The War on Dissent with Gareth Icke

Whitney is joined by Gareth Icke to discuss censorship, free speech and how many "democratic" governments are moving to equate inconvenient speech with terrorism.

Follow Gareth: Twitter, Gettr, and Ickonic Published 11/11/22.

• Get early access to podcasts by becoming an Unlimited Hangout member.
• Find previous episodes on all podcast platforms.
• Order Whitney’s book One Nation Under Blackmail. 
• Sign up for the weekly newsletter to receive updates on the book, new articles, podcasts, and interviews.

Episode Transcript

Unknown (00:19):
Hey there, you're
listening to Unlimited Hangout.
I'm your host, Whitney Webb.
Today we are going to be talking
about speech and how the concept
of free speech is changing
rapidly, not just in the United
States but elsewhere,
particularly in the West,
increasingly in the countries
that have long claimed to
champion democracy and the
freedom to say what you wish
speech is becoming like into

(00:40):
terrorism and those that speak
the wrong words could soon find
themselves labeled as terrorists
for doing so. As I've noted in
past articles, and also in a
more recent speech, the Biden
administration's policy
documents for the so called war
on domestic terror, call for the
censorship of quote polarizing
voices, voices that disagree
with the state's narrative, and

(01:00):
thus foment disagreement and
allegedly incite violence, such
speech if this agenda is allowed
to advance further, we'll label
those polarizing figures
terrorists merely because what
they say might persuade people
from distrusting the government.
There are precedents for what
follows the implementation of
such policies, though not so

(01:21):
much in the West in recent
history. It's not hard to see
what the criminalization of
dissent leads to and what kind
of government makes that
criminalization a state policy
to discuss the state of speech
in the West. Today I'm joined by
Gareth Icke a journalist,
activist and musician who is all
too familiar with the themes of
censorship and how this
particular agenda has been a

(01:41):
steady if gradual march over the
course of the past several years
and even decades. Gareth and his
family, particularly his father,
David Icke, have been on the
frontlines of the censorship
agenda much longer than most
people very recently, David Icke
was banned from visiting several
European countries after the
Dutch government made that
decision, after consultations
with police and counterterrorism

(02:03):
officials, has the line between
inconvenient speech and
terrorism allegations begun to
disappear entirely. We'll be
getting into this question and
much more in today's podcast. So
hey, Gareth, thanks for being
here. And welcome to Unlimited
Hangout. Thanks for having me.
My pleasure. So I guess it goes
without saying that the hot
topic today is how your father

(02:24):
has been banned for much of
Europe. So what exactly
happened? And what was the role
as far as you know, of counter
terror officials and reaching
that decision?
It was, well, it was crazy.
Crazy. So basically, Dad was
asked to speak at a peace rally
an anti war rally in, in
Amsterdam. And as soon as he was
asked, he said, Yeah, that

(02:44):
sounds great. I'd love to do
that. And then the Dutch media
jumped on that. There's a couple
of complaints from organizations
that have kind of gone from my
dad before that, you know, the
usual suspects that will have
ties to Israel, just saying, you
know, anti Semite anti Semite
anti Semite, they never give any
evidence of it. Of course, they

(03:05):
just kind of shout it. And it
tends to stick when it comes to
the media. So the media went on
the absolute rampage with it.
And it was like it was front
page news for like, two weeks.
It was, you know, it was leading
bulletins on mainstream news,
shows, it was crazy, really.
They had all these people in
they had police officers, head
of police, the mayor, they had

(03:28):
politicians in there all talking
about it never asked my dad,
obviously, for his point of
view, but but then it got to a
point in the end where they are
interviewing two police officers
or two police chiefs are in one.
One of them said on this show
that actually well, we can't ban
him, because you know, he's not
done anything wrong. Like he's

(03:48):
not like as in he doesn't have a
criminal record. He's not
breaking the law.
So you know, I guess basically,
we can't stop him coming here.
We can't stop him talking.
Obviously, if he gets up there
and starts preaching hate, you
know, which obviously is never
going to do but if he did, they
could react at that point,
obviously, and try and you know,
shut it down or whatever, but
they can't stop him. You know,

(04:09):
you can't do a whole Minority
Report thing on it and kind of
precrime it, you know, to which
the journalist for one of a
better phrase said, Is there not
a loophole you can find? Which
is amazing to me, because, you
know, if free speech goes,
journalists are the ones that
that are going to feel it, you
know, so it just seemed like
such a lack of force and that in
today's world, right, where most

(04:29):
journalists are, you know,
extensions of the state. Well,
yeah. The not fair point. Yeah.
But um, but, you know, that was,
how it was going and then, but
he was still traveling there, he
was still going to do it. And so
he sent me a picture from him,
like driving down to the south
coast to get into the Channel
Tunnel to post on his Instagram.
So I posted that and then I went

(04:51):
out for a run like a 10 minute
guilt run because I've eaten too
much. And for some bizarre
reason, I just I don't know why,
you know,
I just thought I'll just check.
I don't have anything to do
quickly. Because like you said
at the top, I'm like crazy busy
or does, I'll just check, I've
actually got 10 minutes free.
And at that point, I'd received
an email from the Dutch
government

(05:13):
with two PDFs in it, both in
Dutch, which, obviously, you
know, I'm English, so I'm
obnoxious, and I don't know
foreign languages. So I
forwarded them over to my dad
and to his friend cristiana
who's Dutch and and then, you
know, sort of just had this from
the government. I don't know
what it means. But there you go.
And then I went from Iran. And
when I came back, I had a
message from from her saying

(05:34):
that Oh, my goodness me This is
insane. Like he's banned from
Holland, he's banned from the
EU, which is like 26 countries.
And, and then the second PDF was
citing the current terror levels
in in Holland as as a reason for
his banning.
And the terror levels are set to

(05:56):
level three, which is that there
is a very real threat. And so
with him coming, that's a very
real threat. And I was like that
is that's we are in the twilight
zone. Now. This is madness. So
it was quite funny. So then I
just tweeted about it, you know,
like, like, this is what we've
just found, and obviously got
the usual kind of Ukraine flag
and BIOS or celebrating it. And
then,
and then I then was contacted by

(06:17):
a few people from the press in
Holland, obviously had no
interest in talking to us before
before this happened. Basically
saying, Oh, no, that's not what
it says. That's not what it
says. And then A and then A
Dutch politician was
interviewed. And they said, no,
no, no, it was done. It was done
for his benefit, like it was it
was to protect him. He was in
danger. I'm thinking right.
Okay.

(06:37):
Yeah, so it was a bit of a
backpedal, but they But what
they didn't do is they didn't
tell the prime minister that
that was there, that that's what
they were going to say. So he
was asked about a cop, a cop 28,
whatever it's called the climate
conference. And like I say, he
wasn't given the brief that they
were pretending it was for my
dad's own benefit. So he goes on
this tangent about how he's
banned because we don't want him

(06:58):
in our country and this kind of
stuff. And I said, Well, yeah,
that he's a conspiracy theorist.
Right. That was that we don't
have conspiracy theorists in our
country or something like that.
Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So it kind
of went against the backpedal
because I don't think they
wouldn't be I don't think they
expected people to kick off. I
mean, like I say, a few people
on Twitter celebrated it, you
know, the usual suspects. But

(07:19):
But most people is very much the
same with with the Alex Jones
thing. We're kind of like, I
remember when, you know, it was
a billion dollars for Alex
Jones. And I saw lots of I don't
like Alex Jones, but I can't
stand Alex Jones, but because of
the level of it, you know, and
that was the same with my dad,
the amount of times I was
looking through Twitter, which
is is a bit of a cesspit to be

(07:39):
fair, but I was looking through,
and there was lots of, you know,
oh, my god, I can't stand that
nut a bar. Like, you know,
because this is insane. I mean,
you're banning a guy from from
the European Union, someone
who's never committed a crime
never even been investigated for
a crime never been arrested for
anything in his life. He's a 70
odd year old bloke, you know.
And so it kind of backfired on

(08:00):
them a bit. And so then they
went on the defense. Oh, no, no,
you know, no, it wasn't for
that. That's not the reason
because they realized that
public opinion was kind of going
against them in Holland. And it
still is actually, well, things
are quite polarized there.
Right. With a lot of the the
pharma protests and a lot of
pushback against, you know, the

