“STRANGE THINGS WILL HAPPEN BEFORE THE ELECTION” Vivek Ramaswamy On Trump & Project 2025 - SF462
57:41 Share

Hello there, you awakening wonders. Thanks for joining me today for Stay Free with Russell Brand. Vivek Ramaswamy coming up. If you're watching us anywhere than Rumble, our home where we can speak freely, where we can pet our dogs, where we can even insure our dogs. Have you seen Positive? Where we can drink our glorious coffee, where we can have fun together...

making fun of the powerful. If you're watching it on YouTube, for example, you're going to have to click the link in the description to join us for our conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy. What a week it's been. Who knows what next week will bring? Trump says that we're going to Mars. Every single one of us is a Ziggy Stardust in waiting. The world in space. Remember, I did Space Force. I did that. I rebuilt the military. I did a lot.

But we have Space Force, first time in 79 years since Air Force.

First time thinking of a Space Force, and now we're leading in space over Russia and China. They were killing us when I took over, and now we're leading. But military, we're going to reach, and it's my plan. I'll talk to Elon. Elon, get those rocket ships going, because... Elon, Elon. I like how he talks. We want to reach Mars before the end of my term. We want to do it. And we want to have also...

Great military protection in space because that's where it's going to be at. Got to have good military protection in space. Kamala Harris could offer you some business loans or something. Business loans or frozen grocery prices. To hell with that.

We're going to Mars with Trump and Elon. It's going to be fantastic. There's some pretty terrible things can go down in an airport environment. Sometimes you might see one of those sniffer dogs and think, oh no, it's the last thing I need. Do you mind, sir, if I just put this on and put this on? Those are terrifying moments. But imagine being the former head of the NIH, Dr. Francis Collins, and running into Alex Jones in an airport just by chance. I mean, that's going to ruin your holiday.

How you doing? I'm alright, how are you? We're good. 20+ million people dead from those shots. Well, truth's come out about you and Fauci. How's it feel to kill more people than Hitler? You writing some folk songs about it? Go ahead. You'll never get away with what you did, your bio weapon. You're in a lot of trouble. Nuremberg 2 is coming.

We'll be exposing that guy. All of them are going to prison in Nuremberg too. They can run, but they can't hide. The truth will get them. Mass murderers.

What a character. Old Alex Jones there. I like the initial moment where he's like, oh, hello, would you like an autograph or perhaps a tablet or a booster shot? Oh, no, it's Alex Jones. This is a nightmare. You remember the fair and democratic process that led to the election of Kamala Harris? You know, there's nothing to worry about. You know, there never was. I don't even remember Joe Biden, which ironically is like Joe Biden himself. Here's Nancy Pelosi. Close.

that there was an open primary when Biden stepped down and Kamala Harris won fair and square. I don't remember that. You reportedly said you wanted a sort of an open primary when if Joe Biden stepped down. Did

You changed your mind because you saw all the excitement around Kamala Harris? No, I didn't change my mind. We had an open primary and she won it. Nobody else got in the race because she was politically astute.

See, everything's okay. What's the problem? What are you questioning it for? Don't think. Maybe she was trying to illustrate what misinformation means. Posted Elon Musk in our country. Nigel Farage, former leader of reform engineer, many would say of Brexit, former guest of the show.

says that it's more likely that you'll go to prison for calling someone a paedophile than being a paedophile. I think in response to a very high profile case here in this country where a BBC newscaster was found to have pretty appalling imagery on his phone pertaining to subjects that I don't even want to name out loud. Let's have a look at Farage making the claim. It does seem rather odd that you can go to prison

for calling someone a paedophile online but not for being one. And that sort of double standard is how it looks to most people. And I think one of the problems that we've got, Mohammed, is whether it's policing, the way different groups are policed in different ways, whether it's the judicial system,

I think there is a strong view that a two-tier approach is emerging. You know, two-tier Kia, people start to talk about. Two-tier Kia is catching on. Globalist leader Keir Starmer, current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Donald Trump is actually, it seems, approaching...

acknowledging that there was some problems with Operation Warp Speed and the mRNA program. You hear Donald Trump say about beautiful vaccines, beautiful vaccines, so fast. But now Trump, it

appears could be about to admit that there was a problem with the vaccine program and maybe even the vaccines himself i can see the comments i know you don't even like calling them that i was just doing it for expedience don't call them vaccines it means they've conquered your mind mrna gene therapies if you watch this on youtube we'll be with you for another couple of minutes then we'll be speaking to vivek ramaswamy let's know in the comments and the chat what you think about some of vivek's revelations when it comes to big tech and censorship

and consider becoming an awakened wonder. Join us for some fantastic additional content. For example, Russell Brand's Stand-Up Breakdown, where I scrutinize, analyze, and have fun reflecting on stand-up comedy greats. Doing George Carlin next week. We also do Bible studies and meditations and answer your questions directly. Let's have a look now at Donald Trump coming close to admitting, and I know a lot of you would like this, that there was something wrong.

with that medication. On COVID, you frequently say at your rallies and so on that you don't feel like you get enough credit on COVID. But by nearly every assessment, the CDC failed miserably at job one. And yes, the COVID vaccines were developed in record time, but as we now know, they don't prevent infection, illness, or transmission, and they have very potentially serious side effects.

Do you think that maybe they were approved too fast? And in hindsight, based on what we know now, what would you have done differently? Well, I think they're doing studies on the vaccines and we're going to find out and it'll come out one way or the other.

