Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 30, 2017 - Project Camelot

01:53:47

TONY GOSLING - WORLD AFFAIRS, AND HOW DISCUSSION ON FALSE FLAGS HAS BEEN BANNED BY FACEBOOK

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	He is a former BBC reporter and since then he's been working on exposing the Bilderberg information as well as he's done a number of investigations over his time as a And I think he continues in that vein.
	And we're going to find out more about him here in just a minute.
	I'm going to transfer over to him.
	So, Tony, welcome to the show.
	And it's great to have you here.
	Hi Kerry, I've carried on pretty much since I left the BBC doing one thing or another which is hopefully advancing the cause of humanity one way or another.
	I worked for a while with a campaign when I finished with the BBC in the 90s called The Land is Ours which was to do with land occupations and squatting, so not squatting people's homes where they're living Squatting empty buildings when we're talking about the super rich where they're buying up property just simply for an investment.
	So I was working with them for a few years and then I got back into journalism doing a radio program here in Bristol every week called The Politics Show and it's on the community radio station in Bristol which we are actually doing quite a lot to eat into the BBC's market.
	So you know the people don't want to listen to anodyne rubbish And patronising nonsense all the time.
	And we've proved that by dragging a large audience away from the BBC to get them to listen to community radio.
	The other great thing about community radio is we have a lot of really good specialist music programmes where people just give up their time once a week, come in for two or three hours and just play.
	Maybe it might be blues, it might be jazz, it might be hip hop, it could be anything.
	But it's, I think, a recipe which is Even though it's virtually zero funded, I mean it's hardly any money in it, and I do it as a volunteer, The actual, what you're listening to is you're listening to genuine people with genuine stuff.
	And I think it beats the BBC hands down around here.
	Although, of course, we don't have anything like the budget to go in depth and do things like crime reporting, which is necessary, and reporting on the City Council.
	Most of what the BBC do these days is kind of pedal press releases, really, just churn out a press release from a big business for the general population.
	But we're much more critical And so that's what I've been doing ever since.
	The Politics Show every Friday.
	You'll find it online at thisweek.org.uk or if you're in Bristol, you can tune in on 93.2 every week.
	Okay, well thank you for that.
	Now we have a very interesting topic to discuss today and it's really about another reporter, strangely enough.
	Her name is Caitlin Johnston and apparently she was either banned by Facebook or threatened to be banned for bringing up the subject of false flags.
	And so what really drew me to bring you on the show today was that you reposted her article.
	And I believe it's getting some notice out there.
	I don't know if she's the only one who's come across this.
	I don't know if other people are finding that to be a problem.
	What's going to be interesting is when I post this show on Facebook to see what their reaction is to the show, whether they allow the posts at all.
	And so can you talk about how you came across the article?
	I understand that perhaps you haven't met her.
	I did try to get in touch with her, but I was unable to do so.
	So go right ahead.
	Okay, so the reason I reposted this is because it's got clear Evidence screenshots of exactly what's happened.
	So it's not just somebody saying this happened to me.
	The screenshots on what happened to her Facebook account when she post reposted this excellent article.
	I mean, it really is.
	It's one of those that I looked at this article.
	I thought I wish I'd written that one because it's that what they've done is a really good job of looking at well-known, admitted, proven false flag attacks.
	I just compiled a timeline of them, really.
	So, for example, from the 1930s into the Second World War, most of these are to do with World War Two.
	A lot of them are to do with World War Two.
	But then through things like the Vietnam conflict, I mean, one is just the NSA admits it lied about what really happened at the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964.
	So this is where the evidence is there clearly that the false flag attack has been admitted to by the people carrying it out.
	So this is not just hearsay.
	Anyway, for some reason, Facebook's algorithms, or maybe a human being working for Facebook, Who knows, maybe an alien working for Facebook has decided that this is no good.
	And what they've done is they've put a temporary plot on Caitlyn's account.
	And a message flashes up, this temporary block will last for three days.
	You'll temporarily block from posting.
	You won't be able to post on Facebook till it's finished.
	Please bear in mind, people who repeatedly post things that aren't allowed on Facebook may have their accounts permanently disabled.
	So there you go.
	That's the message that Facebook's given her.
	The only thing, of course, is the clear thing and really important thing to mention is it doesn't say in any way there how she's broken their community guidelines at all.
	So it's just saying you've broken our community guidelines, you can't post for three days.
	And so it's really impossible for her in any meaningful way to make an appeal of this decision because they've just said that's it.
	There isn't any discussion or dispute about it.
	So I think what we're seeing here really is just one really well put together example of the way that the...
	Alternative media, if you want to call it that, social media and alternative media work very nicely together because you can share, if it's a decently written, interesting BBC article, you can share that, but you can equally share absolutely anything generally from the alternative media and social media.
	And I think what's happening is that there is a fear amongst the elite And amongst the people that control social media, largely, these social media, I'm convinced, are a front end, really, for the intelligence services, mainly for the signals intelligence.
	That's the NSA, GCHQ, people like this.
	And that it may not even necessarily be British or America.
	It may even be Israeli intelligence.
	So, for example, the Facebook seems to be a bit sensitive about Israeli stuff, particularly sensitive.
	So that might indicate that the Israel lobby is very strong behind making sure that Facebook doesn't report things it doesn't like.
	But the fact of the matter is these big platforms that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Microsoft, Google and the rest are beholden to the people who pay them.
	And we don't.
	We just use them for free.
	And the people who do pay them, and this has now been proven, are the...
	Obviously, there's ordinary advertisers, big business advertisers, who are also skewing, pressurizing them, particularly Google Search, to skew the results.
	But they're also the intelligence services are paying these people for information.
	So we know this is happening now.
	And these are becoming basically front ends, like shop windows for the signals intelligence services.
	And that's why I think they're starting to, to begin with on a low level, to be blocking the sorts of articles that Absolutely.
	Now, I'm putting on the screen here and I'm actually showing you this as well.
	Just to get the attributions correct, so educateinspirechange.org is the one that came up with this list of 58 admitted false flags.
	And what Caitlin did was, I guess she embedded that link in her article, if I understand it correctly.
	And then this is a whole list.
	It's quite fascinating.
	And, well, it starts here with number one, a Japanese explosion in 1931, a Manchurian incident, it's called.
	And then it goes on to an SS, Nazi SS Nuremberg trial trial.
	Issue that happened to do with what they were doing in the invasion of Poland, and so on and so forth.
	Hang on, because this particular one is crucial.
	It doesn't actually, I mean, it doesn't go into enough detail for me there, and it would be nice to have had some more links, but this is what's called the Gliwitz incident, and I've looked into this.
	This is what started the Second World War.
	Okay, so this is why this stuff is important, is how World War II was sparked off.
	And in fact, this Gleiwitz incident was completely fabricated by Heinrich Müller, who was the head of the Gestapo.
	And what he did is, they had some polls, before the invasion of Poland, they had some polls that they'd already incarcerated in Germany.
	And what they did is they got about 20 or so of them, They dressed them in Polish army uniforms and gave them lethal injections.
	And then they brought them to the border to a German base and they kind of left their bodies there and took photographs of them and said, look, the Poles have invaded Germany.
	Okay?
	Actually, amazingly enough, and I've never managed to track this one down, Kerry, maybe some of your viewers can do that or listeners can do that, is that some of those Poles survived.
	Not all the lethal injections worked and so the allied intelligence during the war realised that there were some people who'd been involved in that incident.
	And could tell the tale of exactly what had happened to them.
	But anyway, that's beside the point.
	The point being that these photographs the Nazis took were circulated all over the Goebbels propaganda media in Germany saying, oh, isn't it terrible?
	And I'm not sure about the UK, but certainly the New York Times picked up on this and did an article about it.
	Oh, gosh, look, isn't it terrible?
	The polls have invaded Germany.
	And so this was how the war was spun, the beginning of the Second World War with the German invasion of Poland was spun around the world with the lie, with a bunch of murdered Poles playing part of the so-called troops that invaded Germany.
	So this is crucial history and crucial if you want to understand how to avoid war is we've got to interrogate Articles like this which show false flag attacks.
	This Goliwitz incident is one of the most notorious in history if you take trouble to dig into how the Second World War began.
	Fascinating.
	Absolutely.
	And I'm not sure all of a sudden we have an echo so I'm just gonna, I don't know, turn my sound down a little.
	Anyway, I hope you can still hear me.
	Tony, can you hear me okay?
	You can.
	Okay, fine.
	So I'm flipping between screens here.
	It's not that easy.
	We're using Skype, and Skype is not that friendly, actually, for this sort of thing.
	But if people will click the link, I did put it in the chat for people that are in the chat.
	And then if you go to my website and you click on the Tony Gosling interview post, And scroll down, you'll find the link to this very interesting list of what we say are 58 admitted false flag attacks.
	That's the document we're looking at at this moment.
	And this is really fascinating stuff.
	So they've got a sort of preliminary list in which they do describe a few things.
	And then if you scroll down past 10...
	And they've got a whole other list going on and on, and it's an amazing list, really.
	I don't know that we wouldn't have time to go down them individually.
	And Tony, I don't know if you have the link in front of you.
	I can post it to your Skype if you want.
	Or we can just continue the discussion.
	There are other ones here, you know, and of course Pearl Harbor is a false flag.
	In case people don't know about that one, they were completely aware that this was going to happen.
	And in fact, the British were very instrumental and as well as the Americans in making sure that happened.
	The whole idea being that the US would then get into the war.
	So we know of other false flags, Gulf of Tomkin, these are more well known, and so on.
	But this list is really quite extensive.
	It is.
	Let me just say one thing about the Educate Inspire Change article.
	What they've done is basically just reworked a previous article which was on the Washington's blog site.
	But they've done a really good job of it because they've just given it a much more user-friendly introduction.
