The Psychological Warfare Behind the Headlines w/ Mike Robinson

➡ The article discusses the issue of age verification for online content, particularly on social media platforms, to prevent children from accessing adult content. It also promotes a product called Masterpiece, which is claimed to remove harmful substances from the body. The article then introduces an interview with Mike Robinson, editor of the UK Column, discussing the importance of independent journalism and the challenges it faces, including censorship and the need for financial sustainability. The article concludes with a discussion on the crackdown on free speech and the suppression of counter-narratives to government views.
➡ In the past decade, governments and social media platforms have been working together to regulate and censor content on the internet. This began with a focus on extremist content, but has since expanded to include any content that criticizes government actions. Recently, there has been a push to control encryption and implement filters to prevent certain content from being uploaded in the first place. This censorship campaign, which began about ten years ago, is still ongoing and its full impact is yet to be seen.
➡ Money from tax-exempt foundations is being used to pay influencers to promote extreme content, making it hard to distinguish between real and fake information. This is part of a larger agenda to undermine trust in alternative sources and make mainstream media outlets appear more reliable. However, this strategy is backfiring as people are noticing the censorship and manipulation, leading to a decrease in trust in mainstream media. The situation is further complicated by the use of legislation to suppress dissenting voices, particularly in the UK where terrorism laws are being used against journalists.
➡ Social media platforms are requiring users to verify their age to protect children from explicit content. However, the real issue is adults grooming children online, which isn’t being addressed. A product called Sloop, popular among athletes, mimics exercise and has shown promising results in preclinical studies. Lastly, the issue of pedophilia is deeply rooted in society, even within the British establishment, and needs to be addressed urgently.
➡ The text discusses the influence of Britain and its intelligence agency, MI6, on global affairs, suggesting it’s often overlooked in favor of blaming agencies like Mossad or the CIA. It also highlights the role of Israeli intelligence unit 8200 and its connections to big tech companies in Silicon Valley. The text further discusses the increasing fusion of government, corporations, and non-governmental organizations, and the rise of AI and data centers for surveillance purposes. Lastly, it warns about the loss of internet anonymity due to the push for digital IDs.
➡ The article discusses the potential misuse of technology, particularly in the field of personalized medicine. It suggests that insurance companies could use our genetic information to predict future health issues and adjust insurance costs accordingly. The article also highlights the need for open discussions about the risks and benefits of technology, and the importance of supporting those who speak out about these issues. It emphasizes that the decisions we make now about technology will impact us for centuries to come.
➡ People need courage to risk their jobs and speak out against issues, and this courage can be given by others through support and encouragement. However, many people feel cynical about communicating with their representatives, thinking they won’t listen. Positive reinforcement, such as sending a supportive message when a representative does something agreeable, can boost their confidence. The conversation also touched on the problematic funding of the US political system and the influence of big corporate lobbying.

The excuse is that children might access pornography. And so we’ve got to require. And so they, they use the, 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, 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 18 because they’re trying to deal, they claim, with the idea that children would access pornographic content.

A quick break to share with you this wonderful product called Masterpiece. It is proven to taking out graphene oxide, aluminums, heavy metals, microplastics. They also are looking at these Mac addresses and there’s more and more research and there’s studies coming out. There’s four documentaries that are being made on their studies about how they’re able to disable Mac addresses that are somehow put into people. This is amazing stuff. I highly recommend I buy a whole box of it and I make sure my whole family has it. If you are interested in trying this and really cleaning up your body from microplastics, graphene oxide, you can also test yourself.

You can get your hair test to see what you are before and what you are after. You use this for a few months. They stand behind what they’re doing with tests, studies and real results. And look for the link below where you can buy Masterpiece yourself. It’ll, it’ll provide you a discount. Or you can go to sarah westall.com under shop. Welcome to business Game Changers. I’m Sarah Westall. I have Mike Robinson coming to the program. He is the editor, co editor of the UK column. It’s one of the only independent large organizations in news organizations in England and very well respected, very highly respected.

And they’ve maintained 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, especially 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 city of London 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 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 to address these problems but are being silenced. It brings some answers to this. So I hope you listen to the whole conversation and you share it because I need 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 and what you can’t post there. So you will find all of my main content on my website, Sarah Wessel.com or at my substack Sarah Westall substack.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. If you are on any of these platforms, especially like Apple or Podbean, give me a review. I’m trying to stay up on the charts on Apple. I’ve been consistently in the top 20 on business news in the United States, but I’m also ranking in over 25 different countries on business news, which.