But I really had a mandate to get vaccines done and I got them done very quickly in record time. The Democrats love it. You know, the Democrats love it and the Republicans don't. It's very interesting. The vaccines, they love it. They love it. It's funny, isn't it? Because it did become such a hotly politicized industry.

It's odd, really, because that wouldn't be the approach to a medical solution to a problem that did not prevent transmission or ultimately appears hospitalization. And increasingly, it seems, may have contributed to excess deaths as well.

something that's just conjecture obviously at this point but certainly the yellow card and vase events do not look favorable and it's been subsequently established that there are causal links to myocarditis and pericarditis that were potentially known about long before it was published as well as the impact on menstruating and in the potentially pregnant women

It seems that we are living in a time of great transition when it comes to that subject. And in a way, I see that as sort of a further evidence of Trump's kind of good faith that he was just trying his hardest to get those mRNA products out there. At least there's going to be a study. Again, let me know in the comments if you agree with this. The Bobby Kennedy inclusion means, doesn't it, that there's going to have to be a reckoning in the event that Trump forms a government in November.

I have a friend of mine who said to me, why don't you talk about the vaccine, what you did with the vaccine? He's a Democrat, but I'm sure he voted for me. He said, what you did was the most incredible thing that any president has ever done. You've saved hundreds of millions of lives all over the world. And this was just recently, very smart guy. He said, I don't understand why you don't talk about it. And I don't talk about it. But if you go to...

Pfizer, if you go to some of these companies, they have they have charts and they have all sorts of statistics. And I say, why don't you release those statistics? Let people know. But I don't talk about it. I can say this. The Democrats would love to claim it. The Republicans don't want to claim it.

But it'll be determined, I'd say, over the next 12 months. I say this in terms of overall, I think I did an amazing job with COVID. I never got the credit for it. Remember that more people died under Biden-Harris than died under Trump.

And they had a much easier time because when it came in here, nobody knew what it was. It came from the Wuhan labs, which I always said, but nobody really knew what it was, where it came from, nothing. They knew nothing. Interesting unraveling of a continually captivating story. If we reach the point where Trump says,

That was a mistake or it was badly handled or if it's empirically proven, further proven that there was a net negative impact as a result of those medications and Trump's in government. I wonder if we will see the reckoning that many people have been praying for when it comes to some of the administrative bodies involved.

and administrators as well as billionaire plutocrats that are able to exert incredible influence even from non-governmental positions from philanthropic positions they call them across the world hopefully we will but that's just what i think why don't you let me know what you think in the comments and chat if you're watching this anywhere other than on rumble our

home, or if you're not an Awake and Wonder yet, if you're not an Awake and Wonder yet, and there's so many reasons to become one, then you're going to have to click the link in the description and join us over on Rumble now for our conversation with Vivek Ramaswamy. Get over here, y'all, and join us. It's a really good conversation with Vivek. He's been up on Locals for a week. I was enthralled to hear his perspective on censorship,

the cutting down of bureaucracy and the new alliances that are suggested. And I believe now for the first time culturally possible when you have figures like Tulsi Gabbard and Vivek Ramaswamy, Bobby Kennedy and Donald Trump.

all aligned or at least in alliance how can you claim that the bureaucratic centralists who clearly are in the hot and control of globalism corporatism and institutional powers that don't care about ordinary americans are anything other than a detrimental outcome when it comes to november let me know what you think click that link in the description join us time now for vivek ramaswamy it's a fantastic conversation i hope you'll enjoy it

Vivek Ramaswamy, thank you for joining me once again on Stay Free with Russell Brand. Good to be back, man.

You must be at some point accepting that you may take on the mantle of soothsayer as well as disruptor with some of your predictions, notably that Biden would drop out of the debate. You've been kind of perspicacious, but I suppose you'll say that's just because you were looking at evidence and circumstances rather than trusting anything.

intuition. On that basis, I wonder how you see the rest of this campaign going with one side relying on celebrity endorsements, the other side relying on assassination attempts. What can we look forward to in the next 50, 60 days? I think the next 50, 60 days could get strange, but I think it's going to be a barometer of the following, Russell. And I'm just, again, following historical facts and evidence and combine that with a little bit of trained intuition, okay?

I think that the more that you see Donald Trump surge in the polls, the more likely there are going to be very unusual and strange things that happen and continue to happen. If that doesn't happen, then I think you won't see as strange of things happen. So I think it's a direct function of what the polling looks like between now and the election. Now, why do I say this? I say this because the evidence supports it.

When Donald Trump has surged in the polls, strange things have happened, up to and including the swapping out of his main opponent for this race for the presidency of the United States of America. And other unprecedented things, I mean, of a kind, Russell, that we haven't seen in a generation in this country. One of the things that's most alarming about the assassination attempts, just as a citizen was watching this.

is the fact that it has become almost normalized in the way that this has been covered. And I think that's the saddest part about this. Just over two months ago was an assassination attempt. As recently as several weeks ago, it was not even talked about really anymore. And then there was the second assassination attempt. And as a matter of days later, it's not really discussed anymore. When these should be

exceptional, appalling, rare historical events that'll be in the history books for kids a century from now. And yet forget about a century from now, even days from then, it's almost as though it's forgotten as though it's not in social media cycle anymore. And I think that type of normalization, that type of anesthetization of our response and instincts is

I think bodes poorly where it means that we'll take something even more strange or odd or bizarre in order to actually cause people to halt and say, "What the hell is actually going on in this country?" And so anyway, that's a deeper psychological malaise in the country that I worry deeply about. But nonetheless, you asked about my prognostications and I think it's gonna be a tight election.

