“You’re Dealing With A SCAM!” Nick Hudson On WHO Pandemic Treaty - Stay Free #358
01:00:48 Share

Hello you awakening wonders there on Spotify, Apple, Stink Whistle,

gurgle dot or wherever you download your podcast these days to remain at least peripherally connected to some tendril of truth in a bewildering miasma of lies and propaganda we appreciate you and we love you you're part of our community so that's why we're very happy to give you an audio version of our live rumble show five days a week it's on monday to friday we decipher the latest news stories we break down current topics that the mainstream media should be covering and if they aren't

then we critique why they're not and what they are covering. Every week as well, right, we do brilliant conversations with people like Jordan Peterson, RFK, Tucker, Carlson, Sam Harris, Vandana Shiva, Gabor Mate. These things are already up and you can listen to them now. So remember, this is an audio version of our daily live show. To tune in live, go to rumble.com forward slash Russell Brand. You'll find it easily and I hope that you will love it.

Now, please enjoy this episode of Stay Free with Russell Brand. Thanks.

Hello there, you awakening wonders. Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand. And indeed, it is an extraordinary episode if you're interested in freedom. There's not many people in the COVID pandemic space that are willing to draw extraordinary conclusions based on arithmetic and understanding of the type of modeling that was deployed and how that

in itself was utilised to propagandise an entire planet into terror. Nick Hudson is such a man. He has a unique insight into the way that the media, the state and the pharmaceutical industry of course benefited from presenting information in a particular way. But I've got so many questions. Like what about people that were on the ground? What about the

good, honest, key workers and health professionals that were on the ground experiencing the pandemics and the intensive care units full of people on ventilators in dread. What about those people that are reporting how various medications and lockdown measures saved their lives? Well, there's so much to cover and we'll be covering it all. Of course, we can't cover it on YouTube because of

Curiously enough, the kind of censorship that became normalized during the pandemic period and is increasingly being used to shut down dissent on a variety of topics, whether it's war, whether it's pandemics, whether it's climate change, you name it, there's censorship on it. Indeed, what we are experiencing now is a war against dissent and we have to win that war.

through dissent. So even by participating in this conversation right now, you are participating in the revolution. But why not dig a little deeper? Why not become an awakened wonder? Join our community every single week. We do an exclusive video. This week's one is a beautiful dive into fluoride. And is it conspiracy theory or conspiracy fact? You get to join us live for conversations and put...

your content and inquiries to our experts. We meditate every week and we've got a book club where we're learning more about, well, Christianity and a variety of theologies and ideas. It's a beautiful movement to be a part of. So let's get into our conversation with Nick Hudson right now. And we'll be with you for about 10 minutes on YouTube, not a lot longer because me and Nick Hudson, we get into this stuff and he straight away, he's

defaming some of the most powerful forces in the world. That's why you're going to love this conversation. This is it. This is the time you have been waiting for. This is the moment that we are called upon to participate in this movement. Thank you for joining us. Click the link in the description. I'll tell you when, I'll tell you when, but let's get into our conversation with Nick Hudson without further ado. Nick, thank you so much for joining us today. Real pleasure to be here and hello to your community.

Thank you very much. We have become a community through necessity in adversity and granted the incredible opportunity of this new movement somewhat as a result of what we learned during the pandemic period. From what I understand about your work and what I understand about the organizations that you participate in and lead, the pandemic period has been a significant time of awakening for

for you. Can you please explain to our audience precisely how your purview of the world altered during the pandemic period and what were the most sort of notable stations of the cross as it were? Yeah, with pleasure. I guess my first moment of shock awakening was right at the beginning of

By qualification, I'm an actuary, so I sort of have an easy way around data and was looking for some signs of what this whole COVID story was about. And it was very obvious very early on that the risk was being dramatically exaggerated if there was even one at all.

And I could see there was just tons of propaganda floating around. And those two pieces together with my inability to find many people in my network that I thought was pretty solid, who I could even speak to about this problem, those things woke me up to the dawning of a real problem in the world. And over the next few years, it just went from bad to worse,

Before we continue, here's a quick message. Do you have trouble sleeping or staying asleep? Perhaps because you're a busy parent or you work incredibly hard. I have to sleep well every night. I can't muck about because I have to look after my family. I have to do my job well. Now, Dream is a luxurious drink blend filled with the highest quality sleep promoting ingredients. It will help you to fall asleep.

and stay asleep. This is my favorite one, peanut butter, but there are other flavors as well. Here they are. Now you can incorporate this easily into your night to routine like I have done. It helps me wake up refreshed, not at all groggy like other sleep promoting agents might. If you get a subscription, it saves you 20% every single month, not to mention you get a little free frother look. One scoop of beam dream is clinically shown to help you fall asleep faster, sleep through the night,

and wake up fully refreshed, visit shopbeam.com slash russellbrand. Use the code brand to get my exclusive discount of up to 35% off. And also, they'll know that you use this code. It'll make this advert look like a real triumph.

Okay, before I leave you on YouTube, you should know that you can learn more about Nick on pandata.org and on Substack using Panda Uncuts. The links for those sites are in the description. We are going to leave YouTube. Okay, Nick, let's get back into it.

