Psychological Warfare Behind the Headlines with Mike Robinson - Sarah Westall

Mike Robinson, co-editor of the UK Column, joins the program for an in-depth discussion on the accelerating global assault on free speech. We examine how this campaign represents a coordinated attack on foundational Western values — and what that means for the future of open societies. We also explore the growing strategy of amplifying extreme voices in order to drive the public back toward mainstream media as the “safer” alternative, while genuine independent journalists and platforms are quietly throttled and marginalized.

See more of Robinson’s work at https://UKcolumn.org

See my dad’s stroke protocol at https://SarahWestall.com/dad

See exclusives and more at https://SarahWestall.Substack.com

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:04):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to
listen to the Fringe radio network. It's safe and you
don't have to logging to use it, and it doesn't
track you or trace you, and it sounds beautiful. I

(00:28):
know I was gonna tell them, how do you get
the app? Just go to Fringe radionetwork dot com right
at the top of the page. I know, slippers, we
gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.

Speaker 2 (00:45):
By the time we reach fifty, most people have lost
nearly half their collagen.

Speaker 3 (00:49):
I've seen what it does.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
Stiff joint sneakerbones, have thinning hair, and skin that ages.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
Faster than it should.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
And most people are never told why this happens or
what they can actually do about it. That's why I
want to share something I personally trust, Native Path collagen peptides.
I'm extremely selective about what I recommend. I look for purity, transparency,
and science, not marketing. And here's why native Path earned
my attention. It's just one clean ingredient, no fillers, no additives,

(01:18):
no junk it's third party tested for heavy metals, purity
and potency, and over five million jars have been sold
in eight thousand and five star reviews. Tell me people
are getting real results. Many in this community are already
reporting stronger, more flexible joints, smoother, healthier looking skin, and
even fuller hair. Some are noticing changes surprisingly quickly. If

(01:41):
you're like me, you want to say strong, mobile, and
independent as you age. Replenishing lost collagen is one of
the most effective steps I found to support that. Right now,
Native Path is offering a special bundle at explore nativepath
dot com slash Sarah, far below retail, and it's bad
by a three hundred and sixty five day risk free guarantee.

(02:04):
They would not offer that unless they believe in what
they're delivering. Supplies are limited, though, and I don't know
how long this discounted offer.

Speaker 3 (02:11):
Will be available.

Speaker 2 (02:13):
If you've been feeling older than you should, this one
thing you can take control of today. You deserve to
feel strong again. Visit explore nativepath.

Speaker 4 (02:22):
Dot com slash Sarah.

Speaker 5 (02:40):
The excuse is that children might access pornography, and so
we've got to require and so they use the pornography
industry as the as the lead on this. But it's
not just the pornography industry, it's also social media platforms
and so if you want to, for example, use the
messaging functionality on on Facebook or on x people are

(03:04):
having to volidate their age and the only way they
can do that is providing some kind of digital identification.
Now the excuse for this is we've got to protect
children from pornography. So the focus is all on verifying
that somebody is over the age of eight because they're
trying to deal they claim with the idea that children

(03:25):
would access pornographic contents.

Speaker 2 (03:27):
Welcome to business game Changers. I'm Sarah Westall. I have
Mike Robinson company of the program. He is the editor
a co editor.

Speaker 3 (03:35):
Of the UK column.

Speaker 2 (03:36):
It's one of the only independent large organizations in news
organizations in England.

Speaker 3 (03:44):
And very well respected, very highly respected.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
And they maintain their independence by being supported by their readership.
And this conversation is important on a couple levels. First
of all, England has quite a bit of influence over
the United States, actually coming out of the culture of
the city of London, which is the financial capital of
the world. I mean Wall Street is too, but the

(04:08):
city of London. It has probably more power than Wall
Street and it has great influence on what's going on
around the world. It also has great influence when it
comes to intelligence agencies. It's very quiet. They're not known
as much about what their power is. We also analyze
what the actual operation is that's going on. Why are

(04:28):
we seeing these extreme online content. I think you'll get
some clarity on this and why they're pumping up extreme
voices and still silencing the moderate voices like myself and
other independent journalists that actually bring some rational clarity to
what's going on in the world, and we are trying

(04:50):
to address these problems but are being silenced.

Speaker 3 (04:53):
It brings some answers to this, so.

Speaker 2 (04:55):
I hope you listen to the whole conversation and you
share it because my information shared. I am back on
YouTube and I am not posting all my stuff there
because I'm still not I still know what can you
post there, what you can't post there. So you will
find all of my main content on my website Sarah

(05:17):
westl dot com or at my substack Sarah West sol
Do on substack dot com. Rumble is where I'm putting
a lot of my work. Also Apple Podcasts and Podbean.
You're going to find all of my work on that
as well.

Speaker 3 (05:31):
If you are.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
On any of these platforms, especially like Apple or Podbean,
give me a review.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
I'm trying to stay up on the charts on Apple.

Speaker 2 (05:40):
I've been consistently in the top twenty on business News in.

Speaker 3 (05:44):
The United States.

Speaker 2 (05:45):
But I'm also ranking in over twenty five different countries
on business News, which.

Speaker 3 (05:51):
Is pretty cool, right, That's pretty cool.

Speaker 2 (05:54):
But the only way I'm going to be able to
stay there in this marketplace where these big players are
spending a time of money trying to get people to
listen to them is for you to do reviews of
me and to share my work. It's the only way
as independents are going to get there is to be
able to get the support of our listener base.

Speaker 3 (06:15):
So I really really appreciate.

Speaker 2 (06:17):
You more than you know, because that's how my work
gets out there. Before I get into this, I want
to remind you about different exclusives that I have on substack.
If you go to Sarah wessel doot substack dot com,
I have the replay of the peptide.

Speaker 3 (06:33):
Webinar that I did with doctor Diane Kaser.

Speaker 2 (06:36):
People are really liking that, and I hope you go
and listen. I also just put up a page at
Sarah Westall dot com slash dad, and it's the protocol
I'm using for my dad's stroke to help him regain
regenerate his brain. It's a standard protocol used in Russian hospitals.

(06:58):
It's used as regenerative of protocol in many of the
top clinics in Europe and around the world. It's just
not used in the United States. We have a different philosophy.
We don't do anything to help.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
Regenerate brain cells. We just meant it.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
We just don't have that philosophy. We are at least
a decade behind other countries. And so that was the
research I did, and people who know me and follow
me know that I get pretty obsessed, especially now that
my parents were affected directly. I got pretty obsessed at
doing what I do with my research and investigative journalism.

(07:35):
I shifted and I was focused on them for a while,
and I learned a lot, and I have my dad
now going on what I believe is the gold standard
in regenerative medicine for poststroke and trauma victims. And so
if you go to Sarah Westall dot com the slash Dad,
you'll get to see what I am doing for my dad.

(07:57):
But I also am going to work on a tide
guide as well. Like I did for my peptid guide
on weight loss, I'm going to do it for regenerative brain,
you know, so you can regenerate your brain. A lot
of people are having issues as they age with cognitive clarity,
with fogginess. It'll help with a lot of that these peptides.