Through the end, no doubt about it. At this point in my mind, it's going to stay tight through the end. But if for whatever reason, it looks like, you know, Trump is ascendant clearly and on his way to victory. I just think that the last year and a half has taught us from prosecutions to civil service, civil cases, to attempts to remove him from a ballot without even going through the judicial system, to swapping out his candidacy of those opponent,

all the way to even tragic or near tragic events in the last several months, I think we have to brace ourselves for what has been already a really unusual election cycle and could become even more unusual as we head to the election.

Thank you. I've just noticed a tendency with our own content that I imagine is close to universal. What I suspect is happening is that legacy media will report on an assassination attempt or an event that could be.

be favorable to the Trump campaign that might engender or inspire sympathy, interest, be a kind of tacit endorsement of anti-establishment credentials. The legacy media will report on it, whether that's the BBC in my country or MSNBC or CNN in yours, in a particular way, like the BBC report began with, Donald Trump is safe and well.

After an assassination, after a failed assassination, I was like, oh, my God, that's so extraordinary. Then the other component, and this is very recent, is that online spaces, notably Google, are for sure de-amplifying universally independent media content that's covering your party's content.

campaign what that will do of course initially is it will mean that the the messaging that's somewhat favorable or at least sympathetic to the new alliance that's coalescing around you trump tulsi bobby kennedy well it means fewer people will see obviously but secondarily it's

Independent media content creators are dependent on the revenue. So they will select against making this content ultimately. When we used to make content on like sort of Trump events, we would see like sort of spikes, particularly if there was an event. Now they're clearly de-amplifying it. So people will start to make different types of content. It's a cynical little world out there. So that I see is a real strangle and choke on this type of content.

And I think, Russell, that last point you made, it's actually a really interesting observation. It is a profound point because I think we worry very much, rightly, about the way human beings at these tech companies are training their AI and their algorithms. But the last step that you just identified is actually the most devious of all. It's the way the AI and the algorithms are actually training the human beings.

So the ultimate AI in this is the incentive structure you create for, as you said, independent journalism content creators whose revenue models depend on what is or is not amplified or monetized. So in some ways, it's the human beings at the tech companies that have trained the algorithms

We can't make this content without the support of our partners and sponsors. Here's a quick message from one. Hartford Gold. Always believe in your soul. You're indestructible. And the world feels insecure and uncertain, doesn't it? With rising prices, crazy debts. For those who are in the United States, thank God there's a way to secure your hard-earned nest egg. Protect that nest egg. Protect it at all costs. Place it beneath a buttock. Do something sensible. American Hart

for gold makes it easy to protect your savings and retirement accounts with physical gold and silver yeah like in the old days baby in one phone call have physical gold and silver delivered to your door or put inside a qualifying retirement account like your ira american heart for gold has an a plus rating from the bbb and thousands of satisfied clients right now they will give you up to

$15,000 of free silver on your first qualifying order. I want me some of this sweet silver. This offer though is only for US customers. Call 866-505-8315 or text brand, my name, to 98899. That's 866-505-8315 or text brand to 98899. Get up to $15,000 of silver and protect your future in this crazy world with solid precious metals.

literally made in stars. One of the things that tech companies learn, let me just walk through the cascade here. In the last several years, they've learned that actually outright censoring, outright banning, outright locking accounts

isn't a good thing for them to do. Not just because it's morally wrong or because it's anti-American or runs against their stated principles of supporting a free internet. Not just for those reasons, but pragmatically, it's a bad idea for them because it creates a level of public ire, potential headlines that later follow. And so they've realized the way to carry out censorship is not through bans, not through terminating accounts. That was the sloppy way they used to do it way back in the stone ages of 2020.

The way they do it now is almost exclusively through amplification or suppression of the desired forms of content being amplified, whereas the undesired forms are de-amplified, if not outright censored. It is a form of censorship, but this allows them to call it something other than censorship. Now, then the next step in the cascade is, okay, if they've done it that way, is it human beings doing this? The answer to that question is no, because again, they're too smart for that. Human beings doing it as individuals, that was again, back in the Flintstone age of the 2020s.

in the postmodern age of 2024, the way they do it is, it's just the algorithms that do it. Well, how are those algorithms trained? They're trained by the biases set into motion. It's like if the creator launched the Big Bang, we can talk about the existence of God and what the Big Bang has to do with that later. But the analogy here is the creator of those algorithms is actually just a human being that's set into motion, but then watches it do whatever it does for the public to believe is independently.

Now that AI has been permanently trained by those biases, what's the final way to close that loop? The entire incentive structure, I mean, capitalism is a form of AI. You could think about it in that context, at least. They use the combination of that AI and capitalism, human incentives for people who make money through creating content and distributing it independently.

to train them on what types of content they are or aren't supposed to create, not by censoring them anymore, but by training them using the financial incentives of amplification or shadow banning and throttling as a backdoor mechanism for now that having solved the problem. So then fast forward four years from now,

You don't even need the technology companies to intervene because the system has already been trained on what types of incentives are rewarded for creating what kind of content and what kind of content or information isn't rewarded. And that's exactly what they're playing for. So I thought that was a really astute observation, but I just wanted to take a minute to really break it down because once you see it, you can't unsee it. It's part of the reason I still do things like write books. I mean, the reason I wrote this most recent book, I actually talk about some of these very themes of the more

covert threats to free speech that are less overt, but in some ways, they're more dangerous. And, you know, in the latest book, I think that was a focus area of mine, because I think this is a hot theme right now, affecting and impacting even potentially the result of this upcoming election. And the more alert we are to it, the less likely it is to actually have its intended effect.

