenius makes it simple, and it means that your family has the safety net it needs to cover expenses and to face the future.
Nearly half of Americans look back and wish they'd gotten life insurance earlier. It can change everything if you have it because you don't know what the future holds, honestly. So with Policygenius, you can find policies starting at just $292 per year for a million dollars of coverage, and some options are a % online. And that means no unnecessary medical exams for you, which is a win. You compare quotes from top insurers side by side.
You talk to licensed agents. You secure your families tomorrow with peace of mind today, and it makes it super easy on Policygenius. And it's all transparent. You know exactly what you're getting. So you head to Policygenius.com/Tucker, or click the link in the description to get your free quote.
That's policygenius.com/Tucker. Yeah. And you hope that the you know, questions like that are almost never resolved without big wars, unfortunately. You can't think of too many examples or really any in history where they, you know, have just sort of evolved gracefully. It's you know, a lot of people die, and that's, you know, the point.
You know, Rome falls in the fifth century, new system, or whatever. And I really hope that we can escape that, and I am very opposed to violence and war, so I, you know, I think we should all be working toward that. But it's but it's the big things that matter, and you have the rise of this superpower in the East, and that's the main factor the moment that we live in, is that the West is falling. I think it's been undermined from within by people like Larry Fink, and many many others. And but it's being replaced by this by this this threat from the East, and I I don't hate the Chinese at all.
I think they're acting in what they think is their best interest. They're not Christian. They hate Christianity. So they've got a totally different worldview, and I'm not mad at them about it. But I think we should be honest about what it is.
Right? It's not we're not gonna have, like, you know, The United States and Russia and Iran and Malaysia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, China is all sort of acting in their own spheres. That's not the way it works.
Speaker 1: And and and as you said last night, all these countries wanna be on team America.
Speaker 0: I think that's right.
Speaker 1: And and for people that don't know this, and I'm surprised, I mean, Trump knows understands that you do, but this needs to be everywhere. The the globalist went in the eighties, nineties. They made a deal with communist China. You get the manufacturing of earth minerals, but you don't expand your military into the South China Sea. Well, they started twenty years ago expanding everywhere and then it took Obama till about fourteen years ago to figure that out.
We had the Asia pivot, but but by then it was too late. They'd infiltrated congress. They were financing all this destroy America Wokeism and bragging about it. And then people like Bill Gates and others continue to be totally aligned with China. No.
It's right. And the CFR saying America's over and, you know, Larry Fink making jokes about it just three or four years ago. You know, five years ago, Trump thinks he'll bring America back. He hasn't seen China. I mean, arrogant.
And now that China's even double crossing the globalist and saying, don't even need you. Xi Jinping is like, we're gonna pay people to have kids. We're not doing your one child policy more. They're breaking with the transhumanist, you know, angle, but but using the control grid, the cashless society, social credit score that the West helped them set up to now project that around the world. And so the globalist are being destroyed by their own Frankenstein monster, and then the EU's decided to ally with China.
And again, The UK is at least on the surface acting like, no, they wanna be in a, you know, new, you know, anglophile alliance with the quote, you know, US empire. And again, The US has a limited window to get everybody on board with us and then our alliance easily with, you know, the key countries in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia, Central among it, and some other alliances. And and then obviously, open economic alliance with Russia who wants an economic alliance and has more resources than any country in the world. I mean, that is the real chessboard, and that's why the left and the globalist wanna drive America and Russia apart because geographically
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And also militarily, and then also scientifically, and then just raw material Of course. That is the obvious.
Speaker 0: If you're if you're if you believe Russia's their greatest enemy, if you are working full time to divide The United States from Russia, you are acting against the interests of The United States. You hate The United States. You hate the West. You wanna see it fall. They hate Russia because it's a white Christian country.
That's a fact. Why Russia? In all of this, once you take three steps back, makes perfect sense. Like, we have a lot of people in our country working actively for the destruction of the West, of Christian civilization, so that's just a fact.
Speaker 1: This stands in the
Speaker 0: way, Sorry. They don't you know, people don't like it when you say that, but they don't like it when you say it because it's absolutely true. And the farther you get from The United States, that's one of the great benefits of travel, the more obvious it is. Like, you can't don't know you're married to an alcoholic until you go on vacation without that person. You're like, oh, shit.
I'm married to an alcoholic. Like, you can't see any of this when you're in the middle of it, but when you leave, it's like, oh my gosh. So okay. I just want to go back a step. So you have made reference a couple of times to the rise in violence, the acceptance of violence, which is, of course, the, you know, the purest distillation of evil in my opinion, most obvious for sure.
And there are signs that it's you know, we're entering a violent stage. I pray that we're not, but it feels like we are. You just had a long time employee assassinated. I don't know the extent to which you wanna talk about that, but what was that? Is it a harbinger of things to come?
Speaker 1: Well, a month ago, Jamie White, a great reporter, great guy. We were working up there Sunday night till about 09:00. I left. He went home and then got shot through the carotid artery, one shot through his neck, and then out the back of it, he bled to death. By the time he got to the hospital, about fifteen minutes later, the police got to
Speaker 0: How old was he?
Speaker 1: He was, 36. Ugh. And he was on the Ukraine hit list along myself and you and a bunch of other
Speaker 0: Yep.
Speaker 1: People and everybody getting the SWAT calls, the SWAT teams sitting in their houses, and their families, has been on that list as well.
Speaker 0: Which is basically everyone you know.
Speaker 1: Yes. And then then, of course, you know, Ukraine tortured American journalist Gonzalo Lyra to death and then celebrated that. And so and and and, of course, we have the the the would be assassin down in Mar A Lago who was a big leftist, connected all these intelligence agencies, recruiting hundreds of fighters for Ukraine, an American, then he comes back and tries to, kill Trump. So I think, I mean, you've seen, Alexander Dugan's daughter, blown up in front of him, in 2022.
Speaker 0: In Moscow by the Ukrainians. Moscow. Murdering a guy's daughter applauded by Anne Applebaum and all the rest of the ghouls in The United States effectively because they don't like Alexander Dugin's ideas, so it's okay to murder his daughter with the,
Speaker 1: you know Well, that's the new I mean, that's the
Speaker 0: Clearly the help of US intel agencies. I mean, let's stop lying about it. Right? The CID Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I mean, I said three plus years ago when the war started, I said The US is running all the targeting Of course, they are. With the weapons. That's just a fact. And with their soldiers on the ground, as I know, some of the people whose sons are there, when it all started, we're really nervous. They didn't give me details.
They're like, yeah, my sons are there, special operations. And there's been a lot
Speaker 0: of US Military Personnel fighting Russia in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. I mean, I'm on record three years ago saying that, and then two weeks ago, New York Times, the US has been running the war and been there the whole time and, oh, get a Pulitzer Prize. So that that was all known. And so, now Trump is trying to rightfully end it. I mean, that don't know, I know your audience knows, but we have Victoria Noodland, we have Soros back, we can still talk on for Reed Zarkari on CNN saying, oh, yeah, we went there with state department money and overthrew their government fifteen years ago, we did it again, and we're finally gonna break up Russia, and I'm gonna be the czar of Russia.
Five Weeks ago, they had the deputy head of the unelected EU commission say, oh, we're gonna keep this war going for decades, and we're gonna bankrupt Russia with it, and we're gonna break Russia in five parts. So they're on the news saying, we want peace. We want love. Oh, no. Ukraine will never join NATO, which is why Putin went in, and the weapons being brought in onto his border.
And then separately, Zelenskyy's always, no. Joined NATO. And and and and so, again, the West started this war. Imagine if Russia
Speaker 0: I'm I'm aware. Yep.
Speaker 1: I I know you know more better than anybody probably. No. It's just hasn't circled.
Speaker 0: I mean, you've actually Yeah.
Speaker 1: I mean, any American journalist, you've been everywhere. You've you've documented it. And it it's just we are starting to fight. These crazies are dragging us in to what's really already World War three conventionally that every escalation moves us closer to nuclear war. The doomsday clock with the atomic energy scientist, you know, was the closest ever been.
And so this is really fundamental. And so any concern I have about being sued or lawfared or attacked doesn't even hit my psychological, spiritual, mental radar because the big threat is so big of what these megalomaniacs are doing.
Speaker 0: So one thing I I don't one fact I don't think has penetrated the brains of policymakers in Washington is that we just lost a war with Russia. The US was running that war. The US military, the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, running the war against Russia. It was not it was never about Ukraine. No one in Washington cares about Ukraine or the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men destroyed.
The fact it'll be populated by third worlders. I mean, Ukraine, we just eliminated Ukraine. Nobody cares. This was a war against Russia. They hate Russia for a lot of reasons, mostly spiritual.
But we lost. And my concern is because nobody will say that out loud that we're overstating our power. And in the same way that you sometimes see, like, divorced sixty year old guys hitting on young women and don't realize that the young women think this is, like, absurd. You're like an old man. Why you really think I'm gonna sleep with you?
But the 60 year old guy hasn't readjusted to the reality of his present condition. He still thinks he's 25. Do you see what I'm saying? And he humiliates himself. That can happen at the level of nations where, you know, you think you can affect outcomes that you actually don't have the power to bring about.
And so that's called hubris, and that's how empires get destroyed and populations vaporized. And I'm really afraid of that. Like, why can't we should know that we were not able to win a conventional war against Russia, period. So, like, what does that say about our power? And maybe we should readjust our expectations a little bit.
I don't want that to be true. By the way, I want I'm rooting for I'm American. I'm not leaving. My family's buried here. But, like, don't you think that we run the risk of thinking we're capable of things that we're not capable of doing?
Speaker 1: Well, as an example, Hillary had a lot of fraud baked in, but Trump won in such a landslide, he beat her. And then a lot of Republicans and conservatives and populists thought Trump was gonna win for sure, we'd have as big a turnout, so they were able to steal, 2020. But there was such a giant landslide this time, it it overrode, the mail in ballots, you know, the dead people, the illegal aliens voting. All of that, they ran out of bullets. But that's a perfect example of how the the Democrats were sure they were gonna win in November, and they were sure they were gonna win in November in 2016, and they didn't.
So they had this incredible hubris and this incredible arrogance, and and so many of them are actually militarily ignorant themselves. They just put on this big imperious act. And and and, of course, there's the clip of Sean Penn saying, well, I don't think nuclear weapons should be off the table. We shouldn't be afraid to use them because that gives Russian advantage. Well, it's called mutually assured destruction for a reason because anybody that uses them is insane.
