TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @rustyrockets
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Dinesh D'Souza: “It’s well worth going [to Israel]. You have to go with a kind of a mission.” @DineshDSouza “The mission we went with is seeing how biblical archaeology, thousands of years later, takes people who were only in the Bible and brings them into the pages of history.”
Video Transcript AI Summary
A speaker expresses a desire to visit Israel and says it’s well worth going, but notes you should go with a mission. The mission described is to explore remarkable discoveries in biblical archaeology that connect biblical narratives to history, thousands of years after they appeared in the Bible. The speaker asks what best exemplifies archaeology bringing someone from scripture into history.
The standout example is Pontius Pilate. For two thousand years he existed in the Bible with no extra-biblical verification. While digging in Caesarea Maritima, a stone tablet was uncovered mentioning Pontius Pilate, “prefect of Israel,” and also “prefect of Judah.” The speaker emphasizes that the tablet provides the exact title used for Pilate in the Bible and clearly identifies him as Rome’s man in Israel. This discovery, the speaker notes, makes Pontius Pilate an accepted historical figure.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I've never been to Israel. I'd like to go. Is it good? It's well worth going. You have to go with a kind of a mission.
And and the mission we went with is we've heard about all these remarkable discoveries in biblical archaeology that thousands of years later are taking people who are only in the bible. They've been in the bible for centuries, and now they are jumping into the pages of history, like, via the pathway of archaeology. So if you go in search of that, I think you'll find it endlessly fascinating. What's the best example of someone leaping out of archaeology in a scripture? Pontius Pilate was for two thousand years in the Bible, but he was only in the Bible.
There was no extra biblical or non biblical verification. And then while they're digging in the area called Caesarea Meritima, out comes a stone tablet out of the ground and written on it, Pontius Pilate, prefect of Israel, a prefect of Judah. But anyway, the point is it made it really clear this was Rome's man in Israel. And in fact, it gave him the exact same title that he was assigned in the Bible, and suddenly Pontius Pilate is now an accepted historical figure.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
I don't think people in America fully understand what's happening in the UK. People are getting pinned down on the ground and thrown in jail for free speech. My home used to be the crown of the world, and now it's in utter shambles. The world needs to see this. https://t.co/qNkyuw9CvI
Video Transcript AI Summary
The UK is allegedly criminalizing free speech, with pro-Palestinian activism highlighting authoritarianism. People are being arrested for protesting, raising concerns about free speech, regardless of the issue. The Terrorism Act 2000 is being leveraged, potentially leading to 14-year jail terms for expressing support of Palestine.
George Monbiot warned in 2001 that the act could be used to ban nonviolent protest groups. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, who once admired the suffragettes, is now using the act, possibly influenced by pro-Israel lobbyists. The UK is becoming increasingly repressive, augmenting anti-protest laws, granting police greater powers to stifle dissent.
Autonomous weapon systems and facial recognition technology are increasing the power imbalance between the state and citizens. The speaker advocates for decentralization, mass localization, and new political alliances, suggesting a third party funded by Elon Musk. He envisions parallel economies and urges people to prioritize fundamental agreements and consider living more independently.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Arrested for allegedly supporting a newly designated terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: You are under arrest on the section 13 terrorism act.
Speaker 2: The UK are preparing for civil war. They're criminalizing everyone, and now free speech protesters that are nonviolent could be jailed. Is Britain officially the planet's prison? Hello there, you awakening wonders. If you wanna speak freely, do not go to The UK where increasingly authoritarianism is being legitimized extraordinarily by a liberal government.
We got a brilliant bit of writing out of a mainstream newspaper by a somewhat mainstream journalist, George Monbiot, who points out how pro Palestinian activism is highlighting new waves of authoritarianism across The UK, and how we could end up easily claiming legitimacy for jailing people simply for protesting in a nonviolent way. It's fascinating, and apparently, the seed to this was sown by Tony Blair, a person who's way ahead of the game when it came to globalism, authoritarianism, and claiming that liberalism and sort of helping people and compassion required maximal authority. Extraordinary, really. Let's get into it.
Speaker 0: Arrested for allegedly supporting a newly designated terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: You are under arrest on the September 13, the terrorist act.
Speaker 2: How ridiculous The UK is. You're under arrest for laying there being, albeit, a bit annoying with that flower in your hair. This is what my country is like now. It's very difficult to pick a side.
Speaker 0: From midnight on Friday, it became illegal to be a member of or to support Palestine action after the home secretary prescribed the group, placing it alongside the likes of Hamas and Al Qaeda.
Speaker 2: Been arrested a couple of times in that square over the years myself. One time for participating in a housing protest, advertised for anti capitalist protest. In short, anti establishment politics has to come to the forefront and form new alliances. This brilliant bit of writing from George Monbiot here in The Guardian. No one can be trusted with power.
Any government will oppress its people if not constantly and inventively challenged, and the task becomes even more urgent as new technologies of surveillance and control are developed. The UK government is run by former human rights lawyer. Its home secretary, Yvette Cooper, had expressed her admiration of the suffragettes, you know, obviously, the women's rights and feminist movements of the nineteen twenties and sort of around the first World War era that ultimately led to women across the world being able to vote and won the great successes of civil disobedience and civil rights activism. Somehow, the legacy of these great people, whether it's in your country, there's great civil rights activists of the fifties and sixties, or in my country, the civil rights activists of an earlier era, somehow their legacy has become authoritarianism and control in order to sort of help us and protect us. Now this law has been leveraged in its first instance against pro Palestinian protesters, but I would urge you wherever you stand on the issue of Palestine and Palestine sovereignty to focus on the fact that people are being arrested for protesting.
You shouldn't prioritize the issue. You should prioritize the principle. Do you think people should have free speech? Yes. I don't need to know what the subject is.
They should have free speech. Oh, they're gonna falsely accuse you of being a rapist. No problem. Free speech.
Speaker 0: Displaying the group's logo is enough to potentially face a lengthy prison term, yet that didn't stop dozens of people standing up against what they say is an attack on democratic rights. Are you not afraid that you're going to potentially go to jail for fourteen years?
Speaker 1: Can't arrest us all. It
Speaker 0: does seem that there is quite a lot of police yet to do exactly that though.
Speaker 1: There are so many people on the side. I repeat, they can't arrest us all.
Speaker 0: I support the unprescription of Palestine Action because I don't think they've done anything that warrants them being put in the category of terrorists.
Speaker 2: Whatever you feel about the activists and protesters in this instance, I would suggest that they're protesting in good faith about an issue that they believe in strongly. Let me know what you think about that in the comments and chat. These arrests and potential incarcerations are being legitimized under the terrorism 2,000 act, which is probably the most illiberal thing any home secretary has done in thirty years. If Palestine action, which is the name of the movement, legal challenge against this bill to the order fails, you could receive fourteen years in jail as a terrorist merely for expressing support. It's a massive threat to the right to protest and to free speech.
In 02/2001, I warned, says George Monbiot, that it could be used to ban nonviolent protest groups and imprison those who support them. Supporters of Tony Blair's government told me I was talking rubbish. Its purpose was to keep us safe from people who wanted to kill and maim us. At the time, Cooper, who's the home secretary at the moment, was a junior minister. She must have known what the act could do.
Now she vindicates the warning. Like the drafting of the Tory anti protest laws, this application of the act appears to be a response to lobbyists. Pro Israel Israeli lobbyists bankrolling UK's Labour Party. Last year, Yvette Cooper received £215,000 from the Israel lobby. Okay.
So potentially, there are financial imperatives, but I would say even beyond that, the ability to arrest whoever you want is increasingly the motive of most governments as increasingly information becomes difficult to control and uprising inevitable. Remember earlier this week, we reported that Britain is using the threat of Russian invasion to legitimize bolstering its forces, in fact, in preparation for civil war according to a leading academic. There's a link to that video in the description. In response to lobbying, The UK has become arguably the most repressive of all nominal democracies, both in legislation and application. It looks more like a repressive autocracy.
Far from repealing the draconian anti protest laws imposed by the Tories, Labour is augmenting them with a clause section one two four slipped into the current crime and policing bill scarcely noticed by either legislators or the public. It greatly increases police powers to stifle protests. The police will be able to ban demonstrations close to a place of worship that they decide could be intimidating to worshipers as almost every urban area contains a place of worship. This empowers the police using only their own discretion to shut down any expression of descent. Palestine action is not a danger to democracy, but Cooper is.
I have no doubt that were they active today, the home secretary would prescribe as a terrorist organization the suffragettes she claims to honor. And, there she is claiming to participating in the kind of phatic hollow empty displays that epitomize modern power and media. One of the causes of the global democratic recession is the escalating inequality of arms between governments and their people. At the time of the French Revolution, governments feared the people as the distance between pikes and pitchforks was not so great. Isn't it extraordinary that now people on the left are starting to suggest that America's second amendment and right to bear arms could be a significant component of the citizenry's freedom?
Have you ever caught yourself reaching for a bad habit without even thinking about it? That's where Fume comes in. Fume, the sponsor of today's video, offers a simple and enjoyable way to break away from bad habits while still having something satisfying to reach for. No vapor, no nicotine, just flavor. Fume is an award winning flavored air device that delivers great taste without any harmful chemicals.
Instead of inhaling vapor, you simply breathe in natural, non toxic flavors that satisfy the craving without the downside. It's great for all fixation and fidgeting, whether you're looking to keep your hands busy, curb an urge. Fume's premium wooden design is built for both flavor and function. Half a million people have realized that fume is a fun way to tackle your habits. Fume, something to fidget with portable.
My favorite, crisp mint. Although citric, not bad either. For a limited time, if you order the journey pack using my code, Russell Brand, you'll get a free fume topper, an awesome accessory to level up your experience. Click the link, try fume.com/russellbrand, or scan the QR code on the screen to get yours today. Scan the QR code on the screen.
Get your fume. Fidget. Suck on the sweet air of fume, baby. But as states developed ever more sophisticated weapons, their powers could no longer be matched by those they sought to crush. In combination with facial recognition technology now being widely deployed in The UK among many other nations, autonomous weapon systems for both military and civil use would greatly increase the distance between state and citizen power.
This is the future we appear to be rushing towards with scarcely any democratic debate. All over the world, autonomous weapon systems are in development largely for use in warfare. Ukraine and Russia are in the midst of a robot arms race accelerating at shocking speed, and Gaza, Israel has all made its target selection with horrifying results. Once an autonomous weapon system has been programmed, oppressive regimes can absolve themselves of responsibility for what it does. Once such systems are in place, they will be very hard to dismantle.
When you create a market, you create a lobby, and the lobby will insist on retaining and expanding its investments. Autonomous weapon systems for both military and civilian use should be prohibited under international law before they progress any further. Technologies of control are ramping up while democratic rights are ramping down. We drift towards extreme political repression driven by the demands of capital and foreign states accelerate by automation. This is why we must protest now while we still can.
And beyond that, there needs to be new political alliances in The UK, in particular, with The United States discussing openly the potential for a third party funded by Elon Musk that could potentially have the same sort of general alliances and interests as both of the major parties that exist now. At least the conversation has commenced for how we might change the world through politics. It seems evident to me, particularly having read Martin Gooey's revolt of the Public, that independent media and mass communication inevitably lead to social disruption and unrest. The aim of all of us must therefore be decentralization. The power and technology and means for communication that we now have mean mass localization.
Think about your own life. How invested are you in the culture at large? Are you enjoying your time at the multiplex or at the mall? Or would you like to consider the potential that you might be more free if you lived organically, armed, efficient, able to hunt, able to grow your own food, capable of protecting your own family, worshiping how you want to worship, living consciously and connectedly in communion with God. And if you don't wanna live like that, if you wanna live secularly and atheistly and organize your whole reality around drugs and sex, do that in your own commune.
There is no reason for centralized authority with the vast majority of cultural and social and indeed economic issues. We're gonna see parallel economies emerging now, or we will see authoritarianism and centralization legitimized through perpetual and perennial crisis. But that's just why I think, why don't you let me know what you think in the comments and the chat? My primary point being, even if you disagree with someone politically, socially, or even in the most half felt of issues, there's no requirement for you to come to anything other than a broad agreement around ideas like not killing, not stealing, not putting false temporary things ahead of eternal things. There is a way through all of this.
I can see it. I can feel it, and I think you can too. Let me know what you think in the comments and chat and join us on Rumble and Rumble premium. Click here to get a prescription. In the meantime, if you can, stay free.
Thanks for watching the video. Have a look at this one over here or join us Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday on Rumble.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
There’s a documentary on Pizzagate that’s been scrubbed from nearly every major social media platform. Our team managed to track it down, and after watching and discussing it in depth, we were left stunned. https://t.co/NwZcDcjqMg
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss child abuse, missing children, and related cultural issues. One speaker notes skepticism is warranted when interpreting coded language in alleged abuse cases. There is agreement that child trafficking is a serious issue that warrants investigation, and it is questioned why films like "Sound of Freedom" faced resistance.
The speakers explore the reasons why child abuse might be covered up, including shame and the desire to protect families and friends. The conversation shifts to the pervasiveness of shame in society, particularly around sexuality, and how this vulnerability can be exploited.
They touch on the normalization and commodification of sex in culture, including drag shows and the sexualization of children, and question whether these trends are spiritually harmful. One speaker suggests that a lack of sacredness around sex can lead to exploitation and a focus on self-worship, aligning with a broader, potentially occult, agenda.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The code words in the emails, there's no possible way of definitively knowing that they're used in the context of pedophilia. Sure. They might seem like they're used in odd contexts at time, but really, it's nothing more than just speculation, and sometimes not even good speculation at that. Like the one where Tony says to John he'd love to get a pizza for an hour.
Speaker 1: This is when I thought, oh, this is a good documentary because he's being critical and skeptical about it. Because, like, the problem I have is, and the truth is, because I feel personally offended, wounded, attacked by the establishment, I, on some level, want the worst things to be true. I want to find out that Kyuss Talmud did this, Barack Obama did that, but that's a stupid motivation, and it's petty. Really, what we should be interested in is the true nature of power. And if there are genuine victims of wide scale exploitation, then we should discover why that's not being investigated properly.
I would just mention this point that The UK refused to do inquiry into those rape gangs and into other matters that relate to child abuse. And, definitely, the stuff in the eighties and nineties around child abuse got hushed up. And, definitely, the Jimmy Savile story was webbed into networks of power in ways that were obfuscated and shut down. Furthermore, when we look at something like, Tim Tebow on Sean Ryan, he's talking about just evidence of child trafficking and the child trafficking stories in Sound of Freedom. Remember, Sound of Freedom, they try to shut that movie down.
Like, why is that? I I remember, like, just thinking, why is that controversial? I mean, obviously, it's true. You know, trafficking children is controversial, but making a film out of it, why is that not exactly the sort of thing that the liberal left are, like, embracing and really getting behind? I don't know.
But and that doesn't mean that all these people are involved in this stuff, but it means it's worth investigating. And it's certainly what I like about the person that's making this documentary is they're moving past the exciting frivolous bit that we're like, that you know how these campaigns work when you're running misinformation campaigns is, you know, you have, like, the people come on news, there's a scandal called Pizzagate now. This is misinformation. Well, this is the very reason we need to control the Internet because of misinformation like this. And then you look at it and go, come on.
What is the testimony of all these people? What where what's going on with that? Where is it all coming from? Sure. There are broken people out there, and I happen to know personally there are ways of manipulating people into believing stuff and thinking stuff because, obviously, it's the peculiar position I find myself in.
But you do have to take extremely seriously the testimony of anybody that's been through exploitation and abuse, particularly if it's not being investigated or covered, and that's where I think this gets, right, interesting.
Speaker 2: I can't believe we don't hear enough, like, anything about, like, children going missing and stuff. Yeah. It doesn't seem like it's something I used to hear about in, like, the eighties and nineties, and then you got the big ones like Madeline McCann, people like that that go missing. But if there's that big of a problem, and I believe there is, why is it never really being spoken everywhere. And then when something comes out which talks about it, it get take it down, you know, and then Sound of Freedom.
So I saw that movie. It's a really well made movie, not like, you know, set in the world of ways, but it was good and it made you think, oh, you gotta, you know It raises awareness for it. Raises awareness of that kind of stuff, which is I don't know why they had a big problem with it. Think part of it was the the way they funded it, and it was going against the Hollywood machine, but certainly a lot of it was to do because it was seen as like it's right wing to care about the abuse of children you don't That's right wing somehow, but we should all do Freedom is right wing now, quite frankly. Which is a big part
Speaker 1: of it,
Speaker 3: I think with child abuse too, a lot of times it's like it's somebody that they knew. It's like a close family member or a friend that lived down the street. And so instead of exposing it because it makes the family who is connected as a friend look bad, they cover it up. That's how it used to be like in the nineties and AM, it's still quite
Speaker 2: an embarrassment factor.
Speaker 3: Yeah. So like, they knew it happened instead of exposing it because it came back on them and made it look bad, they covered it up, which makes me think all of this is connected to people that it will come back and make them look bad. Whether they were involved with it or that they knew about it, it's still gonna come back on them and look bad. They're covered.
Speaker 1: Very interesting to talk about the power of shame because even I sometimes felt during the Epstein the ongoing Epstein scandal that in a way, everywhere is a kind of Epstein island. Even if you're not participating in the kind of coercive activity that's alleged to have taken place on that island, how do you feel personally about pornography? How do you feel about sex work OnlyFans or the sort of normalization of, commodifying sex? And I think that there's a sort of a pervasive shame kind of every everyone's in this kind of state of shame. Now at the highest level, that means people are vulnerable to blackmail.
Mhmm. But at social level, I think that a lot of us have participated in things that are lauded by the cult culture and commodified by the culture, but actually are spiritually not good things. Like that's what I felt when we were watching that White Lotus thing. Yeah. Yeah, actually.
Speaker 2: Well, about sexuality in our culture is because we'd never really speak about it, especially in England and obviously in America, like violence on TV but sex is like an issue. It's an icky thing to talk about even like you say in a consensual marriage, like to think about your parents, the most important sexual relationship that's ever existed for all this is our parents to think about it like, whereas it should be the at least the most important thing to you that's ever happened right? So when talking about children, like talking about non consent and talking about children, it's just that horrible for people. I think a part of this is that people just don't even want to talk about it, just like they didn't, a lot of people probably didn't wanna talk about what Savile was doing.
Speaker 3: Yeah. You know?
Speaker 1: So we can't get into all that, it's just sort of a bit weird. And I think it's about I was thinking then about sacralization and making things profane. There's a really good Rick and Morty episode actually where they do a sort of a they mimic inception or parody inception and go through layers of consciousness. And there's sort of one moment when they're in hell somewhere where they're like, there's some awful sort of sex party going on, which, by the way, isn't it weird how that kind of sex is getting elevated by the culture? So drag shows, children at drag shows, dressing kids up, sexualizing kids, weird, diffuse campaigns to normalize sex with children that seems sort of very peculiar.