I noted that some of the cultural governmental departments and groups that manage AI that were involved in the stories and maneuvering subsequent to the attacks I received personally in September last year were meeting with the Biden and Kamala campaign.

In your country, recently, it's precisely the manipulation and management of online content, de-amplification, forms of shadow banning, populating comments with bots, ensuring that certain stories aren't proliferated, that these organizations engage in, creating stories that legitimize smears and legitimize censorship. It seems to be part of the overall playbook, and it's one that's been used consistently

I would say profligately during the COVID period, various individuals, Batacharya, Pierre, Corey, Robert Malone, anyone, McCulloch, anyone that was outspoken, most notably and famously Joe Rogan. But what we're seeing now is it's,

its use in electoral cycles. And what I suppose the end point of it becomes, Vivek, is ontological. It seems like if 10 years ago, and it's almost difficult to imagine the alternate universe in the incessant blizzard of data that we all live in, if figures as distinct as you, Tulsi Gabbard, Donald Trump, Bobby Kennedy were

all part of a one political party, you would have to regard that as anti-establishment. In your case, I'm referring to your anti-bureaucratic stance. I loved how on Jordan Peterson you described how you would strip

government departments once in office and that was an area of expertise and experience that you'd be able to deploy. Then you think of the experience of environmentalism and medical malpractice that Bobby Kennedy brings, Tulsi Gabbard's military experience. I'm still astonished by, say, intellectual liberals, some of whom I stay in touch with and I still read their content really to understand why

what the purview is, are able to say, like I saw recently a celebrity endorsement of Kamala Harris saying that if you believe in democracy, you have to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz because of the terrible project 2025. The management of the information sphere is becoming extraordinarily adept. And other than outliers like our platform Rumble and Elon Musk's ex, there's a complete

management of information that means that something that would, I would say, at the beginning of this campaign, even though you're...

you know, from a capitalist and entrepreneurial and somewhat libertarian, you tell me what you are, perspective, it seems like anti-establishment and Bobby Kennedy in the way that I've described as anti-establishment, I would have thought it very unlikely that you guys would be campaigning together. So in a sense, doesn't that show that there's an emergent anti-establishment consensus? And how can the sort of liberal centrist globalists work?

maintain this kind of narrative that they are the outsiders and we've got to turn the page and we've got to fight against this establishment. I don't understand how they can manage it. You know, it's interesting. There's a funny dynamic. I've been doing this conversation, Russell, because your insights are spot on here. The only thing I would say is

I don't think you're ever going to see a political party represent that because the nature of being anti-establishment or the nature of having an independent streak is remaining independent, right? And so, you know, here are things that are true about the likes of some of the people you mentioned from Tulsi, Bobby, myself. We don't agree with 100% of what each other think. We don't agree with 100% of what Donald Trump thinks, and we're not afraid to say it.

But actually, what we are against is the rise of this managerial class and this machine that in some ways is managing not just the government, unelected bureaucrats managing the government. They're managing every sphere of our lives, right, from corporate America to our universities to nonprofits.

It's the bureaucratic class, the committee class, the managerial class that effectively is protecting its own continued existence at the expense of the institution they're supposed to safeguard. And in the government, that's the case of representative democracy. So part of the imbalance here and what we have going against us, if you will, in an anti-establishment current is that just by our very nature, we're not wired to form a political party with structure around that current because the

create a new establishment, and that would create a new layer of bureaucracy and a managerial class. And that's, in some sense, what we find antipathic. But it's also, I think, what makes this movement in this moment that much more powerful, because I think people across the country, and even people who you'd call former liberal intellectuals, some of them, at least, I think even the others, I hope there's an awakening still yet ahead. You've seen movement where

I think people agree in this country that I may not want the policy that some congressman votes for, but I still want it to be the people we elect to run the government, for God's sake, to be the ones who actually run the government and make the decisions rather than somebody who I could never fire at the ballot box. That's just what it means to live in a constitutional republic. It's what it means to live in a representative democracy. I may not agree with a heinous opinion that's expressed on Rumble or on Facebook or on X or on TikTok.

But I still believe in the right of the person there to express it because if I don't, that means that tomorrow it's going to be my opinion that's suppressed where the same shoe fits the other foot. So I think those principles, what we're seeing, what you call anti-establishment, and I think it's a fine word, but

There can be different kinds of establishments at different times. I call maybe more of a principles-based rather than a politics or partisan-based. The first principles-based movement to say just what are the basic rules of the road, right? We might need to drive different cars on that road. You know, every one of the individuals you mentioned, from Bobby to Tulsi to Donald Trump, we'll spar and disagree. I'll spar and disagree with them on a wide range of topics. Those are like different cars you might ride on the road, okay? Yeah.

But we're not talking about which car you're designing on the road. Right now, we're in a moment, we're talking about the basic rules of the road itself. And we are deeply aligned on those basic rules of the road. We believe in free speech. We believe in self-governance. We believe in merit. We believe in reviving a sense of pride and identity that we're missing. And we're against totalitarian overreach. We're against the culture of censorship. We're against the suppression and silencing of even our own opponents.

Those are rules of the world. We're against the assault on religion, stand for the free exercise of religion.

And I think that that's one of those moments. That's part of why I say it's more of a 1776 moment right now. I know you come from the other side of the pond. So with all due respect, you know, in a very American centric sense, a 1776 moment in our own country where this isn't about, you know, bickering over the tax rate being 1% higher or 1% lower. And, you know, we may have our disagreements between the parties on that.