(08:20):
the government, which is really
closely aligned with the WEF.
Right, so, Mark Ruta had, I'm
not sure how to pronounce his
last name. But anyway, he's the
Prime Minister. Yeah. And he is
like Klaus Schwab's five
favorite, Prime Minister, I
mean, they've made it, you know,
not really not, it's not really
hidden, at least in that regard,

(08:41):
you don't have to go, looking
very deeply to find, you know,
that association. It's like a
very public one. And from what I
understand, you know, this year,
there was like, a speech that
the king of the Netherlands
gives or something and for the
first time, it was greeted with
like, lots of booze, people are
very unhappy about the economic
situation, the the push to

(09:04):
reduce farming, and food,
exportation, and food
production, really, in general,
and all sorts of other stuff.
So, you know, I guess this is,
you know, important context to
keep in mind when, when
considering why perhaps they
were so afraid of your father
going to speak, because, you
know, he's a speaker that you

(09:25):
know,
that a lot of his audience is
inspired by what he says, right,
and it's galvanizing. So
probably
concerned about that, I guess,
giving more steam to the people
that are increasingly against
them. At this point, also,
there's a lot there's a lot of
people in, in the world in

(09:45):
general now, I think, especially
through the COVID era, but in
the Netherlands that aren't
pitlick they're not political,
necessarily. They, they probably
thought the great reset was a
conspiracy theory and things
like that, but then they look at
Things like, you know, Holland
is one of the biggest, if not
the biggest producer of food and
exporter in the world. And now

(10:07):
all of a sudden, we're not at
least. Yeah, well, at least you
know. And now suddenly, we're
not growing food. But people are
starving all over the world. And
now we're like, we're told
there's going to be food
shortages. But now you're the
government stuff that's
producing food. But that doesn't
make sense. And so in their, in
their minds, they're thinking,
something's up. And obviously,
then my dad comes along, and
like, you know, his weekly

(10:27):
things are called the dock
connector. So he kind of takes
these little dots that people
think are independent of each
other, puts it in the bigger
picture. And then all of a
sudden, people go, Oh, my God,
like they're doing this on
purpose. And they be terrified
of people realizing that. Yeah,
so I think what's interesting is
that a lot of this push to
really censor and even I guess,

(10:47):
you could say, attempts to
destroy people's lives,
livelihoods and careers. You
know, the big targets of that.
And recently, I mean, even
before other people solid
affecting them, really, um, it
was people like Alex Jones, and
people like your father. And you
know, maybe they weren't right
about everything. Right. But
they were definitely right, a

(11:07):
long time ago, about a lot of
stuff we're seeing play out now,
including this pushed a global
governance, a push to global
technocracy
and all of that, and it kind of
makes you wonder, you know, why
they're going so hard for them
out of everyone else that they
could potentially go after?
Well, the other part of it is

(11:28):
because it's a two year ban, you
know, what, what is it that
they're planning in the next few
years across Europe that they
don't want someone traveling
around telling people about, you
know,
and also the other thing is, I
got a message from from someone
a couple of days ago, who is
kind of inside a little bit, so
knows a little bit of how it

(11:49):
works in terms of these these
bands. And actually, he was
saying that
it's your father's not banned
from from the EU. But actually,
there's a lot of different
countries that use these same
lists. So if you're on this ban
list for the EU, then actually
that will apply to almost
certainly the US, almost

(12:10):
certainly Canada, New Zealand,
my dad's already banned from
Australia. That was, you know,
three or four years ago. And so
this person was saying like, you
know, it also doesn't mean that
he's not banned from non EU
countries. Obviously, there's
this countries in Europe that
aren't in the European Union,
but actually, they use the same
lists. So if you flew to one of

(12:32):
these countries, you go,
actually, that's not in the EU,
that's fine. I'm okay to go
here.
You know, you would find that
when you got to, up to the
customs gate, or whatever, that
you wouldn't be coming in, you
know, so actually, he's
basically under house arrest in
the UK.
Yeah, well, I think that's a
microcosm of what a lot of us

(12:53):
are seen to face if things don't
improve or aren't challenged
directly with this big push to
just control movements in
general and eliminate long, long
distance travel. Not that long
from now? Of course not. That
wouldn't be applying to the
elites, right? That would just
be applying to the rest of us.
But it starting with people like

(13:13):
your father, obviously, for very
particular reason. And it has to
do with what he says and with
speech. So I guess the question
then becomes, what are the
bigger implications
of that? Where, you know, these
privileges that I guess we're
all bound to lose? At some
point, if this agenda continues
to march forward? Why is it
being stripped from certain
people first, it's because of

(13:34):
what they're saying. Right? And
I think some people haven't
really
seen that for what it is. I was
just looking at a story the
other day where there's a
journalist in the EU, I believe
she's German, who was reporting
from the Donbass and Ukraine
Alina lip. So she was sanctioned
by Germany In Germany made plans
to prosecute her, but now it's
come out that her parents bank

(13:56):
accounts were closed by Germany,
and they've had to leave Germany
because they've basically been D
platformed. Because of what
their daughter did. And, you
know, again, no actual crime,
just reporting that that
challenge the Germans foreign
Germany's foreign policy at the
time as a German citizen, that's
pretty extreme. Yeah. And I, if

(14:19):
I'm not mistaken, hasn't your
family been censored as a
consequence of
you know, what your father does
and says, And in a similar way,
because it's very interesting to
me that they'll go after
people's families, you know, far
beyond just just them. Oh,
massively when I mean, the, kind
of the weirdest one of it is, so
when my dad had his PayPal taken

(14:39):
off him. They took everyone's
like, they took the families but
But what was really bizarre was
they took my dad's like, they
took my mom's, so that's like,
my dad's ex wife. They've been
divorced for years. Like, I
don't know how many years
they've been divorced for 20
plus years. And they took they
took hers and like she would use
this paper, maybe two

(15:00):
Pay for like foreign trips, if
she was going away with their
friends or whatever, she's not
even got the same surname, you
know, obviously, because when
when they divorced, she went
back to her maiden name. And,
um, but the paper took hers. And
it just felt at the time, like,
that's just really vindictive,
like just a nasty little spoiled
little brat, who's been told
that kind of sweets at the
checkout, you know, just a

(15:20):
little lashing out in such a
strange, strange way.
And, you know, it's very
strange, like, with my dad,
you're right, in the sense that
they want to shut him up, and
Alex Jones and others because of
what they're saying. But I think
another part of it as well is
that you make examples of them,
because they don't want to, in

(15:41):
my mind, anyway, I don't think
they want to have to keep
shutting people up. Because
that's, you know, a waste of
their time to have to keep
deleting people and banning
people and punishing people for
saying the wrong thing. What the
ideal scenario would be was that
no one would dare say the wrong
thing. And so you'll find them I
saw it firsthand during COVID,
you know, I was getting, because
I was very outspoken about it,

(16:01):
but that's fine. Because I'm
self employed, I don't rely on
anyone you know, in that sense,
and my family are all on board.
So I'm not going to lose that.
And I lost all my Normie friends
like 20 years ago, so I'm not
worried about losing them. So I
had no no fear. Whereas, you
know, I was getting private
messages from people going,
mate, I'm on the same page as
you. But if I said that on my
Facebook, I'd be sacked on the

(16:21):
spotlight. And so, you know,
even then you creating this
fear. So there's other people
that think, Well, I think the
same as David, but oh, my god,
yeah, well, I ain't gonna say
it, because this, this bloke
banned from Europe, you know,
like, and so people in the end
will just shut up themselves and
not there, say anything? Right?
Well, I think that's why they've

(16:41):
shifted so much towards this
financial censorship angle.
Also, because it, you know, if
you can't use a bank account,
and you can't use the financial
system, and you haven't made
plans to be independent of that,
you know, they kick you off it.
And, you know, you'll, you won't
be able to support yourself and

(17:01):
continue what you're doing. But
I mean, in some countries, this
has even happened to regular
people that just donated to a
particular cause, like in
Canada, people that donate it to
the trucker protests and stuff
like that had their bank
accounts just taken. And that
was under, you know, state of
emergency, you know, crisis
legislation, and, you know,
terrorism

(17:22):
policies originally used for
terrorism that were applied in
that in that particular
scenario, but it's not going I
mean, it's obviously not going
to stop there, you know.
And this is something that's not
going to stop with, you know,
people who have been outspoken
for a long time, like your
family, or Alex Jones, you know,
I mean, who's going to be the