(08:18):
But my particular protocol, of course is to help my dad.
So if you have anybody in your family that has
been a stroke victim, I think that this could help you.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
But I am going.

Speaker 2 (08:28):
To broaden it to be more just cognitive abilities in
general when I put my peptide guide together.

Speaker 3 (08:34):
But this is the protocol using for my dad. Okay,
Sarah westl dot com Flash Dad, Okay, look for that.

Speaker 2 (08:41):
Okay, Let's get into my interview with Mike Robinson, who
is the editor.

Speaker 3 (08:46):
Of the UK Column. Hi, Mike, welcome to the program.

Speaker 2 (08:51):
It's my pleasure you are the editor of the UK
Column And uh is it? From what I understand what
it's the biggest dependent publication in.

Speaker 6 (09:04):
I don't think we can claim to be the biggest.
I mean, we hope to be better than others, but how.

Speaker 3 (09:08):
About the best.

Speaker 5 (09:11):
I'm not sure we'd still say that, but yeah, okay,
we're certainly we've certainly been around for quite a long time.
So next year we'll be our twentieth anniversary, so we've
we've been around us for quite a while.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
Well, I think climbing independence is pretty unique these days,
or actually people are trying to how should say it?
Claiming independence isn't unique, but being independent is.

Speaker 5 (09:36):
Yeah, I mean, you know, we took because of you.
Many years ago, we were looking at how we were
going to be a sustainable business. And by that I
don't mean Agenda twenty thirty sustainable, but sustainable and just
being able to exist for an extended period of time
and lots of people. You know, if we go back

(09:57):
to twenty ten, twenty fifteen, we're we're relying on internet
advertising and so on. I just was never that comfortable
with relying on big corporate platforms for income. So we
took the view then that we would start building a
membership bass subscription based which would hopefully keep us going.

(10:19):
And that's done us.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
Very well, no goods, because I mean because that's part
of the issue, is making sure that you have the
funding to keep going and fund the people. So many
the independents, although I think once you figure it out
with the Internet, it has opened a lot of access.
But I wanted to talk about what the agendas are
with cracking down on free speech because in Europe it's
actually still escalating, and I think in the United States

(10:44):
it has been cloaked and changed, and so people there's
more of an illusion of free speech. But what is happening.
What are some of the agendas that are being rolled
out when it comes to cracking down on people's right
to free expression.

Speaker 5 (11:00):
Well, I mean it's basically anybody, it doesn't matter what
side of the political spectrum people view themselves to beyond.
Anybody that's sort of pursuing any kind of counter narrative
to government is finding themselves on the wrong end of
the censorship regime.

Speaker 6 (11:22):
I mean, this.

Speaker 5 (11:24):
Thing really began in earnest I think David Cameron, who
was the British Prime Minister at the time, gave a
speech to the United Nations General Assembly in twenty fifteen
or so where he was talking about in those days
it was sort of cutched in the language of anti

(11:45):
extremism and Islamic extremism and mixed in with a bit
of anti vas narrative from him. So he gave this
speech to the United Nations General Assembly saying well, we've
got to start regulating the Internet and regulating Watsville on
the Internet. And then a couple of years later he
was gone. Theresa May was the British Prime Minister. She

(12:08):
invited all the major social media companies to visit her
in ten Do on Ing Street and have a discussion
about the types of discussions that are happening on Facebook,
Twitter as it was and the works, and again using
the extremism slash terrorism mantra, they started pushing this idea

(12:32):
that what was previously effectively an open forum for anybody
to say whatever they liked would be.

Speaker 6 (12:41):
Begin to be shut down.

Speaker 5 (12:43):
And what was, you know, pretty obvious from the beginning
was that they were talking about terrorist content from al
Qaeda and ISIS and so on appearing on social media
platforms that was never censored in any way. So all
the way through the conflict, for example, you know, we
saw constant beheadings and other types of content similar to

(13:08):
that appearing on social media On the other hand, anybody
that was criticizing British or American or European Union operations
in Syria supporting the people that were cutting the heads
off people in that country. Anybody criticizing that was finding
themselves on the wrong end of the censorship agenda. So

(13:32):
that was the beginning of it. As time has gone on,
I think it was around twenty seventeen twenty eighteen the
British government published a white paper that they called the
Online Harms White Paper, and then they started working towards
actually legislating. In the meantime, the European Union was watching

(13:55):
what was going on here in Britain and they started
getting on this bandwagon as well. They ended up producing
their legislation, getting it through before Britain did so.

Speaker 6 (14:05):
In Britain we've got the Online Safety Act.

Speaker 5 (14:07):
In the EU there's a Digital Services Act, and these
are pretty similar pieces of legislation and they're basically designed
to require platforms to behave in certain ways. But aside
from that sort of government legislative effort, of course, they

(14:29):
had the full buy in of the platforms anyway. So
the platforms, particularly in the UK and the EU, have
been very aggressively centering content on their platforms all the
way through that time without actually needing the legislation.

Speaker 6 (14:45):
So and I mean that applied to.

Speaker 5 (14:48):
Certain voices in the United States, although less so because
of obviously protections constitutional protections there. But in the US,
similar types of legislation are appearing at the state level
now in the language because more in more recent years,
the the terrorism extremism angle has been dropped in favor
of protecting children. And this is the new front for

(15:12):
what they're trying to do because nobody you can really
object to the idea of protecting children in principle, but
of course the way it's being implemented again is nothing
to do with protecting children.

Speaker 2 (15:25):
So when you do all your research, have you figured
out that there is an exerted agenda to do this
for years, like they are rolling out a censorship campaign
or a speech controlled campaign for years this has been
in operation.

Speaker 5 (15:46):
Yes, yes, because because this this this latest effort began
as I say, ten years ago, and so that's this
has been a process. It has been going on four years
and it's not finished yet. So so you know, in
the next setting, aside the types of censorship that we've

(16:07):
seen up until now. The next target for government is encryption,
So anybody that's using a chat application, Signal or WhatsApp
that's got end to end encryption.

Speaker 6 (16:22):
This is very much viewed.

Speaker 5 (16:23):
By the intelligence agencies as being dangerous because they can't
easily oover up the conversations that are going on in
those platforms. But then in more recent weeks and months,
we're starting to see the narrative building to demonize the

(16:43):
use of VPNs virtual private networks, which many many people
use to hide what they're doing or to get some
kind of anonymity for what they're doing on the Internet.
They're posting controversial content perhaps or whatever. So encryption is
one of the next directions for this. And the other

(17:05):
thing that they are very determined to do is to
require social media platforms not to wait for content to
be uploaded and then make a decision and moderating decision
afterwards about whether it's appropriate or not, but actually to
put in place filters as the content is being uploaded,

(17:25):
so that it never actually appears in the first place,
so it never gets the opportunity to be seen by anybody.
And in the European Union this is called chat control
and the UK is looking at very similar types of sanctions.