This election isn't about that. It's about the basic rules of the road. And as Orwell once said, the best way to actually control a society is to first control its language. That's what you see from the other side where they've overstepped.

owned the message of protecting our democracy. We think about what's a threat to democracy, a threat to democracy is telling your political opponents they can't speak. A threat to democracy is saying that the people who run the government aren't actually the ones who we elect to run the government aren't the ones who run the government. There's no doubt in anybody's mind that Joe Biden is not in any sense running as the president of the United States today. He's not functioning as the president of the United States today. Nobody in America believes that he is. And yet we hold out this artifice that he's actually the US president.

So that I think is those I think represent real threats to democracy, not the histrionics that we hear. Part of the problem is, you know, we as human beings, we always do. We always have. It's our nature. We fall for narratives that are sold to us. But there's also a part of us that hungers to rebel against those narratives. And so this anti-establishment current that you're describing, our duty, our job right now is to awaken the side of each of us.

that wants to reject what we're force fed rather than just swallowing it. And every human being, every one of us has both impulses in us. The question of the leaders of this new movement is how are we going to awaken the rebellious instincts at a moment where the future of our country depends on it? And that's what I'm trying to do my best on in the next few weeks and months left.

To your point on Orwellianism and the capture of language, I was speaking with Michael Schellenberger yesterday and he said that one of the ways I think it was X was being condemned with regard to possibly the election or possibly Covid. X was being condemned for its aggressive neutrality.

I thought, wow, aggressive neutrality that would not even work linguistically. Just a little while ago, the world is changing fast to current stories that give us an indication that institutional power is maneuvering.

in ways that perhaps have a history but certainly seem to be somewhat modern phenomena, to me at least, is the whistleblowers over ABC claiming that Kamala was given the questions in...

and that that debate was to some significant degree stage managed. And if you add to that the endorsement of a couple of hundred former Bush staffers and the welcome embrace of the Cheney family endorsements by Kamala, do you see that for me that shows you that there are ulterior currents that are moving beyond the livery of war

what was once assumed to be bipartisan American politics, i.e. if the Chinese who were once the antipathy of Democrat Party politics when they were being condemned for what should be illegal Gulf War, and now the endorsement is now welcomed, and if...

the debates can be so sort of incredibly well managed. Is that an indicator of where real power is Vivek? Do you start to do it? Can we start to detect the outline at least of the sort of real body politic that is being preserved and respected and how it's, how its power is visible in the movements of famous families everywhere.

in the way that debates are conducted in apparently neutral circumstances, in addition to what we've talked about already, the Orwellian capture of language evident in a phrase like aggressive neutrality, a kind of neutrality that didn't seem to be present in those debates, for example.

Yeah, so look, I think that again, you're hitting on one of the core political realignments underway here in the country. You talk about where the power center is and what's going on. Let me talk about the political realignment aspect of this, and then we'll come back to the media part in a bit. And the political part of this, the Cheney, both Dick and Liz Cheney hitting for Kamala Harris, is actually an embodiment of the same type of defecting Democrats who are going for Donald Trump. The realignment going on is this.

Back in the 2000s, when Dick Cheney was enemy number one of the Democratic Party,

The kinds of issues they wanted to argue about were substantive issues ranging from what should abortion policy be to, at that point, a GOP that wanted to engage in foreign interventionism, which, by the way, I opposed at the time as well. I was in college. But the Iraq war, we want to go fight foreign wars. We have strong pro-cultural federal policies that we would implement here. I think there was a strong cultural divide on those kinds of issues. Okay.

What's happened right now is really interesting. Demonize the likes of George Bush and Dick Cheney for their strong pro-life, anti-gay marriage views, etc. What do you get now is you get a Republican Party that the Democrats from back then would have only wished for.

In the policy views of Republicans right now, Donald Trump, I mean, the Republican Party today has no opposition to gay marriage. It is opposed to a federal ban on abortion, does believe it should be a state's right to choose a pro-life view, but no federal ban on abortion, no federal or state constraints on gay marriage.

And so it's precisely when supposedly the evil views of the Republican Party no longer are the actual part of the policy platform of the Republican Party that they've now resorted to other histrionics where the political field has now realigned itself.

What they now want is actually the people who just want government to retain control, period, right? The Dick Cheney's of the world, but also the Kamala Harris and the Joe Biden's of the world. Say, okay, we might disagree on some of those other cultural questions, but we do agree that people can't be permitted to speak or express their opinions. We do agree that the government needs to be able to surveil everyday citizens to make sure that they're not expressing those opinions.

and causing, wreaking havoc or danger. We do believe in the importance of the United States meddling and interfering in random countries' affairs, even when they don't advance the interests of the United States, as long as it actually enhances the power structure of the people who are doing the meddling.

That actually is a deep alignment between the Kamala Harris, Joe Biden wing of the Democratic Party and the Dick Cheney and Liz Cheney wing of the Republican Party. So that's an alliance that actually runs deeper than what was their former antipathy on issues relating to gay marriage abortion. Meanwhile, you got Donald Trump leading a Republican Party right now.

that has opposition to a federal ban on abortion. The Republican Party is not favor under Donald Trump, or a ban on abortion, a federal ban on abortion. That was also my position during the presidential campaign, by the way. And you also have a party that's completely open to same-sex marriage, to really the kinds of freedoms that many libertarians would at least appreciate.

Yet what we are committed to is actually a view that says we can express our opinions freely, that we don't want that surveillance state, and we don't want the United States creating or aiding and abetting foreign conflicts that don't advance American interests. That's a deep realignment that's going on. And so in some sense, I got pushed back after the debate. I was in the spin room and I was pointing to all the Democrats defecting from the Democrat Party coming over to Trump. They said, but the same thing's happening the other direction. The U.S. Republicans defecting to go for Kamala Harris.