So mean
Speaker 0: Well, they got in the middle of the war. This just came out the other day. The Pentagon wrote an assessment saying that they calculated that if we gave weapons to Ukraine that allowed the Ukrainian military or our military using Ukraine as a proxy to hit targets within Russia, they judged the likelihood of a nuclear exchange at 50%.
Speaker 1: Mhmm.
Speaker 0: And they did it anyway. At that point, like, you should be in prison for the criminally insane. Well, that's right. If Russia moved You're risking nuclear war? Like, you should be locked up?
I don't under like, that's the I couldn't even believe that. I mean, I, of course, intuitively knew that.
Speaker 1: And say that again. It's not interrupting. That's important to say again for people.
Speaker 0: That the that the Pentagon under Joe Biden assessed, like, because they assess the likelihood of everything or they get you know, they guess, they sort of work out how they think things will progress. But in every scenario globally, they do this. This is what they do at the Pentagon. And they assess that if we gave certain weapons, weapons that allowed the Ukrainians to strike targets within Russia, if we did that, which we did, the chance of a nuclear exchange, nuclear holocaust that killed everybody on Earth would be 50%, and they did it anyway. So imagine the brain.
Imagine the evil. Like, you would have to be controlled by, like, supernatural forces to do so. I think there's a 50% chance every person on Earth could be killed in a nuclear exchange, but I'm doing it anyway. Like, why aren't you how are you still walking free? I'm serious.
Speaker 1: No. And and I'm glad you brought that assessment up because I I really tried to get people to focus on that, and and I agree I agree with that assessment. I mean, let's let's boil that down. Imagine if Russia had the equivalent of attackers and storm shadows in Canada, in Mexico, on our border that they can fire above the trees that can't be shot down that are nuclear capable, and Putin said this. He said, if you shoot a few missiles once it started, we'll we'll just shoot them down.
But if we see a large aerospace attack with a whole bunch of these, we have to believe it is a first strike to take out our nuclear deterrent. And so when we see a large signature of a large aerospace attack, be it cruise missiles, be it glide bombs, be it a mix of aircraft, or all of them, we will do a total commitment. And then Russia and TV said, here's the government, you know, scenario, and it showed nukes hitting all the NATO countries and submarines, you know, hitting on from there. And we're talking about world destroyed in thirty minutes, folks, for sure. Submarines off our coast, two minutes, New York's gone, you know, five minutes Dallas is gone.
This is real. What would happen if Russia was bombing DC with conventional bombs, with large heavy cruise missiles that that that They're
Speaker 0: droning the capital. As The US did through the Ukrainians, they droned the Kremlin.
Speaker 1: You were there once when you saw one blow up?
Speaker 0: I there. I was actually driving by I was over there last winter to interview Putin. I was driving by the Kremlin just, like, on the street in Downtown Moscow. There smoke coming out of the top of the of the Kremlin. And so I called the, like, the guy at the press office who I was dealing with for to set the Putin interview from the vehicle, and I was like, I think your Kremlin's on fire.
And he's like, oh, no. No. No. It's not. I was like, I'm right there.
I'm looking at it. Russians never want to admit that they have been unable to defend their capital city, so they you know, a lot of murder has taken place by the Ukrainians of Russians in an attempted murder of Americans, by the way.
Speaker 1: And just think about the provocation here.
Speaker 0: And but the Russians in every case are like, oh, that's not happening. They don't wanna admit it because for a bunch of reasons, but it would force them to repunse. But, anyway, I called up and I'm like, I I think you guys just got droned. No. No.
Didn't happen. But it did happen. I saw it. I personally saw it. So, like, there's been a ton of that stuff.
What would we do if the Russians droned the US Capitol or the White House? Like, that's so freaking crazy.
Speaker 1: I can't see that happen. Russia knows it's a provocation. The globalists want a reset. Their financial system's going down, and they're willing to roll the dice, and they think a nuclear war is survivable, as you know, as the Pentagon has said. So it it's complete madness.
Nuclear war is not survivable.
Speaker 0: That that's a fact.
Speaker 1: It's not.
Speaker 0: By the way, nuclear weapon explodes over a nuclear power plant. What happens? Anyone know?
Speaker 1: Massive meltdown that makes Fukushima look like a Exactly.
Speaker 0: And we have a lot of nuclear power plants around the world.
Speaker 1: So There's over 450 that we big that are big industrial, thousands of small ones. And when society breaks down, they all melt down different ways, much worse than Fukushima and Chernobyl combined.
Speaker 0: I agree.
Speaker 1: And it makes the whole surface of the earth, it's mainline science unlivable for hundreds of millions of years.
Speaker 0: I agree. And I know everyone's for nuclear power, and it's, like, obvious we need nuclear power. Right? I don't okay. I'm not against nuclear power in theory, but until someone can answer the question you just posed, like, what about that?
I mean Plus
Speaker 1: they're never run right. They always have scenarios where they're not gonna leak. Basically, they all win.
Speaker 0: You see all these stupid concerns. Like, the answer is nuclear. You want more AI data centers, comma, which I don't.
Speaker 1: The answer is
Speaker 0: coal. Obviously. But I don't understand why everyone this is just a sidebar, and I'll stop in one sentence, but, like, those of us who grew up in the seventies and eighties remember that all the opponents' nuclear power were, like, you know, furry armpit dumb people and, you know, all the Greenpeace people. And so you're just like, oh, shut up. Nuclear's obviously the solution.
Like, you just don't understand science. How can you be against climate change and also against nuclear power? I've said that myself, like, a hundred times on TV. But it's not about the spent fuel rods. What do we do with nuclear waste?
That's easy. Put it in Yucca Mountain. It's about what if these things are untended? What if they're, you know, the subject of a conventional or nuclear attack?
Speaker 1: And you look at all the mismanagement.
Speaker 0: Massive vulnerability. Like, why doesn't anyone mention that? Before we put nuclear power plants all over my country, which think a lot of people are psyched to do because they wanna get rich from AI, like, they should answer the question. Like, that's really freaking scary. No?
Speaker 1: Well, you have to also ask, why do they build so many in here and in, like, Japan, the plants ride on fault lines? I mean, there's a real we see a lot of ineptitude in industry and things, so you don't wanna have things that have the potential to be so dangerous. And when coal creates carbon dioxide that plants breathe, and the earth used to have a lot higher carbon dioxide than it does now, and it makes plants live longer, yields are up, it it will green the planet, all the studies show it. We're actually terraforming the earth to make it better. It's it's like God given when you actually get the real studies and talk to the real climatologist, the people they'll tell you, no, no, no.
It's great that we're bringing this old carbon back up and putting it back in the atmosphere. This is fabulous. More carbon is good. Carbon carbon dioxide, oxygen, water, and sunlight are the four ingredients of life on this planet, and the globalist created a way to tax and regulate one of the four pillars of life on this planet. It is good.
I mean, again, they're trying to convince us that cows' methane is bad. You actually look at the carbon equation, it all turns right back into the gases it came from. It's a good gas. But again, if the cows are bad, well, what else releases methane? We do.
We're the carbon that they want to reduce. They wanna teach us to hate ourselves, teach us not to have a life force, and their new religion is they will give us all these indulgences and all these flagellations and all these things we have to do to atone for how bad we are to the priest class that is the big satanic green church.
Speaker 0: So the threat of nuclear war overhangs any conflict with a country that has nuclear weapons, of course. You push someone far enough, you know, you don't know what could happen, and it could result in the extinction of humanity. So that's, like, the main fact. That's why people wanna run, not to have nukes. Right?
Obviously. So with that in mind, what do you make of the public repeated public statements by a bunch of European leaders, particularly Stormer in The UK and and the president of France, that they're ready to, like, continue the war against Russia with their own feeble armies. Like, what that seems crazy to what what is that actually about?
Speaker 1: And they've said that now they're sending their troops that if they get killed, then that's direct war with NATO. They admit that the EU population wise is collapsing. Those they brought in, most of them, 80%, never even get jobs. That all the different ministers, defense ministers, as you know, last few years have said, our business model is a twenty year war. They think they can continue that and somehow bankrupt Russia and, again, break it up into five parts.
So they've made it existential for themselves. They made it existential, for Russia. And you go back to the Pentagon assessment that was public that 50% chance that if we start bombing, and that's the West doing it, mainly The US, inside Russia, they would strike back with nukes. And then Putin clarifying, well, if we see a large launch, it could be a sneak attack with nukes, so we're gonna have to go ahead and nuke you at that point. Please don't do that.
So at least they limited, you know, to to to four or five big cruise missile attacks a day, and then, you know, maybe a hundred drones a day going into major cities and attacking their nuclear bases, their nuclear bomber bases. I mean, extreme provocation, testing the line, and not playing Russian roulette where you have a six shot revolver and you put one three fifty seven magnum casing in round in. But this is three out of six, and they're like, well, that's a safe bet. Let's roll the dice, spin the cylinder, and then click it to our head every day. It just goes the fundamental insanity that you see escalating.
I mean, if you go back to the
Speaker 0: But actual ins like, actual insanity. Not, you know, I don't know, will tariffs work or, know, whatever you could argue. But, like, risking nuclear war? I mean, that's so fucking crazy that I can hardly believe it's real.
Speaker 1: That's a good point. They say Trump saying our surrender to these one-sided trade deals, is totally true, and deindustrialized this and destroyed our morale and is a huge national security issue that he's rolling the dice there. No. No. No.
Would be rolling the
Speaker 0: dice with nuclear war? Again, I think you should be in prison for even having that that's, like, the craziest thing I can imagine.
Speaker 1: Well, remember Biden just two years ago said we can't send f sixteens in Abrams tanks because that escalates the threat ladder of the rank corporation. That's World War three, but they went ahead and did that. Then they went to the bombing inside. So I the reason I went back to that, I'm glad you raised it is, the EU is refusing to end the war. We're trying to drag us into it fully.
They're arresting their political opposition, Kalin Trojescu in Romania. They're not letting him run-in the new election.
Speaker 0: He's an amazing man. I just talked to him Amazing. Day before yesterday.
Speaker 1: And then Marie Le Pen that is super popular and had presidential poll, so they have you know, judge find her guilty of nothing and take her off the ballot. You have the state department under Biden admittedly working in Brazil, with Lula, to take Bolsonaro off the ballot because he's popular and then indict him. And they're talking about doing it in Hungary. They're talking about doing it in Poland. They said if AFD won, which they almost did, that the EU Commission might cancel that election.