These are edgeland things. I'm not suggesting that's a mainstream trope to normalize sex with children, but it's one of the topics and subjects that's come up. And in that episode of Rick and Morty, there's a bit where, like, when they're going back through the inception levels, they of cure. Sex is sacred. And cure.
Like, is supposed to be sacred. Sex isn't supposed to be a game, Latoya. And speaking of someone that turns sex into a leisure activity, on a spiritual level, I can really see how the situation that I find myself in has played out even within consensual action because spiritually, I was in a liminal space. And the culture wants us in liminal spaces. If you have a sort of a bond to Christ or a bond to God and there are things that you just will not do, that you won't do, that you won't treat sex as a kind of sex as an activity, pleasure as an end point.
If you recognize what your role is, and that's where it starts to get occultist. That's when I start to say, oh, yeah. You would make sex into a kind of transactional thing if at the heart of your mentality was this organised evil intelligence that wants to make the whole world their principality, like it says in Ephesians, or the prince of the world as Christ refers to him as, where everything becomes about if you worship another thing, if you worship food or sex, really you're worshiping yourself. You're worshiping your small s self, and that's how you end up in the the dominion of evil, the the dominion of the four.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Cast-iron, unutterable truths — UTTERED AT LAST by @RobertKennedyJr into the seething face of a media lackey. https://t.co/Nu5If5bNm3
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Dear Americans, Imagine this for a moment: What if 15 to 20 U.S. states were overrun by gangs, raping adults/children every single day? Now imagine if Trump never addressed it — never spoke about it or acknowledged it. That’s happening in Britain right now. https://t.co/NTyY3ulIk5
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker claims the government promised local inquiries into rape gangs but has not followed through. They state that at least 50 towns are affected, listing Peterborough, Derby, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Rotherham, Rochdale, and Preston as examples.
Another speaker expresses concern over the lack of focus on individual victims, instead listing towns and principalities. They question why those who speak about the "rape gang crisis" are ostracized, citing Tommy Robinson's imprisonment for contempt of court as an example. They suggest this is part of a plan to destabilize the Western world, particularly the Anglosphere, by creating moral confusion and uncertainty about fundamental concepts like gender, family, and even the definition of rape. They reference an Olympic ceremony as an example of this moral decay.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He cannot name a single place because nothing is happening. He stood there at the dispatch box, promised five local inquiries. Nothing is happening. On the last day of term, he had his minister come out to water down the promise to say they would provide funding. That is not good enough.
At least 50 towns are affected by rape gangs. Places like Peterborough, Derby, Birmingham, Nottingham, Leicester, Rotherham, Rochdale, and Preston.
Speaker 1: Weird that when it comes to the rape gang crisis, they're not listing individual victims, which is bad enough. They're listing principalities and towns. Imagine this was your country and someone was saying, we're talking about Massachusetts. We're talking about Texas. We're talking about Wyoming.
What's going on in The United Kingdom? And why is anyone that's willing to speak about this stuff apparently turned into a pariah? I'm certainly not talking about myself in this instance. I'm talking about, like, Tommy Robinson who, let's face it, is a divisive individual, but he's currently in jail in The UK for contempt of court precisely because he spoke about this rape gang crisis. It seems to me part of some broad berserker plan to destabilize the Western and and particularly Anglo phonic world, in particular, yet more particular, christened them to bewilder us so we have no certain values, no certain way.
We don't know what a man is, what a woman is, what a family is, what rape is. We don't know what anything is anymore. There's an Olympic ceremony where it's okay to dress up Jesus Christ like a fat lady with a beard and have a meeting in a smurf. Just go out there and make up your own morality. Why don't you?
reSee.it AI Summary
Virginia Giuffre, a courageous accuser of Epstein, has allegedly died by suicide, but everything feels off. She consistently stated she wasn’t suicidal and was injured in a suspicious car crash weeks prior. The police quickly ruled out foul play, raising further doubts about her death.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein’s bravest accusers, is dead — allegedly by suicide. But EVERYTHING about this is suspicious. 🚨 She had told doctors, therapists, and even posted publicly: "I am not suicidal." 🚨 She was injured in a suspicious car crash weeks ago. 🚨 Police INSTANTLY ruled out foul play. Virginia exposed elites. She named names. Now she's gone — just like so many others tied to Epstein’s network. To treat this as unsuspicious is, in itself, suspicious.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Virginia Dufres, a prominent accuser of Jeffrey Epstein, has died, and police are not treating it as suspicious, which some find questionable. The speaker questions whether ulterior forces are influencing Donald Trump regarding the release of the Epstein files, which are seen as a test of the new political movement's intentions. The speaker supported Trump when Bobby Kennedy joined the movement, praising Kennedy's stance against corporate influence and Big Pharma.
The speaker notes two possibilities regarding Dufres' death: suicide due to trauma or murder to silence her. The speaker says many believe the Epstein operation was a CIA/Mossad effort to compromise powerful figures through blackmail, not necessarily involving satanic rituals. The speaker questions why the Epstein case isn't being sufficiently investigated and whether some attendees were unaware of the sex trafficking.
The speaker prays for Dufres' soul and all abuse victims, urging people to awaken from objectification and false idolatry. The speaker highlights Dufres' prior statement that she was not suicidal. The speaker believes powerful people are compromised through sexual opportunities, leading to blackmail, and questions the legacy media's lack of investigation into these stories. The speaker urges listeners to resist decadent fun that leads to criminality, and to awaken from the control of dark forces by embracing Christ.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Virginia Dufres was one of the most prominent accusers of Jeffrey Epstein. Western Australia police say they are not treating her death as suspicious.
Speaker 1: The death of Virginia Dufres is going to divide people. Many of us were deeply suspicious when Jeffrey Epstein ended his own life while in prison, and as is often the case in these extraordinary and epochal events, the video footage the surveillance cameras would have provided was for some reason not available. You will be aware that in Washington, there was an extraordinary lack of available footage when that plane crashed into the Pentagon. What's going on? Wasn't the Trump administration meant to be about disclosure and revelation?
Let me know in the comments and chat if you feel that there must be ulterior forces or exterior forces still able to assert and exert pressure on Donald Trump, who in some ways seems like the very pinnacle of human power. A man that can withstand abuse, lawfare, and attacks. A man that can achieve in fields like construction and in media. A man who knows how to reach ordinary people who for so many Americans is the exact epitome and sigil of the type of change that was required in your country. Now I suppose the Epstein files and whether or not they will be released, many have said, is the true marker and barometer of whether or not the intentions of this new political movement will be fulfilled.
You know me, my support was primarily lent, for what it's worth, just as one of many conduits in independent media, when Bobby Kennedy became a part of that movement. I've always seen Bobby Kennedy with his anti corporate, anti commercial, outspoken attacks on figures like Anthony Fauci willingness to go to bat against Big Pharma to say that Big Pharma are corrupting and intoxicating and in some ways require America to be sick in order to thrive and flourish. I saw him as a kind of hero, the kind of hero that America warranted and required. And when Donald Trump invited Bobby Kennedy to be part of the MAGA movement and Maher was born, I thought nothing as significant as this has happened in recent political memory. If we're gonna have an opportunity to drain the swamp, to root out corruption, to expose the deep state, having figures as diverse as Vivek Ramaswamy, Elon Musk, Bobby Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, that's gotta be a better bet than Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and these peculiar institutional, nominally liberal, but ultimately authoritarian politicians that seem hell bent on war after war, crisis after crisis, further intervention into American lives.
Seems to me we're in a peculiar moment right now, and the death of Virginia Jaffrey has got to be a moment for reckoning and a moment for examination. Whenever someone close to a significant political story ends their own life, I suppose there are two possibilities. One, she ended her own life because of the incredible pressure of being abused, the trauma of being raped, the feelings of intensive scrutiny and pressure that come from being in high profile media positions, particularly if you've not spent your life moving in that direction and being inculcated gradually into what it's like to live as an image in other people's mind and to absorb attacks. Or it could be that she was murdered because she had information that was inconvenient. But it's it's an interesting time to end her life.
Now that whole Epstein operation, most people now in these kind of spaces believe that it's a kind of CIA Mossad operation to compromise powerful people. So if they ever step out of line, there's material available to blackmail them. That's generally what people think, isn't it? People don't think of Epstein Island as a satanic Luciferian movement where there are blood sacrifices or the murder of children. It's kind of, as I understand it, you get invited to Epstein Island.
There are loads and loads of really beautiful people there. You're given the impression that you're in some Donkey Island, Pinocchio wonderland of sexual availability and pleasure. And if you're not if you're not deeply connected to God, those kind of pleasures are irresistible. It seems that Bill Gates has weird connections to it. Bill Clinton has connections to it.
Lots of Hollywood Stars have connections to it, but it doesn't seem like it's being sufficiently investigated. Does it? Let me know in the comments and chat if you want those Epstein files released. I know that Iain Carroll and Candace Owens and those kind of libertarian, outspoken investigators and journalists online say that the Epstein Files are the one, notably when Carroll was on Joe Rogan, said you'll never get the truth about that. I suppose it's quite possible, let me know in the comments and chat if you that some people went to Epstein Ireland and just participated in decadent parties in the way that all spheres of privilege and elitism have their versions of decadence.
Maybe if you're in the financial industry and you've a bunch of money, you're going to strip clubs and orgies and doing loads of coke and getting it on and stuff. And if you're in Hollywood, certainly it's plain that that's institutionalized. Decadence and hedonism are institutionalized. I believe now in order to keep people on a particular frequency of behavior and of belief, in short, paganism and false idolatry. Instead of worshipping God and the divine, kindness, service, love, sacrifice, you're trapped in a kind of network of indulgence, institutional sex trafficking.
Do you think the legacy media show enough interest in that? And if not, why not? Another question is, do you think it's possible that people went there, like some of the high profile stars and figures went there, and didn't really know that they would participate in in sex trafficking and abuse and corruption? Let me know what you think. Let's get into the terrible in any event, whether she took her own life or whether she was murdered, it's a pretty sad state of affairs when someone from the age of 17 has clearly been objectified and abused and passed around and is now dead.
And as a Christian, a Christian for one year today, I pray for the soul of Virginia Dufry. I pray that she is in the eternal embrace now of the loving father and that her suffering is over. I pray for all of the victims of abuse. I pray that their peace will be found for everybody that has suffered in this way. All of the people that pulled into the magnetism of objectification, false idolatry, and empty paganism, I pray that they may find now the living son of the everlasting Father and know the peace that comes with surrender to him.
Let's get into this story. Here's the legacy media, the BBC, reporting on this death. Let me know if you feel they're ringing a particular bell.
Speaker 0: Virginia Dufres was one of the most prominent accusers of Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced US Financier accused of running a vast sex trafficking network. Dufres claimed she was trafficked by him and forced to have sex with the Duke of This photo of them together, now infamous. Prince Andrew, though, has always denied the accusations. He reached an out of court settlement with her in 2022 that contained no admission of liability or apology. In an interview with Panorama in 2019, she stood by the accusations.
He knows what happened. I know what happened. And there's only one of us telling the truth. In a statement, Virginia Dufres' family said she was a fierce warrior in the fight against sexual abuse and sex trafficking. She was the light that lifted so many survivors.
In the end, the toll of abuse is so heavy that it became unbearable for Virginia to handle its weight. We know that she is with the angels. Born in The US, the 41 year had recently been living with her children and husband close to Perth, but recent reports suggest the couple had split after twenty two years of marriage. Earlier this month, she posted on Instagram to say that she'd been seriously injured in a car accident, which her family later said she had not intended to make public. Local police later disputed the severity of the crash.
Western Australia police say they are not treating her death as suspicious.
Speaker 1: Not treating the death as suspicious seems in itself suspicious. Many of you on X, we're still on X now, would have seen this cat post who seems to have captured the general sentiment, hit by a bus last week, hospitalized in a serious condition, then she recovers but commits suicide this week. Does anyone believe this bullshit? Let me know in the comments and chat if any of you do believe this bullshit. It's a pretty tragic and ugly story made all the more complex by the post in by Virginia Dufry herself.
I'm making it publicly known that in no way shape or form am I suicidal. I've made this known to my therapist and general practitioner, as you know, family doctor for those of you that don't know that term. If something happens to me in the sake of my family, do not let this go away and help me to protect them. Too many evil people want to see me quiet. It's extraordinary perspicacity, I suppose, but anyone that's involved in high profile media events starts to get the sense that there are other interests at work.
Even if you take the somewhat more innocuous example of Trump's blue suit, the media decided to frame that story in a particular way. There was no story there. Trump, like many people, was wearing a blue suit. Prince William was wearing a blue suit. You saw the image of the crowd.
Loads of people were wearing a blue suit. But the legacy media, also an interest within the institutions of legacy media, decided to say that even Trump's suit was a toxic component. That's interesting and extraordinary. With the Epstein story, it's pretty clear that it harnesses and is the pinnacle of something pretty profound that's on the edge of our understanding. The idea, I suppose, put simply as I've said before, is that powerful people are compromised by sexual opportunity, are invited into situations, whether that's the infamous Diddy parties or the Epstein parties or Epstein Ireland, where they compromise themselves sexually and subsequently become amenable to blackmail.
These stories have been around long before the Jeffrey Epstein case broke, long before Epstein suicide. People used to talk about British politicians being compromised in that way. The ongoing rumors about prime ministers from, like, you know, the night late nine seventies like Ted Heath, ideas that British politics was beset by pedophilia, not presumably just because these people have an unusual predilection for having sex with minors and children, and I can see the comments about adrenachrome just flying by in the chat. But perhaps also to ensure that these people remain compromised, how
Speaker 0: is
Speaker 1: it that the legacy media do not report on and investigate these stories sufficiently? Whitney Webb has always been, in my view, one of the most important journalistic voices here, and she says many stories are difficult to corroborate. But why do these stories remain difficult to corroborate? What is the information that's withheld? What is the information that's amplified?
Why does this happen? I suppose if we look at it open mindedly and bear in mind vital principles like innocent until proven guilty, it's possible that people went to those islands in order to have decadent and hedonistic fun. Ask yourself this question. Are you strong enough to resist the lure of decadent hedonistic fun? And does that necessarily collapse into criminality, abuse, exploitation?
For sure, there is a crossover, isn't there? But how do you run your own life? What are your idols and gods right now? One of the reasons I keep banging on about pornography, and I see you lot in the chat telling me to shut up about it, is because pornography, I believe, is the soft end of keeping us all attached to pretty pagan and hollow ideas. By pagan in this instance, I mean the worship of pleasure, the worship of gods that make you deteriorate rather than a god that elevates you, that heals you, that absolves you in your broken ness.
Those of you that are interested in conspiracy theories, the collapse of Building 7, the presence of UFOs, the murder of JFK, are in a sense trying to retain, discern, and understand, reaching for true wisdom, the true wisdom that lays outside of the remit of the mainstream that will tell you continually, as I've told you already today, information that keeps you subservient and submissive, obedient and controlled. If you are obedient to Christ, you will not be obedient to these systems. These systems that have been captured by dark forces, dark spiritual powers in high principalities, authorities that govern our institutions, that require of you that you become sick and limp and lukewarm and broken. It is easier, better, as well as verifiably true to wear the yoke of the risen savior, the Son of the Living God, rather than to be captured and hypnotized by the satanic forces that of course occupy media, government, global institutions that express themselves through commodification, commercialism, and control. All of us will fall foul of these institutions eventually unless we awaken.
Unless you are an insignificant peripheral figure in the margins of life quietly getting on with it, not bothering everybody, anybody, paying your taxes, ultimately controlled, you might eke out your day silently. But I beg of you, awaken now and participate in this glory in the way that you are called to, in love and in earnest and in sincerity from this moment forth. I've got no right to dictate to you, even to declare to you anything other than that you follow your personal truth. But as you search the terrain within you, this super state of potentiality that you're interfacing with right now, you may see the image of the bridge, you may feel the pull of the cross, and for those of us that can no longer take the shamanic with all of its demonic allure, for those of you that find it too hard to be out there in those institutions of capture and control that want you subjugated and stupid and sick. You will see, you will begin to see, among us now, he is risen, he is present in this Easter period and that we will be granted great gifts to confront these authorities.
Virginia Jaffrey's death now is a symbol of these times of half truths, untruths, deception, and propaganda. In order for us to understand the true nature of power, we have to understand the true nature of ourselves. We are fallen, we are broken. We can only be forgiven by him, and we can only know peace by the sacrifice that he made for us. That's though just what I think, what I believe, and what on a good day I know.
Let me know what you think in the comments and the chat.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Marine Le Pen Just Got TRUMPED! https://t.co/MZevW7HNWH
Video Transcript AI Summary
Marine Le Pen's embezzlement conviction has made her ineligible to run for president, a catastrophic end to her political career. The charges stem from allegedly taking money from the European Parliament, meant for MEPs, and funneling it to her party in France.
The speaker questions whether the charges are legitimate or a politically motivated attempt to control a popular right-wing leader amid rising frustration with mass migration and national breakdown. They ask if Europe is in a democracy crisis, pointing to Trump's legal battles and the potential "lawfare" against Conor McGregor.
The speaker questions whether protecting borders is racist, particularly for melting pot nations. They also question the role of global bureaucracies like the EU and UN, suggesting they facilitate institutional power rather than individual freedom. They ask if repurposing European Parliament funds for national endeavors is truly a terrible crime, or a pretext to stop Le Pen from running. They highlight the rise of populist movements in Europe, like the gilets jaunes, protesting corporate financial power. They argue that people should be able to choose their leader, regardless of whether others agree with their rhetoric.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In
Speaker 1: geopolitical terms, in terms of the French, society, French politics, what this has done is make her ineligible to run to be president.
Speaker 0: European democracy, would it be a good idea? I believe it would. And democracy surely means this, listening to the views of your opponents running ballots fairly and not banning people from running on spurious bases that amount to lawfare. When Trump was going through all them court trials, who among us really thought like that that the judiciary were of like, oh, no. That guy.
What did you do in that changing Room 30 Years ago? Oh, what happened with Stormzy Daniels? Was that legit? What went on with Stormzy Daniels? Stormzy Daniels.
Now what's going on in France? Is it Marine Le Pen is an embezzler or is it that Marine Le Pen and her right wing views are increasingly popular in France as people get frustrated with mass migration, as people get frustrated with the breakdown of the nation? Me, I'm a Christian, we're all one family here on earth but that don't mean that if you're gonna have a nation you're not gonna have borders and if you're gonna have borders you're gonna protect them. That don't mean that even if you have people rise up that provide the nation with a new voice, you get to shut them down just because you disagree with them, whether that's the voice of Conor McGregor or Marine Le Pen. Europe is in a democracy crisis.
We look to The United States for democratic advice and guidance. Will we receive it? Particularly if Trump's willing to act against the constitution of your great nation or is he just trolling? Seems that most of us think he's messing around. But from what promontory can the Europeans judge Trump if Marine Le Pen has been banned from running?