That almost proves the point about the deeper realignment that's going on in the country. And I think we'll look back 10 or 20 or 30 years from now as this is a significant catalyst in American history and the history of American politics for the kind of principles-based realignment that we haven't seen in a long time. What do you say about...

You list the various authoritarian aspects of the current Democratic Party and the new tectonically shifting alignments that appear to be taking place. I'm minded of an idea that was recently described to me of how social democracies more easily.

easily move towards totalitarianism than the ideologically explicit forms of centralized control of the last century soviet communism national socialism fascism that social democracy in its in

increasing regulatory capacity is moving towards a totalitarianism that's unprecedented simply because no footwell, I suppose communism had goals towards global control. So did national socialism, but it was not likely to be implemented effectively.

without extreme military endeavour. Now there's an ideological capture that you see taking place in bizarre outlier events, like whether it's the Olympic opening ceremony or more observable economic phenomena like agricultural control and attempt to centralise land ownership and food production.

We can't make this content without the support of our partners and sponsors. Here's a quick message from one. Cybercrime. Ah! It's the third largest economy. I wonder what the first one is. Military industrial complex, big pharma. Is it big tech? I don't know. But the third biggest one is cybercrime and it targets like email, social media passwords, e-commerce.

Even AT&T announced that hackers have compromised all of their customers' text and call records. That's us. That's me. That's you. Bunker is an affordable all-in-one app protecting you and me against identity theft, fraud, surveillance, all stuff that you don't want, including patent-pending secure messaging, password management, and secure cloud storage. Why pay for different applications when you can protect yourself with Bunker for $12 annually? It's not much, is it? That's a dollar a month. Let me divide that into...

weeks, it's not much, but

Bunker is owned and operated by security professionals with a history of protecting the public against cyber criminals and surveillance. Bunker, they believe that people should be empowered to focus on what matters most, security and privacy and day-to-day life. For a limited time, Bunker's offering a one-year free trial for you, friends and family. That's if you sign up today. You've got to sign up today. You can have it free for a year. So download Bunker from the App Store or Play Store using the offer code BRAND, all caps, to get the first year for free.

Thank you. I wonder, Vivek, how your opponents will be able to continue to say that Project 2025 and the idea that there is some kind of handmaid's tale style Christian patriarchy, mass authoritarianism leading to mass deportation, contention,

control over women's reproductive rights, winding back the clock, when it seems now to me sort of evident just because of legislation, because of public rhetoric, because of the increase of surveillance, that the greater threat is this bureaucratic technological feudalism rather than militaristic, patriarchal, old school, strongman 2025 stuff.

I wonder how I wonder how these arguments are going to be rebutted. And I wonder what your position is on something like 2025. And if you can give us some insight on why social democracy tends towards totalitarianism.

Yeah, look, I think that, well, there's a deep philosophical reason, I think, why social democracy tends to lead to totalitarianism. But let me say a word about even just the, you talk about Project 2025, let's talk about Project 2050, which is effectively what the Great Reset on a global scale is really all about. And you want to know one of the vectors that they're using to achieve that, not as some theoretical policy construct, it's constraining people today, is the climate change agenda. This is...

A third rail you're not supposed to touch. I actually, in the book, the book's coming out, the book that's out this week, this is a core topic that I hit, Russell, because this is a third rail where if you veer even from factual terrain to miss some sort of fact here or there, you're done.

So in the chapter in the book that I actually put the most factual layers of confirmation, reconfirmation, had people steel man it, red team it from every side was this chapter because it's

This is really the vehicle that they're using to create a global governance structure of totalitarianism, not even limited to the United States of America, limiting the way that we live our lives, flogging ourselves for the modern way of life and the success of the West, while completely failing to apply those same shackles or standards to places like China.

So anyway, back to your point, this is the vision of the great reset. You don't have to call it project 2025 or project 2050. They call it Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum vision is to call it the great reset, the dissolving of barriers between the public sector and the private sector to accomplish what neither could on its own. The dissolving of boundaries between nations to combat shared global challenges that either nation could not combat on its own. You saw a bit of this in the rise of the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

But that really just laid the groundwork. They lost the excuse once the virus had mostly dissipated and they tried to cling on to it for as long as they could. But it really laid the groundwork for now doing that at a larger and more lasting scale via the impositional global climate change agenda. A couple of facts there that I thought was actually just useful for people to wake up out of the lull that they lull you into.

Why does social democracy lead to totalitarianism? Well, one of the answers is that people have an inherent nature in us. All of us do to at times behave like sheep, right? In some sense, we want to bend the knee to something. It's part of human nature. But there's also a rebellious side of us that doesn't. But I think the reason that they're able to do it is they lull you into submission by appealing to the part of your human nature that wants to bend the knee.

especially at a time when you don't believe in God or where you've seen the recession of faith, which I do think is a deeper undercurrent in all of this. When you stop believing in true God, you start believing in false gods instead. That also greases the wheels and it's times in loss of faith and the recession of religion that you do see that trend from social democracy to totalitarianism accelerate. Also a theme that's

deep and central to the book that I wrote. The first two chapters are about the revival of faith and the rise of the climate religion. These two things are deeply, inextricably intertwined for how we're able to create this new type of global technocracy.

But anyway, the reality of how we combat it, I think, is twofold as well. One is you got to see it for what it is, use the tools of representative democracy to fight and push back. That's what I think this election is about. You got to fight based on the facts through free speech and open debate. We're not playing on an even playing field, which means we have to hold ourselves to an even higher standard in those arguments about climate change policy or otherwise. It's one of the things I've tried to do in the book. But I also think there's a deeper, deeper cultural gap.