I've gone the full yard on this whole story. Our organization doesn't believe that there was a pandemic. The whole thing's been a fake. We don't believe that there was a novel pathogen spreading from a point source. We think that the harms that there were, and there were indeed harms, were largely caused by the reaction to the reported viral outbreak.

harms from bad treatment protocols, harms from fear and panic, harms from inappropriate use of medicines, inappropriate testing with PCR, crazy, crazy timelines of approval, et cetera, et cetera. So we've basically reached the point after years and years of careful study

where we say that the entire pandemic was a fraud. That's an extraordinary conclusion to have reached. Although when you...

announced that fear was a component in creating the conditions. Even the legacy media reported, I noted this week, that perhaps one of the reasons there's been a radical increase in cardiac arrest in recent years might be because of an increase in anger. There are a spate of stories suggesting that might be the cause for the extraordinary increase in heart conditions. We've

that have been observed in the last few years. If I can pick up on one of the early points in your last response, the fact that you're an actuary, what do you, I know what that word means, that it means that you have a good understanding of mathematical data. So what in particular about the mathematical data sets in the early part of the pandemic has led you to what to many people will be the astonishing conclusion that there was not a pandemic, particularly in the mathematical data?

Well, you know, it was really clear that there was no risk presented to even vaguely healthy people under the age of 70. So to call a disease that maybe presents a threat to people with many other comorbidities and among the elderly people, most of whom are in old age homes or in ICU's at hospitals, to call a disease of that nature a pandemic, that's a fraud.

Then some months later in 2020, we began to get the first kind of granular data. So that would be, you know, information at a very detailed geographic location. And when we looked at that data from the UK, from Italy, from the United States, what we couldn't see was the telltale signs of pathogenic disease.

spread. Those are called cluster and ripple effects. And we could not detect those in data from anywhere on the planet. So this whole story that there was a novel deadly virus spreading and causing harm amongst the general population and everybody needed to hide under their beds was false. That was that. It's interesting when some of the ideas that emerge

not necessarily contradict each other, but may not complement each other as neatly as I would like. For example, when people say that, and there is some evidence to suggest that the pan, that what was taking place in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was dual purpose research, that the EcoHealth Alliance patented a particular pathogen that

was likely, at least there's some evidence to suggest, was related to the outbreak of COVID-19, identifiable by its somewhat unique cleavage site. When we say that there was not a pan... They're saying, OK, this thing was created in a lab. It's a bioweapon.

And you're saying that because there was no cluster and ripple effect, which is a sort of a requirement in a pandemic for it to even warrant the use of that term.

do you see that there's a sort of a contradiction there? They're saying it was a man-made in a virus. It's a man-made in a lab. And you're saying that actually, in a sense, from the beginning, it should never have been described as a pandemic. From the very offset, what we should have been told is there's a pathogen that appears to, if you have respiratory conditions or comorbidities, may cause

reduce your life expectancy by several months. Do you think that would be a sort of a fair assessment?

And then what do you do with the contradiction? That would be a fair assessment if somebody had actually done the homework to check that there was a spreading pathogen. You know, certainly the way it was described bore no relationship to reality. You know, I think it's very good that you're raising this question of what went on in Wuhan, because clearly there were people who wanted to do the so-called gain-of-function research, and there were people who wanted to fund them, and maybe some money flowed.

Who knows? Maybe they did create new sequences, new virological components.

But at the most, what they delivered at the end of their process was really better referred to as claim of function, not gain of function, because we can't see any of that function in the real world. Or to put it another way, you know, if they did make something that kind of leaked or got out or was released or whatever the case may be, it wasn't a bioweapon. It was a biopop gun.

And so I think it is very important to not lose sight of that whole Wuhan story because I think it's part of the presentation to us of an entirely false dichotomy. This idea that we must choose between the lab leak by a weapon and a zoonotic event, a bat bumping into a pangolin in a bar kind of story.

There's no reason to that we should have to confine ourselves to those two alternatives. What I believe is more likely is that these PCR tests were dipping into a signal that was already quite widely distributed in the human population. And that what was happening was they were finding those cases as the PCR test spread. That's where the cases spread. It wasn't the spread of a virus. It was the spread of a test.

And as people began testing positive, they did so in an environment of hysteria and panic and massively reduced standards of care in the hospital and nursing home sectors.

Excellent. It's commonly understood in the circles of discourse that you and I presumably both inhabit, although you with more eloquence and understanding than I, that the PCR test itself has been invalidated even by its creator, who has said it was never designed to be used in the manner that it was deployed previously.

during this period and that the rate of either, I don't know, amplification, acceleration or magnification rendered its results redundant and ultimately irrelevant.

But beyond the... So you're saying that essentially people started testing for something, like if we started testing for freckles tomorrow, we'd say, there's a freckle pandemic. People have got freckles everywhere. Shut down the shops. Put everyone in prison. I've got a freckle medicine. Take it. Don't you care about your grandmother, you bastard? Take your freckle medicine.

You're an enemy of the state. Are you sure this freckle medicine stops transition? We've not tested it for transmission. Shut up and take your children out of school. Then you'd get people like me who have asymptomatic freckles. It's perfect. Yeah, because there are melanoma and stuff where they're probably worth having a good look at. Okay, so my point is that...