So the EU has really taken off the mask, and people that don't know was set up in '56 as a steel deal, Treaty of Rome, and they got the nations over time to sign away their sovereignty to it. I remember. And an unelected commission, with Vander Leiden, you know, up there running all of this. And she even came out, as, you know, on Monday and said, well, Trump's blown up the international order. He's he's defeated the new world order.
And she said, okay, we're gonna go ahead and agree at least in principle, to what Trump is saying, and that's because the trade is completely one-sided. So again, Trump's move isn't just the perfect move. It's perfect and that it's the only moves we have left for us and for global stabilization. That's why anybody that cares about self preservation for the whole planet should be fully behind Trump's policies that are very popular around the world and are seen as sane. And again, the world, this this huge alliance of nations wants to join that team, and the good news is Trump's poll is the highest ever.
I I I I know the American people are understanding that and getting that. The concern is
Speaker 0: It is kinda crazy that his number I mean, I'm getting you know, because I live in a rich people world for part of the year. I know a lot of rich people, and boy, they're really upset. And I share their instinctive concern about any chaos. My parents got divorced. Hate chaos.
Right? Mhmm. So I get that. But but from my perspective, I'll just admit it, like, on my phone, it's like, I voted for Trump. What the hell is going on?
You know? And I get it. I'm not, you know, criticizing anyone. But then his numbers go up.
Speaker 1: Well, I'd like to It shows you
Speaker 0: that you can even I really make a big effort to, like, live in different places, know different people, not be a captive of my surroundings, not just live among rich people with, like, dumb rich people attitudes. I can really try to be bigger than that. And I always flatter myself that I succeed, but even I am, like, I guess, kind of captive to that because then I see the numbers, and I'm, people really like this. His numbers went up after the tariffs. That's correct.
Speaker 1: Right? Absolutely. Wow. Well, I'd like to talk to folks out there saying Trump is is is being a destabilizer. The globalist order was collapsing by their own corruption and mismanagement and their alliance with China being double crossed.
And so that old order was already being being collapsed by them, and and Trump's coming in very pragmatically with a a good, fair, freedom based meritocracy, competition based system. But, you know, to to to to people that wanna talk about destabilization, starting the war with Russia, total destabilization, dissolving the borders and all the human smuggling and the fentanyl. Exactly. Total destabilization, in in engaging all this overspending and and and the country basically being bankrupt if we don't grow our way out of it, total destabilization. And then wink wink, the attempted assassinations of Trump.
What do they think would have happened if Trump really would have gotten killed in Pennsylvania in July of last year or a few months later in Florida? If you look at the scenarios there, they run from bad to worse. So the real destabilization
Speaker 0: and bad for the people behind it. Like, clearly, those assassinations were not lone gunmen. Were part of a much, much larger conspiracy, obviously. Everyone knows that. But those people behind those attempted murders would have been in bigger trouble had those murders succeeded.
Attempted murder succeeded. Correct?
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And and if they somebody's able to kill Trump now, people better hope he doesn't get struck by a bolt of lightning because the bad guys will get the blame. And that's why so many people that have kind of been on the fence of the establishment, were working with the globalists just because that was the system are enthusiastically joining Trump and Elon, because they understand that this is the only game in town for people that aren't delusional. But you have that megalomania and
Speaker 0: I think that's so true.
Speaker 1: Yeah. You have that megalomania historically when elites have never lost before and are losing that they just continue to accelerate and intensify. And and and I know you've covered this. A lot of the people don't seem to know that in in August of twenty twenty, I mentioned it earlier, there was a big article in New York Times with John Podesta covering a war game they just had that if Trump was able to win, they were gonna have blue states secede and blue cities secede and then create civil unrest and civil war conditions. And then when they knew Trump was gonna win because the poll numbers were so incredible, a few months before the last election last year, Raskin, Carville, Podesta, all of them said civil war conditions.
We're gonna need to have uprisings. Carville said that. Trump's coming to kill you. We gotta rise up, Carville said, and others. And they are clearly escalating with the Tesla attacks and the swatting attacks and the calls for violence.
The 55% of, you know, liberal Democrats in a study want Trump killed. They're embracing, you know, real terrorism, real domestic terrorism, and that's building towards what I believe is in the cards because you see the democrat pundits and their operatives everywhere before the election and after it in the last seventy eight, you know, days or so saying, once he got in office, Trump and Tom Homan are going to kill migrants. And when they do, there's gonna be an uprising. And, well, Trump's not gonna go mow down people at a illegal alien demonstration. You also have them saying Trump supporters are gonna attack black people.
Well, where would black people be alone in a big numbers? A church, university. Trump supporters are gonna kill black people. And we know a lot of the globalist groups have been funding white supremacist groups and domestic terror groups and basically run them historically. So the last piece of all the preprogramming I've seen is that to have these uprisers, you need something much bigger than George Floyd, much bigger than Jesse Smallman.
And so I am predicting on the current trajectory of what they were getting before and what they said, the final piece they need for this destabilization that they'll label a race based civil war that will then crash the markets and be used kinda like the predictive programming in the movie that came out last year's civil war to have a bunch of states, the main military join them, in a military operation to remove Trump when the Trumpian figure in the movie is killed, you know, and executed inside the inside the Oval Office. And so that's their dream, that's their backup plan. You have the two camps. You have one camp is is kind of the Chuckie Schumer, completely evil, but is it particularly publicly pushing that though he had his famous whirlwind, you know, we're coming after you speech. But he's an old man.
Absolutely. So you have the Soros wing with Alexander Soros that more and more is in charge and is really making a run, at escalating domestic unrest and terrorism, leading into some triggering event, starting things are aligning for this summer. And I know that folks of the government, their patriots are aware of that, but I think that the spokespersons and others need to really get ahead of all these calls for violence and not just repudiate it, but talk about the democrat leadership and their talking heads, that are pushing. And I mean, we've seen Coburg just last week say, deep state, please, you know, do something. Stop Trump.
And so that's where we are. So so so they wanna expand war to try to take control of the agenda. They're that they've been hyping a new virus being released to try to stop Trump's reboot of our economy because they think that would stop this populous revolution. In Europe, it's arresting their political opposition and, you know, stopping elections. They they and they also have Europe trying to sue Elon Musk and billion dollar fines trying to shut him down like we saw with Brazil.
So those are different strategies. They're also doing big put options and naked shorts trying to crash the market and then blaming Trump's tariffs on that. So it's economic terrorism, the buildup of domestic terrorism, the false flags that can be used, a nuclear false flag to get us in direct war with Russia, a new viral release. Those are the things they've got set up, ready to go, and that they've said before they would use to maintain control.
Speaker 0: Everybody loves and appreciates first responders. When things go haywire, they're the ones who show up and make you safe, protect you, not just you but the entire country. Most people agree they're heroes. But what happens if they can't show up? First responders cannot be everywhere all the time.
And if there's an emergency, particularly a big emergency, there aren't enough to go around, so you have to be your own first responder. Before an ambulance arrives, before a doctor can help, it is up to you to protect yourself and your family. And if it's a medical emergency, you could be out of luck because you don't have the right medications. Most people do not have the medications they need at home. There's an answer to that.
It's called the JACE case. It's a simple but smart solution to a problem most people don't even think about. It's a set of emergency prescriptive medications curated by medical experts, you've got peace of mind knowing that no matter what happens, you are totally prepared. Even if you're a prepared kind of person with stuff stored in your cellar, you probably don't have the right medications. What if there's an infection or any kind of crisis and you don't have access to first responders, you're gonna want a JACE case, medications on hand when they matter most.
Go to JACE.com and use code Tucker at checkout for discount. Jace, j a s e, dot com. Check out code Tucker. The first thing in countries that descend into darkness that happens is speech is controlled, and there are political police who put people who speak out against the regime in jail, and that's happening in Brazil, as you know. It's happening in The UK.
It's happening in Germany.
Speaker 1: We're trying it in Canada.
Speaker 0: Well, it's definitely happening in Canada. And these were formerly free countries in Australia. And so the one place that it isn't going to happen right now is The United States because of the First Amendment. So how do you end First Amendment protections? Well, you pick off people like you, which they've been trying to do for over a decade, and, you know, I happen to be, as I've told you many times in private, I happen to be on a fishing trip when I worked at Fox the night that you were taken off the air, and I thought it was, like, one of the greatest threats to speech in The United States I'd ever seen.
I wasn't there, and Fox News, like, prevented my co my filling host from defending you, because Alex Jones is bad. Okay. That's when I realized they were in on it. But but they need to end speech in The United States. They need to shut down X.
They have to. And my guess is, and I hope I'm wrong, that there's there is, like, legitimate hate and extremism on social media, you know, to the point where it makes me uncomfortable. I'm thinking that maybe a lot of that is manufactured actually, and that if there is a mass shooting, and God forbid, but if there is a mass shooting of the people who've been targeted for hate on actual hate, that's true, on social media that that will be used as a pretext to shut it down.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And and Has this occurred to you?
Speaker 0: Yes. Because I see people on on social media who I know for a fact, I think I know, are being funded by the very people they're attacking. It's like, what? Including one of the biggest voices. Like, I know that that's true.
And so, like, what is this? And it's clearly preparatory to some sort of event that will shut down a violent event that will be used as a pretext to shut down free speech. Am I being paranoid?
Speaker 1: No. I've I've that's that's where all the foundation's been laid. The actually, the superstructure has been built. Yeah. They're just putting the finishing touches on it.
And and so in a way, it's fortuitous that I'm here today because you were here when I was talking to my lawyer right before we started taping. We got some really big news that in Connecticut, the Supreme Court said we're not even hearing your appeal now because it was so strong. The kangaroo show trial that I was went through there a few years ago where the judge had already found me guilty wouldn't let
Speaker 0: Guilty of what? Of having an unauthorized opinion of being mean or whatever? Those are all legal under The US constitution. Like, you cannot be punished for giving your opinion. I don't care how ugly other people think it is, and and you've contested whether you even gave their opinion.
It does doesn't matter. Under our system, you're allowed to say what you think, period. Well, you're right. Especially That's what the bill of rights is.
Speaker 1: And we have the supreme court rulings, you know, with the New York Times Sullivan. Insane.
Speaker 0: And and Brandenburg versus Ohio. You have a right to your opinion.