If Conor McGregor looks like he's on the brink of getting war fared up and law fared down to within an inch of his life? And do the people of Ireland have the right to protect Ireland's borders after the threats, attacks, warfare, and famine they've suffered at the hand of colonialists? In this instance, the British people. And can you call the Irish racist simply for wanting to protect their own borders? I ask you this in the comments in chat.
Is it racist to want to protect your own borders, particularly if you're a melting pot nation like The United States? And in France, should Marine Le Pen, a very popular right wing leader be allowed to run? And are these embezzlement charges trumped up or are they legit? Let me know what you think about that in the comments in the chat. Do you think my country, The UK, is done for?
Because they seem hell bent on shutting down debate. They seem hell bent on jowling and shutting down and smearing their opponents and they're not even reaching out and protecting the poor which is what the left is meant to be about. Okay. Let's have a look at this Marine Le Pen matter.
Speaker 1: It's a very, very hard sentence on on Marine Le Pen. A lot of attention I expect will be on that prison sentence. Mean, two years suspended, two years that she will spend with an electronic tag monitoring her movements.
Speaker 0: She's on a tag. She's on a tag. Have you got a buddy that's on a tag? Look at their ankle. Ask them a question.
What do do to get on that tag? Are you got curfew? Do you? Do you? Are you got curfew Marine Le Pen?
Are you gonna be out on a tag out on a blag out trying to have a quick fag? Do you, Marine Le Pen, think it's fair and just that you gotta keep that curfew being all banged up for embezzling? Do you think it's distressing? Did the French Revolution achieve nothing? Was Robes, Pierre, little more than a bloodthirsty autocrat?
Did he give birth to Napoleon, one of the worst dictators after all of that? What do we mean when we say fraternity, liberty, and that other take? Can't remember the first take. Let me know in the comments and chat what you think about that. If Marine Le Pen can't even run because she's all tagged up in that, what kind of democracy are we even fighting for?
Speaker 1: But actually, in geopolitical terms, in terms of the French society, French politics, what this has done is make her ineligible to run to be president and for her this is a catastrophic end to a political career that has seen lots of ups and downs but appeared as if it might be heading towards its summit.
Speaker 0: They've trumped her, ain't it? They've trumped her. In France, what failed in The United States has succeeded. They've been managed to successfully use the law of that nation to control a political opponent. Do any of you seriously believe that in France they're sat around pontificating lustily?
Oh no, Marine Le Pen, she is an embezzler. What else does she do? Don't know what she does for a living actually. Well she's a leader for the far right as you call it party. Oh yeah, I suppose so but that's nothing to do with it.
We have to stop this embezzling. Somebody call General Lafayette.
Speaker 1: Marine Le Pen was the favorite, the narrow favorite, but the favorite nonetheless to win the twenty twenty seven presidential election, and that would have been the culmination of generational work.
Speaker 0: She's got an interesting gait is what I say about that. She's sort of like, like she really she's rolling down that corridor, aren't she Marie Le Pen?
Speaker 1: To take a hard right political party and make it palatable to the voters of France. But she's been brought down not by politics but by embezzlement and by the European Parliament.
Speaker 0: Don't swallow spit like that. She's not been brought down. She's been brought down not by politics. What have you been kissing? Claus Schwab?
Speaker 1: What she's been found guilty of is taking money from the European Parliament that was supposed to support the work of her and other MEPs and parliamentary assistants here in Brussels and instead funnel it towards the functioning of her party in France.
Speaker 0: That's not bad. That's not bad, is it? Taking money from the European Parliament and funneling it towards France. I mean, ultimately, isn't France membership of the European Parliament an extension of French nationalism? Or is it antithetical?
Is it continent wide organization that at some point necessarily be detrimental to the interests of France? If it is, why bother having European Union? We're not meant to be on the brink of war no more. The reason these bureaucracies were formed was first of all to oppose the threat of National Socialism, the rise of communism and those sort of twentieth century political responses for to industrialism and the horrors of the First World War. I don't reckon we need bureaucracies like that no more because you can't claim that those bureaucracies function in order to enhance the freedom of individuals.
They facilitate institutional power whether it's corporate, commercial or governmental. We all know that. Do you agree with me? Let me know in the comments and chat. Do you think the breaking down of these global bureaucracies whether it's the EU or the UN or NGOs like the Bill and Melinda Gates, oh Melinda's not in the foundation no more, wonder why, wonder why.
Just going on holiday Melinda, where are you going? Oh just me and Geoffrey, again Bill, how many of these holidays do you need? I need a lot of them, you bitch, because you don't fulfill me. Now get out of my foundation. By which I mean my anus.
Bunker has been a great sponsor for the show. They're having tremendous growth, and I wanna tell you about them today. High net worth families, law enforcement agents, professional athletes, and tactical response trainers trust Bunker to protect their lives from surveillance, cybercriminals, and other threats. Bunker is an uncompromised private messenger together with a password manager, secure vault, and notes that work seamlessly together. It offers you private messaging and sharing.
Send messages and leverage Bunker sharing capabilities passwords, documents, notes, photos, and videos. There's also a password manager. Safeguard your online accounts for finance, banking, travel, shopping, and others. Secure vault. Keep your important documents at your fingertips such as identification, health records, travel documents, insurance cards, and your most cherished photos and memories.
You pervert. Create notes for to do lists, travel, business, private reflections, recipes, workouts, and health information. In over a 30 countries, Bunker customers enjoy peace of mind, travel with greater ease, and have more energy to focus on what matters most. Bunker. Give it a try.
Keep yourself safe online like billionaires do down their bunkers. Download Bunker now from the App Store, Play Store, or visit their website bunker.com. Use the offer code brand to get 25% off. Live life to the form. Protect what matters most.
Download Bunker today. So is it that bad that Marine Le Pen repurposed finances and expenses that she received from her position as a member of a European parliament to fund her national parliamentary endeavors? How do you feel about that? Are you French? Are you a French man like Jerome Poubert, French Karl Poucke, are you a French fella all French and that is French as all hell like Rousseau or the figures of the enlightenment that led us into this giddy place of individualism?
Speaker 1: Now on paper that might not sound as if it is a terrible crime but it is embezzlement, it is fraud.
Speaker 0: Terrible crime, terrible crime, terrible terrible terrible crime. Embezzlement ain't that bad is it to have a little embezzle?
Speaker 1: And it has resulted in criminal convictions for her and a series of other people, MEPs and their backers and it has also led to her being banned from running for public office along with with colleagues.
Speaker 0: Of course it has because that was the point of it. The point of it was to stop her running for public office. Let me know in the comments and chat what you think about that even if you don't like Marine Le Pen or nationalism, racism and stuff like that. Don't you agree that there needs to be a new and emergent populism right across Europe? In France, they had the gilets jaunes.
Do you know where the gilets jaunes, I think it means yellow vest that, they were protesting outside BlackRock and Vanguard. They had recognized that corporate financial power had become globalist and controlling and antithetical to their interest. They have a big farmers movement over there in France. Let me know what you think about the agricultural movements that are rising up in Germany and France and my country, The UK and probably yours as well. Do you think that the farmers, the people that control the food have to form alliances with us the people so that we can oppose corrupt governments?
Let me know what you think about that. Why was that happening years ago in France? What was happening in France where they were sort of ahead of the way things were going? You know what I mean? It was tipping us to the way things were heading.
A nationalist like Marine Le Pen, you might think that you don't like her rhetoric and stuff like that, I don't like racism, it's boring and it's stupid and it's wrong to be racist and to have any of them phobias, know, like anything we hate people on the basis of some superficial or cultural quality is dumb and it's stupid and we got no time nor place for it. But if people in a country wanna have Marine Le Pen as their leader, they should be able to and don't pretend that the reason they can't is because she embezzled some expenses from a European parliament. That, I would say, is total bollocks. But that's just why think. Why you let me know what you think in the comments and chat all about that?
Hey. Thanks for watching. If you wanna see more uncensored content where free speech can flourish, join our livestream. Click the link right here to watch the next video if you want to or become a member of a growing movement. Download the Rumble app and you'll be informed every time we make a new piece of content.
Stay free.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
WAIT!! Did JFK Jr. warn us that Joe Biden was a traitor to America before he was killed!? https://t.co/ltlV0wYnGT
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Whatever you think about sports, you should NEVER let truth outrun love. BUT If you’re having a running competition, you should NEVER let men outrun women while claiming to BE women. https://t.co/GDkNnBE58W
Video Transcript AI Summary
The discussion centers on trans athletes in sports, touching on fairness, biology, and societal implications. One speaker argues that biological differences, specifically testosterone and bone density, give trans women an unfair advantage in elite sports, referencing the South Park Randy Savage episode. They suggest that absolute excellence in sports relies on biochemical advantages.
The conversation also explores the concept of love and truth, with one speaker stating that love shouldn't abandon truth. They invite Dylan Mulvaney to have an open conversation.
The speakers also discuss the challenges faced by the trans community and women, and the importance of how people treat each other. One speaker claims old media can't afford conversation, transparency, and honesty, which has created casualties in the trans issue. They suggest new media can tackle complex conversations more adeptly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Last week, California governor Gavin Newsom said that he thinks that trans athletes competing in girls and women's sports was deeply unfair. Now I think, actually, that Whoopi Goldberg's delivery style has become a little bit self parodying.
Speaker 1: Because you do know that there's a surely, sport is about physical excellence combined with mental acuity. Anyone that's met a truly excellent athlete will recognize the deep intelligence. You need only look at Mike Tyson throwing a dart into a bull's eye while blindfolded to know that even the kind of force and power that accompanies pugilistic excellence must be allied with great intelligence to see that. But here, with Dylan Mulvaney on the panel, Whoopi Goldberg appears to be taking a contrary position. I'd love to hear how that unfolds.
Speaker 0: I wanna hear what you think because I I I what I think
Speaker 1: too. Yeah.
Speaker 2: The last time I played a sport, I was six years old and I was on a soccer team, but I assigned myself as the nurse. So I sat with the band aids. And so in the words of Wicked, I am not that girl. But I a dear friend of mine, Skyler, he is a trans athlete. His handle's pink manta ray.
That's someone who I really look to for Yeah. For guidance.
Speaker 1: And Mhmm.
Speaker 2: And I think that is what's tricky is, like, now stepping in this identity. I'm still, like, a baby trans.
Speaker 1: Oh, get it. But that example is a female to male transition. And if these words are offensive, it's certainly not a deliberate attempt to be offensive. It's me trying to untangle something that seems kind of complex and is generally presumed natural and also biblically ascribed as natural. I agree with Gavin Newsom though that love is the ultimate principle, that whatever you think about sports, you should never let truth outrun love.
But if what you're having is a running competition, you should never let men outrun women while claiming to be women. That seems reasonable, doesn't it? So if a former male transitions to female, there are not concomitant and accompanying biochemical advantages, specifically testosterone, that are accompanying that change. Ultimately, what people are addressing is the kind of unfairness that South Park so brilliantly explored in the Randy the Randy Savage episode. Did you see that?
Well, I'm gonna Like, if I bet if you're putting yourself at a disadvantage, I mean, yeah. There are like, I think about it myself. Like, people often like to say the top 100 tennis players would beat Venus Williams or the best junior soccer teams would beat women. But, like, the that goes both ways. I'm a jiu jitsu purple belt, but I don't fancy my chances against Gina Carano.
She would mess me up. No. Do not explore that psychological avenue, Russell. That is the old you. You are a broken man, and you are gonna do better.
But the point of it is is that there are all sorts of different abilities, but when you're dealing with absolute excellence, you need the biochemical advantage that in the case of male versus female, a male is afforded. So even there, Dylan Mulvaney's answer is a little contrarian, I would offer, because she uses a female to male athlete to make the point.
Speaker 2: You know, I'm only three years in. Tomorrow's my anniversary.
Speaker 1: You're French. You're French. I mean, look, I do think I I was a weird kid, and I recognize when people grow up feeling weird or strange or outside or whatever term you wanna use, that when you come into yourself, that is glorious. And one of the ways you might come into yourself is by becoming trans. But I reckon it's not a statistically significant portion of the population.
But that minority that it affects, I agree, ought be loved and supported. But this the principle of love and support, you would apply to anyone, like anyone, anywhere, in any condition. There aren't certain causes that warrant compassion and others that don't. They all do.
Speaker 0: Right from female to male.
Speaker 1: I think that what you've learned there is that the view audience has been coached into applauding certain issues. And when people talk about, like, the sort of silos in a culture, that's part of it, isn't it? If Dylan Mulvaney said that on the Fox five, she wouldn't get that response. Until we have a world where Dylan Mulvaney will come on this show and we can speak openly and lovingly, we can't begin to improve. So in the spirit of Charlie Kirk and Gavin Newsom, Dylan Mulvaney, come on.
Let's have a conversation because I am a person that's completely open and compassionate to all forms of expression, that Jesus Christ loves all of us, all of us without exception, and that love is the answer. Truth must not be allowed to outrun love, but love cannot abandon truth.
Speaker 0: And it's competing with other males.
Speaker 2: Correct. Yes. Yes.
Speaker 1: Her friend. Her It went
Speaker 0: from female to male and is competing with other males.
Speaker 1: So Gavin doesn't have a problem with that.
Speaker 0: Well No. Well, I I think part of the problem that the trans community is facing, and it's the same problem that women face.
Speaker 1: Whoopi Goldberg got Gandy there on her t shirt. Ultimately, the kind of woke values that Whoopi is advocating for will extract and annihilate even Gandy. You can go on a variety of video platform sites right now, and I'd suggest you use Rumble, and find people saying, Gandy, he was a freak. He slept in a bed with his daughter. Like, Gandy ain't even perfect.
We're reaching the point where Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Gandy, Mother Ture, all of the greats are being just cast out. And I wonder what Gandhi, a crusader for truth, an opponent of imperialism and colonialism, and a lover of God, a man willing to write to Adolf Hitler and say, are possibly the only person in the world that can prevent world war right now. That kind of spirit of endeavor and intrepidness and interrogation that was in Gandhi has been reduced to a logo on a t shirt. It has to be more than a logo on a t shirt. It has to be a message that's deep in your heart.
Speaker 0: Is if you don't know anything about our bodies, you don't know how it works. Mhmm. So when you come in and you say, oh, you know, these men are men, you know Competing against women. Against women. You're assuming that the women are weak and just can't do anything yourself.
I
Speaker 1: don't think that is the assumption, actually. That's a straw man argument or a straw woman argument or a straw trans argument. The argument is in absolute excellence, the smallest margins and most infinitesimal variables become hugely significant. That's why you get someone like that Lance Armstrong. Was that his name?
Like, refueling his blood more oxygenated to get an edge on other cyclists. It's like nipping behind a head. If, like, putting more oxygen in your blood makes a difference, what difference does bone density and testosterone make in excellence? When it comes to something like pilots, I think that you should adjust society to the point where the kind of economic disadvantages experienced by African Americans are addressed. There's no reason why across a moderate but high consequence profession like piloting, there shouldn't be more representation from females.
I don't think that's the absolute upper echelons of excellence. But sport is, and also it's combat and conflict. So in a way, you've gotta have common sense, but you can't have common sense without some agreed upon principles. And those agreed upon principles have to include things like a man and a woman are biologically different. And if you abandon that, you're deliberately creating a nihilistic wasteland where everyone feels bewildered and confused.
And isn't it ironic and ridiculous that it was the Olympic ceremony where we saw that bewilderment practiced at large even though they then subsequently claimed, well, that's not what we meant. We weren't trying to desecrate Christ by having trans people licking a smurf. We did that out of respect. You have to you can be who you wanna be, but not the at the expense of all reality.
Speaker 0: Have you seen female athletes? They know what they're doing. Mhmm.
Speaker 1: I don't think even Dylan Mulvaney agrees with that. I think even Dylan Mulvaney would recognize say we mentioned Mike Tyson earlier. Mike Tyson, whose excellence in hand eye coordination, let alone what he achieved as a professional athlete, has certain, let's call them, biological advantages, but he is in extreme he has those advantages over everyone more or less in his prime, literally everyone in the world. That included men and women. To even go against someone that's in that top tier, you have to you can't otherwise, wouldn't otherwise, you don't need the otherwise, you would get rid of the categories altogether, wouldn't you?
You would. Why are there no female Premier League or indeed professional football players? And why has no female footballer ever gotten so good as to Warren? Listen. Just let her play with everyone.
That happens. Do you know when that happens? Pre puberty. At it. Like, my daughter plays soccer against boys in mixed groups because she's prepubescent.
So prior to puberty, it actually doesn't matter. Puberty means some things. It means adulthood, consent, sexuality, you know, consent in conjunction with the law, of course, and it means certain different advantages. Ignoring that and annihilating that, I think it does ultimately lead to those extraordinary conversations where people start talking about children being able to con you know, like pedophilia is just a lifestyle choice. Part of it is bewilderment.
Part of it is about engendering a state of bewilderment, claiming that what you're doing is supporting the needs of the vulnerable. Well, I think it's possible to do both. I would support anyone's right to be who they are. I'll call anyone anything they want me to call them, and I respect and love individuals trans, nontrans, everyone because I'm a Christian and because I'm trying my best to be a good person. But that doesn't mean there are no categories for anything and that there is no God and there is no nature and we could all just make everything up as we go along.
But I see who benefits from that mindset. Established power benefits from that because it creates confusion and bafflement and bewilderment, and in chaos, the powerful ascend.
Speaker 0: So I'm not sure what's going on or why this is an issue. The same for me as when people say, oh, you know, I don't know how I feel about you. You do. God doesn't make mistakes. No.
Speaker 1: The point is absolute elite female athletes are only as good as less elite male athletes. That's totally demonstrable. You can show that in the top ranking tennis teams and football teams. It's not about ordinary folk, actually. It's about a generalized advantage.
I don't know that you would tolerate a 15 year old girl playing sports against five year old boys because you'd think the 15 year old girl's got a disadvantage. It just happens that in the instance of elite athletes, it's a male versus female. And, also, I suppose it's difficult because there is a male supremacy there. Because it's it's but it's not male supremacy. It's strength and speed supremacy.
And in general, strength and speed in the upper echelons of excellence are male traits. But me against Gina Carano, the speed next day is with Gina Carano, so I'd be at a disadvantage. These are extraordinarily revealing arguments, and it was only by using assertive and oppressive censorship that we didn't reach obvious conclusions more quickly.
Speaker 0: I I don't know how I feel about you. You do. God doesn't make mistakes. No.
Speaker 1: That's a really important claim because now the claim is being made that God is being expressed through the actions of an individual and a culture. Now all religious groups and mystics at some point come near to making that claim. That's why you have to check continually for these principles, duty, sacrifice. Because sacrifice is not about suffering, but suffering is often a consequence of sacrifice. Because in sacrifice, we acknowledge there's something more important than ourselves.