That's not my point. It's your point. They just started testing for something. But so you're saying that this and I've heard this idea before, like, you know, that when people say that the vaccines were patented ages ago and that people were running test pandemic events, you know, in 2016 or whatever, does your conclusion that there was no pandemic align with that?

That idea that this so that the covid covid has been in the population for ages, 10 years, five years, 20 years, whatever. And they just start testing for it. And yeah. And all those other points I made.

Yeah, I mean, you know, if you look at virology prior to 2020, people are very clear that these people who believe in the whole theory of virology, at least, are very clear that there are swarms of these things and they co-evolve in a very complex kind of fashion. So this whole idea that there's a single sequence that races around the world is false. There's what's called a consensus sequence, which is the perceived average across a whole swarm of these things.

And there's a lot of controversy around whether these things spread in an intact and robust way, whether they can indeed travel around the world or even outside of your neighborhood. The thing that's been astonishing for me is just in the face of the great complexity of the human body and its interaction with viral particles, how many of these virologists are simply prepared to make massive claims?

Without robust evidence. It's kind of like they have a just so story that they pass down the generations of academics and virology departments. Yeah, I'm not sure which one of the versions of those stories is better than the next.

But certainly when you look at their own work prior to 2020, they never talk in terms of a single stable variant that suddenly spreads to all corners of the planet. So, yeah, I kind of am very much not at all inclined to go along with any elements of

of the narrative of spreading pathogen having caused harm in the human population from 2020 on. I love that. I mean, so in a sense, what you're saying is about, in a way, taxonomies and semantics that even to say, like with any virus, not just COVID, you would have to say, well, actually, this thing is evolving so rapidly that to refer to it as a sort of a single object is

reductive. I understand that. That's excellent. But will you help me to understand this? Like this will be sort of, you know, because you're so, I,

ardent and informed in your position, it means that I can really get into some lovely devil's advocate stuff. And who better to advocate for than Satan? I was just wondering, like, you know, like, you know, magic, like when I cast my mind back, it's the pandemic period. I'm watching the BBC or I'm watching MSNBC, but because I'm British, I stick with a BBC, even though the majority of our audience are American. I would say,

like, you know, I'm watching footage of like, you know, a sort of a plucky junior doctor and some nurses, you know, like sort of the earth, the people that, and I mean this in full sincerity, people that work in industries and areas of our society that should be heralded a

applauded, adored, celebrated. I mean, there's no words that I won't use to garland these individuals. And you see them like, you know, in our intensive care unit, it's full up of people on ventilators. They're dropping like flies. Stay in your homes. No, you can't watch your baby be born. Go and watch funerals on YouTube. All of that stuff. Like, what were they experiencing?

Nick, what were they experiencing in those hospitals? Although I will add to this, I do remember in my country, for example, they built something, as I recall, they built a Florence Nightingale hospital that was there to treat thousands of people. And then it was just never mentioned again. They just stopped mentioning it. Yeah, never used. Yeah. Yeah, look, I mean, if you put a healthy person on a ventilator or on high flow oxygen for a long time, they're going to drop like flies, right? Mm-hmm.

So, yeah, you can believe that part of the story.

And at the same time, the propaganda is driving in the direction of the frontline doctors, the brave people we have to bang our pots and pans for, even though the data was telling us that any doctor under normal retirement age in vague health able to work is not at risk. So what we were in essence dealing with, I think, was there's a lot of signs that the early doctors

that we witnessed in northern Italy, New York City, and later on in the year in Cape Town, in the Western Cape of South Africa, that those events were staged. We can't get anybody to tell us where the actual death certificates are and where

to explain to us how New York City suddenly jumped to 7.5 times its normal rate of mortality when, meanwhile, that happened nowhere else on the planet. You know, what was different about New York City? Well, it looks to us, and I must tip my hat in the direction of the researcher Jessica Hockett, who's done some amazing work on New York City. It looks to me like a completely staged phenomenon.

And it was those events that all the television cameras went in on and which started, were so important in driving this narrative that there was an outbreak of a novel deadly virus.

Bloody hell, Nick. All right. So where we are. Sorry, Russell. I should also say I think a lot of doctors were genuine about this. They were tricked into believing that there was something new that they had to respond to differently. And so they abandoned their normal standards of care in good faith, I would say. They were tricked. So this is not to call them all conspiracy theorists or something like that, you know.