	The Washington's blog one is a little bit clunky, even though it's got the 58 and it's got a description of them.
	They've done a really good intro on educateinspiredchange.org.
	And that's obviously...
	You could almost do an experiment, couldn't you?
	Take various versions of this article which have been put on...
	I mean, I know, for example, Zero Hedge used the article because they'd had a look through and they'd say, well, this is kosher stuff.
	It's not fake news.
	And you could try various of them, couldn't you, into Facebook and see which ones Facebook liked.
	But the principle here is...
	Well, I was just thinking that, yeah.
	Yeah, Facebook is censoring us sharing the truth.
	That's effectively what's happened here because we've started to trust...
	Social media, in order to share with our friends what we trust, because we don't trust the mainstream media.
	We know that they're preparing right now to bounce us into further wars.
	And so when we're getting information, you know, we're constantly scanning it.
	Almost all of us are.
	Certainly people I know are scanning it, thinking, what are they trying to bounce us into this time?
	You know, whether it might be North Korea, whether it might be Qatar, you know, wherever is the next, you know, flashpoint.
	And so to be able to share stuff on social media is actually a matter of life and death, not just for the people who are on the sharp end of these illegal, many of them, interventions around the world, but also for us to be able to actually understand what's going on and to keep democracy alive here in the West.
	No doubt about it.
	You know, what I'm trying to do right here, just as we talk, is been to grab this article so that we don't need to stay here on this website.
	Well, for those of you who have been trying to do that, and I'll try to show this article on the screen and maybe we can get it a little easier.
	The The situation is, again, I just want to make sure that people understand.
	It is quite a good little explanation here on this.
	I'm going to read it just for people.
	It says...
	False flag terrorism occurs when elements within a government stage a secret operation whereby government forces pretend to be a targeted enemy while attacking their own forces or people.
	Think Vegas as a very recent one here in the U.S. The attack then falsely blamed on an enemy in order to justify going to war against that enemy.
	That As it happens, false flags have now extended to even further than just that information, because not necessarily to go to war.
	You can think of the rights being taken away steadily after 9-11, and since then, every false flag, since also trying to take away the guns in America, that's a reason for many of the sort of more recent, you might say more recent, false flags and so on.
	Well, a key thing to understand here is never trust the FBI. Never trust MI5. Yeah, because it's been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt in court now that almost all the so-called Islamic attacks, Islamist attacks in the United States Have been caused by the FBI,
	not just watched by the FBI, supplying the necessary equipment to do the attack by the FBI. And this is one of the things I think about Vegas, which is absolutely key, is that the FBI wants a monopoly on weapons.
	It wants a monopoly on power.
	And so these kinds of attacks are exactly why the US, right in the early days, said, look, we know we want to make sure that the state doesn't have a monopoly on guns.
	I think there's arguments on both sides of this, but at the end of the day, the FBI cannot be allowed to get that monopoly, particularly since they're so totally unaccountable and implicated in all these terrorist attacks.
	On the US soil.
	They're starting to look far more like a kind of modern day Gestapo.
	That is to say, a force which are totally unaccountable and simply do what they want in order to aggrandize more and more power to themselves.
	So every time there's a terrorist attack, they're in the basic game plan now, as MI5 are here, of making sure that there's more and more and more money of our taxpayers' money spent on them and that nobody who's been at fault in allowing these terrorist attacks to take place, whether it's the Manchester Arena attack or Las Vegas, is going to be sacked at the FBI or MI5 because they are totally unaccountable.
	Here in Britain, they haven't even gotten together since our general election in June, I was hearing the other day, the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is supposed to oversee the intelligence services here in Britain.
	And that suits them fine, because that means there's no proper democratic oversight, even when that committee is sitting, it's not a very good democratic oversight, but we are just simply funding them to do whatever they want.
	And the same people who were in charge during the 7-7 London bombings, the same people who were in charge During the attack on Manchester, where there were literally scores of warning signs to these agencies that these people were going to carry these attacks out if and when they did.
	There were scores that the same people are in charge right now, Kerry, at the FBI and in MI5. That's how accountable they are.
	They're not accountable at all.
	Absolutely.
	Well, I got to say that just an interesting sort of anecdote for people that might want to know this.
	Recently, I did a fascinating interview all about the pedophilia situation and a book written by Joaquin Hagopian.
	And he was on my show discussing his book and everything he'd written about it.
	I got a halt On YouTube, where they were refusing initially to allow advertising on that, so I wouldn't make any money for the viewership, right?
	Which is the way Camelot supports itself, is through advertising on YouTube and on our website, as well as donations.
	So What happened was, luckily on YouTube in this case, they allow you to appeal it.
	So then what I understand is maybe it's some kind of web bot.
	Some may say artificial intelligence that will target something.
	And this happened to me also with the JFK assassination.
	Anytime the word false flag appears on any of my YouTube, specifically, especially whenever I interview Ole Damogard, what happens is it gets flagged.
	And most of the time they won't allow advertisers to have their advertising on there.
	So this is the way, a subtle form of censorship.
	And then what happens is I appeal it and sometimes I win and sometimes I lose.
	You don't get to say anything in your appeal.
	You just ask them to review it again is how it works.
	So we've got Facebook operating in one way and we've got YouTube operating in another.
	They're both operating to censor Any information that we're getting on the alternative side of things that is well substantiated And as we can see, it's actually, there are books written about these subjects.
	I mean, extensive investigations into, as we're seeing, revealing the false flags, revealing who's behind them, revealing that they even admit governments have now come forward over history to admit their false flags.
	So this is stuff that they don't want on there.
	They basically are making your life very difficult when you do try to put this stuff on there.
	Well this is really echoing what goes on in the mainstream media because I can remember chatting to one of the guys that worked at the Guardian After there was an article published by Michael Meacher, the headline was, I think this was around about 2002, maybe 2003, the Labour MP, who's the longest serving Labour cabinet minister, actually, here in Britain.
	So he was a fairly senior guy, but the headline was, the war on terror is bogus.
	And this guy who worked in advertising at The Guardian told me that literally that day, the day it came out, there was something like two or three million pounds worth of advertising contracts pulled.
	from the Guardian so there's a very clear message then goes to the editor about what is going to allow them to continue publishing and what isn't and the sorts of articles which will I mean this is big business we're talking about here I'm not sure you didn't say which specifically but I would imagine you're talking about advertising for car manufacturers banks These kinds of big companies,
	maybe pharmaceutical industry, they have a big interest in looking at newspapers and if they see something they don't like, sending a very clear signal to stop it.
	So what's happening with the demonetisation of YouTube And also the down ranking.
	I mean, this is the thing I've noticed since they brought in this, I called it the Hitler's birthday algorithm at Google, because they brought it in just on midnight of Hitler's birthday this year, 2017, in March or May, I think it was April actually.
	And it was so pernicious because what you're seeing is the true articles, the best articles.
	Now, we just mentioned Washington's blog.
	I think this is one of the best articles Sites online, actually, because one of the things that they do, they're very meticulous.
	And I tried submitting something to them and they sent it back to me and said, there's not enough links in this article.
	And I thought, well, that's good, actually.
	You're absolutely right.
	And so I sent them back.
	It was something like a 3,000 word article.
	But I sent it back with about 30 or 40 links in it.
	So all the contentious points I was making in the article, you could click straight through to the evidence.
	And people like, even the mainstream press simply don't do this a lot of the time.
	So Washington's blog is taking a lot of time and effort to make sure that when they're saying something contentious that might be challenged, that you can simply click, click, click straight through to the evidence.
	So they're using the internet in the way it was always intended to be used.
	And actually, so that means most of their material stands up actually way above, head and shoulders above, what the mainstream media are coming up with, Kerry.
	Absolutely.
	Well, that's good to hear.
	You know, what I want to do here is also continue down this list because I think the false flags are really quite fascinating.
	Do you happen to have the list in front of you?
	If not, I can...
	Yes, I do.
	Yeah.
	All right.
	Excellent.
	So you can pick and choose, cherry pick what you particularly was eye-catching to you, if you like.
	I'm just looking at this...
	Well, let's go down to number seven.
	Here's one I like.
	All right.
	Israelis and, of course, on the Washington blog version, everything is you can click straight through to anything you want to prove it.
	Israel admits that in 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell operating in Egypt planted bombs in several buildings, including the US diplomatic facilities, and then left behind evidence implicating Arabs as the culprits, allowing Egyptians One of the bombs detonated prematurely, allowing the Egyptians to identify the bombers.
	And several of the Israelis later confessed.
	So there you go.
	There's one real just simple incident of a news story which appears to be one thing.
	Actually, it's something else.
	And the reason I picked that one out, guess why?
	It's because we've had this just literally within the week.
	We had a horrific attack on a mosque in the Sinai.
	Now, Sinai, of course, is rather close to Israel, part of Egypt, and who knows what would cause that?
	Because there's various people asking questions about how on earth the Egyptian security forces could have allowed an ISIS terrorist cell of something like 20 or 30 gunmen to have been just running around operating freely within Egypt.
	Well, it may be that this was the Israelis doing this attack on the mosque the other day.
	I think, just to get the details, it was on actually last Friday, the 24th of November, the gunman killed 330 people outside a mosque.
	So I think, you know, the whole idea of being able to go back through these four flags Have a look at the evidence.
	On the first hand we thought it was one person and with a little bit of evidence we find the second person.
	That was number seven on the list I picked out there.
	That really does enable us to see, well, actually, this is exactly what they're up to now.
	The only thing for me, which is a bother, is that they've tried these two major false flag attacks in Syria over the last few years.
	Once in 2015, in Ghouta, I think it was, just not far from Damascus, Which was the attack that was looked into by Seymour Hersh and by the UN, Carla Del Ponte.