So if someone isn't making sacrifice while simultaneously claiming they're acting on behalf of some god, they probably are not or at least possibly are not.
Speaker 0: And the challenge is not to the trans people, it's to the people who are not trans. That's what God is looking to see how you treat people. Yeah.
Speaker 1: That's what That that That is what Hopefully, over the course of this video, you've seen two things. One, that new media can tackle complex conversations far more adeptly than old media, I e Gavin Newsom talking to Charlie Kirk's a lot more interesting, Whoopi Goldberg talking to Dylan Mulvaney. And Dylan Mulvaney, come on here. Whoopi Goldberg, come on here. I mean, the show.
Jesus. I like this what I'm trying to say. Let me I should clear up any mess there. Ah, this is getting worse, this euphemism. My point is this, that old media with its allegiances to ideas that are ultimately tending towards globalism and corporate control can't afford two vital things, conversation, transparency, and honesty.
And that's why the trans issue for so long created so many casualties, ridiculously among them. Brilliant people like Graham Linehan or JK Rowling, people that were just trying to authentically speak sense. But that's just what I think. Why don't you let me know what you think in the comments and the chat? Remember, we stream Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday on Rumble.
Become a member of Rumble Premium and support our content as well as getting great additional content there. In the meantime, if you can, please stay free.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
.@DanCrenshawTX and @TuckerCarlson are in a pretty vitriolic spat. Is this characteristic of a collapse of harmony now that “the right” is in power? Who is right in this clash? https://t.co/umwKqeSOeB
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker believes reconciliation is difficult due to the incentive structures in modern politics, particularly monetary incentives that reward outrage. He claims Tucker Carlson's analysis is a single-variable approach that alleges anyone supporting a policy is captured by the "military-industrial complex."
The speaker refutes Carlson's claims that members of the intelligence committee are blackmailed by organizations like the CIA, calling them "radical, insane claims." He states that the power dynamic is the opposite, as the committee controls the agencies' authorities and budget. He also mentions Carlson's claim that aliens are living underwater.
He argues that social media has created incentives where engagement and power are gained through outrage. Conservatives are prone to skepticism that can devolve into paranoia and "rhino hunting," seeking enemies within their own ranks, even without evidence. He notes that clickbait headlines targeting figures like himself generate more engagement than standard political news.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If we're in a moment, congressman, where we're trying to bring about reconciliation across the nation now that Trump's got this indefatigable sort of victory, can't we get reconciliation between people that are actually part of the, broadly speaking, the same political movement and even moment?
Speaker 1: That'd be nice. It's just unfortunately, the the incentive structures in modern American politics aren't aren't geared that way. Tucker's incentives are not to have recon any kind of good relationship or reconciliation. Tucker's incentives are monetary in nature. And cornering a market, which I I I think is is based in outrage and based in this idea that the establishment is always against you and always coming after you.
And then you you got to that a little bit when you talked about his ideas on military industrial complex. And so it become for him, it's a very much a single variable analysis, and you're a critical thinker. I mean, is single variable analysis critical thinking? Of course not. It's it's it's but that's effectively what he's saying.
He's okay. So so the I guess the the narrative goes, well, okay. If you support this policy, then you must be somehow captured by this by this nebulous military industrial complex. Captured how? He doesn't say.
Well, he does say, actually. I mean, he he he makes radical, insane claims. He he made a bunch of them on the when he was on Rogan. God, was it last year? One of the claims was that those of us who serve on the intelligence committee, I serve on the intelligence committee, are are consistently blackmailed and threatened by organizations like the CIA, and that's how they get us to keep funding their activities.
Like, just so and he says he says, well, they should know, there's a members have told me this. Well, then name them. Then say it. Offer some proof for what you're saying because even somebody who knows a little bit about civics and and how our government works would know that the incentive like, that just that doesn't make sense on its on on even on the surface because our our particular committee has this is very different than The UK, for instance, and actually most parliamentary systems. We have a very serious check serious set of checks and balances in our government.
We actually control the authorities and the budget of those agencies. So in fact, the power dynamic that that Tucker is describing is is exactly the opposite as he describes it. They have very much an incentive to be scared of us, not the other way around. This idea that we're being we're being, like, blackmailed by them is just utterly insane. He also claimed in that in that particular interview that, aliens are living underwater, and we have all the evidence, and they won't show you.
I mean, it's just stuff like that that you're like, what do what are you what are we talking about? Is this entertainment, or are we trying to give people news and and and interesting insights? Or is it just or is it just entertainment for the sake of clicks? And this is what I mean by incentive structures that have unfortunately percolated in a massive way, and it's largely because of social media. And you're not putting that cat back in the bag, so it is what it is.
But it has it has it has created a different set of incentives around politics where you gain power by engagement, and you gain engagement by by outrage porn. That's what gains engagement. I I give people this test all the time. I'm like and especially conservatives because I'm like conservatives especially because of the way we're sort of wired. We tend to look we we we tend to be skeptical, but skeptical skepticism can be can turn into paranoia, can turn into conspiratorialism pretty quickly.
But you're skeptical of government. You're skeptical of authority. You're skeptical of of adding more regulations to something. You don't think it'll do what it's supposed to do. That's a typical conservative way of looking at things.
Mhmm. But that can devolve, if if if if if you don't have a good mental framework with which to assess problems in front of you, that can devolve quickly into paranoia. And one of the things conservatives do almost like a sport is trying to find the enemies in their own midst. You know, Democrats don't go dino hunting. Right?
But Republicans love to go rhino hunting. There's nothing more satisfying than finding out that somebody you loved and respected is actually part of the deep state. Now the person who's claiming that, like, say Tucker, can offer zero evidence for it. Zero evidence. But we've created this culture where it's like it's it's it's just it it it's like a gravitational pull to believe something that someone has betrayed you that you formerly respected, and it just gets you engagement.
And my name is clickbait. Like, some other random congressman could have been hot mic'd on the Tucker thing, and it wouldn't have made wouldn't have made waves. But but I have I have a really particular, ability, I think, to make a certain segment of Twitter very, very angry. It's, it's quite astonishing. I suppose I'm flattered by it to an extent, but it's also silly and exhausting, and it detracts from, I think, a lot of the serious work we're trying to do.
That's the unfortunate incentive structures that that we see in in our political spectrum right now. It's it's not healthy. And and the test I gave, I said I was gonna give a test. So I I'll tell voters, look. What are you more likely to click on?
Okay? Like, headline number one, Biden can't speak again out of the podium. Okay. Headline number two, democrats wasteful spending blah blah blah blah. Headline number three, five reasons why Dan Crenshaw is a globalist that you need to know.
Like, which one are you gonna click on? You're gonna click on the third one. You're gonna click on why look. This guy you respected, you thought was your guy is is actually here's five reasons why he's a globalist, whatever the hell that means. I mean, it's it's it's it's something I deal with.
It's something we have to deal with as politicians. It's fine. It is what it is. But I also want people to be clear eyed on, like, who's telling you this and what their incentive structures are for doing so.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
You don't have to be anti-Israel or an antisemite to have questions about the nature and unique status of AIPAC. https://t.co/Yx9VDrlg7Z
Video Transcript AI Summary
Congress members have "APAC people," essentially APAC babysitters, who are deeply embedded in APAC and have direct contact with the members. Some congressmen admit they will consult their "APAC guy" to influence ad campaigns.
The speaker questions why this relationship is not public knowledge, suggesting it's not beneficial for congressmen to be seen as having a buddy system with a foreign country representative.
The speaker also shares Thomas Massey's anti-war stance, highlighting his concerns about escalating tensions with Iran and the influence of the military-industrial complex. Massey points out that as soon as the US stopped spending $50 billion a year in Afghanistan, they started spending $50 billion in Ukraine. He suggests that Massey's anti-war position transcends specific conflicts or groups, aligning with a desire to stop people from dying, a sentiment the speaker associates with Donald Trump's campaign promises.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Pack person. Like What does that mean, an APAC person? It's like your babysitter. Your APAC Babysitter who is always talking to you for APAC. They're probably a constituent in your district, but they are firmly embedded in APAC and Every member has something like this?
That's how it works on the Republican side. And when they come to DC, you go have lunch with them. And they've got your cell number, and you have conversations with them. That's absolutely crazy. I've had four members of congress say, I'll talk to my APAC person.
And it's clearly what we call them, my APAC guy. I'll talk to my APAC guy and see if I can get him to dial those ads back. Why have I never heard this before? Why would they wanna tell their constituents that they've basically got a buddy system with somebody who's representing a foreign country. It doesn't benefit the congressman for people to know that, so they're not gonna tell you.
Speaker 1: I don't think you have to be anti Israel or an anti Semite to have questions about the nature and unique status of APAC. Let me know what you think in the comments and chat. Thomas Massey, of course, is broadly anti war. Certainly, he's anti escalating tensions between Iran and The United States, for example. Here's a couple of posts from him and Tucker Carlson.
Fox News is wall to wall with dead eyed politicians telling you that Iran is a dangerous sponsor of terror, softening up the base for a war. But what exactly does that phrase mean, and how does it apply to The United States? Here's one measure over the past twenty years. How many Americans have been killed by Iran on American soil? Try to find that number, then compare it to the number of Americans killed by drug overdoses or suicide or illegal aliens or carjackings or diabetes or the COVID vaccine.
Still think Iran is the greatest threat? How about we focus on our own country for a minute? Certainly, many of us would contest that Donald Trump was elected to put America First. But what I suppose Donald Trump would claim is that everything he does puts America First. Would that not just be the equivalent of Anthony Fauci saying, I am the science?
Let me know in the comments and chat what you think about that. Here's Thomas Massey saying the military industrial complex demands about $50,000,000,000 per year in war. As soon as we quit spending $50,000,000,000 a year in Afghanistan, we start spending $50,000,000,000 in Ukraine. Watch where the next fill at $50,000,000,000 per year goes when we stop spending it in Ukraine. The military industrial complex is always hungry.
So in a sense, Thomas Massie is unlikely an anti Israel or anti Semi or anti anything. He seems to be an anti war political figure, which is something that Trump certainly campaigned on and something that I pray is true. Because when you are anti war and anti violence, you don't need to know whether it's Jews dying, Muslims dying, Ukrainians dying, Russians dying, Christians dying, Muslims you don't care. You just want, as Donald Trump himself said, I want people to stop dying. And that's the Donald Trump that I believe many of you believe you voted for.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Tucker & Putin - What You Need To Know & What The Mainstream Won't Tell Streaming from 12pm EST / 5pm GMT
reSee.it AI Summary
I believe Tucker Carlson was out of sync with mainstream rhetoric, which may lead him to a more powerful independent news space. I'm excited to have him for his first interview since leaving Fox. Don't miss it, tune in at 9am PT | 12pm ET | 5pm BST exclusively on Rumble.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
"What you have to accept is Tucker Carlson was out of step with the cadence of ordinary mainstream rhetoric. That's why I predict he'll find himself in an independent news space now, perhaps with more power than ever..." NOW @TuckerCarlson is with me today for his WORLD FIRST Interview Since Leaving Fox Don't miss this one, tune in from 9am PT | 12pm ET | 5pm BST EXCLUSIVELY on Rumble
Video Transcript AI Summary
The mainstream media is celebrating Tucker Carlson's departure from Fox News, but this could mark the beginning of their downfall. Their current model—selling data and serving corporate interests—is failing. Carlson's large audience (3 million viewers nightly) and Don Lemon's departure from CNN highlight the media's obsession with itself, rather than informing the public. The media's ties to the pharmaceutical and military-industrial complexes are blatant, preventing honest reporting. Their data collection practices are even worse than porn sites. This lack of trust fuels the rise of independent media, offering a more democratic, less centralized approach. The old system is dying—and the emergence of independent media, empowered by technology, is the solution. Demand democracy, freedom, and independent media.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Tucker Carlson has left Fox News and the mainstream media is celebrating. But should they check themselves before they wreck themselves? Because Tucker's departure could be the beginning of the end for the mainstream. Hello there, you 6,400,000 awakening wonders. Thanks for joining me on this voyage to truth and freedom on this great day where the mainstream media took a heavy blow.
Tucker Carlson has left Fox News, and I see this as a great harbinger. The beginning of the end for the mainstream. A mainstream media that's been reduced to packaging and selling your data. They do it more than even porn sites. Check those facts for yourself.
A mainstream media that siphons us off into silos, turns us against one another, plays to the gallery, preaches to the converted, has got nothing original to say, and serves the government rather than the public they were set up to inform. Remember, turn on the notification bell and subscribe right now so that we can continue to bring you great independent content every single day of the goddamn week, three hundred and sixty five days a year, even if it kills us, goddamn it. Let's get into the story and see how the mainstream are reporting on Tucker's departure.
Speaker 1: Right now, the media landscape is significantly different than it was just two hours ago with two of the highest profile cable hosts out of a job.
Speaker 0: Oh, yeah. And Don Lemon left CNN as well.
Speaker 1: First, the news that Tucker Carlson, who was regularly drawing 3,000,000 viewers a night, parted ways with Fox News. And then, just an hour later, Don Lemon tweeting he is out at CNN after seventeen years with that network.
Speaker 0: It also shows that the media is obsessed with itself. It's in a sort of narcissistic spiral reporting on its own perspectives, its own heroes and its own villains. What is the mainstream media supposed to be for? Just for a moment, remind yourself that it's actually about giving you information about important stuff like how the government are governing, about how corporations are behaving, the information that you need to live your life efficiently and effectively so you're informed politically. It doesn't do that.
You know it doesn't do that. You know that the mainstream media is owned by certain corporate interests. You know that it gets all of its revenue from like the pharmaceutical industry. You know that they're tied up with the military industrial complex and you know that they support the state with only partisan distinctions between this party or that party defining their output. They do not serve in your awakening.
They do not serve your empowerment. Where Tucker Carlson goes next will inform us a great deal about our political landscape. If he joins an independent news organization, that's gonna be fascinating. It will demonstrate where the power is moving and it will show us why authoritarian centralized systems of power are doubling down on trying to censor, control, surveil, prohibit, smear, destroy any alternative voices because they recognize that now we can all communicate instantaneously narratives that they put forward. That's why they've become ultra propagandist.
Speaker 2: The audience tops 3,000,000 on an average night. Viewers drawn to Carlson's far right opinions on issues from January 6 to immigration.
Speaker 0: Far right. So you can see the opponents of Fox News and the detractors of Tucker uses an opportunity to talk about the Dominion voting machines, the payouts, and Tucker Carlson being far right. Even if you are a Democrat, even if you are a socialist, to describe Tucker Carlson as far right is the only thing that's extreme that's going on there.
Speaker 2: Carlson leaves just days after Fox Corporation settled a defamation lawsuit with Dominion Voting System for $787,500,000.
Speaker 0: Much of the reporting of Tucker Carlson's departure has centered on Fox News' recent out of court settlement to Dominion, which, of course, is meant to verify Biden's authenticity and legitimacy as a president, and democracy more broadly is successful and functioning. Even if it's legally proven that those dominion voting machines are effective, democracy itself is obviously broken. And here's just one example of how. Looking at other out of court settlements. For example, the pharmaceutical industry regularly sells out of court for much larger sums and the pharmaceutical industry is the biggest funder of the mainstream media through advertising and commercials.
In 02/2009, the largest health care fraud settlement in history, pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, paid 2,300,000,000.0 to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs. So if you were a really ethical organization, you wouldn't go to the mat, go to bat for the pharmaceutical industry while attacking Fox News. Oh, they've paid $787,000,000. It's the biggest fine history. What about Pfizer's billions settled out of court?
You were happy to promote their product. How often do you see on mainstream media sponsored by Pfizer? CNN tonight, brought to you by Pfizer. They cannot bad mouth Pfizer. So them claiming to be ethical organizations is ridiculous.
It's a minor difference that they are fetishizing and valorizing because they've got nothing real to offer you. They know they've got nothing real to offer you. In 2020, the pharmaceutical industry spent 4,500,000,000.0 US dollars on advertising on national TV in The United States. In 2020, TV ad spending of the pharma industry accounted for 75% of the total ad spend. Okay.
So we know that CNN and MSNBC and Fox News are all in bed with the pharmaceutical industry. What's their relationship like with that other titan of US and globalist power, the military industrial complex? Many of the retired military leaders employed by the networks as paid contributors have secondary affiliations that rarely if ever mentioned, leaving viewers in the dark about whose interest they're promoting. That's why people like Tucker Carlson because Tucker Carlson attacks the military industrial complex. Tucker Carlson says, I was wrong to promote the Iraq war.
I'm ashamed of it. He sounds like a normal guy. You might not agree with him. You might think he's racist. You might think he's the worst person in the world or you might love him.
But what the mainstream media, what these authoritarian systems are not acknowledging is we are being stripped of humanity. We've been stripped of real discourse, real connection, real conversation. So people that seem real, they have an impact, and they're gonna have an impact because they're operating in a landscape of total corruption where they're posing as pious on what basis? They take money from the military industrial complex, they take money from the pharmaceutical industry, they steal your data, they lie to you, and they want you to treat them like they're trying to priests or preachers or people with some kind of moral rectitude. They have none.
None of the leading networks including CNN, Fox, and MSNBC makes a regular practice of announcing its military analysts financial ties to the Pentagon connections that could color their on air comments. MSNBC is owned by Comcast, a subsidiary of General Electric, the fourteenth largest defense contractor in The US. One wonders if General Electric are out in Taiwan right now, agitating for new contracts when Taiwan and China situation gets a little bit more aggressive. So how can they report honestly and openly? They have deep relationships with corporate and state interest that prevent them from reporting to you openly and honestly.
And now, data capture, a significant part of the mainstream media's economic model is stealing your data, packaging it up, and selling it. So how can they ever report openly on privacy? News outlets entrusted with promoting transparency and privacy are also lobbying behind closed doors against proposals to regulate the mass collection of Americans data. The interactive advertising bureau, a trade group reported it was lobbying against a push at the Federal Trade Commission to restrict the collection and sale of personal data for the purpose of delivering advertisements. The IAB represents both data brokers and online media outlets that depend on digital advertising such as CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and dozens of other media companies.
So all of them operate within one cohesive unit, capturing your data and selling it to advertisers. It's necessary for them to do that. So they can never do a story. This just in, people are bundling up your data and selling it even worse than pornography sites do. And it is me.
The lobbying reveals attention that is rarely a center of the discourse around online privacy. Major media corporations increasingly rely on a vast ecosystem of privacy violations even as the public relies on them to report on it. In 2020, a study found that news websites contained the most trackers globally more than business, banking, entertainment, or adult websites. They're worse than porn. While users may turn to the news to learn of ways in which corporations compromise their privacy, it is news sites where we find the greatest risk to privacy know the report.
That is a literal definition of irony. You might go to a mainstream media news website to learn about privacy, they'll steal your data and sell it while you're doing it. What the Tucker Carlson story points to more broadly is the decay of trust in the mainstream media. Tucker is a powerful voice because people trust him. You might not like him.