I think it's important to add that. Because I wonder if ever in human history there has ever been such an extraordinary gambit, such an astonishing coup where reality itself has been warped on an unprecedented scale, where everyone would say between 2019 and 2022, there was a pandemic period, we were locked in our homes, Pfizer, Moderna, Etal came up with a

And whilst we initially thought it was effective against transmission and reduced hospitalization, the data now is a little harder to read. But there's no question, people say on the legacy media all the time. I've had them say it to my face that the vaccine saved lives. People will say, why just look at Pfizer's stock prices? Something must have happened. Something must be real. But what you're saying,

offering us is in a sense a kind of a wave of hysteria now passed across the planet engineered by engineered by a sort of collaborative globalist interests ngos that i'm assuming that the world health organization and its rather unique and unusual funding model are involved uh that the media have participated in this and even the sort of the um gosh well-intentioned duke

like at the ground level, people that are participating in medicine, they must now surely have some eerie sense that something wasn't right, that the data doesn't make sense. I'll tell you something that probably you already know, but it's bugged me since I found out about it. In our country, Britain, they just changed the way they calculate excess deaths because excess deaths was too high. So they went, oh, we're just changing the way we calculate

calculate excess deaths to make the number more manageable. Now, my next question, the question I've been sort of leading to for a couple of minutes now is if indeed something of such an extraordinary nature has been undertaken, I would like to know why you think it was done. Yeah, I think there are diverse motives involved. Um,

The desire to control other human beings is a story as old as time. And I think that's a significant portion of this. I mean, the United Nations, of which the World Health Organization is but one arm, is pretty accurately described as an organization that seeks to call about a world in which it controls decisions, political decisions on a global basis.

They make no bones about this. They sometimes try to disguise it or soften it. But that is kind of their agenda,

I think pharmaceutical firms want to make money. So if the control agenda around pandemic preparedness and viral surveillance and so on is one that the UN is going to get excited about, then, well, they'll get excited too because they can make loads of money out of that story. And then there are ideologically motivated people, centralists, people who are dumb enough to believe that

complex systems can be usefully managed from on high. And all of those people become traveling wayfarers in pursuit of making many of these measures that we saw undertaken permanent features of our landscape. But to answer your question about have we seen anything like this in history?

I think we're living with a couple of them, actually. That was an awakening for me and I think for many people is that there are at least two other major ones underway at the same time. The one is this whole modern monetary approach to running our monetary systems, which is basically a kind of theft with a fig leaf on it.

And that's happening at an enormous scale that's really underappreciated.

And the other one is, of course, the whole net zero carbon paranoia story, which is, again, just scientific mumbo jumbo. You know, this idea that these scientists, these amazing scientists have modeled the entirety of the Earth's climate and they can predict it out for the next hundred years. And no, it's not the case that we're simply emerging from a little ice age. It's this one atom, the atom to kill them all sort of thing. Those are all crazy psyops as well.

psyops there are an interesting convergence of interests play and as the american

Comedian George Carlin said when interests converge, no conspiracy is necessary. And from relatively early in this process, though, I was obviously like many people, probably not including yourself due to the skill set that you announced when telling us your credentials.

autodidact that I am. I was picking through, hold on, that doesn't make sense. That doesn't make sense. This is weird. And then from out of this cacophony of oddness, it was

becoming clear that it granted the ability to regulate, it granted the ability to profit, it granted the ability to transfer wealth, it granted the... It was beneficial to some of the most powerful interests in the world. That became plain. A lot of people regard...

it, of course, is a staged event. A lot of people, and I suppose this might play into your skill set, in particular as an actuary, that it's becoming understood now that modelling was used and presented as science, and that's perhaps how there was the bypassing of the kind of patterns that you would usually look for in a pandemic, like what you say of clusters and ripples and stuff. So can you... Do you...

Do you feel that when people were saying, you know, we're presenting us with graphs, this many people are going to die, this many people are going to, like, you know, all of those figures. And then almost the bizarre inversion since then, you know, people were being, you know, these people died of COVID when they fell downstairs. These people died of COVID when they died in a car crash. And since then, people, like excess deaths are being sort of mitigated. But extraordinarily, I'm sure you're familiar with Pierre Corey, like the insurance companies are having to change the way they work.

charged premiums, AstraZeneca are in court. I mean, it's unavoidable. The reckoning is unavoidable. So can you point to some of the sort of major, firstly, some of the major tools for ensuring that we bought into this reality and the major tools that help us to understand that the reality was false? Just easy examples.

Yeah, sure. I mean, the type of modeling that was used to produce these very inflated predictions at a country level is really not even appropriately used at a country level. Those models are called SIR models. They make a range of assumptions, one of which is that all the members of that population mix evenly. It's a concept called panmixia. And that's appropriate at the level of something like a herd of cattle, right? Yeah.

Or maybe you could say children in one school. But it's certainly not an appropriate assumption for the whole country. So, you know, the very axiomatic underpinnings of these models are invalidated by the nature of the applications they were using.

And my experience, I mean, I hate to sound arrogant about this, but in general, there's just very low quality intellects manning those models. You know, they don't even understand what the assumptions are and what they mean and what the limitations of those assumptions would be.

So we took aim at those models very early on. We tossed out that whole class of modeling and used a much simpler approach called empirical modeling, where you're actually looking at what's happening and just use those empirical models to predict when those other SIR models would fail. And we did that very accurately and it upset those models a lot. But there was another more insidious way in which the models were used. Remember those dashboards?

I kick myself when I think about them because it didn't strike me at the time. But how did the world suddenly become capable of tracking every case and death in every single country from a single disease that is very hard to distinguish from a whole lot of other diseases? You know, when the World Health Organization tracks diseases around the world, it takes years for them to put out the reports. And yet suddenly we had this ability to pump out the reports on the day.

Well, of course, we didn't have that ability. And of course, what was happening is they were using models to drive substantial portions of those dashboards.