(17:43):
next person that's ordered to
pay a billion dollars for
doubting the official story
about something? Exactly. I
mean, you know, that that whole
precedent thing being said with
Alex Jones, you know, within a
few days it was you know, sudden
George Floyd's family are
wanting to sue Kanye West for
something he said, and it's kind
of like, what was it like 250
million or something they wanted
and you're like, Okay, right. So

(18:04):
that that that precedent has
been set already and it's
already being used
it's it's it's absolutely
ridiculous to me that kind of
people don't have the foresight
because it you know, people are
so tribal so it's kind of like
oh, I don't agree with David
Icke. He's not on my side Like
he's not in my tribe. So destroy
him. Yeah, good, good, banned

(18:25):
him from everything, destroy
them. And what they don't
realize is that those those
rules, you know, that once
they're normalized, they'll come
for them in the end, because
that's how it works. And I was
talking actually a couple of
days ago to Ryan Christian, and
we were talking about it and
what I found I mean, I don't
like reading the comments
because like I say, Twitter is a
bit of a suspect because because
people are faceless. You know,
they'd never say it to your face

(18:45):
ever. Like yeah, because they
just wouldn't but you know,
behind the screen bang capslock
of that and and so I'll send to
him like but most of these
people that are going for my
dad, they're all generally not
always but mostly on the left
side of politics. So their their
tribe is you know, very kind of,
you know, pronouns in bio pro

(19:06):
Ukraine, and all that kind of
stuff probe masks and jabs and
these kinds of things but also
very pro Palestine and you think
okay, right well let's think
about this this whole attack on
my dad that's been going on for
years incessantly in Europe that
originated because he was
speaking up for Palestinians and
against the State of Israel. So
that's where that started and so
you go right

(19:27):
no one's on point with the
government and with the
narrative 100% the time like you
can tick all these boxes so you
got okay pro Master Pro job pro
Ukraine Pro The Next thing you
know, whatever, that's
brilliant. Oh, did you just did
you to speak out against Israel?
Because you know, that Sandy
smell so in the end, they'll
they'll come for them in the
end, you know, and so yeah,
totally. It's quite strange to

(19:49):
see people not realize that
actually, these these bars that
you're celebrating being
erected, you know, they're going
to be keeping you in a cage at
some point, too. Yeah,
absolutely. So some of the
recent
work I've done on domestic
terror policy in the US is
really disturbing. And this is
before even they announced their
now failed, disinformation board

(20:09):
and like all other sorts of
stuff. But pretty early on in
the administration, they were
talking about pretty much that
they have an umbrella policy,
which is to make people trust
the government more. And their
way of approaching that is to
censor certain people and then
basically re educate everyone
else, right.

(20:31):
And make what they call a
digital literacy program. And
that's part of what the Stinson
disinformation board was like
supposed to do. But in what when
they talk about censoring
people, they basically say that
anyone that creates disagreement
among Americans
is inciting violence, and
therefore can be considered a
domestic violent extremist or
domestic terrorists, just

(20:52):
because people aren't agreeing
with each other, which if you
follow that to its logical
conclusion, everyone must agree.
And everyone must agree with the
state and anyone that opposes
what the state says about a
particular event, or person, or
country, or whatever is inciting
violence by inciting

(21:13):
disagreement, or challenging the
government narrative. And that's
basically terrorism, as this as
this is defined. So, you know,
that's why I find it really dis
disconcerting that, you know,
what we see in this recent
situation with your father is
that particular line? I mean,
they've already said in policy
documents, that's the end point.

(21:35):
And we're seeing it advance a
lot. And pretty quickly, right.
So the fact that counter-terror
officials were involved in
deciding to ban your father from
the European Union, I think that
says a lot. And if they sent you
this, you know, terrorism
related document about terror
level three, and that's why he

(21:56):
can't be there. They think that
his speech that he would have
given at this rally would have,
you know, I guess, fomented
disagreement. And, you know,
allegedly that is now enough for
inciting violence. So I guess,
you know, we're all supposed to
agree and agree with the state
and what kind of society is
that? Well, that's it a

(22:17):
terrifying one. And the other
thing they do, and they have
done is
it's kind of conflated so to me,
like, I think violence is
violence, like physical
violence, that's, that's
violence. But now words are
violent. So actually, you can
just speak, you know, so going
up on a stage and saying, I
don't know, say, kill Muslims.

(22:38):
Alright, well, that's inciting
violence.
But now inciting violence could
be saying that women don't have
penises. Like, because that's,
you know, that's inciting
violence, because that's harm
that causes harm to people that
believe they're a woman, even
though they're not, you know,
and that kind of stuff. And so
in the end, everything becomes
illegal.
Yeah, well, what you brought up

(22:59):
earlier about how a lot of the
efforts to like, smear and get
your father banned and stuff
started with the Government of
Israel, a lot of this effort to
conflate speech with violence
goes back to groups like the
anti Defamation League, for
example, who are obviously
connected to the State of
Israel. I mean, they're
basically a lobby group. For the

(23:21):
State of Israel, their parent
organization has been I breath,
which I talk about a lot in the
books for people that have been
making their way through that.
Because, you know, that's
basically what the Wexner
Foundation came out of. And a
lot of these people that are the
modern day, Jewish mob like
organized an ethnic enclave of
organized crime that's existed

(23:41):
for the better part of the past
100 years. I mean, they
basically
fund and run the ADL. And the
ADL is the group that comes out
and basically says, you want to
criticize these powerful people
that fund us. You're an anti
Semite, you know, to basically,
you know, if you want to go and

(24:02):
say, I mean, before Jeffrey
Epstein was arrested, for
example, if you wanted to go and
say that something bad about
Epstein or something bad about
Leslie Wexner, you probably
would have had the ADL come at
you and say, You're an anti
Semite. Yeah, exactly. These
are, these are the groups that
are all affiliated, they're the
ones that initiated the ban.
They're the ones that you know,

(24:22):
they're so called anti hate
groups. That basically as dad
says, they're hate groups
really, in the sense that they
just want everyone to hate their
targets. So they pick a target,
which is Yeah, that's a good
point. You know, and then they
go right look how evil and
horrible these guys are. What's
really amazing to me is, you
know, they, they attack dad on
based on misinformation, fake

(24:43):
news, all that kind of stuff,
right? Yet, the mainstream media
can say what the hell they want,
like literally what they want.
So when he got banned, there was
kind of radio silence for like
24 hours in the UK. And then the
UK press picked it up and the
Daily Mail
I'm, which is a complete brag
anyway, but the sub in the sub

(25:04):
header right there, it said, I
claimed the Jews
cause the COVID pandemic.
And you're like, right, he gets
banned for saying that the virus
doesn't exist. So how can it?
How can it be created by Jewish
people? And he obviously never
said that. And so I went at them
was like, you know, can you
provide evidence of this,

(25:24):
please?
Crickets, but it's like, but you
can just say that, you know, and
someone will pick that up and
go, Oh, my God, that's
disgusting. And you really never
said it, though. Because it's
absolute nonsense, you know. And
it's the same thing where they
call him. I remember one
article, when this was before
COVID, when they were trying to
get him banned from a tour that
he was doing in actually in the

(25:45):
UK. And there was at the Center
for countering digital hate
campaign against anti semitism.
These groups are all combined to
try and get him banned.
They actually said in one of the
articles that he was a Holocaust
denier that claims that Jewish
people were behind the
Holocaust. That was that was one
sentence. And you're like,
how can both be true? Yeah.