Speaker 1: And and and what they did was with all these PR firms and massive thousands of articles sometimes a month and hundreds of TV programs a year, They built a straw man once I was censored off the Internet the last seven years. Still on my website, infowars.com, still on some talk radio, but it was the verboten thing. People had to go, you know, get underground. They could then build a straw man of things I had supposedly done I never did. And then when I wasn't defended other than than people like you, it set the president to then come after everybody else including president Trump when he was taking off everything on January 6 so people couldn't hear him saying be peaceful before during
Speaker 0: I defended black nationalists who hate whites. Obviously, don't agree with them. I am white. So are my kids. Like, I reject their program.
But they were indicted for giving their opinions, and, like, we cannot allow that. And now the ACLU is just completely captured. It's like a training organization. Nothing to do with free speech. Like, where are the people who will stand up for the foundational right that separates a free man from a slave, which is the right to say what you think?
And why were they all sound may they bask in shame for not defending you? I mean that.
Speaker 1: Well, I have a major update. It it in the last seven years of them suing me in this whole saga, we now have basically all the pieces of exactly what happened. I told you some about it last night. It would take a few minutes, but I could just give people a basic summation of what's happened.
Speaker 0: Yeah, please.
Speaker 1: But first, just an example of free speech. In Texas, there's famous cases where they take people's small children because the school secretly convinces them with grant money. They get paid for it public and private. That a little boy is really a girl, a little girl is really a boy. They then the parents find out the school's been putting them in a database, giving them a social worker, sending them to special school times with peer pressure of other kids that have been put in a cult for sterilization, transhumanism.
And then they take the person's child saying it's abuse You argue, you know, my son is really a boy, not a girl. Well, now, Colorado in the house, as you know, just passed the the bill to the senate and they allowed no debate, saying that if a parent finds out their kid is being brainwashed and says, no, my my son is a boy. My girl is a girl. That is abuse, and they're gonna officially take your child. Other states have passed laws like Oregon and Washington.
So you talk about free speech. This is beyond that. This is parental rights. This is everything. Now say parents can't argue and say to the state that has determined that that that that that your child's another sex.
And then in, places like New Jersey and other states, the hospital systems now have on the form when your child's born dozens of things, transgender, all these other names, genderqueer, all these things where the parents pick at birth what the baby's gonna be and say this. So so if the state wants to come and say they're another sex, that's okay. If parents don't like it, their kid gets taken in these areas. That's where this is going. It's already happening.
But if the parents wanna opt in, they can decide for their child. So as long as you decide that we're gonna chemically and then medically sterilize surgically this this portable person is being put into this death cult, then it's okay. The only thing you're not allowed to say is no. I say no to this designation. So that's where Alex Jones having his speech massively attack goes.
So it's a long story, but here's the summation. I didn't understand even though I know a lot of things about politics in the world. I I didn't understand how PR firms work, how law firms work, how the deep state was operating, and and they later admitted even on MSNBC that few years ago, oh, we've been successful with Alex Jones. Next, we're gonna do it with people like Tucker Carlson, and then and they mentioned you. So Hillary knows she's in trouble.
Two months before the election twenty sixteen, she does a 20 plus million dollar ad buy talking about me and twisting what I had said about that event in Connecticut, that mass shooting. And then the ad she says, Alex Jones is Trump's brain. This is the guy that Trump says is an amazing person. We'll be talking a lot. You're a great guy.
They show that clip of Trump on my show saying that. So they created a demonized version of me to attack Trump. Then that made me this huge demon of the left even more. Then for two years, articles every day, sometimes dozens a day, TV shows, programs, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, every channel, foreign news, Tokyo news, Russian news. It was just it was it was being pushed over.
Alex Jones is bullying kids, parents of dead kids, Alex Jones is sending people to pee on graves. None none of that ever even happened, much less me. And then they sue me, and then they want all this discovery, and they say, who do you work for? Who who's telling you what to do with the Republicans in all these depositions? Of course, it wasn't there.
So they hold me in default for saying I didn't give them my secret plan to get rich off these people that I barely ever even talked about. They put twenty two minutes of evidence in the Texas show trial where I was found guilty by the judge and the Connecticut show trial that were only a month apart in 2022 in the fall. So I go in, HBO's producing it, cameras, putting makeup on the judges. I I'm given 20 plus things I can't talk about. My my lawyers are sanctioned if they try to raise that.
Well, where did Alex Jones say this? Where did he do this? No evidence could be showed to counter them. They could just say whatever they wanted to. And then they have a billion and a half dollar judgment in Connecticut.
They have a $50,000,000 judgment total or $49,000,000 in Texas, because I'm already found guilty, then the judge tells them to say how guilty I am. They lie and totally exaggerate all the money I have, say I got it from these people with no evidence. And and and so I knew I was being railroaded for my speech. They said in the Connecticut trial and in the the Texas show trial and on the courthouse steps, we don't want money for mister Jones. We wanna shut him down.
They said that in court filings. So I go into bankruptcy because I'm out of money personally. Never had all this money, they said, not even a fraction of it. And so for three years, I'm in bankruptcy. And they keep going and say, we don't want money.
We want him closed. The judge keeps saying, no. You have to actually, you know, do a settlement with him or we have to sell him for wars.
Speaker 0: This is all because you said something that other people said they were offended by?
Speaker 1: Yes. But but but but
Speaker 0: How how can you I don't understand in a free country how other people being offended by what you say can have you destroyed by the state.
Speaker 1: Well well, it's more than that. They said, I sent people to their houses. I peed on graves. All the stuff that nobody did did. Why weren't
Speaker 0: you arrested? You can't pee on a grave. Why weren't
Speaker 1: you arrested for Connecticut.
Speaker 0: I Why weren't you arrested for people on the graves?
Speaker 1: Out of the people that sued me, I only said the name of one of the
Speaker 0: people ever. If you commit a crime, you should be criminally charged for it, and the state has to prove that you did it, at which point you're convicted and punished. If the state accuses you of something but doesn't charge you with it, they're fucking liars. Like, by definition, they they don't that's not on the list of options that they can just discredit you, attack your character, destroy you. No.
No. No. The state has one option. If you committed a crime, they charge you with the crime, and they prove you did the crime. It's that simple.
Speaker 1: Never got investigated for stalking or anything because I did nothing. For any crime. So so so so here's where it gets crazy. Here's what we've learned since they had the show trials.
Speaker 0: I know none of the libertarians defended you either. Where was the Reason Foundation and Cato and all these supposedly freedom minded nonprofits who are just freaking liars? Like, of them defended you that I know of.
Speaker 1: Bare minimum, they were bought off where they wanted to keep their head down. So so so so here's what we learned. The Democratic Party and the judge department, the FBI, the CIA, this has come out in court, come out in documents now. We've got it all and published it in force that could be shut down literally in days now. We're finally to the wire today with this big ruling.
But it it it's you know, the truth's out there, but they don't want you to know it. So they come after me to demonize Trump, then they run ads on Facebook and Twitter and everywhere for the two years before they sue me, 2017, '20 '18, saying I'm attacking him, saying I'm coming after him using my name to raise money. Okay? And it turns out hundreds of millions using my name. This has come out.
Saying I'm victimizing them and then never showing what I supposedly did. Just this man's hurting us. Help us. Help us. Then I was already taken off the Internet after that for other reasons that they cooked up.
They had Lester Holt get up on TV and say, Alex Jones called for people to get battle rifles and go attack Democrats. No. I talked about them the anti foot attack in your house and how they were planning to attack more people's houses, and I said, none of us are gonna be violent. But I said, everybody needs to have their battle rifle ready or their shotgun in their home if the Lev comes to kill you.
Speaker 0: Well, as someone whose house was attacked by Antifa, I agree completely.
Speaker 1: But but but then Holt never showed what I supposedly said.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: He just said straight up. Okay. So I wasn't even taken off the Internet for Sandy Hook because I wasn't even known for that. Okay? Barely ever talked about it.
Then they sue me, then they run more PR, then they raise more money off of me. And then when they didn't find anything in the in their all their discoveries, there was nothing that I did, then they have the judges both find me in default, coordinate for both trials to be held in a month and a half period in late twenty twenty two, and then right after they win, the jury's fine for all this money, come back and they say, that's not enough, your honor. We want 2,750,000,000,000.00. That's the GDP of India. People don't believe that.
Just type in Alex Jones, Sandy Hook, two point seven five trillion. And and so the judge said, no. You just
Speaker 0: get 1,500,000,000.0. In retrospect, did you ever think when when they awarded judgment against you equivalent to the GDP of India, did you ever think, like, maybe I should keep my visions to myself and not like, next time I see nine eleven coming, just shouldn't say anything because people who predict the future accurately are always punished for it.
Speaker 1: I I think that's I mean, I yeah. I mean, well, I realized was I've got something important to say, so I better say it even louder because the evil wants to shut down. But just to finish the key part,
Speaker 0: I'm telling Sorry. Sorry. No. No. No.
No. No. You're making me upset hearing this. No. No.
No.
Speaker 1: I I'm saying I haven't gotten to the big stuff. I'm just giving people the background. This is
Speaker 0: not the country I grew up in at all. Just saying that.
Speaker 1: Sorry. Well, no. No. You're right. Thank you for the platform.
No. Thank you, Tucker. And I told you all this last night. It took thirty minutes. Let me just try to condense it.
So I know they're trying to demonize me to get at Trump. I know they're trying to set the president to shut down everybody else, and once I'm demonized, they think nobody will defend me, that sets the president. They admitted all that. Then when they win the show trial, it was already fixed. These PR firms come out of New York, Connecticut and go, we've been doing this for years.
We exposed Jones. We did this. We helped get this big win, blah blah blah. Then, this undercover video comes out that is in a predator sexting trolling operation in DC, which the guy was never implicated in, but that's how he got caught up with the troll, trolling operation. This Oblivious person, CIA and FBI, it's confirmed, says, well, we investigated Alex Jones for years at the FBI, then he went on to CIA.
It's where he's currently. And he said, we couldn't find anything criminal on him, so we went to the Sandy Hook people with law firms and we developed this plan with this narrative to take him down. And, now, we're in the process of shutting him down, and the person says, well, are you still trying to put him in prison? No. We've just destroyed his name and destroyed who he is.
You know, it's all on video. It's online. Just type in FBI CIA, agent, you know, admits to running Sandy Hook, frame job of Alex Jones.