So the data that was ticking up on our screens and driving the fear wasn't actually emanating entirely from the real world, but also from completely fabricated models. And in a very funny twist of fate, we actually found the GitHub sites where these guys were practicing using models for that purpose, for faking real world data.

And they use the same class of models, incidentally, SIR models. So it all gets rather creepy rather fast. And when you open your eyes to the depth and breadth of the frauds here, it does cause people to glitch. I mean, you asked the question at the beginning of this, you know, your last interview there, you said people are saying this whole thing was staged and there was, was there a conspiracy there?

My day job, when I'm not trying to lead the fight against the globalists, my day job is that of a private equity investor. So I spend a lot of time in boardrooms. And I'll tell you now with no fear of contradiction, conspiracies are a dime a dozen.

Every time a board of directors gets together in a room, there's some form of conspiracy going on. That's the nature of the real world. People are in a competitive space and they're trying to have asymmetric information to steal a march on a competitor or to make a customer believe that their product is better than it really is, something of that nature.

So, you know, this idea that a conspiracy is a sort of a once in a millennium kind of event is completely false. They're all over the place. And there clearly are elements of conspiracy riddled. They absolutely riddle the coronavirus landscape. And this whole sort of epithet of woo-woo conspiracy theorist is actually, you know, that's the people who use that as a slur are very divorced from reality.

So in a sense, this area of conversation is just one component of a broader purview. Before we park it, if I may be so bold, I wonder if you feel that the WHO treaty that's currently being proposed is an attempt to

redress and nullify the opponents of the plan that was enacted previously, in so much as it includes, we want the ability to vaccinate entire populations and bypass national sovereignty. We want the ability to censor. We want the ability to determine what constitutes a pandemic. Do you agree that that's what this WHO treaty is for? And if it is, I

What is the nature of this organization, the WHO, and how does its power relate to some of the emergent villains of this period? Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, some of the big names that emerged during this period. So I do agree with you that that's what is going on with the treaty.

The relationships are complex and people tend to oversimplify them. I've heard people say that Bill Gates funds the World Health Organization, that China funds the World Health Organization, that Germany funds the World Health Organization. And all of those are true. And there's competition for control and power in that organization. And so different pressures to abuse the organization too.

And it has been for many years. I mean, in 2009, the World Health Organization was the main actor in an attempt to pull off a fraud similar to the coronavirus fraud in the case of swine flu.

And that was replete with all the same things. They wanted to come out with a new vaccine and vaccine mandates and do all of those things. But they kind of got caught out. They weren't practiced enough at that stage. So this is sort of a repeat attempt. And this time they were a lot better. They'd learned their lessons along the way.

Yeah, so I mean, what are we really talking about? It's an organization hell-bent on taking a highly centralized approach to a complex phenomenon. And it also fits into a very important pattern. I think it's the most important pattern to understand in the world. And that is the simple three-part pattern of global crisis presented as only admitting global solutions.

and under conditions of censorship of dissenting voices. So the claim of a global crisis, the claim that it only can be addressed by global solutions, and that we need to censor everybody who disagrees. If you've got those three things in place, you're dealing with a scam 100% all of the time. And that is a feature of the coronavirus story quite clearly, and of this whole pandemic preparedness story, which is nonsense from beginning to end.

And it's a feature of the whole climate crisis story. As soon as we have those things, we are dealing with a scam. And the perpetrators of those scams are invariably people who believe in their own ability to lord it over all of us from the center of the universe, in the ability of clever people like them to control complex systems using spreadsheets. Do you think it's interesting that figures that are, let's put it,

even delicately on the margins of our culture, even precursors to the kind of online pundits that have become more common due to the emergence of and accessibility of the technology. Maybe you would say like figures like David Icke, Alex Jones,

who were like 10, 15 years ago saying, there will be global events that will be used to legitimize centralized authoritarianism. They want us all to, they want to implement social credit score like measures. What do we do with that when some of the people that are kind of,

really derided by what you might call the sort of legacy media rationalists and certainly amidst their output. And I often consider both Ike and Alex Jones to be more like shaman than any, in a sense, like, you know, we, our culture has evolved to the point where those kinds of voices are by their nature, marginalized. There's no room for people that sort of speak out.

I don't know, metaphysically, somewhat mystically. The point I'm trying to make is they were saying that for some time there would be events of this nature. And I was reminded of that fact when you said global event shuts down dissent. I mean, does it apply to escalating geopolitical crises that are unpopular? Indeed, if there were decentralized councils, subsidiarities, Soviets, syndicates, call it what you will, federalization, that would

what you there is very unlikely that people would vote to continue wars in the middle east vote to continue to fund ukraine russia vote to agitate china in indeed isolationism starts and and beyond that you know devolution beyond national isolationism seems um

Like it's something that would be appealing. I'm talking about, of course, decentralization. And do you think that people are that there is a sense that the tendency is towards decentralization? And in order to oppose that, you have to assert and impose centralization aggressively and legitimize it through crisis.