(26:07):
Well, where's the editor should
be looking at going? That makes
literally no sense. Mate, can
you go back and rewrite that,
please? But but they just say it
and people go, Yeah, he is. What
both of those things? Yeah,
well, I think you know what
people like him. And it's the
same with Alex Jones, too, even
though I'm not particularly a
fan of Alex Jones. And some of
the things that he said,
particularly about Muslim
Americans and narratives about

(26:29):
911. And in the war on terror.
I mean, there's just a lot of, I
mean, people like that you can
literally say anything about
them, and no one in mainstream
media will challenge you unless
the person you're attacking
legally challenges you for
defamation, like, I'm sure you
or your father could probably
sue the Daily Mail right over
things that he never said. And

(26:51):
when because the UK has really
strong,
you know, defamation laws. But
you know, as far as mainstream
media are, like, a lot of how a
lot of people think and I mean,
I think they're so conditioned
to hearing that type of stuff
about these particular people,
the people that have been
targeted for so long with a
specific group, so they're just
willing to accept it like, oh,

(27:12):
yeah, I've heard them call him
crazy before Oh, this might be
why he's crazy. Wow, he's really
crazy and not really look any
further than that, you know?
Because he doesn't really have
he's not given the same platform
to challenge what people what
people on the mainstream media
say about him. Right? He's not
given that opportunity to
respond. No, and that's what is

(27:33):
so I think so unbelievable,
really given you know,
especially the last three years
particularly in the UK and I
guess in America as well with
with the fact that the whole pro
you know, rohner narrative, and
now the whole pro Ukraine
narrative, has, has had almost
every single microphone
available. And yet, you know,

(27:53):
through the internet, and
through protests and gatherings
and stuff, like this whole kind
of counter narrative has managed
to get through. And people like
my dad, and Alex and yourself
and others, the voices have
managed to get through despite
all the either censorship or
ignorance by by the mainstream
is unbelievable, really.

(28:14):
And you know, they're not,
they're not happy about it, I
don't think you No, I think
particularly in the UK that you
know, the COVID stuff, and the
digital IDs, and all the stuff
that they want off the back of
it would be so much further down
the line if it wasn't for people
like dad and others that stood
up early doors.
And so I kind of think maybe,
it's almost like, yes, it's

(28:36):
about silencing him. Yes, it's
about setting an example to shut
people up and getting them to
think twice about saying
anything. But also, it's about,
you know, what is coming in the
next couple of years that
they're preemptive striking, you
know, so it's like going around
now, right? Who is going to
speak out against this? Right?
Well, he definitely will, she
probably will, he might blow up
right, we'll just get rid of
them now, a proactive preemptive

(28:57):
strike of so called conspiracy
theorists and alternative voices
before,
you know, something else comes
along? Well, I said this in a
recent speech, I was in the US
not that long ago, and I gave a
speech at Children's Health
defense. And it was basically
about the crisis in journalism
and how there's a war on dissent

(29:17):
that doesn't just apply to
journalism or independent
journalists, it applies to
really everyone that uses online
platforms. And near the end of
that, you know, I pointed out
that these people that I'm
talking about it in, in the
speech, it's mostly focused on
on the US, they want to control
the narrative to a degree that

(29:38):
we have never seen. I quote in
there a guy from a military
contractor, AI firm that targets
misinformation and whatnot, and
he pretty much openly says that
what needs to be done is to
replace you know, all this
disagreement, quote, unquote,
about US government history and
all of that with a Wikipedia
style database built on

(30:00):
For, you know, basically
authored by the CIA,
I mean, it's very, you know, out
in the open. And so if you plan
to do that, right, and your
other plan is to censor all the
voices that disagree with that,
any sort of truth that gets
through to people, you know,
people out on a visceral level,
not necessarily always

(30:21):
intellectual, sometimes, yes,
but not always, you know, people
gravitate towards the truth, and
even if you hide it from them,
and that's really the only tool
they have is to offer their
version of events. And then And
then since for sensor, anything
that doesn't agree with that,
the truth, people are able to
sort of discern, not everyone,
but most people are able to
discern the truth at some level
that's like, visceral, you know,

(30:43):
or at least that's how I feel.
And so if they're so afraid of
having any sort of inkling of
the truth be available, as you
know, this stuff really starts
to advance that, you know, they
have to try and sensor really in
every, in every possible way.
And there is, you know, I guess

(31:05):
some more red lines, they could
cross, but I mean, it would be
at the risk of totally betraying
who they really are to their
suppose and base, or at least to
the, you know, the group of
people who are sort of in limbo
note, like you mentioned earlier
in like Holland, like, they
know, the narrative doesn't make
sense, and something's up, but
they don't really know what's

(31:25):
going on. They, you know, if
they cross that red line, for
example, start disappearing
people, which has happened in
other places that have gone this
route before, you know, they
risk sort of jolting those
people out of their slumber. And
any other sorts of, you know,
any other sort of stuff could it
could happen, once it reaches,

(31:46):
it reaches that point, the
question is, are we getting
close to that? What are your
thoughts?
Wouldn't surprise me at all, I
think how pre you know,
previously, through history,
they've got away with doing
stuff like that is by creating
such apathy towards those people
from the population. And you can
see, particularly in in Holland,

(32:07):
with the mainstream media,
that's what they tried to do
with my dad. I mean, if you'd
read those articles, you know,
you'd have literally thought he
was like, the second coming of
Adolf Hitler, you know, that was
how it was sold, you know, do
you think that's inciting
violence against him?
Well, it is because he received
death threats off the back of
it, and all those death threats
were reported to, to Instagram,

(32:28):
and they didn't break community
guidelines, obviously.
But you know, it's, that's it
feels like it's probably part of
it, you know, that if you create
such hatred of someone, and
you're less bothered if bad
things happen to them. You know,
I think I saw that on firsthand
on social media and the reaction

(32:49):
to him being banned, you know,
good. So you're, what's the
gentleman that you've just,
you've just been conditioned to
hate this person, because you've
read the mainstream media's
version of who they are. And all
of a sudden you don't care that
they have all these freedoms
taken away, you can give a toss
because, you know, they're
scumbags in your mind. And that
feels like that's the kind of

(33:10):
the way it's been set up with
this kind of tribal groupthink
that we have now where I am so
engrained like in the fact that
I am right, like I am, right,
and therefore the fact that
you're saying something
different to me of see, well,
then you're wrong, then you must
be because it's not what I'm
saying. And if you're wrong, or

(33:31):
to who we are, you know, and
we've seen that a lot that I've
never ever celebrated anyone
being banned or kicked off, or D
platformed. or fined, or
whatever, for what they think
even if I think they're an
idiot, like, or I don't agree
with what they're saying is
like, that's not that's not how
you win an argument. Well, I
think a lot of people that
you're talking about that would
like celebrate a band like this

(33:52):
and stuff, they're getting their
information from what they
consider to be authoritative
sources and sources that aren't
authoritative. They ignore they
be little, you know, they see is
irrelevant or bad like is
conspiracy spreaders and
whatnot. Right. And so it's
ultimately based on a deference
to authority. And so if the

(34:12):
authorities are the people,
you know, trying to silence
someone, and they're getting
their news from all these, you
know, authoritative sources tied
up with that particular
authority.
I guess you could say it makes
sense, but I think it just sort
of underscores that the issue
we're dealing with here is how

(34:34):
the state is trying to control
speech. And the people that I
just mentioned, are, you know,
people whose speech is
controlled by the state to a
significant degree, and that's
the whole basis of you know, I
support the current thing,
right? Those people aren't doing
whatever these authoritative,
quote unquote, Sources tell them

(34:56):
to be concerned or outraged
about I mean, it's ultimately
for lack of a better
are worried it's mind control.
And what I talked about in, in
another part of my recent speech
is that if you in order to
control human behavior, you have
to control how they think.
Right? And a lot of that is
about controlling what speech

(35:16):
they're exposed to, and not
exposed to. Right? Oh, exactly.
Yeah, you know, in a free
society, you would be able to
hear both sides, weigh up the
pros and cons of both sides,
what resonates with you? What
makes sense, given your personal
life experience, and then you
make your decision based on
that, but you know, if all you
have is one side than that's

(35:38):
definitely going to shape how
you perceive the world and how
you perceive people around you.
But I also think, you know,
like, the point you were saying
earlier about people know, when
they hear the truth, I agree
100% It resonates within people,
you know, even to such a base
level, the you know, if you if
you were in a pub, and maybe you
know, there wasn't much room

(35:59):
around so you're like, what if
we just sit there lads, and
these two lads let you sit with
them, and then you end up
talking to him. You know, when
one of those lads is full of
shit. Now you just know that he
will tell a story you don't know
and you don't know whether his
story is true or not. But you
just know and you'll go to
absolute full of crap that guy
was, you just know when
someone's lying to you, I think
generally. And you and you, you

(36:20):
know when when something feels
true to.
And so what society what so what
the media and governments that
funded controlled media have
tried to do particularly in the
last three, three years is to
tell you not to believe your own
eyes, don't believe what you
see, believe what we tell you is
happening.
Right and it worked. It worked.
It actually worked for for a

(36:41):
period of time, you know, in the
UK, in the end, particularly in
England.
The English people saw through
the COVID lies pretty sharpish
in the end. And hence while you
know all the restrictions had to
be lifted at a point when you
know there are still
restrictions in different places
all over the world. But you
know, the masks and all that
stuff went in England pretty
sharpish because people were
like, nah, this is nonsense. I'm
not doing it.