Speaker 7 (17:40):
So well.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
YouTube is already doing it, and big platforms are already
doing it as they process the material, but they're talking
like at the chat level, at like actual comments and things.

Speaker 5 (17:52):
Yes, yes, absolutely will YouTube it. Yeah, because because as
I say that, the the legislation is being put in
place over time, but the social media platforms aren't necessarily
waiting for.

Speaker 6 (18:07):
That legislation.

Speaker 5 (18:08):
They know what's coming and so they are implementing this.
YouTube is doing this for copyright reasons, was their initial justification,
but of course they've also been using it for such
ship purposes as well. But you're absolutely right. The point
here is this is something that isn't happening now. It's

(18:30):
this is something that began a decade ago and is
a process that we haven't really seen.

Speaker 6 (18:39):
The full effect of yet. And the other things that
are going on here. Well, before we get onto.

Speaker 5 (18:47):
That, the other thing to consider is back in twenty seventeen,
when Theresa May was inviting the social media platforms into
to speak to her in Dining Street. She also in
June or July of that year went to the G
seven and and and promoted the idea of what she
called a rapid response mechanism. And and this is basically

(19:10):
the notion that all the G seven countries would agree
a common narrative, a common position, and that that that
is that they red use common language and common narratives
pushed out through mainstream press and so but that would
be agreed at that level, at that sort of G
seven level, and so the United States, the UK, EU

(19:34):
countries would all see the same types of stories appearing
in the in the media at the same time, the
same kinds of language being used. For example, if we're
talking about Ukraine using the term illegal full skill invasion,
just that that that phrase that we see in just
about every certainly British mainstream report. But it doesn't matter

(19:58):
what mainstream channel it's on. That's the language that's used.
And we see that in European countries as well. So
you know, they agree the language, they agree the narratives,
and they maintain those common narratives across the board. And
so the censorship regime goes hand at hand with that
because because it's it's the independent media organizations like us

(20:19):
and like ourselves that are that are you know, counturing
this this common narrative.

Speaker 2 (20:27):
Let me ask you, because I'm seeing a push of
extreme voices, right like Andrew Tate, which had this pimp
and whole degree horrible and a lot of young men
in our country followed that, and are are you know
the followed his business model only fans is huge in

(20:47):
this country where it shows pornography with young girls, or
not young girls, young women, you know. And in fact,
the girls that look they're out, they're all eighteen or older.
But the ones who look thirteen or fourteen the ones
that make the most money, which is absolutely awful. And
his name and voys and likeness have been pumped up

(21:08):
big time, and it seems like they're purposely creating this
extreme culture so that the regular people will be revolsed
and ask for this complete censorship regime to take place.

Speaker 6 (21:25):
That's absolutely right.

Speaker 5 (21:27):
I mean, look, we've got to recognize we are in
an information war and the people that are wanting control
of narratives have huge amounts of financial resource available to them,
and so one of the things that they do is
employ influencers to promote certain types of thought, certain types

(21:52):
of content.

Speaker 2 (21:53):
Well like Nick Fuentes, who don't I want you to
keep going, but Nick fouentees. There's a real out there
of him. He's anti gay, he's anti Jewish, he's ant
all these things. But there is some suggestive evidence that
he actually himself might be gay, and he might be
all these things, and me's showing him doing all these
things that are completely anti what he promotes.

Speaker 3 (22:15):
He looks like he's a paid operative.

Speaker 6 (22:18):
It's quite possible. You know, there are.

Speaker 5 (22:22):
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, one of the big thing tanks.
I can't remember how many tens of thousands of influencers.

Speaker 6 (22:30):
That they boast that they have on their books.

Speaker 5 (22:33):
So you know, we have organizations that are funded by governments,
often through so called tax exem foundations, and the money
is flowing straight into the pockets of influencers on YouTube
and other places in order to push this type of

(22:55):
extreme content. And they don't have The people that are
doing this aren't doing it because they believe in the
in the the content that they're pushing. They're they're doing
it because they're being paid to do it. And this
is this is of course, makes it very very difficult
for for everybody to work out what's real and what isn't.
And it's one of the reasons by the way that

(23:16):
that the notion of trust is so central to the
censorship agenda, because because what what they are aiming to
do is to get is to pollute the information space
to such a degree that only the BBC or a
b C or NBC or CNN are look trusted valid sources.

Speaker 2 (23:40):
They look sae most people. Yeah, because NPR, I've been listening.
I like to listen to different people, but NPR presents
their stuff in like.

Speaker 3 (23:47):
A sane way.

Speaker 2 (23:48):
It's like, oh, it's almost like a relief to be
listening to something that sounds sane. But I know, because
I'm a journalist, I've been doing this for a long time.
I know that a large person of their stuff is propaganda.
I know that they're not telling the truth. I can
tell when a certain story comes on the way they
spin it like this is clearly propaganda. But compared to

(24:09):
the Internet, that is just this insane, extreme environment that
you don't want to be part of. That seems like
something I'd rather listen to. And that's that's the agenda,
isn't it.

Speaker 8 (24:22):
Hey, Ryan Reynolds here, wishing you a very happy half
off holiday, because right now, mint Mobile is offering you
to give the fifty percent off unlimited. To be clear,
that's half priced, not half the service. Mint is still
premium unlimited wireless for a great price, so that means
a half day. Yeah, give it a try at Midmobile

(24:44):
dot com.

Speaker 7 (24:44):
Slash switch from.

Speaker 2 (24:46):
Gena twe five dollars for three month tene quickly to
fifty dollars a month required you customer offer for fstree
months only speaks later thirty big bye networks, busy taxis
and ds extra sement Mobile dot Com.

Speaker 6 (24:53):
Yes, one hundred percent.

Speaker 5 (24:54):
That is the agenda, and it's only going to get
worse because as as AI becomes more capable and we're
going to start seeing some of this this type of
really unpleasant content being amplified that way. And you know,
the platforms have done a lot to censor certain voices.
You know, we lost our first YouTube channel in twenty

(25:17):
twenty one, I think it was twenty twenty one, and
we've lost several others since now.

Speaker 6 (25:25):
YouTube, have you been returned, Yes, yes we have.

Speaker 5 (25:29):
I have to say that that one of the worst
that are the most censorious platforms is tik talk. It
just I mean, but you look at you look at
the content that's actually on TikTok and you say, why
is that not? Why is that not being taken down?
Or why is this other thing'll been taken on? So yeah,
so you know, the people that are It seems to

(25:49):
me that the people that have been trying to take
what they're doing seriously in terms of providing some real
accountability for the governments, for the establishment, or for NGOs
that are that are behaving in certain ways, those those
types of people were heavily targeted by the censorship regime.

(26:12):
While some of these even extra as you say, so
extreme voices have been given free in and have been
heavily promoted by the platforms to the point where, you know,
how does somebody go from having zero to you know,
several million subscribers in a matter of no time. This
this isn't by accident.