Which is pretty cool, right? That’s pretty cool. But the only way I’m going to be able to stay there in this marketplace where these big players are spending a ton 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 us independents are going to get there is to be able to get the support of our listener base. So I really, really appreciate 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 sarahwestall.substack.com I have the replay of the peptide webinar that I did with Dr. Diane Kayser. People are really liking that and I hope you go and listen. I also just put up a page Sarah Wessel.com 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. It’s used as regenerative 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 regenerate brain cells.

We just mean to, we just don’t have that philosophy. We are, we are at least a decade behind other countries. And so I, 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. 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 post stroke and trauma victims.

And so if you go to sarahwestall.com dad you’ll get to see what I am doing for my dad. But I also am going to work on a peptide guide as well like I did for my peptide 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. 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.

But I am going to broaden it to be more just cognitive abilities in general when I put my peptide guide together. But this is the protocol I’m using for my dad. Okay. Sarahwestall.com dad okay, look for that. Okay, let’s get into my interview with Mike Robinson who is the editor of the UK column. Hi Mike. Welcome to the program. It’s my pleasure. You are the editor of the UK column. And is it, from what I understand it, what is the biggest independent publication in. I don’t think we can claim to be the biggest. I mean we, we hope to be better than others, but how about the best? I’m not sure I would still say that.

But, but yeah, okay. We’re certainly, we’ve certainly been around for, for quite a long time. So, so next year will be our 20th anniversary. So we’ve been, we’ve been around for quite a while. Well, I think claiming independence is pretty unique these days. Or actually people are trying to, how should I say it? Claiming independence isn’t unique, but being independent is. Yeah, I mean, you know, we took the view many years ago. We were looking at how we were going to be a sustainable business. And by that I don’t mean agenda 2030 sustainable but it’s sustainable and just being able to exist for an extended period of time.

And lots of people, if we go back to 2010, 2015, we’re relying on Internet advertising and so on. And 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 base, a subscription base, which should hopefully keep us going. And that’s done us very well. Good, because that’s part of the issue is making sure that you have the funding to keep going and fund the people. So many of 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 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? Well, I mean, it’s basically anybody. It doesn’t matter what side of the political spectrum people view themselves to be on. Anybody that’s sort of pursuing any kind of counter narrative to government is finding themselves on the wrong end of the censorship regime.

I mean, this 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 2015 or so where he was talking about in those days. It was, it was sort of couched in the language of anti extremism and Islamic extremism mixed in with a bit of anti vax 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 what’s available on the Internet. And then a couple of years later, he was gone.

Teresa May was the British Prime Minister. She invited all the major social media companies to Visit her in 10 Downing street and, and have a discussion about the types of discussions that are happening on Facebook, Twitter, as it was, and, and the works. And, and again, using the extremism slash terrorism mantra, they, they started pushing this idea that what was previously effectively an open forum for anybody to say whatever they liked would be begin to be shut down. 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 Syria conflict, for example, you know, we saw constant beheadings and other types of content similar to 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 that was the beginning of it. And as time has gone on, I think it was around 2017, 2018, 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 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 in Britain we’ve got the Online Safety act, in the eu, there’s the Digital Services act. And these are pretty similar pieces of legislation. And they’re basically designed to, to require platforms to behave in certain ways. But, but aside from that sort of government legislative effort, of course they had the full buy in of the platforms anyway.

So, so the platforms, particularly in the UK and the eu, have been very aggressively censoring content on their platforms all the way through that time without actually needing the legislation. And I mean that applied to 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, couch deny in the language because in more recent years the terrorism extremism angle has been dropped in favor of protecting children. And this is the new front for what they’re trying to do because nobody 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. So when you do all your research, have you figured out that there is an exerted agenda to do this? For years they are rolling out a censorship campaign or a speech controlled campaign. For years this has been in operation. Yes, yes, because, because this, this, this latest effort began as I say, 10 years ago. And so that’s, this has been a process, has been going on four years and it’s not finished yet. So you know, in the next setting aside the types of censorship that we’ve seen up until now, the next target for governments is encryption.

So anybody that’s using a chat application signal or WhatsApp that’s got end to end encryption, this is very much viewed by the intelligence agencies as being dangerous because they can’t easily hoover 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 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, if they’re posting controversial content perhaps, or whatever. So encryption is one of the next directions for this.