You might like Don Lemon who's also left. You might like John Stewart who I think is amazing, who ask difficult questions of people in power. That isn't what I'm saying. You've got the right to like whoever you wanna like. What we're discussing is the economic models and how these economic models have been impacted by the technological revolution and how it has impeded their ability to tell you the truth, and how it's now impossible for the mainstream media to do anything other than advocate for the state and work for corporate interests.
Let's explain why using this fantastic article by Leighton Woodhouse. The era of mass media during which just a dozen or so giant print and broadcast corporations enjoyed hegemonic control over the national public discourse lasted about eighty years, beginning roughly a century ago when modern television was born. That era ended two decades ago when social media networks emerged. With the cheap targeted advertising their technology enabled, the new tech platforms destroyed the business model of the mass media. Unable to compete for advertisers, the media mammoths of the twentieth century floundered.
The entire industry was thrown into a crisis bleeding revenue and laying off staff. It's economics that's at the heart of this. That is why they are amplifying their message either on the left or the right, Not because they care about the issues. Of course, they don't care about the issues. Any more than Budweiser care about trans issues or blue collar union issues.
They care about selling their product, providing a platform for advertisers. They can't do that effectively anymore because a better model, I. E. This one, currently exists. At the same time, social media began sorting news consumers into hyper polarized digital silos, shattering the broad political center that the traditional media catered to and relied upon to sell advertisements to a mass audience.
The New York Times, CNN, and even Fox News saw their broad national readerships and viewerships contract into smaller and ever more partisan echo chambers Even as ordinary people began to forge horizontal connections with one another online exchanging information laterally. We have networked communication now. You tell us stuff all the time that we report on. One example being when that Facebook whistleblower came out and we went, oh, that's good. She's standing up to Facebook.
All of our comments under the video was like, hold on a minute. They're gonna use this information to sense the people's communication on Facebook not to impose regulation on Facebook itself. You were right. We now know that. Our business model and our media model is better because we're listening to you all of the time.
We know that our collective intelligence is vast and greater. We know that we're limited. We know that I have personal biases, personal experiences that mean I can't sometimes see the wood for the trees. But we remain engaged with you so that we can evolve a better inclusive narrative that's beyond the political models that are dying that this article describes as now irrelevant. We are using a model of the center versus the periphery, not the left versus the right.
We're gonna have to get over that because that's what they're using to keep us separated and divided because that's all they've got now. The public began generating their own autonomous narratives about world events Typically cobbled together eclectically from reports by various news outlets, but beholden to none of them in particular. That's literally what we do here. We look at mainstream media outlets, we find narratives that we believe are helpful to you, we use the information you give us and we have a conversation about it. It's a better model.
We're not beholden to advertisers in the same way. You know, we have sponsorship, we require sponsorship. There are people we are working. Who do you think is operating this camera? Who do you think is putting all this content together?
But what we have is an authentic connection with you. We have the ability to apologize, to respond in real time. The power to shape the national narrative devolved downward becoming increasingly fractured in the process. That's exactly what should happen. Power should be with you.
We should be responding to you. You shouldn't have organizations telling you what to think. A government involved in your life intimately. Corporations ignoring your requirements to a mass huge profit. You have the power.
That's how this should be developing. Martin Gurri in his book, The Revolt of the Public, describes that now the possibility and necessity for more democracy exists. We have to accept that people live in different communities with different values, ideals, and principles. And instead of continually turning against one another, we could devolve democracy. Okay.
You wanna run your community like this, do you? Oh, you're Muslim. Oh, you're trans. Oh, you're Christian. You're working close.
You've got to be able to run your own communities. Instead of turning people against one another in continual fear, you have to allow them to democratically govern their own communities. Or alternatively, what you could do is centralize authority, censor dissent, smear your opponents, and shut down all opposition. That's what they're trying to do. This anarchic new media ecosystem has defined the public discourse ever since.
For both elected politicians and the administrative state, it has constituted a perennial crisis. Bureaucracies manage populations by striking bargains with leaders. You can't negotiate with a mob much less a thousand of them. From the perspective of the state, this new information landscape was essentially ungovernable. An entire regime of social control helmed by the most powerful politicians in the country, in partnership with the titans of the media industry, was felled.
In the age of social media that the new platforms jump started, the state's ability to control world events by playing reporters like pawns on a chessboard withered away as the influence of the media corporations they worked for dissipated. It's no longer to control information in the same way. That's why they are continually trying to introduce ideas that legitimize censorship and control. Oh, look at all this misinformation and disinformation. That's dangerous.
What they recognize is that the state's power is diminishing. The traditional media's power is diminishing. The relationship they have with one another are becoming irrelevant. While this seems like a terrifying time, this is an amazing time. This is a time to take the power back.
This is a time where you can demand control over your own life and your own community. You can simply say, we don't need you anymore. The political elite stumbled through this bedlam for two decades, but over that time, new gatekeepers emerged to place those that have faded away with the decline of the mass media. The state created a new apparatus of control over the public discourse, one whose existence most Americans are still oblivious to. Though it has served the momentary partisan interests of both Republicans and Democrats at various times, to the political establishment at large, this flattened fragmented digital media landscape has been a prolonged disaster.
It thwarted the Obama administration's legislative ambitions by fueling the Tea Party. It gave rise to the ascendance of Donald Trump before defying the new president at every step through its constant agitation of a radicalized liberal resistance. During the pandemic, its rebellion against technocratic arrogance and authority drove vaccine hesitancy, an opposition to lockdown measures and mask mandates. The pandemic was a unique time where we saw the assertion of authoritarianism by legitimizing its own measures through safety. At the beginning, I think most of us thought this is a unique situation.
There is a need for state control and possibly an advantage to pharmaceutical innovation. As it evolved, different narratives began to emerge, and those narratives were controlled and shut down. We all experienced and saw that happen. Let me know in the chat and the comments what you learned during the pandemic period. All the while, it has hastened the shrinking of both major political parties and the growth of independent voters into a clear plurality, and probably any day now, an outright majority of the American electorate.
What is emerging is the genuine possibility for a new political movement informed by independent media, enabling you to communicate what you want and how you want your individual collective and community life to be run. An emergence of a new federalism and secession in America could be the result of this, maybe should be the result of this. Because who wants to spend the rest of their life arguing about gun control, not gun control. Abortion, not abortion. Progressivism, traditionalism.
When it is possibly true that there are different ways of doing it. Do you imagine there might be tribes in Iceland that live differently from people in Senegal? Why don't we put them in a room and kill each other until they agree where it's better to eat fish or antelope? You know, this ridiculous way to live life. Let people be who they are.
Here's a quote from a behemoth for the mainstream media, the New York Times, that indicates where we are in the media landscape right now. A majority of American voters across nearly all demographics and ideologies believe their system of government does not work, said the Times. We all think that now whether you're on the right, the left, in the middle, a radical, an anarchist, a traditionalist, a progressivist, you recognize that government doesn't work anymore. They know that and they know you know that. What they're trying to prevent is the natural evolution of those ideas.
Hang on. We need different systems of government now, don't we? Why are we living with ideas that are hundreds of years old when we now have the technology to live more democratically? The only way to prevent the natural evolution of the way that power and community works is to bludgeon us with misinformation, to destroy and smear leaders in the space and double down on authoritarianism, censorship, surveillance, control. In this instance, the media and the government have the same interest.
The preservation of the old model to prevent it dying. It's been continually defibrillated because actually it's dying. And you can see that very clearly in the figure of Joe Biden. An old octogenarian dying model is being tried out for another four years when whoever we are, left or right, we know it's over. In the censorship industrial complex, the political establishment finally found a solution to the problem that plagued it for twenty years.
Stripped of their erstwhile ability to control events by concentrating its massive influence on a handful of well positioned producers, editors, reporters, and media executives, the political elite found new gatekeepers to replace those it had lost. The executives who run the tech platforms can't control the content of the news, but they can restrict our ability to see it. And that's exactly what's happening now. Tucker was an anomaly, an outlier. Whether you think he's racist or you don't like him or whether you love him and think he's the next Jesus, what you have to accept is he was out of step with the cadence of ordinary mainstream rhetoric.
That's why I predict he'll find himself in an independent new space now, perhaps with more power than ever. Simply because our state systems, our systems of government, our systems of media, our systems of finance are dying because of our new technological and communication power. Thanks to the geniuses that came up with these amazing devices and tools. We now can communicate collectively, individually, democratically. There's no reason for the degree of centralized power that we've had for the last century when we have new models and new possibilities.
We have to investigate them together. We have to demand them. It is our democratic right. We shouldn't be pinioned between two parties that ultimately work for the same elite financial and corporate organizations anymore. Demand democracy, demand freedom, demand independent media.
But that's just what I think. Let me know what you think in the comments below. If you enjoyed this video, have a look at either of these. Turn on the notification bell. We need you.
We rely on you. We are in an open dialogue with you. More important than any of that though is that you please, if you can, stay free.
reSee.it AI Summary
I think it's fine for Tucker Carlson to interview Putin, and we can choose for ourselves what to think about it. Today, we explored the significance of the interview, media reactions, and its potential implications.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
So, we agree right? It's OK that Tucker Carlson conducts this interview with Putin and it's OK that we decide for ourselves whether we agree with its contents. On the show today, we took a deeper dive into the significance and context of this interview, the reaction of the media AND its potential implications.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Journalists have a duty to inform the public, especially about major global events like the war in Ukraine. Americans are largely uninformed about the conflict, yet are funding it through taxes. We interviewed Vladimir Putin to provide a different perspective than what's presented in mainstream media. Critics call this propaganda, but we believe Americans deserve to hear Putin's views, even if we disagree with them. The mainstream media’s coverage is biased, focusing on amplifying Zelensky's requests for more US involvement and omitting crucial information, such as prior treaties and the role of the military-industrial complex. We believe in freedom of speech and the right to access diverse information to form your own conclusions, even if the establishment tries to suppress it. This is about understanding the war, not supporting Putin.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The first part of the Tucker trailer is where he says that journalists have a duty to report the news. Americans should know what Vladimir Putin is saying, thinking, feeling. Let's have a look at this trailer.
Speaker 1: We're here to interview the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin. We'll be doing that soon. There are risks to conducting an interview like this, obviously, so we thought about it carefully over many months. Here's why we're doing it. First, because it's our job.
We're in journalism. Our duty is to inform people. Two years into a war that's reshaping the entire world, most Americans are not informed. They have no real idea what's happening in this region, here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine. What they should know, they're paying for much of it in ways they might not fully yet perceive.
Speaker 0: Does that seem reasonable to you? You're paying for this war through your tax dollars. You should know what it's about. Now I this is I'm gonna back myself here, and I'm gonna back you. I reckon I'll be able to watch Vladimir Putin talking to Tucker Carlson.
It's not like it's I don't know, Clint Eastwood or Brad Pitt, and I'm gonna get all swept. Oh my god. He's so charismatic. I don't care what he says. I'm on board.
I'm gonna have to watch and go, right. This guy used to be in the KGB. He's a world leader. I'm sure there's all sorts of tyranny and hypocrisy and control going on in Russia, but what he sit because you know what he's gonna say. He's gonna say this.
I don't want Ukraine in NATO. I don't think NATO should be expanding in a former Soviet territories. We want some autonomy in the Donbas region for Russian nativists and off the table and with that deal because they already had a treaty before Boris Johnson, UK prime minister, went over there and scuppered it at the behest of Joe Biden. There was a treaty already, and we don't talk about that. Why don't we talk about that in the legacy media?
Because it's not part of the agenda they want to elevate and escalate because they are obviously partnering the military industrial complex who benefit from this war. Even your so called border bill includes $60,000,000,000 of further aid to continue to fund this war. So we agree. Right? It's okay that Tucker Carlson conducts this conversation.
It's okay that we decide for ourselves whether or not we agree with what Putin is saying. And it seems that it's a pretty significant issue and warrant debate, conversation, transparency, and clarity. The second part of Tucker's, video there talks about the effects of the war on the population using an interesting phrase, depopulation. Let's get into that.
Speaker 1: The war in Ukraine is a human disaster. It's left hundreds of thousands of people dead, an entire generation of young Ukrainians, and has depopulated the largest country in Europe. But the long term effects are even more profound. This war has utterly reshaped the global military and trade alliances, and the sanctions that followed have as well. And in total, they have upended the world economy.
The post World War two economic order, the system that guaranteed prosperity in the West for more than eighty years, is coming apart very fast. And along with it, the dominance of the US dollar. These are not small changes. They are history altering developments. They will define the lives of our grandchildren.
Speaker 0: I suppose what Tucker's proposing there is that a conversation around epochal global geopolitical events that may define political, social, and cultural life for generations to come warrants conversation. Are you confident that CNN, the BBC, MSNBC, the New York Times, the trusted news initiative and look into that organization, are you confident that their version of events has your best interest at heart? Based on what you've seen in the global media machine, are you convinced that what they care about is the quality of your life, your freedom, your appreciation of reality or do they and here comes a ball right out of left field care about control, establishing absolute control, shutting down dissent wherever it's available. Just take a glance at the hate speech laws in Ireland. Just look at take a look at the censorship bill in Canada, in our country, The United Kingdom, proposed censorship laws in the EU.
Seeing a hell of a lot of control, not seeing all of the love that one might expect to see if what we are expected to believe is that the globalist establishment is about care and concern. The next part of this conversation is about propaganda. What you're gonna hear a lot of is, oh, Tucker's a propagandist. He's a Putin apologist. He's giving Putin a platform.
All of that stuff that people like to try out in situations like this. I would remind you, Vladimir Zelensky went to the Golden Globes and thanked JPMorgan, went to the Golden Globes and thanked BlackRock in post. Thank you, BlackRock, for your investment. Now I'm not saying that the Ukrainian people ought to be protected. Of course, they should.
Of course, the waste of Ukrainian lives is one of the biggest consequences and biggest stains upon our global character generated by this conflict. But when you're talking about propaganda, when you see Sean Penn giving an Oscar, I mean, the what's being propagandized is the, the ongoing defense of a seemingly unwinnable military conflict against an unassailable conflict that ought be curtailed at the earliest possible opportunity through diplomacy. Is that crazy? Is that crazy? Or is that, I don't know, common sense?
Speaker 1: Most of the world understands this perfectly well. They can see it. Ask anyone in Asia or The Middle East what the future looks like. And yet the populations of the English speaking countries seem mostly unaware. They think that is nothing has really changed, and they think that because no one has told them the truth.
Their media outlets are corrupt. They lie to their readers and viewers, and they do that mostly by omission.
Speaker 0: Omission. They don't report on vital truths consistently.
Speaker 1: For example, since the day the war in Ukraine began, American media outlets have spoken to scores of people from Ukraine, and they have done scores of interviews with Ukrainian president Zelensky. We ourselves have put in a request for an interview with Zelensky. We hope he accepts. But the interviews he's already done in The United States are not traditional interviews. They are fawning pep sessions specifically designed to amplify Zelensky's demand that The US enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe and pay for it.
That is not journalism. It is government propaganda, Propaganda of the ugliest kind, the kind that kills people. At the same time, our politicians and media outlets have been doing this, promoting a foreign leader like he's a new consumer brand.
Speaker 0: That's extraordinary. The language of commerce, the language of branding, we've been so coached in that lexicon and that vernacular that it's all we're able to see. The reductivism, the simplification of believing that a particular product that will make you will make you feel youthful or exciting or sexy. Those that kind of mentality is being applied at the level of global politics now. We had a conversation with, Tucker Carlson.
Actually, this currently exclusively available to our Awakened Wonders over on Locals. Let's have a look at a short excerpt from that conversation that's available if you're watching us now on Locals, you're Awakened Wonders, you can watch it now, but you're gonna have to stay with us to see us break down the lee legacy media hysteria that's following this significant event because this is what the censorship industrial complex exists for, to shut down the possibility that you gain access to sufficient information to decide for yourself whether or not geopolitical events really do advance your condition, really do benefit you personally because you're paying for for these wars. You're gonna send your children. They're talking about conscription in The UK and Australia and Sweden. We are funding it both with our lifeblood and with our tax dollars.
And after the Afghanistan Conflict, can you confidently say that this stuff is working?
Speaker 1: And, again, I just have to say it once more. The people who should be defending the right of every American to say exactly what he believes, period, are the same ones now lecturing us about hate speech? Are you joking?
Speaker 0: I mean, someone here in the chat right now says, Russia says they have denied the MSM interview request, not that they haven't asked. This is, you know, like like so you're saying that it's a good point in the chat. Have other legacy media organizations requested conversations with Putin? It's entirely possible that they have, but look at the nature of the reporting on this war. We've got some fantastic, footage that we'll show you of a conversation that Putin Putin had with the legacy media a little while ago, and he bought up January 6.
He said, hey, January 6 was interesting the way your legacy media frame that. You're gonna love that. But I'll just show you, what Tucker Carlson says about freedom of speech and Putin's potential reasons for entering this war, which could include NATO encroachment on former Soviet tree on former Soviet territory, which is a breach of an agreement between Gorbachev and Reagan, you know that. The significance of the twenty fourteen coup, you know all about that. Right?
The relevance of bio labs, that's gonna be significant, isn't it? We are then gonna be in a position to assess for ourselves. Okay. Well, you know, it's not like saying, oh, Putin should be our best friend and why don't we go on holiday with him? What it's about, Russell, you need to visit mister Putin.
I'm on my way. I'm on my way to that Kremlin right now. Edmund Free, Putin is a murderer. Quite possibly, very likely. Former KGB, agent, person that whose invasion of Ukraine is quite likely criminal.
But remember, the International Criminal Court can't be evoked. Why? Because if the International Criminal Court were to start investigating the last few decades of American military activity abroad, it would find that it's similarly criminal. So this is not about saying, isn't Russia fantastic and what a great guy Putin is. Far from it.
This is about saying, wait a minute. Our legacy media is a propagandist machine that's about shutting down the sent, imposing censorship, and amplifying the messaging of the powerful to erode your personal freedom, our personal freedom, even our freedom to disagree with one another, which is the greatest freedom we have and is necessary in anything remotely resembling a democracy.
Speaker 1: Most Americans have no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or what his goals are now. They've never heard his voice. That's wrong. Americans have a right to know all they can about a war they're implicated in, and we have the right to tell them about it because we are Americans too. Freedom of speech is our birthright.
We were born with the right to say what we believe. That right cannot be taken away no matter who is in the White House, but they're trying anyway. Almost three years ago, the Biden administration illegally spied on our text messages and then leaked the contents to their servants in the news media.
Speaker 0: Amazing. They illegally spied on them. This is how it this is how the machine functions. Illegal surveillance, spying. This is the machine that we are dealing with.
This is the machine that will do anything it can to shut down dissenting voices and then claims it's doing it for your benefit.