Speaker 2 (26:32):
Well, and I was being accused of being abusing and
bullying people, which so absurd, whereas people who are actually
bullying and harassing people were actually platformed at getting millions
of views. That to me should really be an indication
to people that something's really off here.

Speaker 6 (26:53):
It couldn't agree more one hundred percent.

Speaker 5 (26:56):
But as I say, that is that is a function
of the fact that that, as you say, many of
these people that are playing in this in this game
are working for the state in some way, but but
one hundred percent because the the social media platforms have
been fully working for West States Western States for a

(27:17):
decade and are absolutely enthusiastic supporters of of the the
sort of misinformation disinformation narrative.

Speaker 2 (27:28):
Well, it really brings in crystal clear what the operation
is now because that's the only way they can bring
back their voice, because they seem sane in comparison to
the madness that they're creating on the internet.

Speaker 5 (27:41):
Well yeah, but at the same time, they don't because
they're they're busy, they're busy trying to I mean that
the the the language that's coming out of of British politicians,
the British military personnel, military personnel, you know, they're talking

(28:02):
about pre endive strikes against Russia. They're talking about you know,
it's it's absolute insanity, the language they're talking about. Setting
aside whether we think that we want, we we really
should be going to war with Russia or not, the
reality is we don't have the capability. So so you know,
on one hand, we're not capable, but we're using this

(28:25):
kind of it's it's just sheer insanity. But anybody that
calls that odd is being you know, the other name calling,
as you know, of being preveous of misinformation and disinformation
and so on.

Speaker 6 (28:39):
So you know, but but people, people recognize when.

Speaker 5 (28:45):
The language is being used by the establishment is off
the scale. And and so you know, no matter what
is going on on social media and and what is
going on in the information space, a lot of the.

Speaker 6 (28:59):
People do get what that.

Speaker 5 (29:03):
Let's put it this way, the levels of trust in
mainstream media in this country, and I imagine it's the
same in the United States are are actually at all
time lows, which is why they're so worried about this
whole trust issue at the moment.

Speaker 6 (29:17):
And every every time you hear.

Speaker 5 (29:21):
Commentators on minstream media talking about the engagement that they
have with with audiences being at all time lows, this
is of massive concern for them. But of course the
censorship regime hasn't helped because at the end of the day,
they can try to cancel certain types of voices, but

(29:41):
people recognize when they're being.

Speaker 2 (29:44):
Fed belong Yeah, well, but it doesn't make sense that
their operation is trying to make them look legitimate. What's
really happening is they're doing this extreme operation. It does
make them look more sane, but then people are like, well,
the guy, the people that you're censoring and banning are
the ones that seem the most same. So the whole

(30:06):
thing I think is backfiring on them.

Speaker 5 (30:09):
Well, that's that's what I believe as well, and and
of course that's why they're doubling down on this this
thing now.

Speaker 6 (30:15):
But but my view has always been that that the
more that our our job, actually more than.

Speaker 5 (30:21):
Anything else, is to push governments and and agencies into
carrying out more and more extreme acts, because it's it's
that extreme behavior that actually wakens people up. I mean,
you know, in the last number of years, but particularly
in the last twelve months, the use of the Terrorism

(30:42):
Act in the UK to to uh to arrest and
search and to you know, image mobile phones of people
that are journalists but just because they they are saying
things which are which are counter to government narratives. It's

(31:03):
it's the use of terrorism legislation is quite incredible here.

Speaker 6 (31:07):
I mean, just give to give an idea.

Speaker 5 (31:09):
Of of how bad it is if you're crossing the
British border at the moment, landing at an airport or whatever.

Speaker 6 (31:19):
There is no requirement.

Speaker 5 (31:20):
For the police to have any suspicion that you are
actually a terrorist for them to use the Terrorism Act
to arrest you. And what normally happens is that they
pick you out of the crowd on the way through
the border, take you off into a little room. They'll
take your mobile phone away from you, they'll image that
if you've got a laptop with you, they'll they'll want

(31:42):
that as well, and they they'll just hold you for
six or seven hours and then let you go. In
most cases that's the case. In some cases they've attempted prosecutions,
but they will charge someone and then basically enough, the
court case never seems to arrive. So in the meantime,

(32:03):
somebody has build conditions that they've got to abide by,
and those who are often quite a triconian. So yeah,
I mean the British government in particular, they're way ahead
of anybody else in the use of this to crack
down on people that are doing journalism jobs effectively.

Speaker 2 (32:25):
Well, the difference between where you are and where I
am is that we have the US Constitution, which is
unique when it comes to free speech. They technically can't
do any of this stuff, and so they're trying to
figure out ways to get around it, and so that
we're seeing operations left RNK go ahead.

Speaker 5 (32:43):
Yeah, I was just going to say, yeah, the federal
government can't do this, but I'm saying at state level,
lots of legislation similar names, something like the Children's Online
Safety Act or similar types of things, again using the
protecting protection of children as an excuse. And you know

(33:05):
here again if I come back here for a second.
So that's in the United States, and absolutely at a
state level, I'm starting to see that type of legislation
appear here. The UK government has used the protection of
children as an excuse to require people to verify their
ages on platforms. Now, the excuse is that children might

(33:30):
access pornography and so we've got to require and so
they use the pornography industry as the as the lead
on this. But it's not just the pornography industry. It's
also social media platforms. And so if you want to,
for example, use the messaging functionality on Facebook or on x,

(33:53):
people are having to validate their age and the only
way they can do that is providing some kind of
digital identification. Now the excuse for this is we've got
to protect children from pornography. So the focus is all
on verifying that somebody is over the age of eighteen
because they're trying to deal They claim with the idea

(34:14):
that children would access pornographic content.

Speaker 2 (34:17):
Well, why don't they do it opposite, thank you.

Speaker 6 (34:20):
That is exactly the point is.

Speaker 5 (34:22):
This is why this is not really about children, because
when you look at the actual damage it's being done
to children in this country, it's from adults grooming children
that are under the age of eighteen and ending up
in some kind of sexual relationship with an underage you know.
So it's pedophilia that's the issue here, it's not access
to pornography. And so, for example, just pick a name

(34:45):
off the top of my head, Roadblocks. This website is
absolutely in many ways targeted at children and is one
of the is absolutely one of the worst platforms that
you could ever allow a child onto, because adults go
into games that are designed for children where there's a
chat functionality, and they pose as children and they groom

(35:08):
children there. And it's widely recognized that that platform has
a problem here, but none of this legislation is dealing
with that, and there's no prospect of dealing with it
anytime soon. So this is just another example of why
it's all the whole child protection thing is is just
affront for what they're actually aiming to.

Speaker 2 (35:27):
We could fix this in a very short period of time.
You crack down on all the pedophilia, which they can
do immediately because they have on the data. Then all
the public platforms just do a clean sweep of no
sexual content at all. It can be on a different
because most people don't want to see it, you know,
I don't want to see it. And then where there
is sexual content, make it available so that parents can

(35:50):
control their own kids' ability to access it.

Speaker 3 (35:53):
Done. Now, you got it done, I think right.