	Parent chemical weapons attack, sarin attack or something.
	Initially, for the first week or so, constantly on the TV every day, blamed on President Assad.
	And then later found out by the UN, by Cole del Ponte, to have been the rebels, so-called rebels, which the West supports, carrying that attack out.
	Then we saw in Idlib in May this year another chemical weapons attack, supposedly by Assad, even though there's absolutely no strategic reason why.
	Because he's winning the battle against ISIS, he should be doing that.
	Again, there is strong evidence, and James Parry from Consortium News, I think you've probably come across him, he was one of the guys that worked with Gary Webb to expose the Iran-Contra scandal.
	He was working for the Associated Press, one of the big newswires, and both he and Gary then found it impossible to get work because they'd exposed Iran-Contra and Oliver North and the rest of those crooks.
	James Parry has proved through the evidence that's come out in the official report that it can't possibly have been the way we've been told this Idlib chemical weapons attack.
	He's indicating strongly that the evidence is pointing towards this being an attack either by the west or by the so-called rebels who we support so this is very much hot material day to day today now and what i'd like to see is one of the big networks like uh what cbs pbs or cnn or the bbc if they were actually serious these guys they would be doing an investigation in exactly into these topics to show their listeners and their public And to their own journalists to question everything
	that seems to be possibly an attempt to bounce us into a wall.
	Absolutely.
	Well, I'm just looking down this list here.
	I'm going to share a very interesting section because this is also talking about the former, this is number 38, former Department Justice lawyer John Liu, however you say his name,
	Suggested in 2005 the U.S. should go on the offensive against al-Qaeda, create a false terrorist organization with websites, recruitment centers, training camps, and fundraising operations.
	What they're not saying is that al-Qaeda was actually originally started with Osama bin Laden being a CIA agent.
	And really quite documented.
	In fact, Gordon Duff of Veterans Today has actually documented quite a bit of Osama Bin Laden's background in the CIA and said he's considered a hero in the CIA, believe that or not, because of all his work to do with...
	Getting things off the ground for them in these various ways, of course, 9-11 notwithstanding.
	So, you know, this is really, you know, just admitted stuff and it's really interesting.
	If you do, you know, read the news carefully, I wouldn't say never read the news because you actually do get embedded in all the lies.
	You occasionally get some very clear statements of truth.
	And once it's documented, it's documented forever, the way the internet is basically working nowadays.
	So, you know, any thoughts?
	Yeah, well, okay, so it certainly, yeah, I mean, the internet is set up to help us if we know how to use it.
	And I mean, one of the things we do with the radio program is we generally ignore most of the stuff in the mainstream press.
	The other thing to say to what you've just, you know, a caveat to that really, is I was brought up with this kind of stuff about Pravda and Izvestia over in the Soviet Union.
	This is in the 1970s and 1980s.
	We were taught at school, we were told by the media, we were told by our peers, by our You know, the people in Russia, when they read the newspapers, they don't get the truth like we do.
	They have to read between the lines.
	And I think that's exactly what we have to do here.
	There is a psychological attempt to get people to totally switch off from the news.
	Because there's a lot of people out there that switch the news on and then think to themselves, that's a load of rubbish.
	And of course it's almost like there's a liar sitting in the middle of your house or in the corner of your living room.
	What would you want to do if there's a liar sitting there telling lies in the middle of your private space?
	You want to get him out, you don't want him sitting there.
	So I think that's a deliberate attempt to get people to switch off from the mainstream news completely.
	Now the fact of the matter is there's all sorts of important stuff coming out through that mainstream news But sometimes what we get, I'm sure you're aware of this Kerry, is you get a tiny little one line of something really interesting and really important.
	I mean they just had just the other day elections in Honduras for example and I was listening to the BBC World Service in the background and there was just one and it was only on one bulletin, it was pulled from the next bulletin.
	It was just a one-liner about one of the candidates.
	I think it's Nasrallah is the guy's name.
	His supporters have gone crazy because the account takes place over a couple of days in Honduras and they have a live feed which is online and also is on the TV screens of the Honduras TV companies.
	And late into the evening, what happens is the whole thing closes down.
	Okay, so it's a live feed as the count's going on, but it closed down.
	Anyway, when it started up the next morning, it was completely different from the previous evening.
	So Nasrallah had been doing really well.
	He was something like five or ten points ahead about to become the president.
	And then when everyone switches on their TVs and their internet the next morning and the feed resumes, From the official electoral commission, suddenly the president is down.
	He's like, you know, he's like minus 10%.
	So the whole country is in uproar, saying, well, this is, you fix, you're taking the mickey, yeah?
	You're having fun with us.
	This isn't a real election.
	You're just trying to skew it because you don't want him to win.
	We had a similar thing in the elections last year in Montenegro, for example, in the former Yugoslavia, where the candidate who was quite pro-Russian, I mean he was certainly, he wanted Montenegro to stay as an independent country rather than In the West, as the previous president had.
	And at six o'clock, I think it may be three o'clock in the afternoon, there was a massive news story.
	There's a threat against the president from this guy who's one of the opposition members, and there's been loads of arrests.
	This is on election day.
	So the police have intervened to try and create a story to get people not to vote for somebody in the election.
	This kind of stuff is becoming almost normal now.
	We've seen also in Kenya recently two general elections.
	The guy that challenged the first general election then refused to stand in the second general election.
	So that means that it's almost impossible to get any kind of proper fair election.
	The disruption of elections is an absolute calling card for the new world order, super elite, because they don't want elections.
	They don't want us to be able to decide.
	What they want to do is to disrupt these countries so that they can then take control of them.
	Absolutely.
	Well, I think it's interesting because this whole targeting of fake news has also kind of skewed the general public out there.
	What they did is they sort of put it all in a bucket, I think.
	And then they launched an attack against the alternative, whereas actually most of the fake news, of course, comes from the mainstream, if not all.
	And this is the problem.
	But what we don't have is any clarity with these people.
	They're not understanding what they're seeing or anything, and they're not being discerning about it.
	And so, you know, we're kind of fighting an uphill battle, you might say, to try to get this stuff out there.
	Well, yeah, but hang on, because Trump did stand on this whole fake news ticket, didn't he?
	And it was great, actually, in a way that he picked up on it.
	The only trouble is, today, he's made a bit of an embarrassing manoeuvre by tweeting a whole load of fake news himself.
	You know, basically faked videos.
	By the most far-right extremist fascist front in Britain called Britain First.
	And he's just made himself, because he hasn't realised what he's done necessarily, and he's refusing to backtrack and realise how serious it is when you're retweeting this fake news.
	I think, you know, anybody could do this.
	It's an easy mistake to make.
	But what Trump should have done immediately once he'd realised he's retweeting the fascists, Then he should have just deleted the tweet and apologized.
	Simple.
	I think people would have respected him for doing that, but he hasn't.
	He's now trying to stick by his fake news guns and he's just alienating thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who might otherwise be reasonably supportive of him over here in Britain.
	It's because I think he's just so focused on the US. It's the only place he really knows very well.
	The idea that he's lost the hearts and minds of one of America's key allies doesn't even seem to matter to him.
	Yes.
	I don't know.
	I've always wondered about this.
	You know, generally speaking, you would expect someone like a president to have someone who sort of stands over their shoulder and makes sure just, you know, to double check that what they're getting...
	Would you like to be that person with Donald Trump?
	Sorry?
	Would you like to be that person with Donald Trump?
	Well, no, I don't think I would, actually.
	But I have to say that, you know, it's still fascinating to me that it doesn't appear that there is any such a person with regard to him.
	And so what do you do, you know?
	In other words, he's in a sort of a vulnerable state.
	And I wonder if that's intentional on the part of the people working with him or whether it's really his willfulness.
	You know what I'm saying?
	Well, I think you're right.
	It is intentional.
	And I think, you know, if you look at Trump's background, he's not the brightest of the bunch, I'm afraid.
	You certainly know John F. Kennedy.
	We need to have people who are educated, caring and intelligent enough about the way the world really works.
	To fulfill that job because it's a very important job.
	I noticed recently there was the Congress, Democrats in the Congress, actually started going through the nuclear launch options and looking at whether the military would question Trump's nuclear launch orders.
	And thankfully, they said they would.
	Although he knows what would happen on the day.
	But the thing is, they said he's so capricious in his decision making process is is so flawed.
	And it's every day is a different way of making decisions that this is, you know, I think one of the most frightening things that we've got this guy now with his finger on the trigger that seems to be actually trying to get more of a confrontation with North Korea.
	Everybody should be saying it all the time.
	If you don't want a nuclear war with North Korea, stop having these exercises with scores of US warships and aircraft exercising an invasion of North Korea.
	Then, if you stop doing that, then the North Koreans are going to start calming down.
	I think the other thing was the assassination of Kim Jong-un's cousin, I think it was, the guy who was killed in the Malaysian airport, assassinated, executed with this sarin, I think it was some kind of nerve agent.
	This is obviously designed to get straight to Kim Jong-un to kill one of his family in cold blood.
	Imagine if that was to happen to one of Trump's family.
	How would the US public and how would the US leadership see that?
	I mean, it's quite clearly a direct assault on the head of state.
	So these are the reasons why and you know if the US had a I think a bit more sense in its diplomacy they would be sending out very very clear diplomatic signals to the North Koreans first of all we had nothing to do with this assassination and secondly you know we want to help you find whoever did it and secondly with the with the with the war games is we're not having any more war games of trying to invade North Korea we've had enough of that and we're stopping that I think that would completely defuse The whole ramping up attention and the fact they're not doing that proves
	to me that the US administration, whether it's the military, the advisers, Trump's advisers or whatever, absolutely want this tension and they're thriving on it because of course it diverts attention away from the total mismanagement of the domestic economy and the whole domestic situation in the US and the same sort of thing is going on here in Britain.