Speaker 0: We recommend you take this moment to do what we're about to do, which is enjoy an ALP. Just to kind of refresh our baseline assumptions here, is the CIA allowed to destroy people for in The United States for criticizing?
Speaker 1: No. It's illegal.
Speaker 0: Oh, it's illegal. Okay.
Speaker 1: Of course, she's yeah. I mean, begging the question, but absolutely. So so then then we have that. But then I go, wait a minute. At the trial last year, they have this FBI agent who was the chief counsel, who on the stand, they say it to hide it in Plainview, the Democrat Party Law Firm, talked to him for like a day.
And he goes, so you went and got the suit against mister Jones. Yes. I went to your your law firm, mister Koskoff, and I and I went to the families, you know, and I I organized him to do this. So they're hiding in Plain View, the chief counsel of Connecticut that I didn't even pick up on at the time. Why is he on the stand?
I'm sitting there talking about how he went and set this up and did this to me. Then later, we have Oblivas talking about years ago, we criminally investigated him for a decade. We couldn't find anything, so we went into this sibling. So now that's two of them admitting it on the stand and undercover video. Now this is where it gets wild.
Then three days after Trump's in office, we've done a four year request two years ago for my FBI file. We've done it many times. They never responded back. Soon as Trump gets in, they send us a disc in the mail. I got a call from the FBI saying, hey.
You know, be sure you watch your mail. And and and they send me a disc of our foyer, and it was a 96 files, but it was just a cover sheet. It said the rest of national security. But it said, Alex Jones, top national security threat. Obama administration ordered me to be a level three terror national security threat in 02/2013.
I had Karl Seraphin on who knows how to read the code documents on the dozens of pages I got that were attached. He said probably the thousands, but a 96 other investigation packets. And and and we're talking weekly and monthly meetings out of the Boston field office, and Trump didn't learn about this his first admin. So we learned this was going on until I was sent this by the new FBI director, okay, or or the new FBI. And and it's just the cover sheets, but they have codes on it that Kyle Serafin used to run counterterrorism.
The FBI, you know, huge whistleblower, came on my show for hours and documented what it meant. Then he talked to his sources currently in DC, and they said, yeah. We're actually on this. It's bad. Okay?
So Obama illegally had me declare a national security threat, open criminal espionage investigation with huge resources. Humet attempted infiltration. That's all the codes, and that's now makes sense. People people we hire trying to set us up, trying to get us to commit crimes, all this stuff over the years, hacking into our surveillance camera systems, trying to find something dirty, all sorts of sabotage. So now, I mean, I'm living in a spy movie.
So so so we so so we get that, like, ten days in the Trump administration. Three days in, they they they they mail it. It comes to mail, like, seven days later. So now we have that. So we have Oblivas admitting it from the FBI and CIA.
We have the other lead counsel in in Connecticut admitting it on the stand, proud of it, hiding in plain view, just to because they knew it would come out. Then we get another FBI contact. They say, why don't you go look at the federal register and it look for money going to these Sandy Hook foundations or the people that sued me. We go, look, it's $4,000,000 plus in payments to them right after they sue me, and then two payments to them during when both trials started. One Payments from whom?
From the justice department.
Speaker 0: So tax dollars?
Speaker 1: Tax dollars, over $4,000,000 from the justice department were paid to the Maine Sandy Hook Foundation that is on the board and the head of it for the people suing me that ran it.
Speaker 0: This is crazy.
Speaker 1: So so so so so now we have the justice department, and and I'm releasing those documents. I was actually planning to release them today, a a week ago before you invited me out here. So that's all gonna be out today. The documents, all of it, but but it's online. They don't hide it.
Also, millions and millions and millions more of COVID money went to them, and you know what happened to Cory Bush's husband. I'm not saying it's illegal. Should be looked into. So this so this is why this is important. This is the most open and shut, start to finish operation we've ever seen with all this money directly from the justice department, with the justice department admitting they initiated it undercover tapes with the CIA.
Then you have the FBI admitting on the stand that they initiated it. Then you have the money directly from the justice department to them directly when they're attacking me, and then it gets worse. In the last year in my bankruptcy, they had before that, they attached a US trustee, which they know to federal law, to my bankruptcy like I'm Enron. Most people don't have this happen. So there's just department lawyers and agents at my depositions giving me US code to read before the deposition when after I'm sworn in that if I say anything incorrect, they're gonna charge me with felonies.
Okay? But I still don't take the fix. I've done nothing wrong and I have accountants and it's all lies. They're alleging I've stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from these people. None of that's true.
I don't even have hundreds of millions of dollars. I've had $10,000,000 of extra laying around.
Speaker 0: But they stole money from what people?
Speaker 1: Did they just say, I harassed them. I made money off them. It's their money. It's just all made up, but I have the judge department there. So then the judge department has the US trustee in May of last year order a private security company on a Friday evening to show up with guns on their sides and say, everybody out of the building.
And I say, where's the court order? And I say, call the head of your security company. I get on the phone. He goes, hey. I'm telling the people this too.
We gotta have a court order. I'm gonna tell them
Speaker 0: They showed up at your office? They showed up at
Speaker 1: my office.
Speaker 0: With guns?
Speaker 1: Armed security. Yes. Yeah. And and so I call my lawyers. They don't even believe it's happening.
We get a hearing, and the judge blocks it. Then he has a full evidentiary hearing June 14. Fires the US Trustee, removes them, removes the CRO that did it, okay, in the bankruptcy, and then appoints a new one who comes in to be all but buddy buddy. Then they he says, okay, we wanna sell it. And then that way proceeds have sold Infowars.
But then, we have buyers that are good that'll keep it going. The Sandy Hook families, really Democratic party, says, we don't want money in court filings. We want it shut down. The judge says, no. You will sell it at an auction, but cash auction.
Then they have a auctions date set. The day before they say that's canceled, it'll be private bids turned in on that Monday. And then the next day, we will tell you the winner is. Well, then it was the Bloomberg financing his Everytown group, The Onion. Everybody heard The Onion had gotten in force.
Remember that? Back in, back in November. So all that happens. So we we countersue. The judge has hearings on December, says there was never an auction that was fraudulent.
You know, you guys need to settle this, and you need to get money for mister Jones' buyers, and it needs to stop. They come back to the judge three times and say, we don't want money. We don't ever want it sold. We want it shut down. So the judge said, about a month ago, he said, okay.
I'm done. This has gone on three years. Take it to state court. The state court is judge Bellis that did the show trial with HBO, or that that's judge Gore Gamble in Texas. It's judge that's the other judge in Connecticut.
So it's it's judge Gware Gamble, just like judge Bellis running the show trial finding me guilty. She has said as soon as she gets that, she's gonna send in the constables from the county and just close the doors, lock it. Because they don't want the money that it can produce. They don't want any of that. They, you know, they want it shut down.
Can I just ask you
Speaker 0: a reality based question here? So all of this stem Sorry. This is
Speaker 1: a long story.
Speaker 0: But no. No. No. No. It's a it's a shocking story, but I just don't wanna lose the baseline
Speaker 1: never been told in in full.
Speaker 0: The baseline facts. Okay. So all of this stems from a school shooting in Connecticut. Twelve years ago. Twelve years ago.
And you suggested on air that there was something weird about this.
Speaker 1: I covered other people saying that.
Speaker 0: Correct. You did not commit the school shooting?
Speaker 1: No. Adam Lanza did.
Speaker 0: Adam Lanza did.
Speaker 1: I said for years, I believe it happened before they sued me. Right.
Speaker 0: So we spent approximately zero time and zero money as a country trying to figure out why would Adam Lanza murder all these children. We're all against murdering children. Some of us are against murdering all children, including in foreign countries and here in abortion clinics, just against murdering kids. Okay? So I'm not gonna cede the moral high ground on kids to ghouls like this.
So okay. But we have no idea why Adam lands in this. No one's trying to find out. You instead are being blamed, who are the father of four kids, for the murder of all these kids when you had literally nothing to do with the murder at all, and the actual murderer is probably brain fried in SSRIs or whatever the cause. Like, no one cares.
Speaker 1: That's right. He was on SSRIs, like, almost all of them, and exactly. And here's the finale.
Speaker 0: But, like, no one cares. It's like all these people jump up and down, including some of these parents, I assume. And, like, I understand they're upset their kids are murdered. I mean, I I have true compassion for them, but they're blaming you for it?
Speaker 1: And and and then raising money, hundreds of millions off my name, and and his mother bought the gun legally, and then Remington was bankrupted by it and paid $73,000,000 to them. Remember that. It just goes on and on. And after they sued me, this one foundation's increase went up while they were suing me and during the show trials, 375, percent. Let me give you the actual numbers.
337% to 119,000,000 just during that period, and their main fundraiser was me. Not to mention all the justice department, four plus million they got.
Speaker 0: But here's the here's Blaming you when you say the fundraiser was you. They blaming you for a mass murder that you were horrified by and didn't commit and ignoring the actual mass murderer, blaming everyone but the murderer for political reasons. So, like, they're destroying you.
Speaker 1: It's like that meme where Indiana Jones moves the idol and puts the bag of sand on there. They removed Lanza and just put me on there. And it was he's coming. He's harassing us. He made all this money off of us.
He's bullying. He's sending the stalkers. He's he's attacking. Help. Help.
Help. With just ads everywhere. Help. Help. Help us find Alex Jones.
Help. Help. Help. And and I'm and I hadn't talked about them in years and years. Only talked about one of their names.
I never even knew this FBI agent was. None of my crew said his name. My lawyer got up and said, have you ever Alex Jones ever said your name? No. Any of his crew ever said your name?
No. You ever post your picture? Ever talk about it? You know. When's the first time you heard of Alex Jones?
Two thousand sixteen. And then he goes and does all this, but but here's the finale. Here's the finale. This is what I know when you talk to Trump and others, this is important because this needs to be looked at. This is conspiracy against rights.
We're getting ready to take action on this legally. This is a violation of process. This is racketeering. I mean, cut and dry in my view, and that's what my legal experts agree as well. It's cut and dry.
Turns out Paul Weiss, the big law firm that lost its intelligence agency clearances because they targeted Trump and they admitted to it. They came to Trump a month ago and they said, give us back 50 plus percent of our business. Let us have our national security clearance. We promise to stop doing lawfare against you and your supporters, and this is an agreement, and we'll spend $40,000,000 on pro bono work that's non political. It's it's it's in the agreement.