Speaker 5 (35:57):
A very simple way to do it, in my opinion,
was it would be to create a triple X demand.
Let's just say and require all porn sites onto that
and just have a simple filter that's right on all
mobile phones and all internet connections that say I want
to block anything with a triple X demand, I mean
that that isn't going to prevent everything, because because there's
quite a lot of pretty dodgy content on X and

(36:20):
and other platforms.

Speaker 2 (36:22):
But if they if they are legit, like Google Search
had my name associated with the porn stuff, which their
safe search should have weeded all that out. It was
a smear campaign against me, right right, But because there
was no way Google safe Search doesn't easily filter that out.
That's I don't believe that for a minute, not with
how easy it is to do that. So it is, uh,

(36:46):
it is not that hard to do this. This is
not a hard problem. And also they have all the data.
They could figure out who the pedophiles are, where the
pedophile sites are in within the end of the week,
by the end from today when we're interviewing this to
the end of the week, they can have every single
one identified and they can have an operation where it's
all taken down.

Speaker 5 (37:06):
They just need to start in the British House of Commons,
in the British House of Lords and work from there.

Speaker 6 (37:11):
Because you know, it's not funny.

Speaker 5 (37:13):
But it's not funny because but in a sense, because
you know, it is a fact, a tragic fact in
many ways, that this is absolutely a core part of
the British establishment and has been forever really and you know,
quite a number of British MPs, at least one Prime

(37:33):
Minister that I can think of, possibly quite a number
of the royal family. Obviously we know about Prince Andrew,
but others as well have some questions to answer. So
you know that this is something which is a core
part of the control mechanism of British society. And you know,

(37:57):
many many years ago, I guess missus seventies or so,
there was a a sex scandal involving UH, the Defense Secretary,
which ended up being known as the Perfumer affair because
Perfumo was was giving away secrets to to the Soviets
at the time through having sexual relationships with relations with

(38:19):
with a woman that was involved with with the Russians.
But there was a a very famous she became famous
because she wrote about she was linked to Perfumo and
and wrote about the parties that she was going to,
a woman called Christine Killer, wrote a number of books
on on the sort of the high society parties that
she was going to in in British stately homes, and

(38:40):
and was quite open about the fact that that yes
she was there as a as an escort UH to
to be taking part in sex with with some of
these people, but that she never got involved with the
child stuff, so she was.

Speaker 6 (38:55):
You know, it's it's always been out there and in
in plain sight. There's a there's an interview with.

Speaker 5 (39:02):
One of the chief whips for the Conservative Party from
the seventies, from in fact early seventies, a guy called
Tim Fordescue. He would have been chief whip for Edward Heath,
who was a non pedophile, and Fortescue said on a
BBC interview, Look, it's really simple. The whips are there

(39:23):
to make sure that the MPs do what they're told,
and of course MP's come to us with any problems
that they may have. It might be problems with small boys,
and we sort those problems out for them, and that
means that they're effectively in our pockets from that point forward.
So you know, this has absolutely been understood for decades,
if not longer, and and nothing has ever been done

(39:46):
about it. In fact, the police, the former police that
we've worked with over the years that have been attempting
to get the lid off this stuff have been absolutely
you know, they've lost their jobs after and lost pensions
and so on, because because they're they're acting in spaces
that that they aren't allowed to go into really, but

(40:09):
because it gets too close to to to prime ministers
and others.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
Well, you know, I wouldn't focus on the UK unless
it wasn't so important for us because the city of
London and which is centered in the UK. I know,
it's a separate country, but it has it's really the
UK environment. If it didn't have such a profound effect
on us in the.

Speaker 3 (40:32):
World, the UK really does.

Speaker 2 (40:34):
Still a lot of the policies and decisions still come
out of that part of the world, especially the city
of London, which is the power center of central banking.

Speaker 6 (40:46):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (40:46):
I mean we talk about we talk about deep states,
and there's and we talk about the special relationship between
the United Kingdom and the United States. The special relationship
is is really a deep deep state relationship.

Speaker 7 (40:57):
Uh.

Speaker 5 (40:58):
And by that I mean not just intelligence agencies, but
also the the the financial centers as well. So so
City of London, Wall Street, I suppose Frankfurt. This this
represents a lot of the sort of evil in the world,
if if we want to put it in that kind
of language, and so yeah, I think I think you're

(41:23):
you're absolutely right to recognize it that a lot of
the a lot of the nasty policy that that is
around comes from here or from affiliated organizations. So you know,
we have we have spreader tentacles since the the so
called end of the British Empire, which which I think
just changed from being a a sort of military trading

(41:48):
empire to being a purely financial one, still has its
its fingers in and in most pies and and influences
so many people around the world.

Speaker 6 (42:00):
You know.

Speaker 5 (42:01):
Yeah, I think I think if if if Breton could
be sorted out, a lot of the world's else would
be sorted out with it.

Speaker 6 (42:09):
Well.

Speaker 2 (42:09):
And I think that's why Massad is being blamed for everything.
I just had Harley on and he's like, you know,
the lead of the intelligence agencies I six actually is
above the other two. And I think, you know, the CIA,
Massad and AM I six, But AM I six is
quiet in the background.

Speaker 3 (42:26):
They don't get at least where I'm at.

Speaker 2 (42:28):
They're not getting the brunt of the blame for everything
that's going on. I think Masad is and I think
that's by design. It seems like everything is being filtered
towards Massad. CIA is somehow skating when it comes to
Epstein and AM I six, isn't even in the conversation,
and that tells you as a journalist, I start to

(42:48):
question things like that when certain characters who are I
know are very powerful are never in the conversation.

Speaker 3 (42:57):
Ah, why why are they not in the conversation?

Speaker 6 (43:00):
Yeah, yes, it it.

Speaker 5 (43:03):
Britain likes to present itself as being you know, this
small island north west Europe doesn't really have much influence
in the world these days, and and you know, from
a from a hard power point of view, it doesn't
have much influence in the world anymore. From a soft
power point of view, it absolutely does still and as

(43:25):
as we've hinted that here is largely driving many of
the activities that are going on around the place. The
on the on the Israeli intelligence front, I think, I
think what you're saying is right.

Speaker 6 (43:41):
But I think one area that that with respect Israel,
that we should be looking at a lot closer.

Speaker 5 (43:46):
Is is Unity two hundred, which is there equivalent of
the n s A or GHQ, the Signals Intelligence Organization.
But it's not just signles intelligence, because it's also offensive
cyber warfare. But the other thing that they the other
thing that they do which I think is really critical

(44:06):
here is that they have a massive alumni network around
the world, and they are very very good at either
funding or getting involved in big Silicon Valley companies. So,
you know, I would imagine that in the United States,
just as we have, you will have had a lot

(44:27):
of narrative about how dangerous it is that Chinese Huawei
equipment is on our tele telecommunications networks because it's fiving
up huge quantities of data and shipping it all back
to China. Well, in the UK now we've effectively banned
Huawei equipment from the telecoms networks, but we're still using

(44:50):
Palo Alto networks or Checkpoint or a whole bunch of
other is.