Yeah. Sorry, lots of points to pick up on there. First on Ike and Alex Jones and so on. I think we can't underestimate the extent that we're surrounded by the sort of fog of the info war because as much as there are people like them who apparently ran the alarm bell and so on, there are also people who say that they are CIA creations and that their role is to

say some true things but to salt them with a bunch of nonsense about lizard people or about fake events that were actually real and so on. Now it's very hard for any person, any person, no matter how well informed, to actually come to clear conclusions about all of these things. So my sense or my advice I guess to people is just to preserve a bit of skepticism to listen.

to not be dismissive of people with crazy ideas because sometimes they're right. But also not to go too far down each and every rabbit hole, just to understand that we're living in a chaotic and turbulent time where there's a vast tracts of, of utterly false propaganda out there. Yeah.

Sorry, just remind me, give me a hook for your second part of your question you were asking about whether... Well, to comment on what you just said, it's always helpful when there is verifiable evidence

verifiable ideas that you can corroborate. I can see looking at this data that they used modeling to amplify the threat. I can see now that they claimed that they developed a vaccine in record time. And so how would they know what the side effects would be over five or 10 years? So, yeah. So,

So, and then what I said was, additionally, Nick, was, do you feel that the reason that centralised authoritarianism is because precisely the opposite is being, there's an inertia towards it?

Look, that's exactly where the tension is. And, you know, I've been talking as many times as I possibly can about the importance of understanding what a problem centralization is, because we're not taught this in schools. It used to be a fairly current idea. This used to be taught in economics departments and, you know, people understood it, I think, a great deal more 50 years ago than they do now. But this

But the important thing about centralization is that it is incompatible with progress. You cannot have an authoritarian system and expect to see the knowledge growth, which is the only driver of an improvement in living standards and of economic growth of what people like to call progress.

And the reason for this is that in the face of complexity, the only way that we can navigate this is the world. We can't go and design our solutions from on high using complicated models, et cetera, et cetera. That's illusory. The only thing we can do is experiment on the edges. We can tinker. We can try this, try that. And that's where you get the idea of a distributed system.

coming up with solutions that are better than a highly centralized system. And so there are a couple of things going on here. You can't centralize without censorship. You can't centralize without authoritarianism. Centralization requires the suppression of dissent, and it entails the suppression of knowledge growth and of economic growth and of human flourishing. Now, some people think that's a good idea.

They have, for example, an ethic of wanting to protect the planet and regarding humans as kind of a kind of pathetic scum on its otherwise beautiful surface.

I'm not one of those people. I think the human brain is the most remarkable entity in the universe and that the human individual enjoys sanctity and needs to be protected from authoritarians and has rights over the planet and the universe and all the inanimate objects.

That's where my belief system is. But there are people who believe exactly the opposite, and that is the war at the moment. There would be centralizers who want to control, who want to control.

give rise to a kind of Malthusian utopia in their minds. This world where we stop increasing how much we consume and how much energy we utilize and so on, and where the story is told in terms of degrowth and rationing. And then there are people like me who believe that there is no end to the powers of curiosity and human ingenuity and how the best way to

see a flourishing world come about is to drive in the direction of decentralization and distribution of power.

You might think I seem caffeinated enough. I ain't caffeinated enough. And when I get caffeinated, I like to know that there are revolutionaries behind it. Revolutionaries like you and like Rumble. Check this. Hey, this is exciting. We've got a great partner today. It's Rumble. But beyond Rumble, it's Rumble's latest venture. Let me ask you first, are you a Sleepy Joe type character with zero cognitive performance, struggling to muster focus and brain power for basic things like running the United States of America? You've got a

Stop drinking woke liberal coffee that hates you and your way of life and start your day by drinking Rumble's very own 1775 coffee. This is going to be the best tasting coffee you've ever had. Seriously good, ethically sourced from a family.

family farm in the high altitude mountains of Bolivia. Not in the Bolivian lowlands run not by a family but by a single man still living with a pet. No! Instead of waking up and drinking your big corporation owned woke ideology coffee that's probably making you sick from the pesticides it's sprayed with, try Rumbles 1775 Revolutionary Coffee. Support freedom of speech. Build a

parallel economy that actually values you and loves you my favorite it's dark of course i've always found the lure of the dark irresistible i'm sorry how can i stay mad at you but you're just gonna have to wait over there for a little while level up your morning routine with a 1775 coffee sleep all night knowing your hard-earned dollary dues are going towards supporting freedom loving creators like me on rumble visit 1775coffee.com now pick up your first bag use the code brand

To save 10% on your first order. Oh, come on. Why choose, you know? Okay, back to the content. Yes, I agree with you. Plus, you're quite handsome. You look like Marlon Brando in the Between...

Mutiny on the Bounty and Last Tango in Paris era, which is an overlooked aspect of ripening Brando. We've been sent a few assets from our community that I just wanted to draw your attention to. I have to ensure that they are legitimate. One is a Bill Gates post that someone has highlighted. Let me know in the chat who it was that posted this.

What's next for our foundation? I'm particularly excited about what the next year could mean for one of the best buyers in global health. Vaccines. 12th, 1919. So what's that? The 19th of December. So I'm not sure that that's legit, but it's been posted in the chat. That's right. That was legit. That's legit. That's cool. That's legit. And it came just after Event 201, which he was centrally involved in. Let's have a look at Event 201. Yeah. Yeah.