Okay? And that's, by the way, in our legal action about to come out. They just filed that 40,000,000 of that 20 is their suit of me, and they list the lawyers. That's their pro bono work? And they've been coordinating the entire bankruptcy assault.
They came up with the fake auction on record that's come out in our depositions of them. We're we're suing them currently, but more is coming. They came up with a plan with the US trustees multiple times to have fake auctions, and and and the judge said it was a fake auction. They're the ones that sent armed security on Friday evening. I was leaving at, 07:00.
There's all these guys showing up from the security company we'd already used for eight years, but all these guys never seen. They're like, hey, man. We're told that they're they're closing the doors. They're kicking you out for good. Died at nine.
And we shouldn't have told you this, but I knew one of the guys. And but but now it's under the court. And then I get on that phone with the head of the security company, and and he goes, listen, man. He goes, I'm being I got this lady saying, I'm a just department official, Melissa Hazleton, and and her lawyer, Freeman, Melissa Hazleton and Liz Freeman, and they're telling me, we are just department officials. You must close it.
He said, no. I want a court order. So then I had to sleep up there because they tried to hire another security company the next day, and I and I knew it. And I
Speaker 0: want to steal your office from you.
Speaker 1: Listen. When they did the fake auction the next day, they came and turned the Internet off because they knew I was gonna appeal it, and the judge shut that down too. And I was out of there for a few days, there was such an outcry, and the judge ordered to let us back in the building. We've been run we've been kicked out repeatedly. Once I would
Speaker 0: Of your own building.
Speaker 1: Of our own building. So so but Paul Weiss has has been running this whole thing with Koskov and Koskov. It's basically a total deep state operation with senator Blumenthal and his son. Okay? So this is on record.
And and but but so so so here they are telling Trump, oh, yes. We'll stop doing lawfare against you and your people. And then now they're billing that in the basic fine they agreed to with Trump. You know, that's what it is, unofficial fine. They are telling Trump, we're gonna stop our attacks on your supporters and you, and now they think Trump you know, they they know he's busy that he won't learn that they've done this.
So in my view, they need serious sanctions from the White House. If this isn't about me, I'm tough. This is about this saga. Everything I've told you is even worse than I'm telling you. The the the insanity of of what they've done and and the persecution would take days because they had four court ordered that my company had to pay for.
And then if the money didn't come in, we wouldn't make it through those investigations. I'd tell listeners, hey, buy our products. We've gotta pay to be investigated. Four different investigations, forensic accountants looking for dirt. They had the IRS audit me for a year.
We got a $4,300,000 tax return back. The IRS says we never do this. Went into the bankruptcy because I'd overpaid 4,300,000.0 in five years because I tell my CPAs, you pay overpay. I know they'll because I don't want the target. So so there are three years of investigation.
I got a $4,300,000 check back and none of it was true. And then even the New York Times last year had to say, well, it turns out Jones had meager resources and never really had anything. Well, it was all lies. So it was all lies I did anything to him. It was all lies I made money off of.
It was all lies I had all this money. And the point is is now to last night, the Connecticut Supreme Court said we're not even gonna hear your appeal and which is ironclad, abusive process, all the rest of it. Texas, the the judge violated three laws cut and dry. I mean, the cap is at $5,000,000. She said, I don't care about the Texas cap.
I'm doing 45, and the change was 49. They just don't care. And it's the same in all of this lawfare, just like a judge found
Speaker 0: Trump never did anything. You never broke any laws. They would have indicted you. Like, this is all so hallucinogenic. It's so crazy.
Speaker 1: Well, imagine it's like the it's like I'm their chew toy, and they just chew on me.
Speaker 0: But your crime look. I just wanna refer you to the very first moments of this conversation when I pointed out once again for the hundredth time, you called 911 in detail before 911. So that is, like, just from my perspective as an outsider and someone who knows you, that's, like, the defining fact of your life. That's the first sentence of your obituary. No one did that.
Only you. That fact, I think, is responsible for everything that has come after.
Speaker 1: Well, just exactly. Well, just think of the scandal. On record, Kyle Serafin, and he showed me the conversations with high level FBI. They're said they're investigating it. He's gonna come back on the show, I think, tomorrow or Friday.
You know, famous whistleblower. He read the the the the the documents, and and and we got a lot from it, but he explained, I I mean, this is like terrorist designation. This is espionage. So I've had a full espionage counterespionage operation against me trying to find something for ten years.
Speaker 0: So where's the DOJ? Where's I mean, this is a test for the new Department of Justice, you know, brought in on the explicit promise to end the corruption, stop using our justice system, which my ancestors helped build and yours too, as a political army mobilized against domestic political opponents. That's not allowed. That's like Haiti stuff. We don't do that.
It's not a Tantan Makuta. It's the FBI. They promised to do that. So can they help you? Are they helping you?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I'll say this. Trump cut and dry had the same stuff done to him. He he's the only person on a wider scale that has had this. And you'll hear him say, it's unbelievable. It would take a long time.
It's unbelievable. I've studied the cases of you. It's it's the same kind of crap. A judge in New York finds him guilty, doesn't give him a jury trial. I mean, it it goes on and on.
So what they've done to me, wanna do to you. But if you want that string that pulls the whole sweater apart, they think because the demonization of what they said I did to kids I didn't do, that the Republicans will be scared to ever defend me.
Speaker 0: Oh, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: When in truth, it's like the Mendez brothers. When people found out what they went through, they learned that they'd all been lied to about that. Well, this is like that. This is like what the story you've heard folks from start to finish isn't that. They saw I was famous.
They saw I was big. They tied me to Trump, tried to hurt him, then they raised hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars off of me, got just department money, had show trials, put out all the stuff I didn't do on record, and and and and and and then now are not just trying to kill the second amendment using these poor dead children who have God rest their souls, but the first amendment as well. So this is outrageous, and it it's a bellwether showing that Paul Weiss, that big democrat law firm, one of the top ones, would literally tell Trump, okay, we'll stop doing political persecution. We admit to it. They they confessed to lawfare against him and his supporters, his family, and then they're still doing it to me, and they're billing the money they said that he'd pay in me.
So so it's a sick joke. They think Trump won't learn about this. And at the end of the day, I just want it to stop. And look, we've survived so much. People say, oh, they were gonna shut you down here.
They were shut you down there. It's in the news they kicked us out of the building in November. It's in the news they kicked us out in or tried to kick us out in in May of last year. There there was a bunch of other stuff that happened. My big deal is I'm not gonna give up because they've said we wanna get the name Infowars, we wanna confuse it and have Shubacabras and Bigfoot and we're gonna act like we're Alex Jones.
They they claim they own my x account. Musk had to sue, get involved, and have them back off of that. The Democrats in their filing in in bankruptcy six months ago said that the amendment against slavery was it 13 or 14? 13. Doesn't apply to me.
That's you read it in Bloomberg from the filing. They said, he is a special type of person. And so just like Prince signed away his rights to a record company for his name and his music. I never signed away my rights. So they're saying they own the name Alex Jones, in the court filing.
They said they know the name real Alex Jones. They're saying they own all my catalog of material even though it's always been free to air and it's my political views and it's open. They can't do that. I can write a book and publish it to the world and say it's free. Somebody can't sue me and get a bankruptcy letter and say they own a book I gave away copyright free.
My show is owned by the world, but what is it they don't want? It's because my older shows, going back thirty years, are ultra green. They're not evergreen where they stay the test of time. They get more important. And so the system knows that those clips are getting hundreds of millions of views, some of them, where I lay out and predict hundreds of subjects and and and what's gonna happen.
And then
Speaker 0: I explain though So that intellectual property is at stake?
Speaker 1: They are preposterously this is new law. They think off of demonized Alex Jones. They say this. They can set a precedent to not just censor you, not just take Tucker Carlson off the air, they said you're the next target, literally. I say the clips you didn't see him on CNN, MSNBC, that they will then take your identity, which under the prohibition of slavery and under the prohibition against slavery in the Texas constitution, all the others, you can't take someone's name.
You can't even take someone's tools under state law in Texas. And but, no, they are saying that they own the name Alex Jones. And they own your archive of content? Yes. And they say that they want to twist it and make fun of it.
They had the onion owner with the Everytown Bloomberg representative on They they let Bloomberg pay for it.
Speaker 0: The new onion owner is just an intel cutout. I
Speaker 1: mean Absolutely. From MSNBC. He was I'm very aware of. The censorship operator. That was his job.
Speaker 0: Who has literally no sense of humor at all. He's the most humorless drone working on behalf of entrenched power, like, in The United States, and he's running the comedy site.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like the Babylon Bee. It's also fake. And he's the MSNBC version of Brian Stelter.
Speaker 0: Oh, I'm aware. I'm aware.
Speaker 1: Oh, I know you're the but exactly. So what I'm saying is it's a constellation of operatives, corporate, media, government, justice department, the trustees, all of them, and they just, like an army, believe they're still gonna beat America.
Speaker 0: Oh, I know.
Speaker 1: And they see me as a populist firebrand folk hero, and they said that themselves, and they want to silence and destroy that person so they can then take the identity of that and turn me into Satan. So
Speaker 0: Meanwhile, Adam Lands is the guy who murdered all those children is totally forgotten.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I almost apologize. I don't really talk about this a lot on my own show. It's just come to a head today, and I'm very honored you let me run on and on. But, I mean, folks, this is your country, your world.
This was done. What I've told you is 10% of it. Okay? I mean, this is an incredible scandal. The law firm that confessed to Trump to try to destroy him illegally with lawfare.
It said, don't worry, sir. We'll do $40,000,000 of good work nonpolitical. Half of that in a filing last week is me. They have gone and filed that half of our 40,000,000 is what we've to Alex Jones. I mean, come on.
I mean, look, don't care what happens to me. I just hope Trump takes away their national security clearance because they're not gonna stop what they're doing and those other law firms
Speaker 0: No.
Speaker 1: I know exactly who they are.
Speaker 0: I agree. And you'd love to talk to the person who negotiated that deal and see if he's aware of it.
Speaker 1: Oh, I wonder who that is in the White House. Yeah. Maybe they should be looked at a little bit.
Speaker 0: Yep. So Wonder what they got. Yep. You know, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Here's I'm just speculating here. That's why we need to investigate because because, I mean, you know this in racketeering laws they passed. If the mafia says, oh, you better hire my cousin and pay me 10% or something might happen to your grocery store, and then they burn your grocery store down, they start investigating, they learn how the criminal networks operate. The mob bosses say go burn it down. He just says, yeah, that guy's not paying.