Speaker 6 (44:55):
Really would you replace it with?

Speaker 3 (44:58):
Right?

Speaker 6 (44:59):
Right?

Speaker 5 (44:59):
So, so my my argument here would be that the
reason that that Huawei is seen as a national security
risk isn't that the danger of data being hoovered often
taken off to China. It's the fact that that data
isn't going to m I six and and uh the

(45:20):
NSA and and so on that that I think that's
that's more real thing that we've got to be looking
at at the gear that's on our on our networks. Actually,
that's supposedly Silicon Valley, but actually is it's because quite
often it's directly funded and employee employing people that were
h We're working with is Unity two hundred Israel for

(45:45):
in their earlier career and and are and you know
that has a very tight alumni network, so they are
they do absolutely all stay in contact with each other.
It's it's something that very few people talk about, and
some people are talking about it, and I think we
need to be paying a lot more attention to that.

Speaker 2 (46:01):
Any powerful, big tech company that has anything powerful that
has to do with national security, the government gets involved
in and they are intimately, they're in the meetings, they're intertwined,
and they control what they want to control.

Speaker 3 (46:15):
That's what I've seen.

Speaker 6 (46:18):
Yes, and.

Speaker 5 (46:21):
Increasingly governments in the West are wanting to use civilian
infrastructure as for JULI use, so they want to use
to piggybock military and intelligence operations on top of civilian infrastructure.

Speaker 2 (46:41):
That's exactly what palenteers about, That's what Google's about, That's
what our social media companies are about. And then they
can say that this is this is the operation. Then
they can say that it was independently decided by that
business not by the government, so they can go around
all their censorship, go around all their operations because in
our reads against the constitution.

Speaker 3 (47:01):
But if a.

Speaker 2 (47:02):
Private company does it, they can get around the the
pesky constitution.

Speaker 5 (47:07):
Yes, and on top of that it it indicates something
else which is going on. And that is the effect
of not not not a merger in in the sense
that that governments and and corporations are are actually merging
with each other, but but from an operational standpoint they

(47:28):
increasingly are.

Speaker 6 (47:29):
So so we're.

Speaker 5 (47:30):
Seeing the the the fusion of corporate government, uh non
governmental organizations all.

Speaker 6 (47:40):
Starting to work very very closely together.

Speaker 5 (47:42):
As as something which is we haven't really seen this
before in the in the kind of way that we're
seeing it now.

Speaker 6 (47:48):
You start adding in, you know, Stargate, the the the AI.

Speaker 5 (47:54):
Program that was announced by Ellison that Trump's inauguration UK
announced pretty much to say policy at the same time,
and we're now calling it starget UK. Denmark has a
version of targets. So we're building all these data centers
because of course, for the last a few decades we've
been as Bill Binnie and others have been talking about,
we've been collecting all this bulk data. But until now,

(48:19):
it's been very hard to process that bulk data because
basically we haven't had the computing part of do it.
So so they're collecting bulk data and then they're they're
they're really having to decide who they're going to target
within that and and and focus on individuals. But once
you start building these data centers to the scale that
they're talking about, you can start processing bulk data on

(48:41):
a much broader scale. And they're they're wanting to effectively
profile individuals and use the AI to to instead of
you know, the the intelligence agencies or the law enforcement
having to try to identify people. And then look at
what they're doing. They're they're they're looking at their processing

(49:02):
the bulk data to as a beginning point, a starting
point to identifying who the main problem people are and
it's all going to be handled automatically.

Speaker 7 (49:15):
With savings over three hundred and ninety dollars a shopping season,
Verbo helps you swap gift wrap time for quality time
with those you love most, from snow on the roof
to sand between your toes. We have all the vacation
rental options covered. Go to Verbo now and book a
last minute week long stay, save over three hundred and

(49:36):
ninety dollars this holiday season, and book your next vacation
rental home on Verbo. Average savings three hundred and ninety
six dollars select homes only.

Speaker 5 (49:45):
This is a sort of level of surveillance that we
just have not ever experienced before.

Speaker 2 (49:52):
Well, I'm actually really impressed that you brought up Bill
Benny because almost no one in independent media talks about him,
and I'm like, I just don't get it, because if
you're really an independent researcher, you would know some of
these people. And he, you know, he was the NSA
technical director that built that six thousand person facility. So

(50:12):
is somebody that I've interviewed quite a bit and gotten
to know over the years, and you're absolutely right. Him
at Kirkwebe came out with all that, and one of
the things they said is the problems we.

Speaker 3 (50:22):
Have too much data and we don't have the processing power.

Speaker 2 (50:25):
And so that's exactly the reason why they're building out
these data centers, and they're also doing the AI to
be able to go with it. Now, the AI for
corporate use is important, but it's really not their main deal.
For some now government people don't don't care about corporations,
even though that's where the money comes from. For so
many people. People care about it, but they care more

(50:48):
about their control and their intelligence data.

Speaker 5 (50:52):
Yeah, I mean, you know, what is from the average
person's point I view, the average person's exposure to AI
is is you know, it's becoming the modern search engine.
On one hand, it's it's producing funny video content on
social media and so on.

Speaker 6 (51:10):
It's that's sort.

Speaker 5 (51:12):
Of their their day to day exposure of it. We
could call out a front for what it's for its
real purpose, which which is the the technocratic surveillance state
that we're starting to see build. And of course, you know,
alongside what they're building, there is this push for digital
ID because the idea of using the Internet as as

(51:34):
an anonymous person is going.

Speaker 6 (51:35):
To go away.

Speaker 5 (51:36):
If it's already largely going away, but it's certainly going
to go away totally in the not too distant future.

Speaker 6 (51:43):
So you know, we we.

Speaker 3 (51:46):
And people don't even understand it.

Speaker 2 (51:48):
They don't think they think it's convenient, and the engineers
building it don't understand.

Speaker 3 (51:52):
They just think it's convenient. But uh, you.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
Know, Google, Apple for example, is sending three hundred things
a day to Google. You know, the the digital idea
they're communicating. Social media is sending all that information to
each other. So the social media is sending the digital
id over. That's what's going to happen. They're communicating back
and forth. And then you wonder why all of a
sudden you're talking about something and then the ad path

(52:17):
pops up on Google, you know, Search or somewhere else.
It's because they they really the technology is not that complex.
It's because they're communicating behind the scenes your information and
then they know that and then they're feeding up the
they're communicating your the words in what you're saying over
to Google, and then Google's popping up the ads that

(52:40):
they want you to see or whoever it is. It's
all they're all talking behind the scenes, and people don't
realize that.

Speaker 5 (52:46):
Right and and you know the target project that Ellison
announced and Britain announced as well, they're equivalent. One of
the things that they said that was going to do
was was create personalized medicine. So we were going to
you know, somebody gets they're going to get it.

Speaker 2 (53:06):
Well, they could be great, but that's not probably what
they're doing.