So, I mean, there was foreknowledge, there was planning. A very interesting thing to study is the timeline of January 2020. I mean, when you actually lay it all out, what happened in these 30 days, the supposed volume of science that was conducted after an eye doctor spotted an unusual disease.

pneumonia in Wuhan on the 30th of December 2019. This eye doctor, yeah, he suddenly diagnoses unusual pneumonia. And from there, there's this 30-day zip line through the world of medical science that drops out the PCR tests, the sequencing of the virus, the characterization of the illness, this finding that there was deadly asymptomatic transmission, and all of this stuff suddenly materializes and

In 30 days. That didn't happen by accident. It was premeditated and it was bullshit from start to finish. So, yeah, don't take any part of what I'm saying as suggesting that there was an absence of preplanning or foreknowledge. It's just that it might not have been as widespread as a whole lot of people actually think.

Yes, thank you for explaining that. Can you pull up that flu thing? I'm not sure that actually Nick can't see our assets. I can, I saw the last one. Oh cool, so this is an antigen test kit asset.

um can you is this a legit asset does it make sense according to your expertise because i'm just pulling these things this is content provided by our awake and wonder community so um i just want to make sure that you know who knows what kind of lunatics are in there for god's sake yeah we're all we're all just look at those numbers of course yeah and there's this idea that oh it's some kind of uh

environmental competition but we can invalidate that very easily because flu even disappeared from places where there was no COVID so something was going on somebody was gaming the testing system for flu or people simply were stopped testing for it or something like that or the entire story of influenza is itself riddled with bad science and contradictions but yeah your viewer who flags that as a very suspicious story is I believe correct

I also wonder, you know, there was a moment where they said that, you know, they couldn't allow vaccines to be manufactured in various African

African nations because of pattern in laws and also just because they wouldn't be able, somewhat racially, they seem to imply in Africa, where you're obviously from, they wouldn't be able to make the vaccines for one reason or another. I wonder if there's data available now. Presumably there were lower vaccination rates in those nations. I wonder if there's any interesting data as a result of that.

Yeah, well, I mean, there's a lot of interesting data, but it's very hard to get clean data that's honestly collected and that isn't in some way misrepresented by researchers who are ultimately funded by pharmaceutical companies. But I'll just give you a little simple data point here. In South Africa, there was very low vaccine take-up. About 30% of the population had either one dose of J&J or two of Pfizer.

But when the booster shot came around, I'm talking about the first booster, I think the uptake rate was like one and a half percent. So the population voted with their feet. They realized that something was wrong. Now, according to the claims of the media and the pharmaceutical companies, that should have led to there being vast mass death in South Africa because 70 percent of the population remained unvaccinated. But COVID has just...

Stopped. It's a non-entity. Nobody cares. It's gone. So this idea that the vaccines in the UK or whatever stopped the pandemic is

It's false. You've got to come and explain to me what happened then here in my hometown of Cape Town. How did we stop here? No. It stopped because everybody stopped going bananas and putting numbers up on screens and treating people with chest infections in stupid ways, in deadly ways. Yeah, I don't think it's

Too much more needs to be said. The whole thing is absurd. I mean, the vaccines were a scientific fraud. By the standards of Pfizer's own phase three trials, the vaccines increased your likelihood of dying, increased your likelihood of hospitalization, increased your likelihood of serious illness and increased your likelihood of COVID symptoms. The only thing they did was for a very small number that was very biased in its selection, they stopped testing.

They reduced the likelihood of COVID symptoms in conjunction with the PCR test. Now, that is of no good to man or beast. So that's a scientific fraud right there. And that was the whole basis of this 95% efficacy claim.

So I just don't see how any person with a modicum of common sense can perpetuate this idea that the vaccines were at all effective as a therapy. The real question is simply how dangerous they were. And there, I think I'm somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. They have definitely caused a lot of harm because they were rolled out on such vast scale to people who really didn't need them for the most part.

And, yeah, that's the case. It's caused some harm. But I don't think it's going to cause the harms on the scale that people like Zelenko and Geert van den Bosch have predicted that billions of people would die from them and so on. I think that stuff is all overblown. Do you think that dissent and dissidents emerging from independent media, figures like Jay Bhattacharya, Peter McCulloch, obviously,

People that were like Robert Malone, that were on Joe Rogan. Do you think that that intervened, interrupted and disrupted what may have otherwise happened? Were those voices extracted or otherwise silenced? Look, they all came, those ones you name all came rather too late with the exception, I think, of Bhattacharya and Kulldorff and Gupta who objected to the lockdowns.

And I think, I mean, I should just, in the interest of full disclosure, I get a lot of bad press amongst several of the names you just mentioned because they're fundamentally, for the most part, they believe there was this pandemic and you needed early treatments. And if you didn't do the early treatments, millions of people would die and so on.

I just don't go along with that version of the world. They know it, and it puts us to an extent at loggerheads. I don't need to be. I'm happy with diversity of opinion and disagreement. But what a lot of those people end up doing is blocking me and doing the same censorship that they complain about. So I'm not too sure that we or they stopped anything of significance before.