And the other 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, a moderating decision afterwards about whether it’s appropriate or not, but actually to, to put in place filters as the content is being uploaded 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, of sanctions. So. Well, YouTube is already doing it and big platforms are already doing it as they process the material.

But that’s right, you’re, you’re talking like at the chat level at like actual comments and things. Yes, yes, absolutely. Well, YouTube. Yeah, because, because as I say, the, the, the, the legislation is being put in place over, over time, but the, the social media platforms aren’t necessarily waiting for, for that legislation. They, they know what’s coming and so they, they are implementing this now. YouTube was, is doing this for copyright reasons. Was there their initial justification? But of course they’ve also been using it for, for censorship purposes as well. So, but, but you’re absolutely right. The point here is this is something that, that isn’t happening now.

It’s, this is something that began a decade ago and, and is, is a process that we haven’t really seen the, the, the full effect of yet. And the other things that are going on here. Well, before we get on to that, the other thing to consider is back in 2017 when Theresa May was inviting the social media platforms into, to speak to her and 10 Downing street, she also in June or July of that year went to the G7 and, and, and promoted the idea of what she called a rapid response mechanism. And this is basically the notion that all the G7 countries would agree a common narrative, a common position.

And that, that, that is that they reduce common language and common narratives pushed out through mainstream press. And so, but that would be agreed at that level, at that sort of G7 level. And so the United States, the UK EU 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 scale invasion, just that phrase that we see in just about every certainly British mainstream report, but doesn’t matter 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 in hand with that because it’s the independent media organizations like us and like yourselves that are, that are, you know, countering this common narrative. Let me ask you, because I’m seeing a push of extreme voices, right, like Andrew Tate, which had this pimp and hoe degree horrible. And a lot of young men in our country followed that and are, you know, followed his business model. Only fans is huge in 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 18 or older, but the ones who look 13 or 14 are the ones that make the most money, which is absolutely awful.

And his name and voice and likeness have been pumped up big time. And it seems like they’re purposely creating this extreme culture so that the regular people will be revulsed and ask for this complete censorship regime to take place. That’s absolutely right. I mean, look, we, 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 of content. Well, like Nick Fuentes, who.

I don’t, I want you to keep going. But Nick Fuentes, there’s a reel out there of him. You know, he’s anti gay, he’s anti Jewish, he’s anti all these things. But there is some suggestive evidence that he actually himself might be gay and he might be all these things. I mean, he’s showing him doing all these things that are completely anti what he promotes. He looks like he’s a paid operative. It’s quite possible. You know, there are the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, one of the big think tanks. I can’t remember how many tens of thousands of influencers that they boast that they have on their books.

So, you know, we have organizations that are funded by governments, often through so called tax exempt foundations. And the money is flowing straight into the pockets of influencers on YouTube and other places to. In order to push this type of extreme content. And they don’t have. The people that are doing this aren’t doing it because they believe in the content that they’re pushing. They’re doing it because they’re being paid to do it. And this, of course, makes it very, very difficult for everybody to work out what’s real and what isn’t. And it’s one of the reasons, by the way, that the notion of trust is so central to the censorship agenda, because what they are aiming to do is to pollute the information space to such a degree that only the BBC or ABC or NBC or CNN are trusted, valid sources.

They look sane. Yeah, because npr, I’ve been listening. I like to listen to different people, but NPR presents their stuff in a sane way. 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 percentage 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 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? Yes, 100%, that is the agenda. And, 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 2021, I think it was 2021, and we’ve lost several others since now. Have you been returned? Yes, yes, we have. I have to say that, that one of the worst or the most censorious platforms is TikTok.

It just, I mean, but you look at, you look at the, the content that’s actually on TikTok and you say not. Why is that not being taken down or why is this. Yeah, so, you know, the, the people that are the. It seems to me that the people that, that have been trying to take what they’re doing seriously in terms of, of providing some real accountability for, for the, for governments or 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.

While some of these even as you say so extreme voices have been given free reign 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. Well, and I was being accused of being abusing and bullying people, which is like so absurd. Whereas people who are actually bullying and harassing people were actually platformed and getting millions of views. That to me should really be an indication to people that something’s really off here.