Speaker 6 (53:09):
Go ahead, that's not what they're doing.

Speaker 5 (53:11):
Let's know what they're their end the insurance companies medical
insurance companies would be delighted to have a concept of
personalized medicine because so basically what they're saying is, we
will sample the genome of every human being in the
United States and in the United Kingdom and Europe. Okay,

(53:31):
so now they have my genome, they will look at
they will use AI to determine what my likely future
health outcomes are going to be, and I will have
my health insurance adjusted appropriately. What what this does for
the insurance companies is d risks medical insurance because at
the moment, what they have to do is they have

(53:52):
to work out, well, how much is it likely to
cost us to to cover everybody that's that is going
to need hospital bills or surgery or whatever it happens
to be over the next year.

Speaker 6 (54:07):
And we let's say we've got a million.

Speaker 5 (54:10):
Customers, we divide that cost by a million, and that's
we add our profit on. That's I mean, I'm being
very simplistic in this. I don't know quite how they
manage the risk, but let's say that's what it is.
The point is the risk is something that that everybody
they spread out across all their customers, what they what
they want to be able to do. So everybody theoretically

(54:30):
of a certain age or a certain profile is going
to get a certain price for the for their insurance.
What they would love to be able to do is
to actually say, well, know you, as an individual, you
are likely, because of your genetic makeup, to have some
kind of preponderance to a particular long term illness later
on Parkinson's or whatever it happens to be, and therefore

(54:51):
you're going to cost us X amount in medical care
as you start to get older, and they will give
you a personalized medical insurance and spill that goes with it,
which probably you can't afford.

Speaker 2 (55:03):
Here you can have access to Canada's made program.

Speaker 6 (55:07):
I mean, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (55:09):
I mean, I mean we're being really cynical because we've
seen a lot of things. I'm on this, I'm on
the fence with technology. I think it's a freight train.
I know what's coming. You can't stop it because every
business need sees the benefit of it. So it's this
freight train coming and the only and it could be
beautiful for society if that train track was changed a

(55:33):
little bit, right we change it towards the pro freedom
and benefits standpoint versus the tyranny standpoint. And right now
we have too many tyrants in power where the tyranny
is where it's going. I'm this is where I'm really worried,
is that we don't have enough mature people who are
taking position leadership positions to make sure that it goes

(55:56):
towards the betterment of humanity perspective. I don't know if
we have enough mature adults in the room or enough
And I know for a fact that most people in
Congress have.

Speaker 3 (56:07):
No clue what they're up against or what they're dealing with.
And I think the.

Speaker 2 (56:11):
Engineers and such and the scientists who actually have the
ability from a technical standpoint to make a difference, I
don't know if they're mature enough from a societal standpoint
or get what they're part of. So we have we
have some serious issues where we just don't have the
qualified people stepping up to make sure otherwise that's going
to affect us for centuries if we don't get our

(56:32):
shit together.

Speaker 5 (56:34):
This brings us right back to the whole censorship part
of the beginning of this program, because of course, what
you know when you're talking about the fact that there's
so many of these this extreme thought out there at
the moment. Part of this is keeping people so destabilized
that we can't have the rational conversations that we should
be having at the moment. What kind of AI's here, right,

(56:57):
it's here. There's nothing we can do about that. Everybody
sees that potentially could have massive benefits for us, but
we're not having the conversations. We're not having the proper
conversations about what are the risks of the way it's
being implemented. We're not asking who's implementing it and what
are their motivations. There are hosts of conversations that we
should be having that we can't have in this present

(57:19):
information environment because the mainstream media isn't prepared to have
those conversations. They're drowning out smaller voices, and the the
the alternative voices that are out there that are being
heavily funded, are so extreme that that they are also
drawing drowning.

Speaker 3 (57:36):
Out They're having these conversations.

Speaker 5 (57:39):
Alternative space, and the conversations are being had, and this,
I think is the real danger that we face.

Speaker 6 (57:45):
Absolutely, and you know.

Speaker 2 (57:47):
I keep saying this is going to affect us for centuries.
It's that important. And the people who have the ability
to step up and have these intelligent conversations the half
the half to step up, they have to get uncomfortable
and they have to start making a difference in making
their voices heard because it is that important.

Speaker 5 (58:09):
I think, what is something you've just said is really important.
We have to get uncomfortable. We have to be willing
to have conversations with people that we don't agree with,
and and we and they have to be willing to
have conversations with us, and we have to be able
to have those conversations without wanting to rip each other's
heads off. I'm the first to admit that people say

(58:31):
things to me and my initial reaction might be to
want to rip their head off, But but that doesn't
achieve anything. And and you know, we are actually in
a very dangerous situation at the moment, not just with
with the war narrative, but the tech, the technocratic agenda,
that and and AI and so on. So you know,

(58:51):
I think I think it's it's time for as far
as I'm concerned, I don't care where somebody sits on
the so called political spectrum, which I don't think is
a real thing anyway. But I want I would love
to see people on all sides of whatever argument they
think they're on, stepping up and being willing to have

(59:11):
open discussions about some of these issues without worrying about,
you know, what their audience is going to think. And
we need to start having some real open conversations, which
is not something we're doing at the moment.

Speaker 2 (59:26):
I agree that's the only way we're going to get
out of this. And I think the people who are afraid,
and there's too many people who are fearful because they
just figure they want their paycheck they can't afford. What
the problem is too, is that they're withinside these companies
that are implementing this, and they're worried that if they
even speak, they'll get fired and they won't have a

(59:47):
paycheck and they won't even have the influence.

Speaker 3 (59:50):
So how do we get past some of that?

Speaker 2 (59:52):
How do we get past the Congress people being defunded
d you know, with the City of London and Wall
Street and all.

Speaker 3 (01:00:00):
These people having so much funds.

Speaker 2 (01:00:03):
How do we get past Congress people doing the right thing,
getting defunded and not having access to the funds they.

Speaker 3 (01:00:09):
Need to even get elected again. How do we get
past some of these obstacles.

Speaker 2 (01:00:14):
I know that that we are we are giving them
the ability to have more courage, right, we are their
their courage, their backbone system, but we are pretty censored.
So I'm kind of brainstorming here. The people out there
need to support people like this because we give backbone
to people with inside these companies, with inside Congress to

(01:00:36):
be able to step up and speak about these things, and.

Speaker 3 (01:00:39):
Then it becomes a snowball effect. That's I think that's
the solution. What do you think?

Speaker 6 (01:00:45):
Yeah, I think that's right. I think.

Speaker 5 (01:00:49):
People that are people that are in relatively risk free
jobs from the point of view, Okay, they're not speaking publicly,
but the but perhaps the jobs that they are in
are less susceptible to to that less susceptible to them
having a risk and if they if they support somebody

(01:01:12):
that is speaking out, I think that that ordinary people,
if they want to continue to have a life in
the in the not too distant future, are going to
need to put their hands in their pockets and start
supporting some of some of the people that are that
are are that are already speaking out, or at least

(01:01:33):
telling people that are that are in a position to
speak out but aren't for the reasons that you've mentioned,
let them know that they are willing to support them.
I think that there are enough people in the world,
in our countries, in our individual countries, that are in
that position that the enough money would.

