The War on Dissent with Gareth Icke

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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. 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

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

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. 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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. 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 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 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, 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 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, 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.

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 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 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 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

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 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 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, 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 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

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, 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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

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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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

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 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 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? 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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,

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 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 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, 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? 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 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 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 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 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? 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,

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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 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 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.