You couldn’t agree more. 100 and, 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 100, because the, the social media platforms have been fully working for West State, Western states for a decade and are absolutely enthusiastic supporters of, of the, the sort of misinformation, disinformation narrative. 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.

Yeah, but, but at the same time, they don’t. No, no, I know, I agree. Yes, they’re busy, they’re busy trying to, I mean, the, the language that’s coming out of, of British politicians, British military personnel, NATO military personnel, you know, they’re talking about preemptive strikes against Russia. They’re talking about, it’s absolute insanity, the language they’re talking about. Setting aside whether we think that we want, 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 kind.

It’s just sheer insanity. But anybody that calls that out is, is being, you know, all the name calling as you know, of being purveyors of misinformation and disinformation and so on. So, you know, but, but people, people recognize when the language is being used by the establishment is, 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 people do get what that, let’s put it this way, the levels of trust in mainstream media in this country, and I, 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.

And every time you hear commentators on mainstream media talking about the engagement that they have 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 people recognize when they’re being fed. Yeah, well, but, and, 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 sane.

So the whole thing, I think, is backfiring on them. 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. But, but my view has always been that, that the more that our, our job actually more than 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 12 months, the use of the Terrorism act in the UK to, to, to arrest and search and, you know, image mobile phones of people that are journalists just because they, they are saying things which are, which are counter to government narratives.

It’s, it’s. The use of terrorism legislation is quite incredible here. I mean, I mean, just give, to give the, an idea of, of how bad it is if you’re crossing a, the, the British border at the moment, landing at an airport or whatever, there is no requirement for the police to have any suspicion that you are actually a terrorist. For them to use the Terrorism act to, to arrest you. And what normally happens is 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 want that as well, and 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 amazingly enough, the court case never seems to arrive. So in the meantime, somebody has bail conditions that they’ve got to abide by and Those are often quite hedriconian. So yeah, it’s, I mean the British government in particular, they’re way ahead of anybody else in the use of this to crack down on, on people that are doing journalism jobs effectively.

Well, the difference between where you are and where I am is that we have the cons, 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 and right. Go ahead. 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, the Children’s Online Safety act or, or similar types of, of things. Again, using the.

Protecting protection of children as, as an excuse. And, and you know, here again, if I come back here for a second, so, so that’s in the United States and, and, and absolutely at a state level, I’m starting to see that type of, of legislation 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 access pornography. And so we’ve got to require. And so they use the pornography industry 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, 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 18 because they’re trying to deal, they claim, with the idea that children would access pornographic content. Quick break from the program to share with you something amazing. This is called sloop. It’s actually Slupp Dash 332 but it’s been shortened to Sloop.

And this thing mimics exercise. It seems too good to be true. I first shared this on my sub stack and I had Dr. Diane Kitchen K. We went through all the benefits of this and the whole thing sold out. You can’t get it anywhere really across the industry and the people who are using it the most are athletes and bodybuilders and people who want to see extra performance in athletics. Because this, in pre clinical studies with mice increased their endurance by 70% and their distance by 45%. I mean, it’s incredible and it’s been shown to mimic exercises even when you’re at rest.

In preclinical studies with obese mice, they lost upwards of 12% of their body weight in four weeks and it increased muscle. So this is really taking the industry by storm. It’s actually not that expensive either. With my 10% coupon, it’s about $80 or maybe a two month supply if you take one capsule a day. If you decide to up it to two capsules a day because your dosage depends on what you want, then it’s a one month supply. But Dr. Diane recommends doing one capsule a day until your body gets used to it. You might not see the same level of results right away that the mice did, but your body can get used to it and see if it’s something that you really want to do.

If you are interested in this, I will have a link below so you can try it yourself or go to sarah wessel.com under shop. Remember to use the code Sarah to save 10%. Well, why don’t they do it opposite? I’m gonna throw this at you. Thank you. That is exactly the point. This is, this is why this is not really about children. Because when you look at the actual damage that’s being done to children in this country is from adults grooming children that are under the age of 18 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 off the top of my head. Roblox. This website is absolutely in many ways targeted at children and 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 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 it dealing with it anytime soon.

So this is just another example of why the whole child protection thing is just a front for what they’re actually aiming to achieve. We could fix this in a very short period of time. You crack down on all the pedophilia, which they could do immediately because they have all 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 control their own kids ability to access it.