	Well, I understand that.
	You know, I want to go back to what you said about Trump because I actually think there's another way to look at it and just want to throw this out because I have some, you know, as you may know, I always have back channel sources and whistleblowers and so on that I keep in touch with over time.
	And this allows me to have sort of a different sort of window into what goes on.
	And one of the things I've been told, which is quite interesting, is that Trump is actually quite brilliant.
	Now, I think that he is, you know, there are different kinds of brilliance and obviously you can learn by rote and you can parrot a lot of information.
	And you can do it without any kind of learning disabilities, etc.
	Or you can be kind of an idiot savant.
	And I think that Trump probably falls into that category, at least according to this whistleblower behind the scenes that was giving me information.
	The other thing is that I think that perhaps what we're really talking about is an image of Trump that is being put out for the consumption of Consumption of, for our consumption, for the media, the mass media consumption, that he is capricious, that he doesn't have anyone overseeing what he's doing.
	And perhaps this sort of behavior associated with tweeting out things just off the cuff on an emotional level, it seems in keeping to me with the whole Trump running for office.
	During the time when he was running for office, he was appealing to the masses by parroting some of the more right-wing conservative viewpoints, things that people were politically incorrect, so to speak.
	And he was gaining a lot of followers because he was doing that.
	Now, I actually think that was purposeful.
	I don't think he's just that stupid.
	I don't even think the people around him are that stupid.
	I think he's had advisors since day one.
	And I do think that they are crafting.
	You know, it's important to understand that to stay alive in the community You know, out there with the CIA and all these people at your back constantly, that you have to play a very cagey game.
	You can't necessarily show your hand.
	And for example, I've also heard that he is doing a number of these arrests around the country and actually outside the country.
	We're trying to bring down the pedophiles, etc.
	But at the same time, they're keeping it quite quiet.
	You can't find enough evidence of it.
	It's not a mainstream, you know, loud sort of...
	He's not declaring this on his Twitter or anything.
	But what it allows is not only a certain stealthy approach on their part and the people he's working with but it also shows a more crafty approach to running a country.
	In a sense they're taking a page from the playbook that has always been running this country and whether they're good guys or not Remains to be seen.
	I understand that.
	But it is a theory, and I think it's worth entertaining because I'm getting back-channel information, you know, that is telling me that there are some very good portions in our military, etc., that are backing Trump.
	And they're not backing him because he's a buffoon.
	They're backing him...
	Because there's an element that he's part of that is crafting a very careful game to deal with the situation that they're finding themselves in, just trying to stay alive and run the country at the same time.
	So I'm just throwing that out.
	I think it's an interesting theory, and it does coincide with some of the information I'm getting back channel.
	So that's what I would have to say about that.
	Just hang on though, because you see how wonderful it is if you are the secret government, the parallel government behind the scenes, to have somebody in charge who's easily manipulable.
	Now I'm not saying that means that they can say, say this Trump, do this Trump.
	What I'm saying is, for an emotional signal to have a predictable reaction in Trump, that is say, for example, another missile test from North Korea.
	We know exactly how Trump's going to react to this.
	Let's just feed it in and see what comes out.
	I think one of the key things to understanding who Trump is, is this article by William Engdahl from, I think it was January or February last year, before the presidential elections, And it's called the Mafia Don with a Pompadour and it traces Trump's rise through the Mafia ranks and also reminds us how many times,
	I think it's five times that he was bankrupted and then he had to come crawling back to the mob, begging for more money and got it.
	So he's used to being controlled by the mob, which is worrying.
	Kennedy tried to take the mob on and look what happened to him.
	I think what we've had with, you know, for example, people like Bill Hicks in the past in his comedy sketches pointing this out, that any president that thinks of disobeying the mafia behind the scenes, the New World Order, the 10 people in that smoky room before you become president, the 10 people in that smoky room before you become president, knows what to And so Trump is, I think, you know, I don't think he's necessarily a bad guy, but I think they know how to play him as an individual.
	I mean, we're in the situation with the nuclear weapons.
	I mean I had a little look into this because you probably know as I do the people from Veterans for Peace and these are both in the US and the UK who are ex-service people from the Navy, Air Force and Army who've been fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq And they very clearly see that what's happened since 9-11, the wars we've had since World War II effectively, were nothing like the sort of wars that you can be really proud of.
	They throw their arms up and say, well, we weren't doing anything of high principle.
	We were out there stealing for the tribe.
	And once they've come back home, once they've got demobbed or whatever, or maybe gone absent without leave and done a few months in the military prison and then come out into Sibi Street, They're very proactive in trying to make the rest of us aware of the dangers of some of the people who are in charge today, the massive amounts of money that get wasted on their vanity projects.
	For example, we've got these aircraft carriers being built here in Britain, who most military strategists say these aircraft carriers are obsolete.
	One of the right type of missiles will send it straight to the bottom of the sea.
	The F-35 aircraft, which are millions of pounds each, These are simply not combat ready, and yet they're spending vast amounts of money on this.
	So you're talking about the governments being used to just prop up the defence industry.
	And with the nuclear war situation, a potential nuclear war with all these different proliferating states...
	The potentiality, Kerry, of a nuclear false flag, what with several missing nuclear weapons as well, the old South African nuclear weapons, what happened to them?
	Where did they get sold on the black market?
	I mean, we have evidence here that from...
	I mean, I asked this as a question at the weekend.
	I was asked to a seminar up in London about eschatology and nuclear war.
	And I said to the participants around the table, I said, Do you think there's any evidence of nuclear weapons being available on the black market?
	And I was met with blank faces.
	I said, well, there is.
	1993, there was evidence of a USSR nuclear weapons for sale on the black market by someone called Roger Cook, an investigative journalist over here.
	He aired a program, an hour-long program on ITV, Tuesday evening, the 13th of July, 1993, where he was offered weapons-grade plutonium And to make a dirty bomb.
	And he actually took a fake dirty bomb to New York.
	It showed how easy it was to get these things around the world.
	And he was then offered something called an SS-20.
	Now, I mean, I've never come anywhere near one of these things.
	But these are mobile nuclear weapons launchers from the Russian army.
	And bear in mind that the Russian army hadn't been paid for several years in the early 1990s.
	And they were just selling off this kit.
	On the black market with 350 kiloton warheads with a range of 3,400 miles each warhead was 10 Hiroshima bombs.
	Right.
	So this stuff has been about.
	But now, if Roger Cook, a journalist from Central Television in Birmingham, can get his hands on an SS-20, Then you can be sure that some of the major governments around the world have been able to do this.
	So these things are out there.
	I think we just need to be really aware that if there is some sort of nuclear attack, it could have come from anywhere.
	I think it's actually inevitable that, you know, we thank God we've only had the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs used in anger.
	But at some point in the future, this is bound to happen.
	We just need to be ready for it when it does and certainly not jumping to any conclusions about who's done it.
	Well, very good point.
	However, I do want to say that actually there has been nukes used, apparently, and neutron bombs.
	And again, Veterans Today, Gordon Duff, has talked about this, and he says they've been used over in Iraq and Syria, just FYI, for what it's worth.
	And again, Veterans Today is a CIA front.
	It is, you know, run and operated by them.
	You get some truth and you get a lot of falsity as well.
	Now, there's also another story that I actually have a whistleblower who has passed on now.
	But he reported to Camelot that he and he was an agent.
	I have that information.
	Substantiated and so on and he worked through well he worked for various governments but he certainly was associated with German intelligence for example and one of the things that he told us is that he reported to German intelligence he I think I can say he he was Maltese and he reported to German intelligence and That he found evidence that nuclear bombs were being traded
	and that there was a nuclear bomb specifically sent by the Queen of England.
	It went first to South Africa.
	From there, apparently, it went to, I think it was Dubai and then to Oman.
	It ended up in Oman, actually.
	And this is the kind of thing going on.
	So he had a bunch of documents substantiating this.
	He took it to his superiors at German intelligence.
	And they basically kind of fired him.
	And wouldn't take the information.
	So he sat on the information for years.
	He tried to sort of cede it to various journalists.
	I don't know that he had much luck.
	But this is a very interesting man, I have to say.
	He was an assassin, a trained assassin.
	And we met with him in person several times.
	And I also have back channel connections to verify who he was and that he was indeed who he said he was.
	So This is just a small story.
	There are also, I forget his name is William.
	He's an ex-Navy officer.
	He's quite psychic and he posts on the internet from time to time, especially about health issues.
	And for some reason I'm forgetting his last name.
	Anyway, he has told us and he's actually put out on his YouTube channel a number of times.
	times, he's quite an interesting guy himself, and he is documented with his military background.
	He says that he has reported the location of nukes a number of times to the U.S. government that have then had to go after them, basically, that have been coming through various arms channels, et cetera.
	So there is, there's not just one incident of this.
	And I guess you might know Michael Shrimpton, but Michael Shrimpton has written a book.
	He is a former barrister who intends to be reinstated.
	He's suing the British government at this time.
	He was arrested for actually reporting on a couple of nukes, if I understand it correctly, that were coming in to a port in Britain that were headed for the Olympics.
	And as it happens, the NSA... A, in America, substantiated his claims later.
	He still was thrown into a British prison for supposedly falsely reporting a nuke.
	And since then, he has been released.
	But he is, as I say, suing the British government.
	So...
	Yes, all of this is going on, and I have on the screen here, just so you know, I'm not showing this to you, but perhaps you know of the article.
	It came out just recently, and it's about one-third of all the Navy brass.
	It's a fascinating article.
	I'm assuming that it's correct and it's not fake news.
	And I believe it has come out from various press as well.
	I don't know if you've heard of this.