And and and and that's and they all wanna mount my head on the wall. Like, you've got, you know, that great deer mounted on the wall over there. They want Alex Jones's head on the wall as a symbol to scare everybody else. I mean, they said that in the courthouses and on the courthouse steps. They said, send a message to everybody else.
These patient zero. Yeah. We're gonna take
Speaker 0: him off Shut up in Obey.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And destroy him, and we're gonna scare every one of these other Americans to keep I mean, literally, it's like in Bug's Life when the head grasshopper says, yeah, we got all this grain. Why are we gonna go beat up the ants because one little ant stood up? He goes, yeah, one little grain doesn't hurt. But he goes, but if they all stand up and he pulls it and it floods them.
He goes, if that those little puny ants outnumber us a hundred to one. And if they ever figure that out, it's over for us. That's why we're going back to kill that ant.
Speaker 0: That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: That's it. So I'm just the ant in Bug's life.
Speaker 0: You are, and but it hasn't worked, and so I wanna make a prediction because I just wanna be on tape saying this. I'll say it again even more clearly this time, I, of course, I hope I'm wrong. I pray I'm wrong. But I do think a lot of the the really crazy, bitter, ethnic hate that you see on social media is fake. It's it's people were saying it don't mean it.
I think it's like, you know, the Klansmen you'd see
Speaker 1: marching, and you're like,
Speaker 0: there are no Klansmen. Like, what? And, of course, you find out that it's all it's it's fake, and it's designed to convince people that there's, like, a lot of roiling ethnic hatred that doesn't really exist, and and that's a predicate to The Patriot Front. Exactly. It's it's Charlottesville.
That's happening online right now, and I and I know that it is. And I think that at some point, I pray I'm wrong, but there's gonna be an act of violence, ethnic inspired violence, of hate hate inspired violence, actual hate, like killing people, and I really hope I'm wrong, but I I feel like this is real, and that that event will be used to shut down free speech on social media.
Speaker 1: I 100. Because that
Speaker 0: is the threat, and they you saw it with TikTok, like, oh, we need to ban TikTok because China owns it. No. Nothing to do with China. It had everything to do with opinions that the people in charge didn't like being expressed there, and it's like, we're just gonna and and the congress went along with it. But if there's an act of violence and innocence or murdered, and I pray that doesn't happen, because I hate that above all, but it has happened, and I feel like it could happen again.
And people say, and a lot of good people will go along with it, just like they went along with the censorship of you and the destruction of your life because they were told, like, he's bad. He had something to do with murdering children. And then people just shut down. They're like, you know, I don't know. Alex Jones is sending you with murdering children.
So whatever they do to Alex Jones, like, is fine.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how many times in front of my family people walk up and they go, you killed those kids.
Speaker 0: Exactly.
Speaker 1: And I'll always go, really? I I did. And why am I walking around? And then just like, well, you you know what you did. But but but what you said is so important.
The last ingredients is the false flag on a big illegal alien demonstration or a black church. Because the Democrats keep saying Trump's coming to kill the migrants. We gotta rise up.
Speaker 0: Yeah. Or or something else like that, but where innocents are murdered by a crazy person, a crazy person, or maybe an actual crazy person used or whatever, or maybe it just happens organically. Maybe if you stoke enough ethnic division online, it's clearly I mean, there are people who have, you know, views that are, you know, mad at other ethnicities. I mean, that's that's real. Okay?
But there are also big actors who are not real. They're doing it on purpose.
Speaker 1: And we know who they are.
Speaker 0: Yes. We do know who they are.
Speaker 1: And for strategic reasons.
Speaker 0: I'm not I don't wanna get involved in all that filth, but
Speaker 1: But let's just say we've seen the documents separately.
Speaker 0: A %, and they're stoking this stuff, and maybe it just organically inspires someone to commit murder, a mass murder. And again, I just pray as someone who hates all violence, to say it again, I pray that's not the case, but it's
Speaker 1: Well, let's just say this. The people they're mainly attacking are the ones financing them. It's the oldest trick in the book Yep. Hugalian dialectic, and so just be aware of that, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 0: Yeah. And I just don't yeah. And I think you're what and the only reason I bring that up is because I worry about it every day.
Speaker 1: I do too because that's the next big move.
Speaker 0: Free speech is the foundation of a free society. Without it, you it's not a free society. You're a slave. If you can't say what you think, you're a slave. It's really simple.
And we don't have slavery in this country. It's a free country.
Speaker 1: And when it happens, I pray it doesn't. That's the next move. So we're predicting this, so that there's enough eyes and ears on it and enough people watching so they don't pull it off. Because that's the thing. Everything I used to predict basically came true because the globalists were still in power.
They're so disorganized, have so many problems now. A lot of times when we're able to get out ahead of things, you and others and Trump and Joe Rogan, we're able and and and and Elon's with a huge voice, you know, second only to Trump, we're able to disrupt what they're doing and enough people see through it. So if it does happen, they try to stampede us into blaming whoever it is. Oh, the crooks guy, you know, he acted alone. Well, this will be some right wing Trump supporter with
Speaker 0: a MAGA hat. %.
Speaker 1: And it'll get killed by the SWAT team.
Speaker 0: He was inspired by hate online. There's for you're not allowed to have, like, legitimate opinions or your own opinions. And, you know, God can decide whether they're legitimate or not. But if you're a free man, a free person, you have a right to say what you really believe, period. And that cannot be encumbered or else you're a slave.
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And and, you know, you know, we get back to the spiritual battle here. I I just want people to know that my lawyers just told me when you I put I put you on speaker with them. They said I could be shut down within two days, two weeks. They are coming to shut down Infowars.
We've survived so much like a long boxing match. People are like, oh, yeah. Right. No. This is very, very real.
This has been very, very serious. And so, you know, for now, people can find me on exit real Alex Jones. But but that part doesn't matter. People understand more and more how things work. All of your voices are so important.
All of you sharing this interview, sharing the other great work Tucker's doing, all the courage he has and others have to really put it on the line. You know, we haven't even talked about Iran.
Speaker 0: Well, give me give me your five minute I mean, that, I should say, I think this interview is going up tonight. We're gonna try to get it up in a few hours, but that's such a dynamic situation. Steve Wittkopf, apparently, is meeting directly with the Iranians, which I think is such a a great it's a blessing. But and I hope for the best. But give us your five minute overview.
Like, what
Speaker 1: is that, and where is that going? Well, Iran's plan b for the globalist. And Iran's got its issues, and it's Shiite militias and and all that. I'm not I'm not lionizing the mullis. Oh, you're not?
But but but they've been isolated. Israel has knocked out their proxy forces in Lebanon and in Gaza and in the West Bank, And Netanyahu is extremely unpopular. He's been indicted and he he said he doesn't want an investigation in January he he doesn't want an investigation of October 7 until the war is over, but then he never you know, he's gonna have the war be over. So I'm not even against Netanyahu. I'm not against Israel.
I know most people in Israel don't war with Iran either, but he's been trying to drag us into war since 09/11. That's how long he's been around and in power off and on into this, and they have the most ballistic missiles in the world. What it four to one, five to one, six to one to even the Israeli anti missile defense system. Israel, as you know, only has three big cities. They will get blown off the map by this.
Conventionally, even if Iran doesn't have nukes and uses them, the word is they do, Israel will nuke Iran, and then all hell's gonna break loose. And in most scenarios, India and Pakistan start nuking each other. Saudi Arabia has got nukes. There's a lot of other countries that have nukes that people don't know about. You don't want even a limited nuclear war because in most big threat assessment war games, and Tucker's an expert, he can attest to it, he talks to the experts, it it breaks out.
You know, kinda like your neighbor, you know, has the black plague. Well, you you might get it. Or, you know, you know, your neighbor, you know, has has got syphilis, and God forbid you have sex with him. I mean, this is a lot worse than syphilis. This is a lot worse than TB.
This is really dangerous, and Iran does have proxy forces in Europe and The United States that Obiden let get in, and they really do have some of these sleeper cells that are here that if this does go to full war, they can cause some major problems. And different foreign intelligence agencies are famous for spoofing Iranians and and and Saudi Arabian terror attacks. They could easily stage a big false flag to get us into a war with Iran.
Speaker 0: I'm aware. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And and they're also the Russians have warned, and even before they did, I warned of attacks on nuclear power plants in Ukraine and Russia, try to blame Russia. Ukraine's done that, been caught. Ukraine and NATO tried to blame Russia for the Nord Stream pipeline. How laughable is that? Of course, I hears his information has been proven, know, that obviously it was the US government with NATO.
I mean, even Biden said, you know, we'll get rid of the pipeline if you invade. So the globalists are very reckless. Again, 50 chance the Pentagon said that they started bombing Russia, Russia would nuke. They still rolled the dice. So we need really cool heads here.
This is not like going into Iraq twice. This is not like going into Libya. This is not a cakewalk. Even for people that love to, you know, buy a bottle of bourbon and sit back and get drunk watching, you know, a a war like so many sick people do. This this this is the main threat to civilization.
And, I mean, Tucker, you really have all the connections. You travel the world. You cover these summits.
Speaker 0: I don't know any I don't know anything other than I think the people in charge of a bunch of different countries are are, like, reckless on a level that's without precedent in the modern era, and I I don't think they're serving their own people, by the way, leaders like that. It's not just like, you know, you've got a bellicose leader who's threatening war or whatever. It doesn't necessarily mean the people he rules are being served. He's putting their lives at risk. Our leaders have put our lives at risk for no good reason.
And so, you know, I'm I'm hardly expert in anything. I'm just an observer, and and it's just all so obvious. And I'm really worried about my last question to you is, you get this sense that there's like a a spirit of dullness or fantasy. Maybe it's connected to living digitally or something, But, like, smart aware people are no longer smart or aware. They're sort of sleepwalking through this incredibly dangerous moment, and they don't even acknowledge any of it.
And, what is that?
Speaker 1: Well, that was the description I was gonna use. There's like
Speaker 0: a mist that settles over all of us, and, like, we can't it's like no one is even, like, awake. What is that?
Speaker 1: Well, that's how I describe it. It's how you describe it. We're sleepwalking into Armageddon. The Bible calls it a spell.
Speaker 0: It feels that way.