(37:03):
But at the beginning, they did
they, they they believed what
the media was telling them over
what they they saw with their
own eyes. And I remember saying
to people, you know, how many
people do you know? I don't know
anyone? Oh, okay. Do you know
anyone that knows anyone? Well,
no, I don't know. Anyone knows
anyone that's weighed in it.
That's weighed in it. And you'd
see like the cogs would be
turning in people's heads like,
Well, yeah, that is pretty

(37:23):
weird. And it actually because I
know quite a lot of people and I
work in a factory with a lot of
people and they don't know
anyone either. But the tape the
TV is telling me that, you know,
everyone's dropping like flies,
it doesn't make any sense. And
then, you know, you realize that
you've been lied to, but at the
very beginning, that's what they
did. The media just said, you
know, what, you see me rose with
your own eyes, just don't
believe that, believe me
instead. And then you have New

(37:45):
Zealand where she says the only
source of truth is the
government. Imagine saying,
yeah, she was really blatant in
that regard. But I think also at
the same time, you know, like
the situation, we're just
describing the people that
trusted at first and then feel
like they got burned. Right?
What damage has that done to
their agenda? And I think it's
pretty clear when you see groups
like the World Economic Forum,

(38:05):
the Biden administration, you
know, governments and media
outlets and think tanks like
this around the world, a lot of
their big focus over the past
year has been quote, unquote,
rebuilding trust with the
public. And it doesn't really
seem like it's working to a
significant degree, like in the
US, for example. You know,

(38:27):
people the, the amount of people
who believe in the mainstream
media is I think, at the lowest
point, it's probably ever been.
I think things about 11% isn't
in the US. Yeah,
exactly. But it's, it's quite
low, right. And so they have to
rebuild that trust. But I think
what they're trying to do too,
is that a lot of the people who

(38:48):
have tried to look for an
alternative narratives are
trying to make it very difficult
to find that at least online,
which is why I say a lot to
people that this you know, fight
for truth or whatever you want
to call, it really has to go off
offline as well. Because these
guys, the state, whatever, is
focusing a lot of its attention

(39:09):
on the online sphere of
communication and weaponizing
that as much as they can, and
they are insistent that only
their permitted version of quote
unquote truth will be what's
available and people that go
against that online might even
be barred from the internet or
worse, especially as the some

(39:29):
this push for digital ID starts
to play out. I know that you
know, in the UK, right, the the
gospel of digital or the the
evangelist of digital ideas,
Tony Blair, right. But in the US
they tried to pilot digital ID
for a different reason than Tony
Blair's sales pitch in the US.
It was first under the Obama

(39:49):
administration and they called
it a driver's license for the
Internet, tying your government
ID to your internet access on
what you do on the internet and
I
Think more recently in the UK,
they've made this push to tie
some sort of government issued
ID to your social media accounts
and things like that. And it's
pretty easy to see, you know

(40:10):
where this is going. So anyway,
since brought up some of that
stuff there, I'm curious about
your thoughts in on a lot of
these initiatives going on in
the UK right now that are
targeting speech, because
there's a lot of them.
I mean, the digital ID bit just
briefly that I mean, Rishi
Sunak, who's now the prime
minister who wasn't elected by

(40:31):
the people, anyone, not even
people within his own party.
Yeah, no, he's just replaced his
trust. He wasn't elected by
anyone either. He is a big
proponent of digital IDs, I
think it's his father in law is
is runs a company that pushes
for digital ideas produces that
kind of stuff. So you know,

(40:51):
there's a massive push for it
there but also like, it's really
obvious to see in the UK what
they do, you know, who they want
to be the next government very,
very, very easily because what
happens is, if they want the
Tory government which what
they've got the minute the media
give the Tories an absolute free
ride, like it's insane, they
give them an absolute free ride,

(41:12):
and they tend to put the leader
of the opposition as a bit of an
idiot.
Although in this case, he is an
idiot as well. But what they've
done recently is they basically
pretty much destroyed the
Conservative Party with
infighting and this and that and
the shambles of different prime
ministers. The media is
massively turned on them and now
is big enough the Labour Party

(41:32):
which is Kier Starmer, who is a
sir,
who's you know, a member of the
trilateral, Trilateral
Commission and stuff out so he's
an insider.
So they obviously want labour as
the next government, which is
hilarious because they're now
marching ahead in the polls,
when 25 minutes ago, they were
unelectable. But they didn't

(41:54):
have to get any better. They
just destroyed the Tories and
made them unelectable. So when
you look at what the Labour
Party are pushing now, they're
pushing digital IDs based on to
combat immigration. That's their
sales pitch now, because they've
looked at immigration, which in
England is insane. I think it's
like 1% of Albania, is in

(42:16):
England now. It's absolutely
insane.
The amount of people that have
come over the channel in
dinghies in the last 11 months
is, you know, it's, I think it's
the same amount as like the last
three or four years. It's like,
it's there's a massive push for
it. And they're all, you know,
fighting age men with 100 pound
trainers. So, you know, make of

(42:37):
that what you will, and they're
housing them in hotels, they're
taking over hotels, very
expensive five star hotels, in
some cases, and just sticking
them in there. While you know,
there's homeless people on the
streets. It's, it's insane
what's happening. So there's, as
a result of that, there's quite
a lot of uproar from the general
public, because it's like, this
is insane what we're doing here.
So labor of their kind of sales

(42:59):
pitch of how they're going to
solve it is a dicots. Like,
that's what you wanted under
Blair, and they got thrown out.
So you just, you know, they
always come back and revisit it,
they just kind of, oh, we'll
come back in a bit with a new
excuse for for that isn't Blair
trying to make his re entry into
politics in the US, they're
trying to make a third party
that's like a centrist party.

(43:20):
The third way, quote, unquote,
party and Blair was, you know,
one of those third way type guys
in the UK, right? Do you think
he'll try and interject himself?
He's gentle, he's, he's arrogant
enough to do it. And he's got
such kind of little self

(43:41):
awareness to actually do it. But
he, they'll struggle with him
because he is very much hated by
most people on both sides,
really? And rightly so. Yeah,
for the, you know, people
remember the Iraq War, and I
mean, and the lies and all that
sort of stuff. So
him being behind the party would

(44:02):
not surprise me. Although he
said, you know, they're doing
that anyway. I mean, they've got
this this, this, you know, Tony
Blair Institute, which is kind
of embedded in lots of different
the Institute for Global change,
it's called right or something.
Yeah. Yeah. So, you know,
they're, they're embedded
anyway. And that's the thing,
because, you know, politicians
are just frontman anyway. So if
you want to rule a country or

(44:23):
push a country's agenda, you
don't need to be, you know, you
don't need to have the face on
the stamp to be able to do that,
you know, you just need to have
control over the person who's
got the face on the stump. And
that's, you know, Blair being
involved in that wouldn't shock
me in the slightest, because
he's like, he's like a turd that
won't flush is just one go.
Yeah, all right. Well, um, if I

(44:45):
remember correctly, the UK has
been struggling with a
particular bill that targets
online speech. And I think when
Liz trust came in, she said she
was going to alter it. Rishi
Sunak has made claims that he's
going to alter it. So
What exactly is the issue with
this bill? Why is it bad? And do
you see it being passed or not?

(45:05):
Well, it will be passed 100%.
It's just what what parts of it
get passed. So it's called the
online harms bill. And it's got
lots of different parts of it.
But there was actually a bit of
a victory for us really, in the
last couple of weeks now, you
know, as they were talking about
ID cards, they'll come back and
revisit it at a later date, I'm

(45:25):
sure. But the biggest bone of
contention with most people with
the online harms Bill was the
harmful but not illegal.
So part of the bill was that
they could basically prosecute
people for not breaking the law
if it was deemed harmful.
And that's regards to online
speech. Yes. Or other? Yeah.