	But what they basically are saying is that British admirals And a number of, you know, obviously their ships and so on, have been found to be not where they're supposed to be, guarding, you know, I don't know, the house, if you wanted to say it that way, on the great seas, but instead are in ports and being bribed with hookers, etc.
	And probably this gets into the whole pedophilia, human slavery and trafficking.
	situation that I was interviewing as I said Joaquin Hagopian the other day about.
	So This is what we're faced with.
	We're faced with scandals, actually, coming out right, left, and center, and also information.
	There is a lot about the nuclear situation.
	There's also, I've been told by whistleblowers, that whenever you hear anything about nukes, it is a cover for actually an alien issue and situation that's going on.
	So when you extrapolate that they may be talking in code And this is something we actually talked about last night.
	I had an interview with a couple of filmmakers about this, talking how the astronauts were using codes to depict what they're really seeing out there when talking to Houston, you know, and actually being recorded and so on.
	So this is fascinating, and there's reason to believe that code Talking in code is something that they do on a regular basis in order to communicate with each other so that the mainstream don't know what's going on.
	Over to you.
	Look, but I think we mustn't get away from the serious issues that there are with the nuclear arsenal.
	I mean, we've had actually some pretty good people out there pointing.
	I mean, there's one, I think he's over in the US at the University of Louisville, Kentucky, a guy called Stephen Gardner.
	He's a professor of anthropology, and he's a former nuclear weapons launch officer.
	He's one of those people who's part of the Veterans for Peace group over in the United States.
	And I got hold of him last week to have a chat with him.
	And some of the stuff he's come out with, I think, I mean, there's no code in there.
	There's no need for it.
	But this is important information.
	And I can tell you, Kerry, I'm not using this as code at all.
	For example, I asked him, I said, is it possible that a nuke could go off accidentally?
	He said it's absolutely and totally and utterly impossible.
	So if we're ever told, oh, it's an accidental detonation, that will be a lie.
	You see what I'm saying?
	The other thing he said was, even after all the war games and scenarios have been played out, Through my entire life, I'm quoting him here.
	He says, no one really has a clue what will happen.
	So what he's saying effectively is it could be just one or two nuclear weapons.
	It could be 20 or 30 and then it stops and then another few months, another load of nukes.
	Or it could be a massive nuclear exchange with thousands of nuclear weapons being used.
	And so at which point I thought I'd better do a little bit of homework to find out how many nuclear warheads there are.
	Do you know how many?
	Oh no, I don't.
	Have a guess, go on.
	Oh, no, I don't think I'd even, you know, I'm not a person, a numbers kind of person, so, you know, I would probably be way off the mark.
	The greatest source on all of this, and I'd recommend all your viewers to check them out, is the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
	Now, I've no doubt that the New World Order has got some of its fingers in their pie there, but their documentation is well backed up and well referenced.
	16,000 warheads in the world.
	That's what they say, of which something like, I'm just trying to find the figure here, 1,800 of them are sitting ready to be used right this minute.
	So that's where we are with this stuff.
	Also, talking back to Stephen Gardiner again, he said that the probable use would be a kind of domino effect.
	Well, I suppose most of us would realise that.
	And The inherent temptation he talked about to use nuclear weapons in certain situations.
	For example, if there's no fear of retaliation.
	And look at this with the North Korean issue.
	So this is one of the reasons why the North Koreans are building up a nuclear arsenal is because they've been threatened by the United States.
	And they realized that the only way to stop an invasion, as people like Gaddafi might realize, is to make sure they're nuclear arms.
	We used to call it the, what was it?
	The balance of power or something.
	Was it mutually assured destruction?
	Right.
	That was the philosophy.
	And so all Kim Jong-un is doing is going along with what was the main philosophy of the Cold War.
	Also, the other thing he says is when diplomatic channels break down.
	So As soon as ambassadors are pulled out of a country, there's a big escalation in the possibility of nuclear weapons being used.
	Also, if there's a big military advantage.
	The other thing he said, though, which I found was fascinating, which ties back to what we started talking about with these false flag attacks, is he said that he had a lot to say about the false flag nuclear attack.
	He obviously done a lot of thinking about that.
	He said it gives the true aggressor a distinct short-term military advantage.
	And there's an enormous temptation to plan for a force flag nuclear attack, which I thought was really interesting.
	The other thing he said was if they believe that the other side is about to launch, So that's if the intelligence services are telling them, which is rather worrying when you consider the WMD lies from the intelligence services, that actually could precipitate an attack if they believe that there's about to be an attack from the other side.
	So there's all this stuff out there.
	None of it, Kerry, is interrogated or explained anywhere in the mainstream press, apart from On the SIPRI website, the Stockholm International Peace Institute, they've had a really good look at this as well as things like the nuclear winter, which would mean that the temperatures would plunge for 40 degrees Celsius right across the planet for several months.
	That's what SIPRI reckons.
	Also, still after three years after a nuclear exchange, The temperature of the Earth would be 6 degrees cooler.
	That's a bit more bearable.
	But 40 degrees down, I mean, that's, you know, even the mid-summer temperatures, you'd be talking about minus 10, minus 20 below zero in the middle of summer, you know, for several months.
	Well, I appreciate that, Tony, but I have to say, considering that they released a nuke and that was a large part of Fukushima and that that radiation has now been going around the globe for years, I appreciate what you're having to say there, but I have to also say that in the situation that we're in, certainly nukes are a threat.
	No one would be crazy enough to say anything otherwise, but I think it's also very important to understand that there is To a certain degree, if you really get into, if you study weapons and you study the sort of secret space program and what's really going on,
	where the money's going, etc., and there's so much documented evidence of all of this at this point, that you're really looking at weapons like what are called particle beam weapons, Plasma beam weapons and other kinds of weapons that are as dangerous and detrimental and are also space-based weapons platforms that started ostensibly during Star Wars with Reagan,
	but certainly have escalated and grown since then to probably astronomical proportions, not only aimed at us, but aimed off the Earth to target Any incoming craft, et cetera, should they decide to do that?
	You know, so, you know, where I think we are kind of going a little off the topic, but I did want to say that, I mean, you know, it's really important that people understand that nukes are not the only issue we have.
	And that this is a very complex playing field when you get into weaponry and what's detrimental and also what's been done because the radiation from the leaking, not just Fukushima, which was, it's quite documented at this point, a nuke under the sea up by Honshu, I believe is where it was put, during the time of Fukushima.
	And aside from that radiation that is now going around the globe, we have some very well-documented, I've got testimony from scientists, back-channel, documented in what we call on the Eastern Bloc.
	There's a nuclear power plant somewhere over by, I think it's Bosnia, Yugoslavia, that area, which is leaking in a major way.
	And there are other power plants, of course, along the New Madrid Fault here in the US. Let me just explain why I was saying that and giving those figures about the nuclear winter, etc.
	We're talking about airbursts.
	Hydrogen bombs and atomic bombs, which would kick loads of dust up into the upper atmosphere and cut out a lot of the sun.
	I'm not disputing any of this stuff to do with Fukushima.
	I think it's quite feasible.
	Massive amounts of radiation have leaked there.
	But that's not the same sort of thing as these airbursts.
	I mean, you have to also, I think, look at, as you do quite a lot, is, I mean, the reason I'm focusing a bit on nukes is because, one, is because of the possibility of this nuclear force flag, which I think is looming now since we've had the failure of the chemical weapons force flags in Syria.
	Two of those now.
	I mean, obviously, the powers that be will be looking at, where do we go from here?
	So that's one thing.
	But the other thing is because the mainstream media is completely not doing anything about looking at these missing nukes, etc.
	Anyway, so let's just leave that.
	Sure, no problem.
	But I think the mentality of the people who are in charge, I think this is for me becoming also a bit of a concern, You know, the power, the drug of power.
	All these people are getting drunk on power because they've got so...
	I was talking earlier on about the FBI and MI5, completely unaccountable.
	Every time there's a terrorist attack, they get more money.
	So they're thriving off this war of terror.
	And actually, the Russians, it seems in Syria, have kind of blocked the advance into the Middle East, which they were hoping for.
	And so there's this bound to be sort of, you know, looking for other ways to extend the war on terror.
	But the mindset for me, Kerry, I want to ask you what you make of that, where it is that they're coming from.
	Clearly, we've got secret societies involved.
	I don't know what extent, maybe a large extent, maybe not such a large extent, but there seems to be something very wrong about the way that we're selecting the people who are in power because it's almost as if they have got some kind of insecurity and the more insecure they are, the more likely they are to be manipulable and therefore to go up the tree of power to become actually the people that are making the decisions for the rest of us.
	Yeah, no doubt.
	We're talking, yes, just recently about this on one of my shows, where you're getting hooks into a congressman, or man or woman, basically through...
	Linking them up with sex slaves, pedophilia, getting caught, this kind of thing.
	So this is rampant.
	I mean, there's no doubt about it.
	And I have to say that it's not surprising that someone in So-called in power, in places of power, is going to be manipulated.
	That's common knowledge at this point, and it certainly is documented as well.
	It is a fascinating dynamic.
	Apparently, the pedophilia, you can't You cannot divorce this new sort of release of information about the trade in human trafficking, human slaves around the globe, as well as the whole pedophilia link through the Vatican and through various other scandals that have come out, the Franklin scandal, etc., etc., in Hollywood, and so on.
	So people in power have been manipulated through The use of sex, obviously, and various other hooks.
	But I think that's one of the primary ways, especially this angle of having to do with sex with children.
	So that is, you know, having compromising a politician Very, very common thing that we do understand is going on.
	You know, I think it's fascinating what we're talking about, all these different areas.
	And Tony, I appreciate your knowledge and your background.
	In investigating all these stories, what I'm wondering is if you have any other stories that you've been looking into that perhaps we haven't touched on.