Speaker 1: Medically, they would call it a trance. And and, you know, since the advent, I say that sarcastically of television, and everybody gathering around it, people are way more highly suggestible. Most people are closer to a near dream state or daydream state pretty much all the time.
Speaker 0: Feels that
Speaker 1: way. You go to a movie, see everybody kinda drooling. And and and I've never really had a lot of suspended disbelief. Even when I was a kid, was always analyzing things.
Speaker 0: Me too.
Speaker 1: And so I guess that's a gift, but also it's kinda torture. It'd be fun to just be be able to be mindless sometimes. But yeah. And and the establishment itself is all about never actually making a decision they get in trouble for, having committees, having groups, having economy policy where no one can be accountable, but then that creates a runaway train scenario, where then only the most reckless people that are the craziest kind of become the consensus because nobody else wants to challenge them. And through Trump and Elon, you know, saying, hey, we don't want war.
We don't want a meat grinder. This is too dangerous. This is crazy. We want to stabilize civilization. We want to have more kids, not less.
Every actuary shows we collapse if we don't. Those are conscious. Look at Trump, conscious, awake, sharp, Elon, conscious, aware, sharp, you know, so many others. And and then it's a system of kind of quasi zombies and zombies run by a few kleptocrat, psycho, demon possessed people that that that that don't want us waking up the zombies. So, that's why they're mad at me.
It's why they're mad at Elon. It's why they're mad at you. Is that we are trying to collectively get people to wake up because the wheel on the ship is so heavy and so big, a few of us can't turn it. But if we get more people politically engaged and aware, together we're able to turn the wheel as we're about to go over this waterfall 5,000 feet and get killed. And so, it's it's it's people that are dialed in unconscious versus people that are unconscious in the middle versus evil that is driven by a very nihilistic, destructive force.
And and that's what the transhumanism is about. I mean, I remember thirty years ago reading government white papers that were public that listeners sent me medical people that they had human animal hybrids they could grow in cows for organ harvesting, And that and of course, that's been admitted for twenty years now. But just last week, hundreds of articles, oh, we can grow humanoids for organ harvesting. Don't worry though, they don't have consciousness. We've already raised them at undisclosed laboratories, and then it's in the MIT, you know, reports that they've done it.
Or I remember thirty years ago, oh, military bases have goats that are part spider that produce body armor out of their milk, but we don't show them to you. And then later they brought them out. And then, oh, oh, we have dire wolves living in an undisclosed location where we spliced 13,000 year old DNA with a regular wolf. And my point is, the future's been here for a while. It's just not evenly distributed.
So, you've got this super advanced sectors of technology, literally an underground bases and facilities, and you've got an establishment, a very small technocracy that's even aware of those systems. Yes. And they don't wanna give the general population access to that. So to them, they want a nuclear war. They think it's survivable in their underground bases.
And Ian Fleming, former high level OSS in MI six, wrote the James Bond books, became movies. Remember the eighties, Moonraker with with Roger Moore. And remember, there's a crazy billionaire with these other billionaires with underground base in Brazil that's gonna release a bioweapon on the earth to kill everybody, but only goes for a year. He's gonna go up to space while everybody dies on earth at their space station, and then come back and repopulate the earth. And he's a eugenicist, and they only have the best specimens of the humans to do it.
They're in the movie Zardoz with Sean Connery in the seventies, and Logan's Run, and The Island, and, t h x one one three eight. And then you have Aldous Huxley who wrote Brave New World in '32. His brother, Julian Huxley, was the head of the World Eugenics Society. When that got a bad name before World War two, they changed the World Transhumanist Society. He was the director general of UNESCO, really ran the UN.
And his brother, before he died, gave that famous Berkeley speech an hour long, and I've read his book, Brave New World Revisited, that's nonfiction. Everybody should read it. And he says, no. No. No.
No. The world's not gonna be like Orwell with the SWAT teams. That's for the 1% that might resist. The real plan, the reason I could write Brave New World is this was the consensus of the elite in Europe and and England of the world we're gonna build with genetically engineered people, a subspecies that serves us, everyone taking soma, everyone's controlled, and he explains in that Berkeley speech, if you don't read the book, he gives a synopsis that this is a real plan that he saw being in place by 2020. And so you have to understand Brave New World is an instruction manual of what they wanna do.
They wanna turn humans into a commodity. That's why Obama calls it the end of history, where there are no more cycles, where everything's controlled, where 90% of the world population's reduced. And maybe if you serve them right or whatever, the 10% is here, but there's these gods on Mount Olympus or these Elysium you know, demigods that are the technocrats that control everything. Everybody is wired into their brains and the technocrats control the AI, and and then they play God. Like Rick Kurzweil said, I don't believe in God yet.
I'm gonna become one. You've all know Harare. I don't believe in god yet, but there will be one in the cloud of AI. And so I'll just say this, the best laid plans of mice and men off to go astray as the, you know, famous writer said. And these people are prideful.
They're satanic. Yes. And and and and it's all gonna end in disaster. We have to choose God. We have to choose justice.
We have to choose free will, and we have to get out of nature more, and we have to disconnect, you know, from the system's lies, and then only go into the system to basically tell the truth. And just know that if if you're fighting evil, evil's gonna come after you, but that's a blessing and that it's very rewarding. And the experiences you have in that quest are are are the greatest experiences of my life. And you find out who's real, you find out who's not real. I just see the arrogance of these lawyers, and and it's warfare.
It's lawfare. And with through the agencies that are running them. And and what they've done to me, wanna do to you. Like Trump said a thousand times, they're not trying to get me. They gotta get through me to get to you.
That is true. And so that's why I I I do wanna see action from the White House. I do wanna see the judge department take action because my case, because they felt like it's free free game on me that, you know, it's just open season. They've they've been more transparent. I mean, it's illegal in my view and lawyer to to to have the judge department fund these lawsuits.
It's illegal to have the FBI go create these. It's illegal for Obama to list me as a national security terrorist, have a dragnet for decades, then they you know, all of this concerted is the stalking. All of this concerted is the racketeering, and that's what it is by definition, conspiracy against rights. And then they're just sitting back laughing and and going, oh, Trump, forty million, you know, to help poor people. We won't be political anymore.
We're using it for Alex Jones. You know, it's just these people need to be called on this. They operate in darkness. They operate because people are too busy. They operate thinking you're never gonna figure out what they're doing.
And and more and more, they're scared. But I would have thought with all this coming out, they would back off. No. Instead, they've gotten scared because the Connecticut Supreme Court and all of them were gonna hear this. Now, they said suddenly they reversed it.
No. We're not hearing it now. Yeah. Because because they think just shut him down, shut him up. It's not gonna work when if they shut down Infowars, and I and I don't, you know, throw fights.
I'm fighting right to the end. But if they're able to do that and everybody sees that, it's only gonna make what I do that much bigger. But, again, like when they you know, the establishment tried to kill Trump. That's when the establishment went from collapsing to collapsed. So their order's over.
And I like it in closing, the Japanese soldiers, the last one, twenty seven years later, because the Japanese were losing in the Pacific. As you know, Tucker, they would dump soldiers out on islands to frustrate and harass the the allies coming in. The US, England, and the Australians and the New Zealanders that fought the Pacific War. And so the last guy, twenty seven years later, was still on an island shooting at people and stuff thinking that, you know, he still had to fight for the emperor until he found out, oh, the war's been over twenty seven years. So the radicalized death cult left, the Jacobins are just running around like chickens with their heads cut off like zombies.
Attack. Attack. Attack. Everyone's a Nazi. Cutting women off in traffic, getting out, beating up women because they're driving a Tesla, being proud of it.
I mean, they they have been radicalized into a cult. And and that's what Klaus Schwab said. He said we're gonna collapse Western civilization by creating an angrier world. We've got to not target each other. We've got to target the policies and ideas of globalists and dismantle the policies and have a big tent to unify behind stopping nuclear war.
Speaker 0: You you know, you're you just you pray you live long enough to affect good in the world, and I I definitely pray that for you. Alex Jones, thank you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tucker, so much. You're the best.
@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson
Paid partnerships: Eight Sleep: Get $350 off the Pod 4 Ultra at https://EightSleep.com/Tucker Policygenius: Head to https://Policygenius.com/Tucker to see how much you could save Jase Medical: Go to https://Jase.com and use code TUCKER at checkout for a discount
Eight Sleep | Tucker Carlson
“It changes everything. You get far fewer problems with falling asleep and staying asleep, so you feel rested the next day.”
eightsleep.com
Policygenius | Life Insurance
visit.policygenius.com
JASE Medical Emergency Antibiotic Medication Kits
JASE Medical is the Leading Authority For Emergency Antibiotics & Preparedness Medications. Get Your Life Saving Medications and Emergency RX Supplies Today.
jasemedical.com
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
In case you missed it…
reSee.it AI Summary
I watched Russell Brand’s two-minute wake-up call: tyranny isn’t mustaches and banners but a gentle fog dressed as help. He says the deepest addiction is codependency, and today the State, with tech, makes us depend on IT instead of God or community. They centralized information; we fed their monopoly, now they rebuild the cage with deplatforming and “fact-checking.” Their god is Control—profit, power, reality rewritten. Is the fight still fair?
@newstart_2024 - Camus
Russell Brand just delivered one of the most chilling wake-up calls of 2025, and it’s only 2 minutes long: “We still picture tyranny with moustaches, shiny jackboots, red-black flags and Nuremberg parades. But the new totalitarianism doesn’t goose-step. It arrives like gentle fog slipping under your door wearing a caring smile that whispers ‘We’re only here to help.’” Speaking as a man 15+ years sober, he says recovery taught him the deepest addiction isn’t drugs, alcohol or porn — it’s codependency. And the modern State — that unholy nexus of global bureaucracies, national governments and corporate giants — has mastered making entire populations codependent on IT instead of God, community or themselves. “They became wizards at centralizing information… Then YOU — yes, you reading this right now — helped crack their monopoly. Now watch them frantically rebuild the cage: smearing, de-platforming, ‘fact-checking’ into oblivion anyone who speaks unapproved truth.” His ice-cold conclusion: Once you realize their only god is Control (because control = profit + power + the right to rewrite reality), suddenly everything clicks into place. Even rage and confirmation bias cut both ways, he admits. But when one side owns the referees, the stadium, the rulebook AND the cameras… is it still a fair fight? Love him or hate him, this 2-minute monologue is pure dynamite. Drop whatever you’re doing and watch. Your mind won’t unhear it.