Done. Now you got it done. I think. Right. A very simple way to do it in my opinion was to, would be to create a triple X domain, 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. To me, I mean that isn’t going to, that isn’t going to prevent everything because. Because there’s quite a lot of pretty dodgy content on, on X and Facebook and other platforms. 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, 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 taken down.

They just need to start in the British House of Commons, in the British House of Lords and, and work from there. Because you know, it’s not funny, but it’s not funny because 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 Minister that I can think of, possibly quite a number of the Royal Family. Obviously we know about Prince Andrew but, but others as well have some questions to answer.

So you know, this is something which is a core part of the control mechanism of, of British society. And, and you know, many, many years ago, I guess was the 70s or so, there was a sex scandal involving the Defense Secretary which ended up being known as the Perfumo affair because Profumo was giving away secrets to the Soviets at the time through having sexual relationships with relations with a woman that was involved with the Russians. But there was a very famous, she became famous because she wrote about, she was linked to Perfumo and wrote about the parties that she was going to.

A woman called Christine Keillor wrote a number of books on the sort of the high society parties that she was going to in British stately homes and was quite open about the fact that yes, she was there as an escort 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, it was, you know, it’s, it’s always been out there in, in, in plain sight. There’s a, there’s an interview with one of the Chief Whips for the Conservative party from the 70s from, in fact maybe, yeah, early 70s, a guy called Tim Fortescue.

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 to make sure that the MPs do what they’re told. And of course MPs come to us with any problems that they may have. It might be problems for 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, this has absolutely been understood for decades, if not longer, and, and nothing has ever been done about it.

In fact, the, 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, they’ve often lost pensions and so on because, because they’re, they’re acting in spaces that they aren’t allowed to go into really by, because it gets too close to, to, to Prime Ministers and, and others. 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 and the world, the UK really does 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. Yeah, I mean, we talk about deep states and we talk about the special relationship between the United Kingdom and the United States. The special relationship is really a deep state relationship. And by that I mean not just intelligence agencies, but also the financial centers as well. So City of London, Wall Street, I suppose Frankfurt.

This represents a lot of the sort of evil in the world. If we want to put it in that kind of language. And so yeah, I think you’re absolutely right to recognize 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 spread our 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 empire to, to being a purely financial one, still has its, its fingers in and in most pies and influences so many people around the world.

Yeah, I think if Britain could be sorted out, a lot of the world’s ills would be sorted out with it. Well and I think that’s why Mossad is being blamed for everything. I just had Harley on and he’s like, you know, the lead of the intelligence agencies, MI6 actually is above the other too. And I think, you know, the CIA, Mossad and MI6, but MI6 is quiet in the background. They don’t get at least where I’m at, they’re not getting the brunt of the blame for everything that’s going on. I think Mossad is and I think that’s by design.

It seems like everything is being filtered towards Mossad. CIA is somehow skating when it comes to Epstein is CIA is in the MI6 isn’t even in the conversation. And that tells you as a journalist, I start to question things like that when certain characters who are, I know are very powerful are never in the conversation. Why? Why are they not in the conversation? Yeah. Yes, Britain likes to present itself as being, you know, this small island, Northwest Europe doesn’t really have much influence in the world these days. 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 we’ve hinted at here is largely driving many of the activities that are going on around the place. On the Israeli intelligence front, I think, I think what you’re saying is right. But I think one area that, that with respect to Israel that we should be looking at a lot closer IS, is Unit 8200, which is their equivalent of the NSA or GCHQ, the signals intelligence Organization. But it’s not just singles 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 here is that they have a massive alumni network around the world and they are very, very good at either founding 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 of narrative about how dangerous it is that Chinese Huawei equipment is on our telecommunications networks because it’s hoovering 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 Palo Alto networks or Checkpoint or a whole bunch of other is really? Yeah. Would you replace it with. Right, right. So 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 off and taken off to China, it’s the fact that that data isn’t going to MI6 and the NSA and so on.

I think that’s, that’s the real reason we’ve got to be looking at the gear that’s on our networks. Actually, that’s supposedly Silicon Valley, but actually, is it because quite often it’s directly funded and employing people that were working with unit 200 in Israel in their earlier career and that has a very tight alumni network. So they do absolutely all stay in contact with each other. It’s something that very few people talk about. Some people are talking about it and I think we need to be paying a lot more attention to that. Any powerful big tech company that has anything powerful that has to do with national security, the government gets involved with and they are intimately, they’re in the meetings, they’re intertwined and they control what they want to control.