	I know that your time is limited and don't want to keep you too long here, but I'm also going to look in the chat to see if we have anyone who wants to ask you some questions.
	But just wanted to open that up for you.
	If you aren't doing some Kind of current investigations and you'd like to talk about those.
	Yeah, sure.
	I mean, this is something I've been looking into anyway, looking into the sort of formal systems for, I mean, effectively what we're talking about, and it doesn't have to be paedophilia, but in one way or another, dirtying people up.
	It's almost like sheep dipping them before they are sent on the conveyor belt to power.
	You know, the idea being, of course, that once they get into these powerful positions, that they're very easy to steer, to manipulate.
	And I think there's various different profiles of our leaders You'll get some who are cowardly and will just do what they're told, have been threatened in some way.
	And of course the worst threat is to say, well tomorrow you're going to be hated right across the press.
	And I think that's one of the reasons why so much of what we're talking about and we both work on week after week, month after month, is to do with trying to get around the mainstream media because the mainstream media is one of the major tools,
	if not the major tool, that is used to manipulate us nowadays and also to make the case for these horrific war crimes and foreign interventions so if you're talking about specific investigations I mean I've been looking recently into the whole history of the manipulation of the British Crown I mean obviously over the years it was you know you could look upon it as being a very successful You know,
	Britain going out there with the East India Company and, you know, whatever, discovering America.
	What that really means is doing a reconnaissance with John Cabot doing a reconnaissance in 1497, I think it was, over to Newfoundland and down the coast around Boston area for reconnaissance for genocide.
	So the Brits have been quite successful in this wicked crisis You know, colonialism and genocide, first of all with the Native Americans, then of course with the African slaves, bringing them across, that sort of thing.
	And so you have to ask questions about who was really running things, you know, through these years, you know, the 1600s, 1700s, 1800s.
	And quite clearly, yes, there is a government there.
	There was no kind of democratic government, but the monarchy was very much in the driving seat.
	They were making all the selections about who's going to be, In charge.
	And the question is, who was running the monarchy?
	Well, it's pretty simple, really.
	It was something called the Order of the Garter.
	And the Garter Knights are 26 Garter Knights, including the monarch and including the heir to the throne.
	So right now it would be the Queen, Prince Charles and Prince William is actually also a Garter Knight amongst these 26.
	And that is a way of effectively controlling the crown.
	So all these people sitting around the table just making sure that the monarch and the monarch in waiting is doing what they're supposed to do, which of course is really working for the city.
	Effectively, the money people, the people with the money who are investing in all these various exploits around the world and investing in criminal expeditions to go and grab more wealth.
	I trace that right back to the original Order of the Garter.
	What you can see is that it was actually only formed very shortly after, this is 1348, formed very shortly after the demise of the Knights Templar, which I thought was very amusing, just a few years afterwards.
	So, I mean, how much you know about the Templars, I'm not sure, but they were the first big cult of multinational bankers.
	Basically you could pay your money in the temple in London and you could take a check out in Jerusalem where the Templars were too.
	So they were the world's first international banksters and a particularly pernicious organisation that was closed down by the French King Philip the Fair in 1312.
	It was the Grand Master Jack de Molay who was executed.
	The Templars are pretty Weird lot, if you could say that, and the confessions of the various Templars who were arrested made it pretty clear what they were up to.
	They were worshipping the head of the first Grand Master, Which is a bit of a weird thing to be doing, but that's apparently what they were doing, and it was apparently quite ugly, this head.
	And the object of the order was very simple, and we can see it all around us today, was to enrich itself by all means.
	Now, that's a fairly simple mission in life, isn't it?
	Do whatever you need to do, but get richer and richer.
	And I see this sort of activity still going on today, quite whether it's, you know, focused around the Garter Knights or other orders of chivalry, supposed chivalry.
	These people seem to be extraordinarily wealthy.
	They're given fantastic directorships, etc.
	But they are an elite, an earthly elite.
	And that's, I think, what we need to be pointing out, number one.
	And secondly, we need to be breaking these people up, breaking these groups up.
	The cults, effectively, they are.
	We need to break them up and sharing out their wealth amongst the whole population.
	I appreciate the sentiment, although I do think that there are some conflicting stories about the Templars.
	There is some evidence that there were some sort of more well-intentioned Templars initially and then the whole order got taken over.
	And brought to a very dark place.
	And so, you know, you'll get people that have cropped up that have this lineage in their family lines and so on.
	I'm certainly not one of them, but nonetheless, so, you know, and I'm not an expert at all on the Templars, but I will say that William Bosley is a person that, I mean, Walter Bosley is a person that I've had on my show a couple of times, met him in person.
	He's Former, I think he was an OSI investigator, AF OSI, and he also was involved to a degree in the FBI, if I remember correctly.
	He was an investigator there.
	He resigned, and he now writes books, and one of his special areas that he's been investigating is the Templars.
	So I highly recommend his books.
	He's on the trail.
	He's the kind of guy that really...
	As you can appreciate with an investigator background, really goes into the details and digs in.
	But what I wanted to do, Tony, is actually talk about the sudden jump in what is the British pound in relation to the euro that just happened.
	I think maybe it was yesterday or the day before because you started with that.
	And I'm finding that very interesting.
	Then, obviously, we know about the manipulation of the monetary system.
	And this last move, of course, in the British press, they're claiming that it is because they made a sudden deal on brexit although from what I knew at least yesterday there was no actual details about that so-called deal but again it is fascinating to me that the Brits will just raise the pound so it appears very arbitrary even to me and I can say that you know normally
	A country likes to keep their monetary instrument lower when it has to do with world trade and competing, being competitive on that level.
	Of course, the Brits don't seem to care about that, which is always fascinating.
	And just wondering what you have to say about that.
	Okay, look, the way to look at this, I think, is if you imagine all the pounds all stacked up in a big pile, when events like that happen, what it does is it's just increasing the value of that pile.
	Not that I think that there is a finite number of pounds.
	Of course there's not, because they're making them up all the time out of nowhere and then lending them out of interest.
	But anyway, that's beside the point.
	It seems to me What's going on here is just exactly what normally happens with these big international markets and the big players like Soros etc and the IMF and the World Bank and all the big or people like Deutsche Bank for example they are they are working in concert this is effectively a massive international banking cartel and when a Prime Minister like Theresa May makes an announcement that they like in other words that I'm going to be paying Brussels
	50 billion pounds Then they give her a little reward by saying, oh, well, we like that.
	So what we'll do is we will start buying pounds.
	And of course, that brings the price of pounds up and the value of pounds up.
	And everyone in the City of London starts feeling all warm hearted.
	Well, yes, I understand that it can be good to have a low price.
	Value exchange rate for your currency because it's easier to sell things.
	But let me be frank with you.
	We don't make much here in Britain anymore.
	What we do is we do sell services, obviously.
	But I think that's really what this is about, is about satisfying the markets.
	This is all the...
	I suppose, you know, as my friend Manfred Petrisch would say, he's a former Swiss banker, and I thoroughly recommend his work.
	He's got a blog in German, which you can easily get one of these translation things on the internet to translate for you.
	It's called All Smoker Mirrors, Alice Schauer and Rausch.
	What he would say is this is for the stupid people.
	Right?
	So the idea that all the politicians have got to do is please the markets, that is to say, do things that make the markets react in a positive way.
	That effectively is, they're being trained, our politicians, just to do what the markets want.
	And that is because These people worship money.
	Money is all they care about and their whole lives are based around making money from money.
	They don't actually make anything.
	They don't lend money to anybody like you or I that wants to start a small business and be successful.
	They will only lend money to people who are doing the sorts of things they want to do.
	For example, fake news.
	I mean, you know, I was just reminded the other day of the arrest of six, I think it was, people in a camera crew in Egypt because of this incident in Egypt, where the Egyptian police arrested a whole bunch of people who were just making fake ISIS videos over in Egypt.
	And this is the sort of stuff that's then peddled right around the world on CNN, BBC, etc., etc., And so I suppose what I'm saying here is really the money people, all they want to do with their money now is to control democratic institutions, control the press, control things like the steel industry, Cartels, this kind of stuff.
	They're not interested in you and I, and you will find it very difficult to get a loan from a bank to do anything useful or positive.
	I appreciate that.
	That's effectively what is running the entire political system.
	And you'll get any party, doesn't matter what party it is, whether it's Labour or Conservative, the top people in those parties, I would actually say Jeremy Corbyn is probably an exception to this, a rare exception, in that they will just simply Do what the markets want them to do.
	And they've got their politicians trained down to a T because the politicians are stupid.
	And that's why they want the politicians that are stupid, because they'll do what they're supposed to do.
	That is to say, whatever the markets are trying to tell them to do.
	And that's effectively what I think has happened here with this £50 billion announcement to Brussels, is they've been giving Theresa and the city a big hat on the back.
	Yes, absolutely.
	I'm sure that's part of it.
	I want to say, just for the big news, as you may know, of course, is Bitcoin.
	And I realize you're not a financial analyst, so I'm not trying to ask you to be that for us here.
	But it's always fun to kind of get people's You know, points of view on the various news items that are coming out there, and in some ways you're kind of that sort of reporter on the job over in Britain, and we appreciate that.
	There's a very interesting sort of jump to 10,000, and then there also are Some regulations apparently coming through, at least threatening regulations in the US to where the IRS is now looking at Bitcoin profits.
	Then we had the crash of the two exchanges, which is Coinbase We're good to go.
	Stan Larimer, who has a background in the aerospace community.
	He's basically a scientist who has now got a son who has worked and created this exchange called BitShares, but I had Stan Larimer on my show.
	He has a great deal of knowledge, as it turns out, and he was talking about how most people don't realize this, but China has cornered two-thirds of the market on Bitcoin and that that is where the miners, as they call them, are located and where a lot of this stuff is coming out of.