Speaker 1: This in order to stop a Putin interview that we were planning. Last month, we're pretty certainly did exactly the same thing once again. But this time, we came to Moscow anyway.
Speaker 0: Pretty bold, brave stuff there. I mean, what they'll say on the legacy media is, oh, it's not brave because Tucker knows he'll get a favorable audience, but what does that matter? All we're really asking, it's pretty basic, is would you like to hear the perspectives of Vladimir Putin before endorsing a 88,000,000,000 bill that's calling itself a border bill when $60,000,000,000 of that funding is going to the Ukraine when you know Ukraine's democracy is pretty dubious? They're canceling elections even though Joe Biden won't debate. Nobody won't turn up in his own primaries even though we're censoring and shutting down information and using the CIA to prime media organizations to ignore true stories about laptops that are dubious.
Stay free. See it first on Rumble.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
"As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders: male and female." https://t.co/AmhsQ93OH0
Video Transcript AI Summary
The official policy of the United States government is that there are only two genders: male and female.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only 2 genders, male and female.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
You can trust me. If I tell you that I was at Mar-a-Lago and Mel Gibson leaned over and told me his house was burning down, I'm being serious!! https://t.co/tw2fR0Ycgz
Video Transcript AI Summary
My house is burning down. There's no pressure coming from home with the corporation of state in Athens. I'm leaving because the news is coming from other customers. You can trust me when I say that I was at Mar-a-Lago, and Mel Gibson leaned over to tell me, "My house is burning down." You might think he’s exaggerating or crazy, but there's actual video evidence.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: My house is burning down.
Speaker 1: No pressure is it getting from home with the corporation of state in Athens? I'm gonna leave. The news is coming from all the other customers. So you
Speaker 0: can trust me. If I tell you that I was at Mar a Lago and Mel Gibson leaned over and went, my house is burning down. You might think he's making up. He's a lunatic. There's the actual video evidence.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
This conversation with @AaronSiriSG is what makes me believe that @RobertKennedyJr, @DrOz, @calleymeans, and @regardthefrost may truly be able to REVOLUTIONIZE American health care. It’s jaw dropping - look at this short clip - my man brought receipts!!! https://t.co/rC81sXZmED
Video Transcript AI Summary
Excitement surrounds the discussion of Pfizer's top-selling drugs as of 2019, which includes four medications and one vaccine. The clinical trials for these drugs involved long-term safety follow-ups, often lasting several years with placebo control groups to assess various health impacts. In contrast, the vaccine Prevnar had only a six-month safety review, using another vaccine as a control rather than a true placebo. This raises concerns about the thoroughness of safety evaluations for childhood vaccines, which are administered multiple times in the first six months of life. The disparity in study lengths suggests that economic interests may drive pharmaceutical companies to minimize safety testing to expedite market entry, raising questions about regulatory oversight.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yes. I'm pretty excited to see this chart now. As a matter of fact, I've never been more excited today. This is like the chart that Trump was about to pull up before he got shot in the air. I mean, like, the trepidation is killing me.
Speaker 1: These are the top 5 selling drugs that Pfizer has sold as of 2020 as of 20, 19, I believe, according to Money Inc. I'm assuming it's correct. And when you look at this list of the top 5 selling drugs, 4 of them are drugs. One of them is a vaccine. And which we're looking at is a summary of the clinical trial relied upon to license each of these products before they went to market.
So when you look at Enbrel, he had a safety follow-up in his clinical trial before he went to market of 6 and 6.6 years against a placebo control group. Eliquis, Lipitor, Lyrica, multiyear placebo controlled trials. Essentially, what that means is you're comparing a group that got this product when it was experimental before it was licensed with a group that gets a placebo over a multiyear period, and then you're comparing. Are there any neurological differences, immunological differences, cardiovascular issues? What is the difference in the in the safety profile between the placebo group and the vaccinated group?
That's safety term safety. And Pfizer wants to know that safety file before the products go to market because they don't wanna end up upside down. But then look at the one vaccine on this list, Prevnar. 6 months of safety review, far, far less. A product given at 2, 4, and 6 months of age, by the way, and then at 12 months.
Now what was the control? It was a different vaccine, Prevnar 7. Now you might say, hey. Hey. Maybe Prevenar 7 was properly licensed to the long term placebo controlled trial, but that's not the case.
It wasn't, and I'll we'll we'll go through that in a minute. Now I'll zoom out now, and we'll look now at the vat childhood vaccines. And these are the vaccines given in the 1st 6 months in the United States 3 times each, and what you're looking at now is the safety follow-up period that that safety was reviewed after inject to these products in the clinical trial and the control that was used. Now I, the first time I saw this or if I saw this, I'd say no way. It cannot be.
1, how could the companies do this before you're giving a product you're injecting into a baby? Again, each of the product is injected 3 times each in the US schedule by 6 months of age. K? So you would imagine these would be the most robustly studied products on safety you could imagine, healthy babies, millions of them. You wanna make sure you're not gonna break society.
Right? But yet this is what you see and and and you might say, well, what what is driving this difference? How why would Pfizer or these other companies do long term versus short term? And I think we've answered I've beaten that I think I've beaten the answer to that question to death. It's economic interest.
Pfizer is gonna do the absolute minimum and Merck and Sanofi to get their products to market so they can make money from them. Now why the FDA will let them get away with this? That's a different story. We could talk about that later if you'd like. But but really does it really matter?
That's the reality of it.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
I don't think that these people should be ridiculed, but I do wonder, what is it that's really making them feel this way? https://t.co/C0zizG14F5
Video Transcript AI Summary
How did we get here? It's frustrating to witness this situation. If you live in a close state or didn't vote, it's hard to understand your stance. The political landscape feels filled with hatred, and it's concerning. We should consider what drives people to feel this way. Many are influenced by trauma and propaganda, connecting their struggles to political beliefs. If the current leader wins again, those who support him will celebrate while others live in fear. It’s essential to recognize that everyone faces challenges, and a strong leader might seem necessary in tough times. We need to address the underlying issues and examine how media influences perceptions.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: How did we get here?
Speaker 1: How did we get here?
Speaker 2: What in the Alice in Wonderland nightmares is going on right now? All I can say is how fucking dare you. Do you live in one of the states that it was, you know, close? Or if you didn't vote, fuck you.
Speaker 0: Go ahead and say that right. It's not gonna happen, Republican Kevin. Go go. I'll be returning to the senate. I chose family.
I chose women. I chose America. I love you.
Speaker 2: Oh, fuck. Is this still happening? All I've ever known politically is hatred.
Speaker 1: Oh, no. Not only known hatred. I'm not saying that those people, those individuals should be sort of ridiculed or condemned. Oh, I know a lot of you will really get off on it. Like what I'm saying is what is making them feel that way?
In the same way that we can be directed to sort of drink sort of Coca Cola when they're sort of not really very good for you and I let my children drink it. What kind of conditioning, what kind of coaxing, what kind of propaganda has led people to think that what's about to happen is so significant and so against their interests that it warrants this degree of emotion?
Speaker 3: I'm done. I'm done. I'm done. I'm done with you. I'm done with you and your mother and your sister.
I'm just done with all of this.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. It's all my friends who are chosen for it. And you wouldn't understand how scared of this man I am. If this guy does end up winning again, all of the people who voted for him will be, like, happy, and he'll just be celebrating. And everyone else, everyone who feels threatened by him is, like, scared.
Like, we're scared for our lives. We're scared for our friends.
Speaker 1: I reckon what you'd find, like, and, remember from a compassionate and loving perspective that that many of them people have been exposed to trauma and also now propaganda so they connect that propaganda to their trauma. Like, you know, that they've had tough lives in one way or another because everyone's had a tough life because it's tough out here. That's why you probably do need a kind of tough president for these tough times, and certainly what you need are people that are willing to get in there and look at the institutions of government. Certainly you need people that wanna end war. I don't know how they've been coaxed into that state.
Everyone's saying in the chat, legacy media, legacy media. Maybe you're right.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
.@SenRonJohnson shares on how we've been LIED to about the danger of the Covid vaccine: "It's INDISPUTABLE that the vaccine causes death and permanent disability." https://t.co/mdEGmi4BT7
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the vaccine's link to death and disability, citing over 37,000 deaths globally reported on VAERS. They criticize regulators for not addressing this issue earlier and mention a conversation with Francis Collins about vaccine-related deaths. The speaker also mentions a conversation with Dr. Redfield, who admitted downplaying vaccine injuries to avoid creating hesitancy. Dr. Redfield acknowledged that there are more injuries than reported.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It's indisputable that the vaccine causes death, permanent disability. It's not just 1,000. I mean, on the Vayer system today, we're over 37,000 deaths worldwide. 24% of those deaths occurred on the day of vaccination or within 2 days. Now I know VAERS doesn't prove causation.
That's correlation. Our regulators should have been aware of and concerned about in February, March of 2020. By the way, when I brought that up to Francis Collins in April of 2021. K. 3 or 4 months after the vaccine was get granted emergency use authorization.
I think at that point, it's like 40 40 some percent of people were dying the day of vaccination within 1 or 2 days. Again, we're ministering to elderly people that couldn't handle the assault on their body. Francis Collins said, senator Johnson, we have we have identified 6 people who died because of j and j, because of clotting. The standard people die. That's how cavalier he was and how unserious they were.
And now, by the way, last week in testimony before our our committee on on on the origin and and the dangerous, gain of function research, I had the opportunity to question doctor Redfield, and he admitted that they purposely downplayed and ignored the vaccine injuries because they didn't wanna create vaccine hesitancy. Well, you can't tell the public the truth. You can't let them have, you know, true conformed and sent. And he said that there are a lot more injuries than what they're being reported right now. So
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Keir Starmer says he wants to pass an EMERGENCY LEGISLATION in order to CENSOR anti-vax campaigns because they "cost lives." https://t.co/rfquSRgUFE
Video Transcript AI Summary
We must address anti-vax campaigns to save lives. I am willing to collaborate with the government on emergency legislation to combat misinformation. The discussion of censorship on morning TV in the UK is concerning, as it threatens freedom of speech and individual rights. It is important to be skeptical about products and protect our collective duty to question.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Well, we have to deal with the anti vax campaigns because they will cost lives. And if we need to pass emergency legislation to deal with them, I'd be quite prepared to work with the government on We could pass it in a couple of days in parliament. And,
Speaker 1: Misinformation costs lives. And if we have to create emergency legislation to deal with them, I'm happy
Speaker 0: to work with the government
Speaker 1: on that. Happy to work with the government on that. We can draw it up in a couple of days. That's talking about censorship. Do you do you have any idea what's being discussed there?
The ability to newly censor novel new ways to censor and control information just being blithely discussed on morning television in the UK. As if freedom of speech ain't a thing. As if individual freedom isn't a thing. As if the right to be cynical about a product that has shown us more and more that we were correct to be cynical isn't a legitimate right of all of us individually and almost a duty of us now collectively.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
How Did Google get The Tech to create google maps? Get ready to have your mind blown by Mike Benz https://t.co/DYzbobO5bU
Video Transcript AI Summary
The Internet was initially developed by the American military to manage the American empire and later handed over to the public for commercial use. Google was founded by PhD students with DARPA funding, which led to the creation of Google Maps. Jared Cohen, a key figure in the State Department, played a role in using social media for intelligence operations and was later hired by Google to work on solving geopolitical issues. Google Jigsaw, formerly Google Ideas, developed AI censorship tools like Perspective to regulate online content.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: The Internet was created by the American military in order to manage the American empire. It was created by DARPA in the 1960s in order to digitize and be able to quickly share within the military all of the social science that was being funded by the Eisenhower administration and the Kennedy administration to be able to do anthropological and social science research on foreign populations who were posing insurgency concerns to US managed governments after we had begun to territorially acquire all these different countries during the Cold war. In 1991, the World Wide Web rolls out. DARPA turns over the internet to the National Science Foundation and projects that through a bunch of universities to make it publicly available for commercial use. And so right away, as soon as the Internet came out, DARPA commissioned a program called Massive Digital Data Systems Program.
And the Massive Digital Data Systems Program was a joint project of the NSA and the CIA. And their goal was to be able to track how political groups around the world were congregating together on the Internet. Part of this involved tracking search results through the early search engines that were created to be able to navigate this new Internet. And this is where Google comes into the picture. In 1995, Larry Page and Sergey Brin are PhD students at Stanford, and their PhD is being sponsored essentially by DARPA.
They had a DARPA grant to do this search engine aggregation work. And that DARPA grant meant that they were reporting to their grant administrator, which was ultimately the CIA and the NSA. They would then take this work that they got the CIA NSA grant to do to form a company called Google in 1998. Google quickly came out with very innovative product sets like Google Maps. They got Google Maps by purchasing the CIA's Keyhole satellite software.
So you had Facebook in 2004, YouTube in 2005, Twitter in 2006, smartphone in 2,007. In 2,007, a young kid named Jared Cohen arrives at the inner sanctum of the state departments, place called the policy planning staff. Jared Cohen got there at about the age 25, 26. He was brought on by the Bush administration. And what Jared Cohen did, he gets in around 2,006, 2007, and he looks around at these older guys and he says, what are we doing formulating CIA activities out of US embassies or US consulates or CIA station houses?
All the groups who wanna mobilize are on Facebook. They're on Twitter. They're on YouTube. We need a doctrine of digital statecraft to be able to run intelligence operations using social media. And this became the absolute talk of the town of Washington.
He was considered so valuable to not just the Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state there, as a Republican appointee, but his work was considered so vital that he was kept over by the Democrats when Barack Obama won the 2008 election and Hillary Clinton became secretary of state. This is extremely unusual in Washington. He then was effectively credited with starting the Arab Spring, which was a State Department and CIA sponsored series of Facebook and Twitter revolutions stretching from Tunisia to Egypt, hashtags and Facebook groups were used to coordinate tens of millions of people to take to the streets to overthrow governments that were deemed to be hostile to US interests. At that point, Jared Cohen could have done anything, but he goes over and basically stuns the Beltway crowd by moving in 2010 to a tiny little one person nonprofit called Google. And he was poached by Google in order to sit in a room all day, stare at a white wall, and think by himself about all the creative ways that Google could use its proprietary data and resources to solve complex geopolitical problems.
Now this becomes very important to the Internet censorship story because this one person think tank Google ideas would later be rebranded Google Jigsaw. And Google Jigsaw was initially doing free speech tech work. And so Google Jigsaw became this kind of CIA intermediated censorship octopus and it created what was essentially the world's first retail, what I call weapons of mass deletion. AI censorship superpowers to be able to scan and ban tens of 1,000,000,000 of posts when it created something called perspective, which rates every post essentially on the Internet by a toxicity score that can be used to automatically throttle it from public view. Stay free.
See it first on Rumble.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
TONIGHT I'm talking to @DrAseemMalhotra about the FIRST criminal trials around the global Vaccine measures and potential human rights violations🎙️ 🔴Join us LIVE on @rumblevideo from 12pm EST / 5pm BST⏰ https://t.co/j40OkMIME9
Video Transcript AI Summary
Maddie lost feeling in her legs, doctors blamed anxiety. Discussion on Pfizer vaccine trial and pandemic measures with Dr. Asim Malhotra. Also, ongoing Trump trials and impartial jury search. Stay tuned for more updates.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Before long, Maddie lost feeling in her legs. Here, she's scooting on the floor and using her hands to lift her legs. She found herself following the advice of physicians who insisted Maddie's paralysis, seizures, passing out, all of it were caused by anxiety.
Speaker 1: Or could it potentially have been the fact that she participated in a clinical trial by Pfizer for a vaccine vaccine that was ultimately sanctioned for public use. Is that the reason that this girl was told she was suffering from anxiety? We'll be talking to Doctor. Asim Malhotra on today's show about the first criminal trials around the use of the vaccine and measures across the world relating to the pandemic. Join us for this show.
And of course, we're talking about the ongoing Trump trials and the inability to find an impartial Duro. Join us then. Stay free in the meanwhile.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
UPDATE: FDA says Ivermectin is now for HUMANS and removes past social media posts suggesting it is for animals. Nothing to see here!! https://t.co/skg71btGw4
Video Transcript AI Summary
The FDA is no longer allowed to refer to a horse paste due to social media messages. The FDA clarified that they do not give personalized medical advice, but oversee clinical trials and regulate pharmaceutical companies. While not recommended for COVID treatment, excessive doses can be dangerous. Remember to use it responsibly.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's have a look at why the FDA are not allowed to call a horse paste anymore.
Speaker 1: The FDA has agreed to remove and stop reposting several social media messages suggesting is intended for animals and not humans.
Speaker 0: You've got to stop and stop repeating. Can we just occasionally, on a Saturday, say it's a little bit of a paste for animals? No. Under no circumstances, stop saying it. Paste for animals.
What did you just say? I said it's a waste for catchy gulps.
Speaker 1: The court said the FDA's role is not to provide personalized medical advice.
Speaker 0: That's amazing, isn't it? That's not the FDA's role even, to provide personal advice. They're meant to actually oversee clinical trials, regulate pharmaceutical companies from whom they also receive their funding.
Speaker 1: However, the FDA still does not recommend it for COVID treatment, saying there is danger of excessive doses.
Speaker 0: Trying to get that last bit of But I will say, even though it's not a horse paste, you could take too much of it, and then your butt would clog up, and no one would like you. Can't stop being childish about Stay free. See it first on Rumble.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
With Canada’s new 'online harms' bill set to make online hate punishable up to LIFE in prison, is Trudeau's C-63 bill about protecting children or about labelling any speech he personally dislikes as hateful? https://t.co/vTaoIE0oMs
Video Transcript AI Summary
Justin Trudeau's proposed bill in Canada aims to address online harms, including hate speech and child exploitation. However, critics argue that it could be used to silence dissent and control information. The bill would hold online platforms accountable for harmful content and establish a censorship organization. It also introduces stricter penalties, including life imprisonment, for hate offenses. Trudeau's government has been accused of authoritarianism and limiting freedom of speech. Similar legislation is being introduced in other countries, suggesting a coordinated global effort. Critics fear that these laws could be misused to impose control on the population and suppress dissent.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Justin Trudeau's new c 63 bill will allow the Canadian government to imprison people for life in order to protect children or to imprison political opponents. What do you think Justin Trudeau and the globalists are more interested in? Justin Trudeau and the globalist, which proposes that in order to, you know, protect children. And this mainstream media news broadcast seems to suggest the elderly, I don't know, they need to be protected from. Is there a movement?
Help children. Are there geriatric rings now? Although also in weird crazy cuckoo project Canada, there are new ideas to euthanize people for being sad, poor, or old. So, really, the elderly need protecting mostly from Justin Trudeau. What's going on in the who is Justin Trudeau protecting us from except bloody Justin Trudeau?
That's who I wanna be protected from. Let's get into this story because whether it's Ireland or the United States or, in particular, Canada, there are new laws that seem predicated upon impeding free speech. Let's have a look.