(45:47):
Yeah. Because regards to online
speech, yeah. And, you know,
video platforms and everything
will come under that umbrella.
And but it was so disconcerting,
the vague, I mean, who defines
harm, you know, watching a
boyband can be harmful. But
you would kind of very much tie

(46:08):
into this whole kind of push
with the whole transgender
movement and stuff like that, at
the moment in the UK, which has
gone crazy.
Because, you know, the Tavistock
Institute, which was
transitioning young kids, it was
just horrendous, that, you know,
the really young children and,
and so
there was a, you know, that got
closed down. And so there's been
a bit of uproar against it, and

(46:28):
people actually speaking out
against that kind of treatment.
And so the online harms pill, if
it was in place, at that point,
with, you know, caveat of not
illegal, but harmful bit, you
know, those voices, you know,
people would have got in trouble
for saying that kind of stuff.
Because, you know, you can
offend and harm people really

(46:48):
easily, you know, it's not hard,
you say something they don't
like, then, you know, that's
hard. So that bit was taken out
for now, which is great. Because
that, you know, that was that
was the real dark bit of it that
I think most people thought or
at least, you know, she can get
prosecuted for something that
they openly admit isn't one of
the hot harmful but not illegal

(47:09):
idea is just insane because
basically, okay, it's not
illegal, but we're making
anything we deem harmful or
illegal. Yeah, exactly. And you
look to say like that is such a
vague term harmful so that you
can apply that to whatever you
like you can you know, if you're
questioning Israel Well, that's
making the Jewish community feel

(47:30):
feel threatened and therefore
that's that's harmful. Is
everything. Literally anything
like I said before, like women
don't have penises. Well,
that's, that's harmful to
transgender women. So they go to
the police or at your door. It's
extraordinary, really.
But another thing in politics, I
don't know if you've seen it
over there. But this this whole
Edie is our thing.

(47:51):
So Eddie is odd is a, an actor,
stand up comedian and stuff,
right? And he's always cross
dressed. That's always been his
look, you know, he's he's
married to a woman and stuff.
But he's, you know, he's, he's
called ADSR. He's a guy. But
he's always he's always crossed,
dressed. And then he started
sort of saying he was going into
girl mode and stuff like that.
And people just kind of let them

(48:12):
get on with it. Like, whatever,
that's fine. You do you and you
live your best life me
when I was a woman, full time.
And so he's now basically he
just wears a pink beret and a
floral dress, and
Marge Simpson makeup, and now
all of a sudden, he's a woman,
right? But he's, he's standing
as an MP for the Labour Party,

(48:34):
in Sheffield, and he almost
certainly when because the North
tends to vote Labour anyway,
even before the Conservative
Party is falling apart, so he
will almost certainly win. And
he'll become a female MP, but
you know, he's a man but he, he
has been video going into
women's bathrooms and coming in
out of women's bathrooms, like,

(48:55):
you know, it's created like a
real crazy thing round here.
Where people are female, you
know, like, we need safe spaces.
Like this isn't right, this
isn't right. And so people that
have been standing up against
him have been, you know, getting
banned and given warnings and
abused and called transphobic
and all this kind of stuff. It's

(49:16):
been real kind of surreal here
to watch it. And so he was
interviewed the other day, and
he was that they kind of said to
him, you know, what do you say
to women that have you know,
very real fears about you know,
biological men you know,
technically been going into this
spaces and whatever and he's
just like,
you know, people just need to

(49:36):
sort themselves out and get with
a 21st century
a psych that used to be called
mansplaining that but it's it
really is extraordinary and fun
for people in America to have a
look at it is odd it's because
of just the absolute madness of
it. And and all the news like
the mainstream news papers, call

(49:57):
it call Eddie her you know,
She's going to do this, she's
going to do that. And you take a
look. And well, I think even the
conservative outlets in the UK
have gone out of their way to be
really accommodating of, of this
stuff, in particular. But I
mean, it's a really complicated
issue. So I mean,
you know, if you talk to some
lesbians, for example, and they

(50:18):
have an event where it's
biological women who are
lesbian, attending, and it's
their safe space, and then all
of a sudden, you know, a trans
woman who likes women comes and
tries to go to the to that it's
a lot of mixed feelings in that
community. Are those lesbians
bigots? Right? Because they
don't feel, you know, are they

(50:39):
anti trans or anti gay when
they're again, I mean, it's just
like,
a really complicated issue. And
it's, they sort of just make it
like, only the feelings of one
person and that story matter,
you know? Yeah. Well, that's how
that's how it is here. I mean,
there's a trans
organization called mermaids,
which

(50:59):
horrendous I think they got in
trouble with the NHS. And they
recently, I mean, they Yeah,
like, the line on some stuff.
Yeah, the, you know, they're not
a nice organization at all, but
they, they're now fighting in
the courts to get there's an
organization here called LGB.
Alliance. So obviously, lesbian,
gay bisexual Alliance, where

(51:21):
they're basically, you know,
trying to protect their own
rights. So it's not a case of
their rights are just smashed
for, you know, to accommodate
the team, basically. And so you
know, that mermaids charity is
now going through the courts to
try and get that organizations
charitable status taken away and
banned, and all this kind of
stuff. It's, it's really become

(51:43):
extraordinary now, in the UK, on
that front, on that kind of
whole gender thing is, it's got
really quite unpleasant
actually. So do you see a point
where, you know, a lot of this
like cultural stuff that have
become issues? You know, there's
we've been talking mostly about,
like, sort of political speech,
I guess, today, but do you see

(52:05):
sort of like speech about this
push to alter cultural norms? Do
you see that sort of getting
thrown in the same?
I don't know, basket, I guess
where speech is being, you know,
inconvenient speech is being
equated as terrorist activity?
Oh, most certainly. I think if
any level, if you attempt to

(52:26):
speak out against what the
agenda is, then it doesn't
matter whether it's a political
agenda, or the cultural agenda,
the war on kids, the war on the
elderly, or any of these things,
the you know, they will go for
you in the same way. Because
it's an you know, you pointing
these things out is an
inconvenience. And so they want
to silence those voices. I mean,

(52:46):
it's very strange. I made a bit
of a joke, like I said earlier,
like how I think it's 1% of
Albanian men is now now in the
UK, which is insane. I mean,
that's absolutely insane. And it
would be insane if 1% of English
men were in Albania. So I mean,
it's like it's just, it's crazy.
Anyway,
I think now 1/6 of people in
Britain weren't born here as

(53:07):
well. And it's kind of like, but
if this continues, like that's,
it's obviously going to alter
the culture of a country. Of
course, it wouldn't be the same
as if, you know, British people
went in and went and moved into
Spain or wherever else it would,
it would create a difference. So
when they banned that, like, I
just made it a little it was
just a joke. I was just like,
you know, like, the EU might be
smart now. But I'll just, if I

(53:28):
want to get my dad over there,
I'll just sort them out an
Albanian passport, and I'll
stick him in a dinghy. Right.
And I just thought it was kind
of like a little throwaway joke.
And I'll make the amount of
abuse I got from that. From from
the Bluetick worker, it calling
me a racist and a bigot. They
were trying to get me kicked off
Twitter. So like, you know, like
when someone reports your tweet,
you get the email from Twitter,

(53:49):
you know, telling you how it
didn't break the guidelines, or
whatever. The amount of emails I
was getting, because people were
reporting this thing. It's like,
it's a joke. Maybe it's
literally a joke. It's kind of
true. But it's a joke, you know.
And so that, you know, like I
say, I was called hateful and
bigoted and racist just for
that. And it's like, but who am
I being racist against Albanians
at dinghy like, what the hell?

(54:12):
But so you know, that then
becomes hate speech? When it's
just a joke. Yeah. So I mean,
when it comes to the illegal
immigration stuff, it's really
hard. I mean, it's obviously
I don't know, in my personal
experience, as someone that's
had to move or shuffle around
the world a bit in the past two

(54:32):
years or so. And all these
different laws have come up with
COVID. And not it's like, been
very hard to migrate or move
legally to certain countries.
But those types of barriers
haven't really applied to
specific populations that are
crossing and specific illegal
ways. Right. And so that makes
you think, Well, it seems like

(54:53):
these governments that are
allowing that but not allowing
the other type of migration have
a vested interest and that type
of
activity taking place. And so if
you're talking about the uptick
in England of these types of
migrants arriving, I mean, it's
pretty undeniable that the US on
the southern border is having
that as well. And if you look at
this, from the bigger context of
people looking for the

(55:15):
eradication, I guess, you could
say, of nationalism and moving
towards a globalist paradigm,
what you really have to do is
you have to fundamentally alter
national identity, so that it's
not a threat to creating a
global citizen identity, which
is what you know, is sort of the
underpinning of a lot of the
globalism stuff going on right
now. Right? Oh, absolutely.
sounds it sounds a different

(55:35):
place is a different place from
when I was a kid. And I'm only
40. Like, I'm not that old. I
feel it. But it's a totally
different place from when I was
a kid. So goodness knows how
different it is from when say,
my dad's mum was a kid, you
know, like that the place has
changed so much. Yeah, it's an
island is an island. Do you know
and like, with, what are the
people coming over from Albania?