	So there's a control mechanism, and we discuss all of that.
	And I highly recommend my recent interview with him, which is on my YouTube channel, for anyone who's interested in knowing what's really going on behind the scenes with Bitcoin and how China may indeed have a control over it.
	So just wondering if you have any thoughts or information on that score.
	Okay, so look, for anything to really reflect...
	Wow.
	I think we just lost him.
	Just going to dial him back, so stand by here.
	Not sure why that happened.
	Hopefully he didn't have a shutdown at his end.
	Hmm.
	Okay.
	Not getting any answer at the moment.
	That's...
	I guess I'll just...
	Hopefully he'll call back and call us.
	So just...
	I'm going to text him there and see if we can get him, as I say, back on.
	Well, as I was talking, since we're on the air at this moment, and hopefully he will join us or rejoin us very shortly, it would be great.
	What I have going on is just wanting to let people know that with this Bitcoin rise, and then I think it did fall back down, if I understood it, like, I don't know what it's doing now.
	It's on its way up to maybe 11,000, they're saying.
	But basically, we are having some interesting rumbles out there.
	I know that the Moroccan government, for example, has suddenly banned Bitcoin, which is a really bizarre move.
	And I'm not sure what that portends, whether or not that's going to start to crop up with other governments or whether regulations are going to start to get in place.
	There's some thought also, if you listen to my interview with Stan Larimer, as I'm saying, and you understand that The sort of why China would have control or be able to control Bitcoin because that's where a lot of the miners are located.
	Why that dynamic occurs and Stan actually lays that out very well on my show.
	So I encourage you again to watch that interview.
	And to spread the word because I don't think this is commonly known anywhere, anywhere that I'm hearing out there.
	So the other thing with Bitcoin, of course, is that we do understand it's being adopted This is why it's going up by people around the world.
	And in a sense, it's almost like I see it as kind of a gold rush syndrome.
	But I'm also thinking that if you are going to try to...
	As I see the Illuminati, the way they operate, I don't see they're packing their bags anytime soon.
	So I think that this could be a carrot and a stick operation.
	In other words, right now you have the carrot and later you get the stick.
	The stick being some kind of thing that they can step in and take over.
	Now, whether or not I understand that a lot of...
	Technical people that I've been interviewing as well have been saying that it's impossible to control.
	But again, going back to my interview with Stan Larimer, that does not appear to be quite the case.
	And so there's a lot more investigation has to be done to drill down there.
	But you can appreciate if you're teaching a people how to use something that you eventually plan to take over.
	This is a great sort of incentive to get everyone all excited about something that they think will actually be going against the system when in In all reality, the chances are that it can be ultimately controlled by the system and there may be various ways they can do that.
	So I am skeptical.
	I would say a short-term investment could be Bitcoin.
	A long-term investment might not be quite so smart.
	So this is the kind of thing and I am in no way I'm not recommending or doing any kind of monetary advising here, just as a disclaimer.
	And that's sort of the last thing I'm interested in doing in my life.
	But nonetheless, it's an interesting drama.
	The monetary system is going to be front and center and continue to be.
	Now, I'm looking to see...
	Well, yes.
	I'm going to call Tony, see if we can get him back on.
	Hi there.
	Hello again.
	Okay, well we lost you very, very suddenly.
	I'm not sure what happened there.
	Well, I can tell you what happened.
	My laptop ran out of power, so no conspiracy for change.
	All right.
	Anyway, you just asked me about Bitcoin, if I just pick up straight on that.
	Look, I had quite a good look at Bitcoin three, four, five years ago, and I was a little bit suspicious about Max Keiser pushing it on RT all the time.
	And, I mean, I think what I try and do with anything like this is I think, well, if we're going to have a money system, a financial system that is going to work, It needs to be effectively a kind of public utility.
	So it needs to be transparent.
	It needs to be absolutely open the way it's governed.
	The software needs to be open source.
	So any software engineer, developer can look at it.
	Of course, it's not these things.
	And the person that owns it is some kind of complete mystery as to who they are.
	So I would suggest to you that Bitcoin is a bit of a kind of Controlled opposition, if you want.
	So the idea is everybody intelligent understands that the financial system we're working under is a confidence trick on a massive scale.
	And obviously there are other people out there looking for things which are more likely to retain their value, etc.
	They're looking for all sorts of things, commodities, etc.
	And actually here on Radio 5 Live, earlier this week, they had one of the first ever pizzas I've heard on the BBC about Bitcoin because of all this stuff that's been the news about it.
	I would suggest actually it's a potentially very fragile system and unless any of these cryptocurrencies are first of all human beings who are quite open about who they are are governing and managing the system from the top We need that, number one.
	And number two, we need to have complete open source so that any developer can look at the way that it's designed and the way that they can see and prove how secure it is.
	So with those two caveats, I'd say Bitcoin falls on both stalls, I'm afraid.
	So a lot of people put their faith in this, you know, and have made a lot of money at it.
	But that doesn't mean to say that it's the way for the future.
	Oh, sure.
	Well, while you were gone, I also sort of drew people's attention to a recent interview again with Stan Larimer, an aerospace executive.
	And I'm also, you know, I've been doing a series of shows really interviewing people about this story.
	Primarily financial analysts, and I have invited, actually, Max Keiser, I believe, to my show, but certainly put that out now.
	Because I have sent invitations out, and then they don't get replied to.
	But there are a number of people who came on my show so far.
	Some people are putting out information that does not appear to be completely correct.
	There are different...
	points of view on some of this stuff and it's it's really vital to have technical people who will sort of you know come in on this because we are not in a position to be able to quite analyze this without a certain amount of technical expertise.
	One story this week I really think we ought to have at least a short talk about and that is The committing suicide of this former Yugoslav leader at the former Yugoslavia tribunal,
	absolutely, I take it you're around that one, because this is an incredible thing for somebody to do, to actually commit suicide in public, in a court, as their appeal against the 20 year sentence is being turned down.
	I think in a way it's lost probably on most people in Britain and America, but it certainly won't be lost in anybody who lives in Yugoslavia, the former Yugoslavia, you know, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro, these former Yugoslav states.
	Because what's happened at the tribunal is effectively a total kangaroo court.
	Now, when I look at these tribunals, exactly like the International Criminal Court in The Hague, all I want to see is Bush and Blair in there.
	And Zippy Livny and various other war criminals from the West.
	And until they are in those courts, I think we can just simply call them kangaroo courts.
	And actually, I think this guy, Slobodan something or other, I'm not sure of his second name, was actually committing an incredibly selfless and brave act.
	The sort of thing that a soldier anywhere in the world or a general should recognise as a courageous thing to do.
	And yet what we still see is much of the reporting in the West of it is about, oh, here's a war criminal, blah, blah, blah.
	Well, hang on a minute.
	No.
	If we're going to see a war criminal in one of these tribunals, it's got to be Bush or Blair, I'm afraid, because these two people have made an absolute mess of the entire Middle East, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, the displacement of millions of people, and the greatest, horrendous, most horrendous crisis really since the end of the Second World War.
	Well, I do think, I mean, I don't, sorry, I don't, you know, I think one would need to be very careful.
	I mean, it's one thing to, you know, commit suicide in a court.
	And I can understand that as a person who simply does not want to be part of the system and doesn't want to go back to jail.
	But from what I understand, he was convicted along with six, he was one of six Bosnian Crote leaders and he was convicted of war crimes.
	Assuming that sort of That court is not simply, you know, lying about what they have to say.
	Sorry, they've got some weird stuff going on here on my other computer.
	You know, I think, you know, having a certain amount of sympathy...
	For a person who, you know, doesn't want to live under a certain kind of system is, you know, is fine.
	But if indeed he's done what they claim he's done, you know, it doesn't absolve him of murdering hundreds of Muslims.
	You know, so I want to be very, you know, careful here, you know, in being sympathetic to this I certainly think I would examine it a lot more closely to see what he was really accused of and whether indeed he was guilty as they claim.
	Because if he is guilty, he is a war criminal.
	Then good that he committed suicide.
	The whole of the Yugoslav end of Yugoslavia was a massive war crime committed by NATO. The NATO commanders who, for example, fermented the entire crisis in the first place by arming separatist groups in there.
	I mean, basically bringing loads of money and guns in for the Kosovo Liberation Army, for example, to actually spark the whole thing off in the first place.
	This, I think, is a far greater crime, and the crimes of Bush and Blair, is what I'm saying, is not that this guy isn't a criminal, it's that It's actually a fallacy to be focusing on something like this when we've got the much greater criminals getting away with it time after time.
	In fact, the bigger criminals that fermented the breakup of the former Yugoslavia...
	Now, let's not forget what happened with Yugoslavia after the Second World War.
	Tito had...
	I think it was 800,000 partisans under his command during World War II. So it was a massive army of ordinary people who had been armed to disrupt the German occupation of Yugoslavia.
	It was a very powerful force.
	And after World War II, Stalin came up to the border, right?
	The Soviet Union came up to the border and threatened to invade Yugoslavia and take it over.
	And Tito said, I think it was 1949, Tito turned around and said, if you invade us, we'll do exactly what we just did to the Nazis, to you.
	OK, so they were really standing up to the Soviet attempted takeover of Yugoslavia.
	And it was a real thorn in the side Yugoslavia of the West because they had a A very balanced model of Yugoslav socialism with workers' control of factories and basically a very good life for people.
	Long holidays, a fairly good standard of living, and a great balance between the communists and the capitalists, which actually work very well, producing cars, producing a very powerful industry in Yugoslavia.
	And it was a threat.
	To the West because it was a very strong model of a successful socialist type constitution and society where people were pretty much at ease.
	If anyone ever went on holiday over there in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, it was a great place to go, you know.