Fix we need, which is the revival of true belief and conviction in the things that are bigger than ourselves, the revival of faith and patriotism and belief in your nation without apologizing for it and the family as a grounding institution of your own identity.

Those, I think, will actually have greater power to awaken the side of us that gives us the self-confidence to stand back. But when we lose our identity grounded in our family, when we lose our sense of faith or belief in a higher power, when we lose our sense of conviction in our nation and allegiance to our nation,

then we no longer have the individual fortitude to be able to push back against the otherwise inevitable march to this type of soft tyranny. And I do think that that's a part of the solution that sometimes we skip over and we forget. We remember what we're fighting against, but...

We often forget what we're fighting for. And I do think that we as human beings require that grounding forms of identity that even in our anti-establishment movement, even the modern conservative movement in America, it's important that we not forget those deeper grounding institutions and values of individual family, nation, and God.

that give us the possibility of having the fortitude of actually standing up against the otherwise inevitable march of the global Great Reset, the march to domestic totalitarianism in the United States. And I think that's an important part of the equation that we sometimes risk skipping over.

It can't be a coincidence that there is this sense of ongoing bewilderment, whether it's the inundation of continual information, mocking and extraordinary ceremonies, the continual attempt to nominate all of us primarily as consumers above all else, the individual in an extraordinary way. There are some odd contradictions here, but to make the individual a kind of personal

deity, that myself and my identity is the apex, what I want, what I feel. That is by definition limiting your tribal, familial, national, religious identity, preventing you from attaining a sort of a sense of transcendence, a sense of purpose derived from anything other than this is what I want, this is what I consume, this is who I have sex with, that should be the summit of how we regard ourselves.

Listening to Vivek, though, what seems interesting is that the pathway to this kind of globalism that requires to achieve its ultimate goals, a kind of nihilism that people don't believe in family or nation or individual or respect or God or these kind of values. It's it seems that the pathway, the tracks, at least, may have been laying behind.

by economic and corporate requirement in in the attempt to create integrated free global free markets a type of a kind of infrastructure has been wrought and brought about meaning that people can trade and they can mine in this country and transport commodity here that it's just normalized that food is shipped around everywhere to have the availability of food and now what seems to be happening is having having

been created to facilitate the economic elites that are no longer as powerful as they once were because of the way that our economies have changed the way that our culture has changed because of the advance of technology for but one thing it seems that an ideology is being lacquered and

On top of this, do you see that part of what has led us here has been the right to consume, the right to make money? Do you do you see that? Do you agree that in some way free market capitalism has led us to this point? Or do you think it's more complicated than that? And it's something to do with the state's relationship with certain aspects of capitalism?

Well, I think I think so. I'm not an anti capitalist in a sense. I'm a pro capitalist, actually. And I'm not anti trade and pro trade. I don't believe in relying on adversaries like China for our modern way of life. But here's what I will observe, Russell. And this is why, though most of my policies tend to be highly libertarian in nature, I don't call myself that I don't I don't I don't limit myself to that label, because I also care deeply about virtue. And I think that, you

Virtue is upstream of capitalism. Okay, capitalism does not, I don't think capitalism produces virtue. I think virtue is a precondition for capitalism to achieve a flourishing society. Okay, and so this gets a little bit philosophical fast, but you asked it. So let's, you know, at least touch on it briefly. I believe that it's even described, we can take different cracks at how we might describe virtue, right?

The daylight, however small that crack of daylight may be between what you want and what you need. OK, let's just say if that daylight were zero, capitalism would be the perfect system for organizing a society's affairs. Not only the least imperfect system would be the perfect system if our act, what we really wanted as human beings matched what we really needed.

To the extent that there's a delta between the two, there I think actually is where you see the failures of capitalism. It wasn't a failure of capitalism. It was a failure of underlying virtue that was just amplified by, you know, and even exposed by capitalism. So it's not the system that I blame so much as the loss of that upstream virtue in the first place. How do we close that gap between what we want and what we need? It's grounding ourselves in the true things that come from outside of the world of capitalism or commerce and come from the revival of capitalism.

True faith, understanding our relationship, reconciling man's existence with his creator or supreme being. That's a difficult thing for one to reconcile. That is the ultimate pinnacle of the human experience in being able to do so, right? And that's the call of every major world religion in its own different way, attempting to answer that question. Grounding yourself in the family. Every one of us is brought into this world by two parents, mother and father, right?

You know, you could say what you will. The nuclear family, I do believe, is still the greatest form of governance we have known to mankind. The decimation of the importance of that institution, I think, erodes that sense of identity that grounds us. Same thing with respect to the erosion of hard work or pride in what I create in the world. The erosion of national identity, that I'm not a citizen of this nation that I was once proud of, but I'm a nebulous citizen vaguely fighting climate change somewhere.

we're like blind bats lost in a cave, right? We're blind in some sense of moral sense of the word. We send out these signals through echolocation or sonar that bounce off a wall and it comes back and tells us this is where I am. That's what my religion does. That's what my family does. That's what my belief in my nation does. These are grounding pillars that help us relocate our identity in that cave. And I think that right now, I mean, this is

I think I'm probably inadvertently drawing from Plato here. We're lost in that cave, sending out these signals and then nothing actually bounces back. So I don't blame capitalism for that. Could it exacerbate it? Could the amplification of modern digitized social media, amplified capitalism exacerbate that? Yes, but that is the symptom, not the deeper root cause.