That’s what I, I’ve seen. Yes. And increasingly governments in the west are wanting to use civilian infrastructure as for dual use. So they want to use to piggyback military and intelligence operations on top of civilian infrastructure. That’s exactly what Palantir is about. That’s what Google’s about, that’s what all the social media companies are about. And then they can say that this is the opera, 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 country it’s against the constitution, but if a private company does it, they can get around the pesky constitution.

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 the sense that, that governments and, and corporations are actually merging with each other. But from an operational standpoint, they increasingly are. So we’re seeing the fusion of corporate government, non governmental Organizations all starting to work very, very closely together as something which is, we haven’t really seen this before in the kind of way that we’re seeing it now. You start adding in Stargate, the AI program that was announced by Ellison at Trump’s inauguration.

UK announced pretty much the same policy at the same time and we’re now calling it Stargate uk. Denmark has a version of Stargate. So we’re building all these data centers because of course, for the last few decades we’ve been, as Bill Binney and others have been talking about, we’ve been collecting all this bulk data. But until now it’s been very hard to process that bulk data because basically we haven’t had the computing power to do it. So they were collecting bulk data and then they’re really having to decide who they’re going to target within that 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 a much broader scale. And they’re wanting to effectively profile individuals and use the AI to, instead of, you know, the intelligence agencies or the law enforcement having to try to identify people and then look at what they’re doing, they’re looking at, they’re processing the bulk data as a beginning point, a starting point to identifying who the main problem people are. And, and it’s, it’s all going to be handled automatically. This is a sort of level of, of surveillance that we just have not ever experienced before.

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, that built that 6,000 person facility. So he’s somebody that I’ve interviewed quite a bit and gotten to know over the years. And you’re absolutely right. Him and Kirkwebe came out with all that and one of the things they said is the problems. We have too much data and we don’t have the processing power.

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, not government people don’t, they 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 about their control and their intelligence data. Yeah, I mean, you know, what, what is from the average person’s point of view that 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. It’s, that’s sort of their, their day to day exposure of it. We could call that a front for what it’s for its real purpose which is, 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 an anonymous person is going to go away. If it’s already largely going away, but it’s certainly going to go away totally in the not too distant future.

So you know, we, we. People don’t even understand it. They don’t think, they think it’s convenient and the engineers building it don’t understand. They just think it’s convenient. But you know, go. Apple for example, is sending 300 things a day to Google. You know, the, the digital id, they’re communicating, social media is sending all that information to each other. So the social media is sending 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 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 is popping up the ads that 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. Right. And, and you know, the Stargate project that Ellison announced and Britain announced as well, their 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 well and it could be great, but that’s not probably what they’re doing. Go ahead. That’s not what they’re doing. Let’s not what their end goal is. Their end go. 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, so now they have my genome, 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 this does for the insurance companies is it de risks medical insurance because at the moment what they have to do is they have to work out well, how much is it likely to cost us to cover everybody that’s, that is going to need hospital bills or surgery or whatever it happens to be over the next year. And we, let’s say we’ve got a million customers, we divide that cost by a million and that’s, we add our profit on. That’s. 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 everybody, they spread out across all their customers what they, what they want to be able to do. So everybody theoretically of a certain age or a certain profile is going to get a certain price for the, for the, their insurance. What they would love to be able to do is to actually say well no, 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 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 bill that goes with it which probably you can’t afford. Or here you can have access to Canada’s maid program. I mean, I don’t know. Right. Precisely. Right. I mean I’m being, 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 that it’s a freight train. I know what’s coming. You can’t stop it because every business sees the benefit of it. So it’s this freight train coming and the only, and it could be beautiful for society if, if that train track was changed a 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, this is where I’m really worried and is that we don’t have enough mature people who are taking position leadership positions to make sure that it goes towards the betterment of humanity perspective. We, 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 no clue what they’re up against or what they’re dealing with.

And I think the 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 this is going to affect us for centuries if we don’t get our together. And 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 is here? Right. 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 a host of conversations that we should be having that we can’t have in this present information environment because the mainstream media isn’t prepared to have those conversations. They’re drowning out smaller voices. And the alternative voices that are out there that are being heavily funded are so extreme that they are also drowning out.