Speaker 1: Internet safety is a subject talked about in most households
Speaker 0: Is it?
Speaker 1: Especially with vulnerable family members.
Speaker 0: Too hard to grab my household. What's going on with these weird new laws to censor people and shut down dissent? Is there anyone worth voting for anywhere in the world?
Speaker 1: Especially with vulnerable family members, young kids, or seniors.
Speaker 0: Seniors? Don't worry about the elderly. Don't worry about my dad. Dad, what you do, actually, he should be
Speaker 2: in control of what he
Speaker 0: puts on you. He's a pain in the ass. But generally speaking, the elderly aren't the issue, are they? What they're doing and what they generally do is present a situation where they are our protectors in order to take our power and security. It's such an obvious scheme now.
They're such grifters. It's so plain. I can't believe we continue to believe it.
Speaker 1: The Liberal government is hoping its long promised online harms bill will help protect people. The latest version is set to be introduced tomorrow.
Speaker 2: The Liberals' long awaited online harms bill will be introduced Monday.
Speaker 0: Biden keeps saying it's long awaited, long promise. Where's that online homeschool quick, my children? Won't somebody please think of the children? That's not the actual issue. You're a person.
Trust yourself a bit more. Trust your own instinct and evaluation of your own life. What are your problems? Is it resources? Is it expenses?
Is it a crisis of meaning? Is it sort of despair? Is it total distrust and breakdown of society and culture? Is it a kind of weariness from dealing with the deluge of information from people that are telling you that they're protecting you from misinformation that appears to be oddly untrue, like this.
Speaker 2: The latest in a series of sweeping and controversial Internet regulations.
Speaker 0: Things shouldn't be sweeping and controversial at the same time. If you're gonna sweep some ink, make sure everyone bloody well agrees with it.
Speaker 3: We need to make sure, and I think we can all agree, we need to protect our kids, online.
Speaker 0: Justin Trudeau with his various issues should not be wearing black leather gloves. I suppose it's good that it's on the hand rather than the face, given that it's Justin Trudeau, but it's a bit too gestapo for someone who literally awards Nazis in parliament and evokes unnecessary emergency acts, isn't it?
Speaker 2: The proposed bill is aimed at online companies.
Speaker 0: They've got a hooded figure that looks like them people that Nick C-3PO and RTD2 in the first Star Wars film.
Speaker 2: And expected to target hate speech, terrorist content, child exploitation, and the sharing of nonconsensual images, both real and AI generated.
Speaker 0: I bet some of those things there are already laws for. Like, firstly, aren't there? Like, terrorism, I think, is already illegal. I think they're already not supposed to be a pedophile. They aren't real required laws.
This is what we're going to do is legitimise censorship by offering you things that you'll agree with like you want your children safe, you don't agree with hatred and you don't agree with terrorism. Yep. That's everyone in the world thinks that except for for small marginal lunatics and then they're gonna use that to go that was critical of, for example, the trucker protest. Look at their actions and look at what they actually care about. They care about being out of freeze people's bank accounts, care about being able to unperson and shut down dissenting voices and seize control of the media.
Obviously, what the agenda is. This is absolute bunk.
Speaker 2: All with a significant focus on child safety. The conservatives say it's an attempt to censor Canadians, while others hope for even stronger digital protections than those expected in the bill.
Speaker 0: Do you know one of the penalties is life imprisonment? How much stronger could you go than life imprisonment? Justin Trudeau will come around your house and strag you to death in those black gloves of his while singing
Speaker 2: Swanny. Swanny. Legislation like this already exists in several other countries like the UK, Australia, and the EU.
Speaker 0: What a coincidence. Almost as if these bills are being passed everywhere, as if it's some sort of coordinated global effort. Now look, you could say more materially and more skeptically
Speaker 3: if you
Speaker 0: want to be all reasonable about it that the pandemic was a global problem and so having a global response to a global problem is one interpretation and the Internet is a global phenomenon. So having a global response is in some ways sensible. As long as that response is absolutely derived from referenda. As long as it's the response that people want. I mean, as a parent at the moment, when I think who do I want in charge of protecting my children when it comes to online safety and basically, actually, all forms of safety, me.
That's who's in charge of it. Me, my wife, and people I trust. It's not like Justin Trudeau. Get your gloves on. The kids are playing up.
I don't want them lot involved in any way. Obviously, the reason that we are concerned about this raft of legislative measures across the world, Ireland, our country, the UK, Canada, EU, as it was listed in the news report, is because of the potential to misuse these laws to impose control on the population of the country. The people that are really regarded as terrorists, we know this because they use techniques, personnel, agencies, technology that have previously been used on terrorists on domestic populations now. It's common. It's global.
It's ubiquitous. A good example of a domestic population being treated as terrorists is January 6th. Was that a protest or was it an insurrection? Certainly, people have done pretty lengthy jail sentences, in some cases, for simply practicing their right to protest and maybe going a bit over the edge.
Speaker 4: Well, a decision from a federal appeals court could potentially affect the sentences of dozens of January 6 rioters. Now the court ordered a new sentence for a man from Grapevine who stormed the Capitol, saying a judge wrongly applied an enhancement that made his sentence longer. The US attorney's office says that same enhancement has been applied in more than 100 other January 6 cases.
Speaker 0: What this story essentially is is that the law, even as written, has been misused in this instance, and people have served undue sentences. Really? Because they want to make an example of people, didn't they? They've realized, hold a minute, if this demographic, like working class, blue collar people, significant portion of the population becomes disobedient, we got a serious problem because guess what? We need those people to be in our police force.
We need those people to be in our army. We need those people to control themselves. So we better really make an example of them. I'm reminded of about 10 years ago in this country, there were riots and there was a load of looting and stuff like that. And what was weird is they started in London as response to the death of a man in police custody in Tottenham, North London, but then they sort of spread and they were happening all over the country.
So it's almost like this discontent had a kind of contagion or meme appeal. And I think part of the function of these systems that we're currently losing our faith in, the institutions of democracy and media are about ensuring that we don't all spontaneously just go, none of this is working, idiot. Should we start really playing up? So whenever something a bit off color happens like January 6th or the rights in my country, the institutions fire up. Suddenly, they work really quickly.
If you ever tried to get a permit to, like, I don't know, cut a tree or mend something or get some tax that you owed, we'll be back to
Speaker 3: you in 6 to 12 to 18 months. If you could write to this person, if you
Speaker 0: could fill in a form. Try filing a Freedom of Information Act request. See how long it takes for the government to tell you how much they've been spying on you as I've been doing lately. It ain't like, right. Here you go.
This information. Let's go make it rain. Start breaching a few velvet ropes in the capital. Suddenly, the institution of government moved pretty quickly. So Canada introducing and applying for these new laws.
Ireland asking for these new laws. UK passing these laws. EU wanting to pass these laws. It tells you something. They're gearing up to control you.
Speaker 4: If the ruling stands, defendants who have not completed their prison terms may push for new sentences.
Speaker 0: He's not doing so many favors. He's dressed up a little bit but, hey, if dressing up was a crime, I'll tell you who won't be in prison, Justin Trudeau. Canada's justice minister, Arif Virani, has advanced a highly controversial bill named Bill C63, 63 proposing comprehensive new legislation aimed at addressing online hate speech. The bill covers 7 types of harmful material from content sexually exploiting or revictimizing children and survivors to content promoting violence and extremism, but it also outlaws online hatred, so called hate speech, and forms of deepfakes. Also they're doing the classic bureaucratic bunch together, where they take something that anyone would agree with.
For example, if there is a requirement for new legislation to children, I'm sure everyone, except for some real, let's call them out there characters, will be totally down with, yeah, laws to protect children from predators and menace. Get those laws done. But notice how they bunch it together with, like, hate speech. So while you're looking at this, we all agree with, they just push through on the slide. Also, we don't want anyone criticizing Justin Trudeau or the use of the emergency act or the freezing of the bank accounts or the tendency towards globalization and the inability for countries to democrat.
That's what's interesting and important. Let's separate the issues at the front of this, like child safety, from some of the issues like free speech. In an attempt to decrease the prevalence of harmful content, this legislation puts the onus on online platforms to be accountable and transparent about how they handle such content. Platforms like social media and live streaming services are included under the legislation's online services umbrella. Oh, live streaming.
You've noticed that, have you? Like, there's a new emergence of a new phenomena. They're like, oh no, there's whole new markets. This is probably related to the total collapse in trust and use of legacy media outlets. They're realizing, oh, no.
It's moving quicker than we can. Quick. Trapp it. Stomp it down. Censor it.
Control it. Surely. The bill would also create a new stand alone hate crime offense that would apply to every offense in the criminal code and in any other act of parliament, allowing penalties of up to life imprisonment to denounce and deter this hateful conduct as a crime in itself, the briefing explained. Well, that is actually confusing. Stand alone hate crime offence that would apply to every offense in the criminal code.
So it seems to me like they created a bit of legislation that seems quite diffuse, oddly amorphous, and could be applied, it sounds like here, to any other law. Also, you did that hate crime. It sounds like they're trying to find ways to shut down dissent and control information, which is obviously something we're seeing a lot. The proposed law would also raise the maximum punishments for the 4 hate offenses from 5 years to life imprisonment for advocating genocide and from 2 years to 5 years for the others when persecuted by way of indictment. It's interesting that there's a new law being introduced.
Like, people might say stuff or type stuff about a genocide but that isn't the same as doing a genocide and given that we are living through what many people regard to be a genocide right now, why the hell are Canada more interested in people advocating for genocide than people actually committing them. If you're doing a genocide, get your missiles, get your missiles. You don't even have to pay actually because we'll make money by replenishing our previous stocks. And if people
Speaker 3: are saying, oh, those people should be stamped out, like, so which isn't the
Speaker 0: kind of thing that's very nice to say, there's something that gets said and I don't think should carry a life sentence. The Liberal government states that the bill's proposed regulations center on the platforms most frequented by Canadians. However, the specifics will depend on whether these platforms meet the eventual user thresholds. Over time, the government may hold other platforms accountable if these platforms end up posing a significant risk of harm. So they've built into it the possibility that people are just gonna stop using that platform.
It's over regulated. Start using this one. We're on a platform that is free speech absolute and that platform therefore suffers unduly. That's why you should support us on that platform. That's where we make our daily content.
That's where you can support us become a member. Additionally, Bill C 63 proposes establishing a censorship organization which will oversee digital safety issues. Oh I bet they will. Where are they gonna draw those people from? How is it going to be funded?
What will their tastes be? What their inclinations and political affiliations be? We just know that we've lived through the 2 most censored events in history, the COVID-nineteen pandemic heavily censored incorrectly, it has been retrospectively admitted.
Speaker 3: Kind of establishment on that, you know, asked for a bunch of things to be censored that in retrospect ended up being more debatable or or true.
Speaker 0: And the current ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia and its mysterious origins, not to suggest again, as I always say, that the Ukrainian people dying in a war is a terrible thing but the fact is is information is already being heavily controlled, if you facilitate that further you're playing into the hands of a system that's already heading in that direction. Highlighting the Trudeau government's actions during the pandemic, Polleyev remarked Justin Trudeau that anyone who criticized him during the pandemic was engaging in hate speech. This statement underscores a fear that the governments might use the proposed legislation to silence dissent in various scenarios. I think that's almost inevitable. What Trudeau's doing in Canada should terrify everyone in the western world who cares about being free from government tyranny, censorship and disinformation.
That's because Trudeau is pioneering a new way for governments to take control over the information environment, spreading disinformation, and demanding censorship that is similar but different to efforts we are seeing in places like California, Australia and New Zealand. It's truly a global issue. It appears to be built around a pre agreed global structure. No doubt when they have these conferences, wf for example, agreements like this are refined, suggested and a kind of consensus is agreed upon, otherwise why would this be happening? People across the western world were rightly alarmed when Trudeau invoked for the first time in Canadian history the emergency measures act and froze bank accounts of people who had simply donated to the truckers cause.
Trudeau's crackdown on the Freedom Convoy protesters was followed by efforts to regulate and control the Internet. His online streaming act and online news act gave the government expansive new powers to regulate what happens and what you see online. The atmosphere created by Trudeau and his party is completely upending Canadian society,
Speaker 3: leading to the persecution of his detractors and limiting speech and expression.
Speaker 0: If we persecution of his detractors and limiting speech and expression. If we see more laws like this, we will see more problems like this. And as we keep illustrating and reiterating it's happening everywhere. Have you not noticed that our politicians seem similar, seem to have a similar agenda, seem to be funded in similar ways, seem to have comparable interests even right down to their hobbies, haircuts, dress sense and global conferences that they attend. In looking to defend minorities and promote culture, Trudeau's Liberals are everything they once feared.
They are authoritarian, anti democratic, anti liberal. And what's happening in Canada is not separate from what's happening in the US, the UK, Europe and Brazil, but intimately connected to those nations. Trudeau isn't so different from President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, governor Gavin Newsom, and most other Democrats in the US. The difference is is that he's ahead of them. Yes.
And if you consider say the truckers protests and then consider the events of January 6th and even something like the burgeoning support among truckers in New York, these, I imagine, are actually the issues that they would like to address with new legislation. I actually don't think they care that much about protecting your children. Certainly, there are many rumors that there are many in the political class that have the exact opposite view. According to Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party supporters, he and their party are the party of compassion for vulnerable people, freedom, and Canadian culture. Liberals care in their view while conservatives don't care.
Trudeau has proclaimed his loyalty to the United Nations declaration of human rights and the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. And when the Liberals introduced their social media reforms legislation, they said the goal was to promote Canadian culture, ensure the sustainability of the news industry, and guarantee we heard from marginalised voices. But a government cannot claim to care about the vulnerable or about freedom while freezing the bank account of a single mother working on a minimum wage job as Trudeau's government did. Nor can the government claim to care about the vulnerable or freedom while trying to regulate the internet to prevent further protests and challenges to Trudeau's government. Trudeau constantly splits the population into liberal angels and conservative devils You either believe in liberal climate policy or are a climate denier according to Trudeau.
You either mask up and vax up or are putting lives at risks. You either support the radical demands of trans activists or you hate sexual minorities. Trudeau's actions aren't about social progress. They're about power and control. Trudeau embodies many of the traits of left wing authoritarians.
All authoritarians support censorship and submission. They tend to believe this is necessary because in their minds, the population is naive and cannot be trusted. Perhaps this focus on children is an unconscious declaration of the more deep intent at play. But we are all regarded as children insomuch as we are denied the right to true autonomy in the way that a child has to be protected, in the way that any parent would take personal responsibility if they can for the welfare of their children rather than deferring that to the state particularly when it seems that the state do not truly understand the power that they're playing with and in whose hands they are truly placing this power. When they create diffuse laws that bundle together the safety of children online, the elderly online, when they're not euthanizing them at the first sign of sniffles, and their control and removal of hate speech, which impedes on rights which are necessary in democracy when they say that democracy is the thing they prize above all else.
So do these new laws in Canada protect you or do they prevent you from being autonomous and free, having free speech and your rights as an adult citizen. Do these laws that are being passed across the world that bear very similar inflections and contain very similar clauses that are similarly diffuse and could be similarly exploited, indicate that whether you are in the United States of America or Brazil or the UK or Ireland, you are now being subject to new measures of control precisely because in these online technologies, we have the ability for new true diversity
Speaker 3: Rumble.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
This COVID Commission Will Change EVERYTHING…And It’s Only Just Starting As excess deaths increasingly come to light, why are governments around the world refusing to look into the causes? Let's take a look 👉https://bit.ly/LocalsExclusiveHTN04
Video Transcript AI Summary
Today, we discuss an inquiry in Australia that intentionally avoids discussing excess deaths. This COVID inquiry aims to maintain the status quo and not bring about significant changes. It is disheartening to see that 30 million vaccine doses are being wasted because of low demand. People are becoming more aware of the importance of vaccines, but there still needs to be further investigation into vaccine injuries and their causes. It is known that AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson vaccines have caused adverse effects, and since they do not prevent transmission or infection, it is not surprising that some people are hesitant to take them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Today, we're talking about the various inquiries into excess death and focusing actually on the one that's taking place in Australia which deliberately omits talking about excess death. Essentially, it's a COVID inquiry that's designed to have a particular outcome. We are staying in charge and we're not going to change very much at all. Let's have a look. It's it's sad to say.
I'm in the process of throwing 30,000,000 doses into the garbage because nobody wants them. We can't give these things away. Amazing things. You can watch that chart, you can see people beginning to awaken to the efficacy or necessity even of those vaccines. Again, there still has to be a good degree of investigation into vaccine injuries and what caused them.
We know that AstraZeneca now caused, we know that Johnson Johnson caused, we know that all of them seems to cause and what's happening is because they don't stop transmission, they don't stop infection, there's no real reason. I mean, why are they surprised people didn't take them? They can't say they were because, woah.
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
bit.ly
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Breaking NEWS - Jeffrey Epstein's client list to be named PLUS Julian Assange is getting a hearing!
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker mentions that a live show with Russell Brand will be airing on Rumble. They highlight that a court document will name 170 high-profile associates of Jeffrey Epstein and that Julian Assange is having a hearing. The speaker wonders if this is a moment of optimism for the radical movement and if the establishment is feeling threatened. However, another speaker believes that Epstein's case is over. The video ends with a reminder to watch the show and stay free.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: You're gonna watch day 3 tonight with Russell Brand. Aren't you live on Rumble? Why? Because 170 of Jeffrey Epstein's high profile associates will be named in a court document. Plus Assange is getting a hearing.
Do you think this is a moment of optimism in the radical movement. Is the establishment quaking? Is it possible that we could have Julian Assange breed and Epstein's list names, and
Speaker 1: I don't think Jeffrey Epstein coming back up a minute. I think it's over for that guy.
Speaker 0: Watch us on Stay Free With Russell Brand at at this time in your principality. Until then, stay free.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Get the NEWS on today's show🗞️ https://bit.ly/StayFree-270-Elon-Attacked https://bit.ly/StayFree-270-Elon-Attacked
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
bit.ly
Bitly | Page Not Found | 404
bit.ly
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
How does this make you feel? https://t.co/JDE230iCpC
Video Transcript AI Summary
When discussing the unvaccinated, some speakers express frustration and blame towards them for the current situation. They argue that the unvaccinated are causing harm, spreading misinformation, and not considering the well-being of society. Suggestions are made to make vaccinations mandatory, impose higher healthcare costs on the unvaccinated, and treat their choice similarly to driving under the influence. The speakers emphasize that COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented and criticize those who spread misinformation.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When the chips are down, these, these civilized people, they'll eat each other.
Speaker 1: You are the unvaccinated. You are the problem. It is the unvaccinated who are the problem, period. End of story.
Speaker 2: The only people that you can blame The only people you can blame this isn't shaming. This is the truth. Maybe they should be shamed by the unvaccinated.
Speaker 3: It's time to start Blaming the unvaccinated folks, not the regular folks.