Speaker 6 (01:01:54):
Appear, if if, if, if people were.

Speaker 5 (01:01:57):
Willing to take the risk and and uh put their
jobs at risk, enough money would appear to keep those
people in an okay place. But I think that requires courage,
and I'm not sure that people are quite there yet.
In many cases, they need to be given that courage

(01:02:17):
by people that are watching their their the job that
they're doing, perhaps, but they also need to be given
that courage by the likes of us who are just
through encouragement or whatever. I'm not I'm not really sure
i've answered that properly, but but I take your point absolutely.

Speaker 6 (01:02:39):
It is difficult for people that are that.

Speaker 5 (01:02:41):
Are working in certain jobs to speak out publicly, whether
that be journalism or defense, whatever it happens to be.

Speaker 2 (01:02:50):
Well, I think I think that those of us who
have been speaking up did give the courage in the
back when we give the political cover to those who
in the positions to be able to make a difference.
And the part of the censorship regime is to shut
us down because they know we're giving the cover and
the power to people who can find it. So the

(01:03:11):
important way to support the people you want to support
is to also allow them this political cover and support
people like us, because without that they don't have the cover.
They need that cover. They need the political movements to
be able to stand up against tyranny, and without it

(01:03:31):
it's almost impossible. It's also why they work so hard
to censor us.

Speaker 6 (01:03:37):
Yes, but.

Speaker 5 (01:03:39):
If we go back to ordinary people for a second,
one of the other issues there is that people are
cynical about the effect that communicating with somebody has, I mean,
just communicating with your congress person. Maybe there's a bit
more of a sort of normal see about about that

(01:04:01):
in the United States. But in the UK people just
they they almost never communicate with their member of parliament
because well, what's the point, what's the point, what's the point.
They're not gonna they're not gonna listen to me anyway.
The point The point is that it's not even it's
not even just about communicating in a negative sense, about
telling them when they when they disagree with what they've done.
It's also about communicating with them when when somebody that

(01:04:24):
is an MP or is in politics has stood up
and said something that they agree with, and they don't
bother telling them that that was a good.

Speaker 6 (01:04:29):
Thing that they did.

Speaker 5 (01:04:30):
So so just taking that step of it doesn't take
long to send a message just to to because everybody's
email address is available, to send a message saying well,
actually you spoke out on this issue and I thought
what you said was really great. That just doing that,
if they receive a couple of hundred or emails like that,
that gives them the confidence to try again. And and

(01:04:52):
so just that positive reinforcement is something that that's really
simple for people to do that that actually could have
a really positive of effect.

Speaker 3 (01:05:01):
I think you're right.

Speaker 2 (01:05:02):
I think just speak giving that support structure to the
bringing humanity in the right direction away from tyranny and
wherever you.

Speaker 3 (01:05:09):
Can find it.

Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
It's too bad that people don't even feel that their
congressmen are worth their time. I think that in this
country they don't even really trust the entire government system.
I think people think the whole thing is rigged, and
that's an issue too.

Speaker 6 (01:05:26):
Well.

Speaker 5 (01:05:26):
I mean, I don't want to be too critical of
the US political system, but I think I think the
way that the US political system is funded and the
fact that to win an election costs as much money
as it does is problematic. I think, I think in
the United States that is something that should be looked at.
I mean, you know, there are very strict limits on
what politicians or political parties can spend on campaigning in Europe,

(01:05:52):
and you know, so there's much less opportunity for big
corporate lobbying, for defense company lobbing, for that. That just
doesn't happen here to the same degree that the promise
here is more of what happens after you leave politics,
that you get the board level job or whatever. But

(01:06:16):
in terms of actually getting getting elected in the first place,
there isn't that same vested interest support for the election
process here.

Speaker 2 (01:06:27):
Well, I know there was a Congressman Hawthorne. He was
in a wheelchair. He was speaking actually even at President
Trump's inaugural you know, or I think it was his,
I don't remember one of his conferences.

Speaker 3 (01:06:40):
I think it was when he was trying to be.

Speaker 2 (01:06:41):
Re elected, but when in his he was ahead in
his polls and he spoke out about what he saw
at a party of him with you know, drugs and
children and things and weird things, and he actually made
the mistake of talking about it publicly. After he did that,
everyone turned on him and he magically was defunded and

(01:07:02):
not elected even though he was ahead in his area.
That's the kind of stuff that people see that it
gets them scratching their heads.

Speaker 6 (01:07:10):
Yeah, and rightly so I.

Speaker 2 (01:07:11):
Think, yeah, so, how do people follow you your work
and what you're doing, and how do they support you?
Especially people in your country should be supporting you.

Speaker 5 (01:07:24):
Well, the websites UK colum dot org and that's that's
where we prefer. Mean, we're on YouTube and other social
media platforms and so on as well, but we absolutely
prefer people to know about the website because that isn't
going you know, we can we've been deplatformed on other
platforms and replatformed, the d platformed again, but the website's

(01:07:45):
always there, so so that's that's the main place, and
then you know, everything is posted there.

Speaker 6 (01:07:52):
So if people do want to support us.

Speaker 5 (01:07:55):
Then they can, you know, they can join as a member,
or make a donation and so on. But that's that
details on that website.

Speaker 2 (01:08:02):
Thank you so much, Mike for joining the program. I
really appreciated this conversation. I think we need to have
a lot more conversations like this one.

Speaker 6 (01:08:10):
That's actually fair.

Speaker 7 (01:08:12):
Us with.

Speaker 2 (01:08:27):
Shopify helps you sell it every stage of your business
like that.

Speaker 6 (01:08:30):
Let's put it online and see what happens.

Speaker 8 (01:08:32):
Stage and the site is a live.

Speaker 6 (01:08:34):
That we opened a store and need a fast checkout stage.

Speaker 3 (01:08:37):
Thanks, you're all set that.

Speaker 6 (01:08:39):
Counted up and ship it around the globe. Stage. This
one's going to thy Land and that wait, did we
just hit a million orders? Stage? Whatever?

Speaker 4 (01:08:49):
Your stage businesses that grow grow with Shopify.

Speaker 6 (01:08:52):
Sign up for your one dollar a month trial at
shopify dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:08:55):
Slash Listen.

Speaker 1 (01:09:00):
Hi, everybody, it's me Cinderella Acts. You are listening to
the Fringe Radio Network. I know I was gonna tell them, Hey,
do you have the app? It's the best way to listen.

Speaker 7 (01:09:14):
To the Fringe Radio Network.

Speaker 1 (01:09:15):
It's safe and you don't have to log in to
use it, and it doesn't track you or trace you,
and it sounds beautiful. I know I was gonna tell
him how do you get the app? Just go to
fringeradionetwork dot com right at the top of the page.
Hi know, slippers, We gotta keep cleaning these chimneys.