(55:55):
So how many countries have you
got to go through before you get
to England? So there's obviously
a reason for it for it to be
England, whatever that reason
is? I don't know. But, you know,
there's obviously a reason
behind it. And you're right, you
know,
rules don't apply. In this case,
if they wanted to stop it, they
could stop it in the same way.
You know, they can stop whatever
other stuff they don't want.
They obviously yeah, I mean,

(56:17):
just look at the US. Because
DHS, the Department of Homeland
Security, its mandate, the
reason it's supposedly been
needed so badly, since it was
made 20 years ago, is largely
about securing the border. And
they have no interest in doing
that. And they've made it really
clear. And there's been a lot of
political huffing and puffing on
both sides about it. But it's in

(56:39):
the policy doesn't make a lot of
sense at the end of the day. And
so you know, I'll give an
example from Chile that sort of
a little removed, maybe for some
people that have like emotional,
really strong emotions one way
or the other about this issue in
the US or the UK or Europe or
whatever. But like in Chile,
where I live, there's also a
major migrant issue. And there's
people that identify as laughed,

(57:01):
and all sorts of stuff that are
concerned that Chile is not like
it used to be and they want it,
you know, they are concerned
that the way they identify with
their like, not necessarily
nationalism, but like, you know,
they like their country, and
they liked being Chilean. And
now they feel like, you know, if

(57:22):
you go to a bunch of cities in
the north, they're not Chilean
anymore. So like, for example,
people that go
to cities in the far north,
there used to be a tourism
industry there to an extent for
the beaches and whatever. Now
there's not because the Chileans
that would go there,
they just, you know, it's not
the same to them anymore. A lot
of the stuff that they liked
about it at the time, isn't
there? And like is it you know,

(57:42):
if you have a particular thing
you idealize from your
childhood, or things that you
liked about your country, and
they disappear? Because a bunch
of people that aren't from there
have come? Does that make you a
racist? What about the people in
the the countries they're coming
from, you know, for example, a
lot of migrants in Europe are
from what Africa and Libya and
or even in the US, they're from
Honduras, or places where

(58:03):
there's violence being created
in their home countries, a lot
of times by these, you know, the
Western foreign policy, they
probably want their countries to
stay to have stayed the same and
not been totally decimated or
destroyed or attacked by these,
by these entities. So we're all
sort of, you know, migrant and
non migrant, having the same

(58:25):
types of crises within ourselves
and what we longed for in a
national identity. It's being
taken away and for people on
both sides, and what are we
being pushed towards, but I
think, you know, either one side
or the other, you know, the
left, really only focus may be
on the migrant point of view,
and then the right only focus
focus on the non migrant point
of view, but we're all having
our, our national identities and

(58:46):
cultural identities taken from
us right now. Oh, exactly. And,
you know, when you think in
terms of the cause of it being
government foreign policy, is
that whole chicken and the egg
thing, isn't it? It's not I
mean, is that that's the that's
the intention of doing it. But
you're totally right. Like I
there is a massive gray area
with the whole thing. But you're
right. The leftists very much

(59:08):
have this view that every
immigrant coming in as a doctor,
and the far right, have this
view that every immigrant coming
in is a suicide bomber, and
neither are correct, obviously.
But it's one of those things
that you can't have this
conversation about, and I think
anything you can't have a
conversation about? Well, that's
why I think, you know, what
we've talked about today, in
terms of speech is so important,
because that gray area doesn't

(59:29):
get talked about and a lot of
people who do talk about those
gray areas, they either get
censored or they get maligned,
you know, someone who listens to
your father and you compare, you
know, stuff he says with stuff
mainstream media says he says, I
mean, it's like, really, it's
like night and day. You know,
there's a lot of, you know, I
haven't listened to everything
your father said, but like,
there's a lot of nuance a lot of
the time and then it gets boiled

(59:50):
down and simplified into
something that's like, so far
removed from what he was
actually saying, you know, and
that's sort of how they, they
characterize them and they
I don't know, I feel like in
today's world for the powers
that be like nuanced is
something they want to eliminate
entirely, or any sort of gray
area or, you know, big picture

(01:00:10):
stuff, where we sort of realize,
oh, well, we agree about a lot
of base things. And we can start
from there. And come together,
you know, anything that's going
to bring people together, you
which often seem seems to be in
this nuanced gray area to sort
of bring the two extremes to a
meeting point. You know, they
don't like that. And they don't

(01:00:31):
want to be there. They don't
want people to listen to it.
Right. So another thing they use
Whitney, obviously the same in
the US, but they use it here a
lot. And I heard it a lot coming
out of the Dutch band and all
this sort of stuff, is it's
trope and dog whistle. And so
what they can do is they can
accuse you of saying something
you haven't actually said by

(01:00:51):
saying what you said was a dog
whistle for something else. And
so we saw it a lot here with a
term globalist, like globalist
is a dog whistle for Jewish now,
right? And it's like, well, no,
it's really nice. It's a well
used term. And it's there are
globalist there's people that
describe themselves as
globalist. But that's something

(01:01:13):
they've done here in a way to
silence people. So when you can
say, oh, you know, you know,
globalist want to do this. And
then they call you anti semitic.
And what's anti semitic about
that? Are we talking about our
globalist is a dog whistle.
Okay, so what you're doing is
you're accusing me of saying
something I didn't actually say,
by using the term dog whistle or
trope before, and they do that a

(01:01:35):
hell of a lot in Europe. Yeah, I
mean, it's really complicated.
And I hope people Well, I think
people are increasingly getting
wise to it in the sense that
trust in a lot of the
organizations and outlets that
put that push that type of
rhetoric, I mean, they've kind
of lost the plot with a lot of
people. And you know, I said
this during the time during
COVID stuff, I think they were
overplaying their hand a lot.
And a lot of the stuff about
like the unvaccinated need to be

(01:01:57):
wiped off the face of the earth,
you know, that kind of rhetoric
when it came out. And now it you
know, they're trying to ask for
amnesty and all that stuff. Like
they're basically acting like,
you know, Oh, we didn't mean to,
and like there wasn't there
acknowledging there wasn't
justification at all for that
type of rhetoric, and that it
was bad and hateful. Right. So I

(01:02:19):
don't know, will it keep
working? Will it make people
that previously didn't question
this stuff? Question, I think
yeah, I think more people are
questioning now than ever. The
question is, how fast are they
going to drop the censorship
hammer and under what metrics
and as we're seeing in the case,
you know, of your father, David
Icke, and and other people,
they're increasingly linking

(01:02:40):
their censorship efforts with
their alleged counterterrorism
efforts, but ultimately, people
that challenge their authority
to them are the terrorists and
it doesn't matter if you're, you
know, someone in Iraq fighting
the US military occupation, or
you're someone in the US or the
UK online, trying to call a hold
the government to account for
wrongdoing, you know, it's all

(01:03:01):
the same in their eyes, I think
at the end of the day, 100%, but
they're over cooking the eggs,
like you said, like they
OVERPLAYED THEIR hand during
COVID. One thing about that
Amnesty thing, which is really
frustrating is lots of people
have come out of asking for
forgiveness, based on the fact
that oh, you know, we vilified
these people because we thought
it stopped transmission. And now
we know it doesn't I'm sorry.