	And I think that that is the bigger crime, really, is the forces from NATO that broke up Yugoslavia in the first place because they were providing, I think, a great model for us of the way we could be doing things here by now.
	Sure.
	Well, you know, grandstanding in a courtroom, I mean, obviously, this is the choice of the mainstream press to bring out these kinds of incidents and to make a lot out of them, when indeed, you're quite correct, you know, Putting the cabal and indeed the, well, the entire satanic Illuminati, if you want to do that, on trial would be really more appropriate.
	But, you know, and for that, you'd probably have to go to Brussels.
	Yes, I do.
	I appreciate that sentiment.
	You know, it is an interesting dilemma to deal with the past history on planet Earth and what is current, because also these wars are also being propagated all over the globe.
	And this is this is a planned rollout.
	This is, you know, a new world order kind of exercise.
	And it is kind of never ending, you know, in its reach.
	But, you know, I think we have covered just about, you know, that the gamut today, Tony, and I appreciate you being on the show.
	I appreciate your wisdom and expertise in these various areas, especially your incredible grasp of human history.
	These are very important elements to being a journalist today, and I wish more journalists had this kind of a background, really.
	I mean, I wonder how many journalists out there would say, well, the Knights Templar went underground for a few years and then emerged to control the British Crown.
	You know, I'm not saying that's a fact.
	All I'm saying is I think it's an interesting angle on, you know, on world history, you know, because these are the sorts of things that many modern journalists simply don't take into account at all.
	Anyway, there's no inviting.
	Thanks very much for inviting me on again, Kerry, because it's always a pleasure to be on.
	I know, you know, you've got some really smart listeners out there who are able to appreciate this kind of conversation.
	You know, it'd be a great wish of mine to have an international TV network that's broadcast on satellite where we can have some of these intelligent conversations and explore some of these ideas.
	Absolutely.
	Fake news is starting to swamp everybody.
	It's just a pity that it happened to swamp Trump as well today.
	Fair enough.
	Okay, well, again, it's great to have you on the show, and thank you so much, Tony.
	And thanks, everyone, for watching and listening.
	We've been going a while now, and so I do need to break off.
	I do have a show later tonight, but, Tony, I'll let you go.
	I'm going to let people know the details about my show coming on, as I say, at 7 p.m.
	Pacific time.
	By then, I assume, Tony, you're going to be fast asleep.
	I hope so.
	One thing I will say, though, is we've got the Bilderberg, it looks like we've got the Bilderberg meeting this year, sorry, next year, the Venice Marriott, 7th to the 10th of June.
	I hope you've booked your tickets, Kerry, over there.
	But don't, see if you can bring a boat as well.
	If you know anyone who's got a sailing boat or a kind of anything you could bring round through the Mediterranean to Venice, Because they're going to be on an island.
	Oh, fascinating.
	Okay.
	That's where they're going to be between the 7th and the 10th of June 2018.
	It looks almost certain now anyway.
	Oh, well, thank you for that.
	I shall be doing my best to be there to report on it because I think they're a fascinating bunch.
	And it's always nice to actually meet some of the Bilderbergers, as you quite often can, when they're getting to and from the conference.
	All right.
	Well, sounds fascinating.
	And if I get a chance, Tony, I will do that.
	So once again, have a great day.
	Have a great night in your case.
	And I'll let you go.
	All right?
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Cheers.
	Bye-bye.
	Okay.
	Take care.
	Okay.
	That was fascinating to have Tony here with us.
	And I do appreciate that.
	It's...
	It's great to be able to talk among journalists, investigative reporters such as we are, and see what our evidence that we're coming across is on various topics.
	And compare and contrast, as you can see.
	And more of this should be done, obviously, in the alternative as well as, of course, in the mainstream if they ever got their act together and started doing real journalism, which it seems is sadly lacking.
	And I do want to say, just because I have you on...
	On the show here for a couple minutes.
	Recently, for example, my investigative report on Barisca, the boy from Mars, which was an interview that is on my Project Hamlet podcast.
	YouTube channel and has been for, well, since I did it, just after that, we published it.
	And I think it was published in, I think it's 2007, if I have my year correct.
	And so what is this, 2017?
	So 10 years after the fact, we had a very bizarre situation happen in which my video footage and also my still photos from my footage And the story itself, but in their own words, at least that part of it, was put onto some of the major British newspapers.
	And I've been tracking down those newspapers and telling them that they're violating my copyright, which of course they were.
	And they were actually posting my video footage.
	It's quite amazing.
	And there was only one paper that actually linked to my actual, you know, you can link to, for example, anything you'd like on the internet.
	But if you repost it, you're basically stealing it.
	And, of course, they were also using my still photos, which all of this at no price.
	They weren't paying me anything.
	So I have been trying to track these people down.
	And, I mean, The Sun has responded.
	They were one of the few people that actually did respond and then pay for the use of my footage.
	But there are many other papers that didn't follow through and that I'm still tracking down.
	The Star, The Metro, I think it's called The Daily Star, The Metro, and The Daily...
	Is it called the Daily Express?
	I'm not sure.
	Anyway, it was quite a difficult roundup to try to track down.
	When you go to these newspapers, it's very hard to find somebody to actually write to.
	They try to make it extremely difficult for you to contact the people that are in charge of editorial comments and the content on the newspapers, online newspapers and so on.
	Actually, I have no idea whether they actually published my article, my information about Bariska and used my photos, etc. on their papers that went out to, you know, the hard papers that go out to people's doorways.
	But it was some kind of very, it like was mass.
	It was like almost like nine or 10 papers in Britain that did this all of a sudden.
	And then coast to coast also did this.
	Initially they did sort of basically steal my footage and My photos.
	And then I alerted George Norrie because I have a direct communication link to him and he obviously notified them and they immediately took the link down to my material and to my stuff that they were using against my copyright.
	But then they put it back up, but they put the story back up with no links to my video or anything.
	So it's kind of interesting that the last thing Coast to Coast ever wants to do is bring attention to Project Camelot.
	And we've been told the reason for that is that we're too much competition.
	And that has come from them, from that organization, people representing them.
	So, so it goes, in case people have wondered why I've never shown up on Coast to Coast, except for my 15 Minutes of Fame, which they actually hung up on me during that time.
	That was quite a long time ago.
	But there are a number of other reasons, indeed, why Project Camelot is more or less banned from...
	Coast to coast.
	So, now what do I want to say?
	Oh yes, tonight, at 7pm Pacific Time, I'm going to be interviewing David Wynn Miller, and I'm going to have him, if you go to my website, I've got a link, and you can subscribe to my, actually, whoops, I think I just...
	I hit this button.
	I'm trying to bring up this other computer I have on hand to show you the article that I have, if I can possibly.
	Maybe it's going to be too difficult at this moment.
	So anyway, what I would say is that it's very difficult to get people to realize that, you know, this is a three people operation, Project Camelot.
	And so we are always looking for donations to keep us going, keep us alive.
	It's myself, my designer, who is doing the banners that you see on every show, the artwork.
	And he is also co-editing all the, you know, whenever I do.
	Nowadays, I do a lot of broadcast shows that we don't edit, but when I do travel and do interviews, Then we use his services as an editor.
	He's a co-editor, a very good editor.
	And he also helps shoot some of those interviews that I do when I'm on location as well.
	So that's Neil Anthony Sanford.
	And then we have my webmaster, who prefers to stay incognito.
	But he is also helping out.
	So Camelot is basically three people and I try to obviously pay these people to help me out when I can.
	It's not easy.
	So this is kind of a plea to ask you to please consider donating if you're appreciating my shows and you listen on a regular basis or you watch on a regular basis as they say.
	So That would be, you know, a lot of, sort of very appreciated, I guess you might say.
	And I do want to thank, there was some lovely people that sent me some money because of one of the Bitcoin or cryptocurrency interviews I did, or a few of them, and that was very kind of them.
	So if they're watching this, then thank you very much.
	You know, I don't have a chance to send thank yous to people that donate, so...
	Some people get really offended that I don't do that.
	But if you want to consider that I'm playing it forward, I am giving you more good shows if you donate.
	So that's my thank you to all of you.
	If you ever donate to me, your thank you is that I continue to do this investigative work, that I don't go to work for some mainstream organization, which I'm perfectly qualified to do.
	And instead devote my time pro bono to this sort of labor of love which is really centered on getting the truth out and no matter what.
	So just want to say thank you again for anyone who has donated in the past while I have this opportunity.
	Today, again, at 7pm, I'll have David Wynn Miller.
	He is a judge, and he is someone who's been on my show quite a long time ago.
	We're going to have him back on the show, and we're going to be talking about an individual...
	Who has been thrown in jail, who is a consumer advocate, and someone who has been working in the vein of the David Windmiller, what you might call sovereign movement, for lack of a better word.
	It all has to do with language use, syntax, and how you respond to any time the courts try to bring you up on charges.
	And so we'll be talking about that story, this individual in prison.
	And at the same time, we're going to be talking about mortgage and insurance fraud.
	And David has some things to say on that score as well.
	So that's tonight at 7 p.m.
	Pacific time.
	And tomorrow...
	I'll have on Harry Cooper, and he is not sure if we're going to get him on video at this point.
	It's still an open question.
	But he is an investigator who's written a book called Hitler in Argentina.
	We're going to be talking about the advent of basically the Fourth Reich and how that played out, how the Third Reich became the Fourth Reich.
	So that's going to be tomorrow at 1pm Pacific Time.
	And all of this is on my website at projectcamelotportal.com or projectcamelot.tv which we are now using that URL to make it short and sweet and also for those who are banning in various countries as we've been told our projectcamelotportal.com URL. So thanks again for watching and Thanks for your continued support,
	Project Hamlet, and we'll be back tonight.
	So have a good day and take care.

▲