And the reason I don't call myself just a libertarian is all we want is the state getting out of our affairs. Well, then what then? What do we do then? That matters to me too. I think that we require preconditions of virtue to actually flourish. But let's do the hard work of reviving those virtues, reviving those grounding institutions and beliefs that are precedent-based.

conditions for capitalism. But then we don't need to complain about the fact that, okay, some guy has more green pieces of paper than the other. So what? It wasn't an important part of our grounding identity in the first place. And we wouldn't have been so susceptible to allow our base human instincts to respond to that in the way that we do if we were sufficiently well grounded and based in our own principles in the first place. So a little bit abstract and philosophical there. A lot of that...

I hope comes through in this book I've written, Russell, is I missed during the presidential campaign. You're going 24-7, and I did it on steroids in some way, just too much, actually, in terms of just going to the mat. Nine states in seven days leading up to the debate, nonstop. One of the things I probably should have done more of was just build in time to step back and just reflect and think.

One of the ways I do that is through writing. I didn't do a lot of writing during the campaign because you're running in a million different directions. So after I left the campaign in January, that was one of the first things I did is took out my notebook and just started writing. And I said, okay, it's a book. It's a book. I don't care. It'll be a book that nobody reads. I'm fine with that too. But I'm going to put this on paper, at least for myself.

And then, you know, eventually that I said, okay, I might as well put some of this out and it got in a little bit more structured form. And that was, that was the genesis of this book. But for me, it was certainly a clarifying year to have that distance from the campaign to be able to relocate some of the why that you sometimes you're in the

When you're in the horse race of a partisan political race. If you write with anything like the insight with which you communicate, and if you're half as articulate, it will be a fantastic book indeed. Truths, the Future of America First, Vivek Ramaswamy's book is excellent.

out now there's a link in the description and maybe we can get a few of them to give away on the basis of some competition it's certainly a book i'll be interested to read on the point of the campaign i remember seeing you at different uh different junctures very near the beginning full of ebullience and enthusiasm or never you never looked um anything less than uh you know i'm not saying you were diminished but i remember seeing you one day in a flight jacket and

And it just like, I feel like the camp, like there was a lot of Nikki Haley stuff going on. And I felt like, wow, this is, looks like a real odyssey that you've gone on, you know, like the stuff you say about CIA media. Yeah.

It was an odyssey. It was eye-opening. It's one of those things that you could never learn it from a book. You could never learn it from somebody else telling you about it. You're only going to learn it by doing it. A million lessons, humbling process in many ways, and one that I learned an immense amount from. I was the youngest person ever to run for U.S. President, certainly as a Republican. I know that for a fact. And it's

You know what, I as a young person, I couldn't have taken more away from an experience than I did from that one. A lot that if I was to embark on a journey like that, again, that I would learn from and probably do differently for the better. But I think that's life. That's the human experience is you, you do your best, you learn from it, you're willing to, you know, you got to be willing to at least experience.

reflect on the experience and think about how you're going to improve and have an impact. And whatever I do next, it's going to be guided by the same spirit that led me to the start of the campaign, which is that I'm grateful to this country. I want to do what I can to revive it.

There's only so much we can do through the private sector, though I've enjoyed getting back to the private sector this year. I enjoyed writing this book. I hope a lot of people read it. It's not, you know, I don't do these things for, there's financial gains. Books aren't the way to do it, but I think getting a message out, I hope is, beats cable news, television, two-minute interviews. I like long-form discussions like the one that you and I have. And whatever I do next, I'm hopefully going to pick something that has the maximal positive impact on our country.

That's my goal and my obligation as a citizen and in some ways as a father of two sons who are going to grow up in this country too.

And so I enjoy our conversations every time, my man. And thanks for taking an interest in and tell me what you think of the book after you read it. I will do. Thanks, Vivek. Thanks very much. Thanks for joining us. I'm coming to your country for a few months. So we'll get to hopefully I'm doing Tucker's thing. I'm doing that rescue the West. So hopefully we'll get an opportunity to spend some time together in person again. I would love that. I would love it. I'll give you a text. Cheers, Vivek. Thanks, man. Thank you, guys.

Well, that's all we have time for this week. Thank you very much for joining us. Let me know what you thought of the Vivek conversation in the chat. This week, Aseem Malhotra is up on Locals talking yet more about big pharma corruption, even beyond the pandemic period. It's groundbreaking and it's fascinating. You'll love it. It's up and it's available now if you are an awakened wonder on Locals. Consider becoming one if you're not because there's so much fantastic content available for you. Thanks for being a member of our community.

See you next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different. Until then, if you can, stay free. Our new The Oracle series, our first ever group interviews designed to bring the greatest and most authoritative voices in particular subjects together for the very first time.

Robert Malone, Dr. Pierre Corey and Steve Kirsch. What we've experienced is a globally deployed psychological bioterrorism playbook. It's well developed. And then I started to see just global propaganda directed at essentially distorting, dismissing and suppressing the evidence of efficacy. And I saw it as a crime. And at that point...

I knew that this was not just a coincidence. There were too many black swans over too short a period. I've never heard anything like this story in my life.

They seem to get the human psyche so well when it comes to brainwashing us and propagandizing us to the direction that they want us to go in, that you would think that they would know that pulling all of these various tactics would actually just push support towards Trump, not away from him. Ryan Ruth, some of his posts even show that he appeared to have been working with, in his own words, the U.S. embassy in Kiev.

He's doing effectively military intelligence, human trafficking of terrorists. It's in this context that I think Ruth was kind of radicalized. He decided that while he wanted to assassinate Putin, the easier thing would be to assassinate Donald Trump.