(01:03:22):
Oh, so so it was a so it would
still be okay to vilify them, if
you believed it did stop
transmission. Okay, that's not
really an apology, then.
You know, but in terms of that
kind of, you know, link with
terrorism and all that sort of
stuff. They just feel like
they've really overplayed their
hand and they've just woken more
people up like, they've had to

(01:03:43):
now try and take the like bowl,
which is a bowl.com, which is
the biggest book retailer in
Holland has now banned dad's
books because they were flying
off the shelves, because people
are like wanting to, you know,
find out what the hell this guy
is saying.
Because you've you banned him
from a continent. So you must be
saying something. So books were
flying off the shelves and
obviously now that they're
refusing to stop them. But but

(01:04:04):
you know, you could have you
could have, you could have shut
down that protest in Amsterdam,
you could have shut it down. So
it was a security risk. Say
you'd had I don't know see that
a bomb threat. You know, there
was so much rhetoric in the
media about my dad that people
said there were death threats on
Insta, say say that you had a
very real bomb threat and so
you've shut off the whole area

(01:04:25):
and you stop it. You could have
quite easily done that. And it
wouldn't have alerted anyone to
anything really. I mean, we'd
have gone year right but you
know, most people in Holland
would have gone Oh, okay, fair
enough. He doesn't get to speak
but instead you ban him from the
holy you for two years like
that's gonna wake people up with
Alex Jones. You could have
destroyed Infowars and shut down
Alex Jones by finding him what
like 10 million quid maybe you

(01:04:46):
could have
a lot of people would have gone
yeah, Damn straight, but a
billion. Now we'll have people
go well hang on, like, you know,
like there's an organization an
American I think company that
you know
spilt a bunch of stuff in the
water in India, that killed like
15,000 people they didn't get
fined half of what Alex Jones

(01:05:06):
was fined for saying words. And
so Wall Street banks collapsed
the economy of like the world,
and they weren't even
investigated by the government
and they didn't have to pay
anything
that makes the Bush
administration kill a million
Iraqis.
George W. Bush just celebrated
as a as a as a great painter

(01:05:28):
now. I mean, it's like clown
world. Sure. But he's woken
people up, I think, because
people like to say, I kept
seeing all the time David Ickes
and also but David also nuts
above mean, these are not people
that like our family, but are
saying, but this is insane. What
do you mean? Like you banned
from a continent? Like that's
insane? Yeah, I mean, it's it's
next level? Hmm. Well,

(01:05:48):
hopefully, it will get better
before it gets worse, but maybe
not.
At least. Yeah.
Sorry, what's that? I was gonna
say the more they do it, the
more they show their hand,
though, you know, and that kind
of fills me with a bit of
optimism, because I think, you
know, I don't think that they
want to show their hand because

(01:06:09):
no one wants to show their hand,
I think you just carry on doing
stuff in the background, that
would be great. But the fact
that having to show their hand,
to me at least shows that
they're frightened of something.
You know, that if I'm in a
boxing match, and you know, the
only time I'm going to start
throwing like crazy haymakers is
if I know I'm down on points,

(01:06:29):
otherwise, I'm just gonna keep
just keep jabbing away doing
what I'm doing, you know, so
they're flailing so aggressively
at the minute says to me, well,
that's, that's why I think
possibly, if they feel like they
can't control the narrative
anymore, they just might shut
down the internet or shut down a
lot of stuff. And so when
talking about solutions for this
stuff, I really think, you know,
a lot of people talk about
getting local, and I think

(01:06:50):
that's important too. But, you
know, it may be time to take as
much as you can have this type
of information offline to your
community, or even people that
have resources want to make in
print publications, I mean,
that's all stuff to think about
right now. Because that's, you
know, a lot of their censorship
efforts are being focused on the
people producing the content
they don't like and on

(01:07:12):
controlling online speech, not
so much in print speech, that's
like, you know, printed by
regular people or stuff like
that, you know, that the focus
isn't there. So, I mean, there
are, are things we can do to
help sort this out. Do you have
any ideas of your own you'd like
to add or? Well, that's
happening a lot rounds round
where I live so I live in the
center of England in Derbyshire,

(01:07:32):
it's very rural. And these
people are organizing together
and you know, the taken over
farms, and they're growing their
own food and this kind of stuff.
There's a lady who lives here
who was on a TV show called
Dragon's Den, so she she's worth
a few million quid, which she
made from some kind of some
inventions and stuff. her but

(01:07:52):
she's very switched on her
name's Rachel. And so she, you
know, took over this farm, and
you know, they're growing all
this food, and they're just kind
of you know, and it was funny
because she had to defend
herself. Bear in mind, you know,
food scarcity is obviously a
very real thing we've been told
about all the time. And so she
had to defend herself to the
Derbyshire evening telegraph,
the fact that she wasn't part of
some end of World World cult is

(01:08:13):
like, let's just grow food for
people that are hungry. That's a
good thing. But, but but mental
that you'd be like, accused of
building a cult, just because
you want to grow food. Exactly,
exactly.
At a time when the media is
telling you this, you know, food
shortages? Well, yeah. But so
that's happening. I spoke
actually at an organization that

(01:08:33):
she was at that actually a
couple of weeks ago in a
political Buxton. And it was, it
was amazing. The number of
people, all different ages, all
very switched on, and they're
doing all their own thing. And
you're right, there's a lot of,
you know, having gigged in bands
for years, you know, you used
flyers to try and get people to
your show. And then it all went
on the internet. So you paid
off, you don't have to print

(01:08:54):
flyers anymore, or went on the
internet. And now all sudden
flyers are back because you
can't censor that it's in your
hand. And so, you know, there's
a lot of that going on. There's
a newspaper in England called
the light paper, which I think
spread to Ireland as well. Now,
it's in Wales arsenal. I saw it
when I was there. Oh, yeah, of
course. Yeah. So that's getting
bigger and bigger and bigger.
Because again, you can't
sensitize in my hand like

(01:09:14):
shortcut. Yeah, I wish more
people in the US would take cues
from that because I'm and I
think at some places, they're
doing it, but also the US is a
lot bigger than Britain. So a
lot more people I guess, would
have to do it to, to have it pop
up all over the place. But I'm
glad it's happening where you
are for sure. Yeah. I mean, you
do find it everywhere as well.
Like, you know, you'll go into

(01:09:35):
you know, a waiting room at a
garage and like there's like the
big pile of bands or like people
that are in areas that you
didn't expect. So it's you know,
it's definitely getting out
there because, you know, people
now know that they've been lied
to and they they're starting to
realize that actually those
crazy tinfoil hat weirdo
dangerous, hateful figures that
told us that they were lying to

(01:09:55):
us were right. Well, what else
do they write about? And so you
know people start to to
to kind of be interested in what
what we're, you know, saying,
and that's probably why the
hammer is coming down a bit more
now, you know? Yeah, that could
be Well, we're about out of time
here, Gareth. It was great
talking to you. Thanks for
sharing your in your family's

(01:10:15):
recent experience and all the
craziness going on in the world
and in your guys's life. So
where can people follow and
support your work? I'm still on
Twitter for now. But it's always
fun now because you know, I
don't believe Yeah.
Which is funny because I appeal
dad's suspension based on the
fact that you know, In for a

(01:10:36):
penny in for pound if he's, if
he's really pushing free speech
as a sales pitch. He's got to at
least try and do it for a bit,
you know, even though I believe
he's a fraud. And I received an
email back saying that that
account will never ever be
lifted. So okay, we're about
free speech. And that's cool.
Uh, especially when he was
banned for medical

(01:10:57):
misinformation, which has since
shown to be true, but there you
go. But so I'm on there, I'm on
get up. Because you know, get a
seems pretty decent. In that
sense. I can say what I want.
And I don't, you know, it's free
speech. And then iconic.com,
obviously, where, you know, you
come on,
on our show sometimes, which is
always a real privilege for us.

(01:11:18):
And, you know, there's lots of
different series and current
affairs shows and documentaries
and films and the like on that.
And there's also a seven day
free trial at all times. So come
and check it out.
Alright, super well, again,
thanks for coming on. Thanks to
everyone who tuned in to this
episode. Sorry about the couple
week hiatus, I did try. I did

(01:11:39):
try and let people know that was
going to be the case in the last
newsletter or a couple
newsletters ago that came out.
But I was in the US for two
weeks, I did some interviews
that you may or may not have
seen that we're in studio, I
went to the Children's Health
defense conference, gave a
speech there and did some other
stuff while I was in the US for
the first time in like eight
years. So I just got back a

(01:12:00):
couple days ago. So hopefully
more content will be coming out
for me and from unlimited
hangout in the coming weeks. So
again, sorry for that pause
there and thanks for your
patience. And thank you so much
to all of the unlimited hangout
subscribers that make my work in
this podcast as possible. And
yeah, that's it for now. Catch
you all next time.