Everything came too late. The lockdowns had gone on for years. The vaccines had gone into billions of people's arms. And almost everybody on the planet had... Sorry. Almost everybody in a Western country had bought into this false notion that there was a novel deadly virus that they needed to be protected from and that there will be more pandemics in future. So the victory, I think, has been achieved. The purpose here...

was to drive home the need for pandemic preparedness, for vast budgets of tens of billions of dollars a year used in viral surveillance and stockpiling of crazy medicines and increasing vaccine manufacturing capacity and all this kind of thing. Now, to that extent, they've won. They've got their budgets. They're doing it again and again. They're going to give us another monkeypox and now a bird flu and it'll all be manufactured and it'll all be complete and utter nonsense.

But they've got a population in many countries that's accepted this whole canard and that will go with it. So there was no victory here. We didn't stop anything. And that's important to remember. It doesn't mean we can't stop anything in future. I think that we've got to win the battle here still. It's the next one that's going to be very interesting.

But, man, there are so many big stories, so many big narratives that we have to push back against. As you say, I like the way you talk about awakenings all the time. It's the same word that I use. I think we're getting more awake people. And it's never been the case in history that 90% of a population woke up to any ruse or mythology. It's always some substantial minority that figures it out, the kind of lateral thinkers who are always a minority.

And the linear thinkers go along with the story and, you know, do the office jobs and how man the bureaucracies and so on. That's always how the world is. But the question is, have we awoken a sufficient number of lateral thinkers, warrior types? Have we gotten those people talking to each other, talking to each other so that they can share ideas and increase their own power? I think the answer to that is yes. There's a wonderful community that's distilled all around the world.

critical thinkers with incredible lateral thinking ability who see the world clearly and who help each other peel the scales from their eyes, you know, when it comes to the other narratives that they might have bought into. So I think it's a particularly exciting time to be alive. Yeah, I like it. Do you think that the next Gambit, Canard or Trick might...

to climate change. Is that your sense? The food crisis, the attacks on agriculture, the breaking down of the farming industry, the centralization of food production. Do you think this is what's being teed up? Very much so. And the parallels are stark. I mean,

What have you got? You've got these models. What do the models predict? They predict climate change in the far future based on one parameter, CO2 concentration. By the way, the IPCC and all of the models there, they don't think that those changes are sufficient to produce climate change and climate crisis in the here and now. But that doesn't matter because the media are going to pretend that they do.

And they're going to tell you that every time there's hot weather somewhere or a freak storm or whatever, that that's climate crisis. And yeah, it seems to me very much the case that this is the Malthusian tonic of the current moment.

the thing that's being used to stop African countries from expanding their power grids. So here in South Africa, we've been knocked off the project for decades now of building a nuclear power plant, which is the thing that would unlock the potential of this country. We were not allowed to do it. We have to go and do borrow, borrow 2 trillion Rand, which is an enormous amount of money for our economy and invest it in what?

solar farms and wind farms, which will never solve the problem, never provide baseload. So this is the kind of the story that it leads to complete degrowth, constraints on growth that are, they become shackles. And I think it's just horrible to do this to countries that have not yet developed all over the African continent. These are my favorite places, the places that I visit.

I'm a tree hugger. I love the wilds. I get out into the wilds as often as I can and I know them well. I study them. I'm down in the dirt and up the trees and in the forest all the time. So I'm really partial to ideas like biodiversity and conservation of habitats and so on. That's my stuff. But the conflation of that stuff

With this whole energy conservation and net zero and the need to reduce carbon and decarbonize,

No, I'm sorry. They're two totally different subjects. The one is a legitimate concern that any sensible person should have. And the other one is the demand of crazy people. And there are a lot of crazy people that are doing untold economic damage at the moment. That's brilliant. Thank you. Well, it's not brilliant. It's terrifying. But thank you, Nick Hudson, for articulating it so beautifully and including a love of nature, participation in nature, acknowledgement of our integral relationship with nature as part of this conversation. But to

observed too how whenever these arguments are mobilized it is always to the disadvantage of the majority of people it always legitimize further centralization of authority it always legitimizes censorship it always legitimizes the condemnation of dissent it's it

Astonishing. I want to thank Thought Criminal for the assets that we were using there. Thank you for posting that. You're a great awakened wonder and contributor.

Thank you for all of you for joining us for this conversation. And thank you, Nick Hudson, for joining us today on Stay Free with Russell Brand. I found that enjoyable. It's not often that I speak with someone and think, oh, yeah, yeah, no, this guy's he's further into the into the edge lands than I thought I'd be willing to venture. Thanks for undertaking that journey with me. Thank you, Russell.

Thank you, Nick Hudson. You can learn more about Nick Hudson's work by following the links to his organization Panda and also by following him on Substack. There's a link in the description to that right now. You've got to join us next week for our conversation with Tulsi Gabbard. If you want to be part of that conversation, you have to become an awakened wonder. Of course, we'll put it out, but.

you can join us and participate and pose your questions to Tulsi. She's not going to be Trump's VP. She is going to be Trump's VP. What's going to happen next? I'd like to welcome our new awakened wonders like Silver Rider, Magsky23, Lord Gowda, CynthiaSG, ArizelTheGoat, and so many more. See you next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different. Until then, if you can, stay free.