They’re not having these conversations alternative space. And the conversations are being had. And this, this I think, is, is the real danger that we face. Absolutely. And you know, 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, they have, they have to step up, they have to get uncomfortable and they have to start making a difference and making their voices heard because it is that important. I think what you said, 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 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 things to me and my initial reaction might be to want to rip their head off, but that doesn’t achieve anything. And we are actually in a very dangerous situation at the moment. Not just with the war narrative, but the technocratic agenda and AI and so on.

So I think 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, but I want to, I want, I would love to see people on all sides of, of whatever argument they think they’re on, stepping up and being willing to have 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 something we’re doing at the moment. I agree.

That’s the only way we’re going to get out of this. And I think the people who are afraid, there’s too many people who are fearful because they just figure they want their paycheck they can’t afford. The problem is too is that they’re with inside 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 paycheck and they won’t even have the influence. So how do we get past some of that? How do we get past the congresspeople being defunded with the city of London and with Wall street and all these people having so much funds? How do we get past congresspeople doing the right thing, getting defunded and not having access to the funds they need to even get elected again.

How do we get past some of these obstacles? I know that we are giving them the ability to have more courage, right? We are their courage, their backbo system. But we are pretty censored. So the, that I’m kind of brainstorming here. The people out there need to support people like us because we give backbone to people with, inside these companies, with inside congress to be able to step up and speak about these things. And then it becomes a snowball effect. That’s, I think that’s the solution. What do you think? Yeah, I think that’s right. I think people that are people that are in relatively risk free jobs from the point of view, okay, they’re not speaking out publicly, but perhaps the jobs that they are in are less susceptible to, less susceptible to them having a risk.

If they support somebody that is speaking out. I think that ordinary people, if they want to continue to have a life in the not too distant future, are going to need to put their hands in their pockets and start supporting some of the people that are already speaking out, or at least telling people 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 and our individual countries that are in that position that enough money would appear, if people were willing to take the risk and 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 by people that are watching 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 really sure I’ve answered that properly, but. But I take your point absolutely. It is difficult for people that are working in certain jobs to speak out publicly, whether that be journalism or defense, whatever it happens to be. Well, I think that those of us who have been speaking up did give the courage in the backbone.

We give the political cover to those who are in the positions to be able to make a difference. And part of the censorship regime is to shut us down because they know we’re giving the COVID and the power to people who can fight it. So the 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 COVID They need that cover. They need the political movements to be able to stand up against tyranny. And without it, it’s almost impossible.

It’s also why they work so hard to censor us. Yes, but there. 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. With somebody has. I mean, just communicating with your congressperson, maybe there’s a bit more of a. A sort of normalcy about, about that in the United States, but in the UK people just. They. They almost never communicate with their member of Parliament because 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 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 was a did. So just taking that step of it doesn’t take long to send a message 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 just doing that.

If they receive a couple of hundred or emails like that, that gives them the confidence to try again. And so just that positive reinforcement is something that’s really simple for people to do that actually could have a really positive effect. I think you’re right. I think just speak giving that support structure to the. Bringing humanity in the right direction away from tyranny and wherever you can find it. 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. Well, I mean, I don’t want to be too critical of the US Political system, but 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 in the United States that is something that should be looked at. I mean, there are very strict limits on what politicians or political parties can spend on campaigning in Europe. And, and, you know, so there’s much less opportunity for big corporate lobbying for, for defense company lobbying for that.

That just doesn’t happen here to the same degree. The, the promise here is more of what happens after you leave politics that you get the, the board level job or whatever. But, but in terms of actually getting, getting elected in the first place, there isn’t that same vested interest, support for, for the, the election process here? Well, I know there was a Congressman Hawthorne, he was in a wheelchair. He would, 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. I think it was when he was trying to be reelected.

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 not elected, even though he was ahead in his area. That’s the kind of stuff that people see that gets them scratching their heads. Yeah, and rightly so, I think. Yeah. So how do people follow you with your work and what you’re doing, and how do they support you? Especially people in your country should be supporting you.

Well, the website’s ukcolumn.org and that’s. That’s where we prefer me. We’re on YouTube and other social media platforms and so on as well. But we absolutely prefer people to. To know about the website because that isn’t going. You know, we can. We. We’ve been deplatformed on other platforms and replatformed and deplatformed again. But the website’s always there, so that’s the main place and then everything is posted there. And if people do want to support us, then they can join as a member or make a donation and so on. But details on that website. 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. Thank you for having me on this window, Sam.
[tr:tra].