Speaker 2: Anyone you came into contact with will blame you as will the rest of who have done the right thing by getting vaccinated.
Speaker 4: Because, frankly, we know that we can't trust the unvaccinated. I think
Speaker 5: it's time to get our moral house in order, Anderson. It's the unvaccinated who are the threat.
Speaker 1: All these vaccinated folks are gonna start wearing masks to protect the unvaccinated folks. It's called a Christian value. You're basically punishing the vaccinated, for the The sins of the unvaccinated.
Speaker 4: People are not behaving honorably. The unvaccinated are basically saying, well, it's open season for me. I can do whatever I want as well.
Speaker 5: The the unvaccinated are basically beating their breasts running around the country saying, we don't care. We're living free and so forth.
Speaker 6: We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin.
Speaker 0: The unvaccinated, a group that includes children and people acting like children, And the rest of us are starting to get pissed off. The vaccinated feel the unvaccinated are making me upset or angry.
Speaker 6: This is not about freedom A personal choice.
Speaker 5: Well, my freedom is being kind of disturbed here. No. Screw your freedom.
Speaker 4: The other day, Howard Stern weighed in with a much different approach. Take a look.
Speaker 0: When are
Speaker 2: we gonna stop putting up with the idiots in this country and just say you now it's mandatory to get vaccinated? Their freedom.
Speaker 4: But you're treading on our freedom, and you're making other people sick. And, really, you're killing other people. The anti vaxxers, they seem to have a thing for death and Home remedies.
Speaker 7: The anti maskers turned anti vaxxers are not just putting their own lives at risk. If that was the key issue, we could just say that We can watch them compete to win place or show in the Darwin Awards. You have
Speaker 2: to start doing things for the greater good of society and not for idiots who think that they can do their own research. And don't get me started on the lunatics who won't take any of the COVID vaccines.
Speaker 3: Life is too short to be an ass. Life is way too short To be ignorant of the promise of something that is helping people worldwide.
Speaker 8: Maybe you're doing it because, you're you're disconnected or disorganized. Maybe you have some Sympathetic psychological reasons, but maybe you're just being antisocial.
Speaker 2: Oh, you can't shame them. You can't call them stupid. You can't call them silly. Yes. They are.
Speaker 6: Those who are not vaccinated will end up paying the price.
Speaker 0: The unvaccinated should be taxed. They should pay more for health care.
Speaker 4: We To start looking at the choice to remain unvaccinated the same as we look at driving while intoxicated.
Speaker 2: We're gonna see, and I've said, almost Mhmm. 2 types of America. Doctor Fauci said that if hospitals get any more overcrowded, they're gonna have to make some very tough choices about who gets an ICU bed. I don't that choice doesn't seem so tough to me. Vaccinated person having a heart attack, yes.
Come right on in. We'll take care of you. Unvaccinated guy who gobbled horse goo, rest in peace, Wheezy.
Speaker 1: Pointing back to the unvaccinated who are really creating a problem in this country. Every death that we are seeing from COVID could have Been prevented.
Speaker 0: Literally, the only people dying are the unvaccinated. And for those of you spreading misinformation, shame on you. Shame on you. I don't know how some of you sleep at night.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
"Oh no... either we're about to be living in a land of giants or something's gone dreadfully awry" - @DowdEdward explains the statistics behind a 2023 rise in child deaths in the UK https://t.co/Bua05MA04Q
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, Edward discusses the excess death rate for children in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic. Initially, the death rate decreased as children were less affected by the virus and the lockdown measures reduced accidental deaths. However, in 2021, the death rate for children increased significantly, reaching a new high of 20%, which is six standard deviations from the norm. This level of increase is highly unlikely, equivalent to the birth of many seven-foot giants. The speaker expresses concern about the unusual rise in child deaths and suggests that something has gone wrong in the past couple of years.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's have, a look. We've got a few stills taken from your book, Cause Unknown. Let's have a look at the first one. What's going on with excess death rate for the for children in the UK? Can you talk us through this still, please, Edward?
Speaker 1: Yeah. So this is research we've done since the book. And, So in the UK, excess deaths, during COVID were going down because children were unaffected by the virus for the most part. And the greatest cause of death for children ages 1 through 14 is, accidental. And because of the lockdowns and the school closures, Remote schooling and whatnot, their deaths went down.
But then they started to go back up in 'twenty one, what's They reached a new height in 2023 of 20%, which is, a 6 standard deviation from norm. And, a standard deviation is basically a probability from from normal. So that'd be like the equivalent of a 7 foot giant being born, or many of them, so to speak.
Speaker 0: It's the equivalent of many 7 foot giants being born. He said that that sort of is a a statistical is that unlikely?
Speaker 1: That's very unlikely, and that that's the math. The 5 standard this was 6. Five standard deviations is the 7 foot giant being born.
Speaker 0: Oh no. Even we're about to be living in a land of giants, which I'd kind of be into, or something's gone dreadfully awry in the last a couple of years Stay Free. See It First on Rumble.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
In the US 🇺🇸 "it's the highest expenditure on GDP healthcare, with the worst health outcomes" @DrAseemMalhotra on what happens when you allow big corporations to control information in health care. https://t.co/MEpZ00RYC9
Video Transcript AI Summary
In an interview with John Abramson, a Harvard lecturer and expert in drug litigation, he discusses how America's commercialization of medical knowledge has led to the highest healthcare expenditure with the worst health outcomes. The country has experienced a decline in life expectancy and an increase in chronic diseases. Abramson attributes this to drug companies prioritizing profit over providing the best treatment and controlling information about their drugs. He highlights that prescribed medications are the third leading cause of death globally. He also connects these issues to the neoliberal economic model promoted by figures like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and economist Milton Friedman, who believed that corporations should prioritize profits over people. This mindset helps explain the current state of healthcare. The COVID mRNA vaccine mandates have further exposed this issue.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Yesterday, I interviewed John Abramson, lecturer at Harvard. He's been involved in more drug litigation cases than probably any doctor on the planet. And he wrote a book called Sickening How Big Pharma Broke American Healthcare. And what he said to me was quite interesting. He said that America Keh has really shown it's it's it's been a natural experiment, at the extreme end is what what of what happens when you commercialize medical knowledge And look at what what's happened as he said already, it's a highest expenditure in wealthy countries, when it comes to GDP on healthcare with the worst health outcomes, they've They're losing years of their life expectancy, even pre pandemic.
They've lost at least 2 years of their life expectancy by 2019. They've Got more people with chronic disease, you know, in, in any Western country. So the health is getting worse. And that really is a great example of what happens when you allow drug companies as you've alluded to already big corporations, whose only interest is profit, not to give the best treatment to control the information. And and and what that means exaggerating the safety and benefits of their drugs.
And just For people to understand this, in a bit more depth, you know, one estimate from a very prestigious, eminent, scientist called Doctor. Peter Gersha, co founder of the Cochrane Collaboration. A few years ago, he said that the 3rd most common cause of death globally after heart disease and cancer is prescribed medications, what your doctor prescribes for you because of those very reasons. So I think those Absolutely at the heart of the problem. And I think that also comes back to, you know, this neoliberal economic model you mentioned.
I think the roots of where the acceleration of these problems have, you know, have started actually is from this Neoliberal economic model that was promulgated by Ronald Rego and Margaret Thatcher. And Milton Friedman, as you know, Russell, the Nobel prize winning economist, who was a brainchild behind that. He in effect said that in the book, The Corporation written by law professor Joel Bakan. He said it is immoral. He said it is immoral for big corporations to put people before profits.
Think about that for a second. If you've got that kind of culture and mindset within business, it helps explain why we are, where we are. And of course, we've even seen that come out with, you know, being exposed probably to the greatest level we we will ever see with the mandating of the COVID mRNA vaccines.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
"Both sides know things are getting more bitter and more divided" @RichardHanania shares his vision for a decentralised society
Video Transcript AI Summary
Living in a centralized state with heavy taxation and control by institutions that no longer represent the interests of ordinary people may not be advantageous. However, there are benefits to the nation state, such as trade opportunities and economies of scale. Nevertheless, there is a growing sense that a centralized government is becoming dysfunctional, particularly in social engineering. Both conservatives and liberals acknowledge the increasing bitterness and division, with no clear victory in sight. This winner-take-all system leads to fights in courts and media. Relying on Washington for social policy and other matters may not be sustainable.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: What is the advantage for the ordinary American? The ordinary French person, senegalese person, English person, Finnish person, of living in a centralized state where you are heavily taxed, heavily controlled by sets of institutions that plainly now no longer represent your interest
Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, there's a lot there. I think you'll, you know, you'd like you'd like the last chapter of my book where I talk really about, you know, sort of the decentralization of social policy see. Look, I, you know, I wouldn't go so as, as far as to say, sort of the nation state, you know, is too big at its field. I think it has many advantages that you really, you know, don't notice until it's gone.
Like, you know, the fact that, you know, we can, you know, we can trade with, you know, all these people, you know, there's there's there's wealth advantages. There's economies of scale. But in the set, but there is a sense where we don't need, and, you know, where it's it's sort of becoming dysfunctional, to have a centralized government, to this extent. And that is, you know, like, it's it's in social engineering. I mean, I think it's clear that you ask any conservative or any liberal, anybody either side of the culture war, like, do you believe there is coming one day where you can just defeat your enemies?
Like, one day, you know, liberals will have, you know, trans, you know, you know, complete trans acceptance or the conservatives believe they're gonna set up like a Christian theocracy or anything like that. I think both sides know that, like, things are getting more bitter and more divided. And, like, even if one side wins the next election gets 51% of the vote, the other side's gonna have their own, you know, they're gonna be in control of other states and other locals. They're gonna push back and we're gonna fight these things out in the courts and we're gonna fight these things out in the media. And, you know, there's, there it's just a sort of a pessimistic vision if you assume that we have to have a national culture where basically social policy and all these other things, you know, come from Washington.
It's sort of a winner take all system.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
Your agenda and my agenda is not their agenda - that's it.
Video Transcript AI Summary
Biden blames Russia for the ongoing war in Ukraine and urges the UN to help end it. He mentions Trump's promise to end the war in 24 hours and suggests making a perfect phone call to Putin and Zelensky. He questions the role of NATO and criticizes the media for not exposing the truth. He argues that Russia holds the power to end the war and questions the purpose of the conference if they have no power. He claims that Russia wants Ukraine's capitulation and mentions the casualties in Ukraine. He emphasizes the importance of independent media in presenting facts and promoting debate. He warns of potential future conflicts, such as the semiconductor issue in Taiwan. Biden pledges support for Ukraine's sovereignty and freedom.
Full Transcript
Biden told the UN that Russia and Russia alone are responsible for the current war. An illegal war of conquest brought without provocation by Russia against its neighbor Ukraine. Like every nation in the world, the United States wants this war to end. Couldn't you dedicate your time, attention and significant resources to bringing that about? Not all of you will love Donald Trump, but all of you will have heard him say I'd end this war 24 hours. If I were president, I will end that war in one day. It'll take 24 hours. 24 hours. Oh, how would you do that? I'd call Zelensky. I'd call Putin. It'd be perfect phone call. Perfect phone call. He'd tell Putin, listen, we're going to amplify this shit. I know, you know, listen, I'm not claiming to be an expert in geopolitics. What I'm claiming is it's visible, demonstrable, verifiable and evident that the United States is prolonging this war for its actions. You could end this Ukrainian-Russia war in 24 hours. Russia alone bears responsibility for this war. That's just not how, like, history works, is it? We know that to say that Russia and Russia alone, it's not that. Like, didn't NATO, that Stoltenberg dude, the other day goes, oh, well, what happened was Putin said, if you do this, we're going to do that. And we just did it. President Putin sent a draft treaty that he wanted NATO to sign to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was a precondition for not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that. The opposite happened. I mean, that in itself, that's a form of provocation. Why are we not, in a democracy, able to say, what's the role of NATO? Do we need NATO? What's the function of NATO? Are NATO behaving responsibly? Do we have a shared agenda? This is the truth behind all this. Your agenda and my agenda is not their agenda. That's it. That's it, put simply. The agenda of the government and the interests that they serve are so opposing to yours that the only way that this massive conflict can't be exposed that would lead to revolution is for a media that lies to you. That's it. If they went, your government's gone mental. They're running a whole bunch of wars now that are none of your business. Do you want that? Let's have a vote on it. That's not possible, is it? If you're not voting on it, if you're not discussing it, it's because it's not in your interest. That's why. Russia alone has the power to end this war immediately. And it's Russia alone that stands in the way of peace. If Russia actually are that powerful, maybe they should just be in charge of everything. That's what he's claiming. The UN and the United States and the United States military and their backers have no power, then what are you having a conference for? Why don't you go home? Why don't you find some new ways to profit? Simply untrue. This is astonishing when you actually look at it. This is propaganda live and we just carry on with our lives. I mean, I suppose because in some ways it seems irrelevant and abstract and in a way is abstract and irrelevant because you can't really do anything about it. Except, as I say, participate in a massive campaign of disobedience and join a movement that opposes this kind of thing. Red button. That's not a nuclear button, Joe. Because the Russia's price for peace is Ukraine's capitulation, Ukraine's territory and Ukraine's children. I mean, they actually want the children. That's actually, I'll tell you from personal experience, it's actually very difficult to bring them up. What I would say is that they want the capitulation of Russia. That's what they want. So they've said that. It's not me saying this. They've said publicly the objective is to join Russia. We are having a proxy war with Russia. We don't have to have Americans die, the Ukrainians. Remember that thing? Ukraine are getting casually adverse. This is the problem. This is why they want to censor these spaces because this is just from memory. You can just go, hold on, but they said that. They said that. The fact is, is through independent media like this, not exclusively us, but I'm proud to say it includes us and we are here because of you. We can just say, no, wait a minute. It's not just Russia's fault because of these 10 facts. Boom. And if you can't address those 10 facts, what you've got yourself there is a conversation, a debate. And they don't want to have a conversation and debate because they're lying. Russia believes the world will grow weary and allow it to brutalize Ukraine without consequence. Go on then, brutalize Ukraine without consequence. Get a reductive simplification of a complex situation. If you allow Ukraine to be carved up, is the independence of any nation secure? I'd respectfully suggest the answer is no. Respectfully suggest. Weird rhetoric involved in this stuff. Of course, it's odd to hear the inversion of the facts. Is it if we can do this, if we can say that, if they can do this, if they can do that. In a sense, the very thing that Biden suggests we ought be terrified of is already happening. And he is his figurehead. We have to stand up to this negative aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow. Ah, there's another war coming. Semiconductors in Taiwan. Get ready. Oh, if you enjoyed Star Wars, you're going to love the return of the semiconductor. That's why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom. Couldn't even get to the end of the phrase territorial integrity because it was so lacking in integrity.
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
This is our medical special! Why is life expectancy in decline? Is our food system rigged to keep us sick? Does big Pharma put profits over your health?!
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this medical special on longevity, we have Dr. Paul Saladino discussing the rising trend of the carnivore diet and its effectiveness. He challenges the belief that meat is bad for us and highlights its nutritional benefits. Dr. Rhonda Patrick also joins the conversation. The research on the brain has caught their attention, and they discuss the need for a revolution in the way we grow, produce, market, and consume food. Dr. Mark Hyman emphasizes the crisis we are facing. On Rumble, we hear from Dr. Peter Attia, who questions why we are so obsessed with extending our finite lives.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: This is our medical special, our longevity show. We aim to keep you alive longer. We've got doctor Paul Saladino. He's our 1st doctor. He's gonna be talking about the rising trend of the carnivore diet and its efficacy.
Does it work? We've been told that meat is bad for us. But when I look at the science, I think meat is good for humans nutritionally. You and I can talk about the ethics. We're also gonna talk to the doctor Rhonda Patrick.
And so I started looking into this research. I'm like, there is something going on in the brain. Doctor Mark Hyman, who looks like John Stewart but talks like a medical expert. We're in a bit of a crisis. And unless we revolutionize the way we grow food, The food we produce, the food we market, the food we eat, we're in Drummle.
And if you're joining us on Rumble, you will see Doctor. Peter Assia. What is it about our finitude that obsesses us? Why are we trying to extend life?
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
After all the years of free orgasms a chance for teenagers to give me something back. Vote here http://bit.ly/c54pwk
@rustyrockets - Russell Brand
This is happening
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speaker addresses disturbing letters received from mainstream media outlets, accusing them of attacking and undermining the news. The speaker denies serious criminal allegations made against them, stating that their past relationships were always consensual. They question if there is another agenda at play, citing previous coordinated media attacks on individuals like Joe Rogan. The speaker believes there is an agenda to control voices like theirs and urges viewers to stay awake and free. They mention witnesses who contradict the narratives being constructed by the media outlets. The speaker promises to investigate the matter further.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hello there, you awakening wonders. Now this isn't the usual type of video we make on this channel where we critique, attack, and undermine the news in all its corruption because in this story, I am the news. I've received 2 extremely disturbing letters or a letter and an email, 1 from a mainstream media TV company, one from a newspaper listing a litany of extremely egregious and aggressive attacks as well as some pretty stupid stuff like, my community festival should be stopped, that I shouldn't be able to attack mainstream media narratives on this channel. But amidst this litany of astonishing, rather baroque attacks are some very serious allegations that I absolutely refute. These allegations pertain to the time when I was working in the mainstream, when I was in the newspapers all the time, when I was in the movies, and as I've written about extensively in my books, I was very, very promiscuous.
Now during that time of promiscuity the relationships I had were absolutely always consensual. I was always transparent about that then, almost too transparent, and I'm being transparent about it now as well. And to see that transparency metastasized into something criminal that I absolutely deny makes me question, is there another agenda at play? Particularly when we've seen coordinated media attacks before like with Joe Rogan, when he dared to take a medicine that the mainstream media didn't approve of, and we saw a spate of headlines from media outlets across the world using the same language. I'm aware that you guys have been saying in the comments for a while, watch out, Russell.
They're coming for you. You're getting too close to the truth. Russell Brand did not kill himself. I know that a year ago there was a spate of articles, Russell Brand's a conspiracy theorist, Russell Brand's right wing. I'm aware of news media making phone calls, sending letters to people I know for ages and ages, it's been clear to me, or at least it feels to me, like there's a serious and concerted agenda to control these kind of spaces and these kind of voices, and I mean my voice along with your voice.
I don't mind them using my books and my stand up to talk about my promiscuous consensual conduct in the past, what I seriously refute are these very, very serious criminal allegations. Also, it's worth mentioning that there are witnesses whose evidence directly contradicts the narratives that these 2 mainstream media outlets are trying to construct apparently in what seems to me to be a coordinated attack. Now, I I don't want to get into this any further because of the serious nature of the allegations, but I feel like I'm being attacked and plainly they are working very closely together. We are obviously going to look into this matter because it's very, very serious. In the meantime, I want you to stay close, stay awake, but more important than any of that, if you can, please stay free.