All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 30, 2023 - Stay Free - Russel Brand
57:58
PROOF They’re Spying On You! - #069 - Stay Free With Russell Brand
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Outro Music.
In this video, we're going to...
In this video, you're going to see the future.
Hello there you Awakening Wonders, thanks for joining me on Stay Free with Russell Brand.
Today we've got an exclusive interview with Silky Carlo from Big Brother Watch.
If the Twitter files reveal that the American deep state is spying on you, her revelations, exclusive revelations, show us that this is a global problem, that this is a globalist affair.
In our presentation, here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
We're going to be talking about NIH's gain-of-function research that is, by the way, ongoing and is explicitly, in their own words, shadowy and vague.
It might not be their own words.
They're being investigated, I think, by C-3PO.
That's right.
He's involved in this.
We can't show all of it on YouTube, so that's why it's so important that you click over and watch us on Rumble.
For 10 minutes we'll be across all of these platforms.
Here are the revelations that we were talking about with Silky Carlo.
Here is an interview that Big Brother Watch conducted with a whistleblower about the British government spying on their population, creating arguments around misinformation, while actually crushing dissent.
Have a look.
It became very much a kind of monitoring.
I find it, do you think that they, these voices, why don't they just voice it over with someone else doing it?
Yeah, I think they should.
That voice, I don't, I find it hard to take that voice seriously.
I do as well.
I don't even think it's that bad of a problem already.
No, exactly, it's comical isn't it in a way?
Also, why's he wearing that red hoodie?
I don't know.
Also, who's conducting the interview?
I don't know that either.
Okay, the whole thing is, I mean, in a sense this causes more problems than it solves.
But let's see, that ultimately this is a revelation that's an accompaniment to the Twitter files.
The deep state, whether it's American or other nations, in this case the UK,
are spying on their populations and are manipulating the narrative around the pandemic.
There's certain information that is being revealed and some information that's being held back and this again relates to what we're going to be talking about earlier.
We've already heard that Bill Gates has changed his tune.
Just last week we wouldn't have been able to show you this clip.
In our presentation later we're going deep on people talking about vaccine efficacy.
I mean look at Bill Gates's words and compare that to the The atmosphere and tone at the beginning of the pandemic.
Have a look at Bill Gates admitting the nature of the efficacy.
This is just a clip of Bill Gates now that I'm frank to hear.
Just a clip of Bill Gates.
We also need to fix the three problems of vaccines.
The current vaccines are not infection blocking, they're not broad, so when new variants come up you lose protection, and they have very short duration.
That's just him talking at a think tank in Australia.
If you can imagine that level of clarity and transparency being conveyed at the beginning of the pandemic.
Like, do you remember Rachel Maddow saying, you know, Get the vaccine, you're not going to get this thing.
Joe Biden's saying that.
This is Bill Gates, one of the most ardent advocates and funders for vaccines, just openly saying that they don't stop infection, they're not broad enough, they're not good against vaccinations and they're not durable.
How can you justify the amount of expenditure, the amount of conversation that we're all mandating?
These are all sort of inquiries that I have to be cautious around, given the nature of the platform we're currently broadcasting on, but you believe, believe you me, in ten minutes time, oh my god, I'll be aggressively pursuing some of those lines.
We'd certainly think, hope, you'd hope, anyway, you'd hope, it's probably what happened, that the mainstream media would play that clip, and at the end of that clip go, we're really sorry about that, we're sorry about the way in which we behave towards people who chose not to do it.
We're really sorry that we condemned unvaccinated people as if they were some new underclass.
The way that we created celebratory content on all of our shows, even entertainment shows, pushing this as a kind of ubiquitous solution and housing Big Pharma at the center of a presentation that celebrated their heroism without any investigation into the profiting or indeed, perhaps more worryingly, efficacy of this product.
Whilst we took a lot of their money.
Whilst we took a lot of their money.
These unredacted NIH emails are interesting, Gareth.
During the pandemic, at the time when we were talking about the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, When we were told, absolutely and resolutely, that it did not come from a laboratory, emails between Fauci and a bunch of other elite organisations show that they were concerned about precisely that.
So on one hand, they're preventing us gaining access to information that they themselves were discussing, and they're censoring and editing the narrative in apparently public platforms like Twitter.
Is that an extraordinary situation?
Those were pretty hefty organisations as well.
They included the WHO, Jeremy Furrow, top scientist at WHO, and Chris Elias from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So these were, you know, big organisations involved heavily in the narrative around the pandemic, having early email conversations with Dr Fauci about the origins of this and about three proposed ideas about where it came from, but only one narrative had been created.
It also says that the Chinese Center for Disease Control were involved in those conversations, so it's truly a global conversation, let's politely call it.
It says here that the influential academic paper evolved from its early stages, seriously entertaining three rival hypotheses.
So at the beginning, it wasn't all wet market, wet market, all we talk about is wet market.
There was the bioengineered theory, the lab leak theory, and the natural origins theory.
Now obviously the natural origins theory is the only one that doesn't have any human culpability or perhaps more importantly any corporate culpability.
So perhaps it doesn't need a great deal of conjecture as to why that was the favoured narrative that was put forward.
We'll be looking at that in more depth in our presentation.
What else do you want to say?
I just think also it's probably fairly handy that we all had a bit of an idea about how we felt about those wet markets in the first place.
Dirty, disgusting wet markets.
Filthy, bloody things.
That fish with the eyes on top of its head.
Those nasty little armadillo things without a shell in a bamboo cage.
It must have come from there.
So they kind of, I suppose, slightly used our internal... Prejudices.
Right.
And they used it against us.
Our prejudices and just our natural, in my case, sort of revulsion about wet markets.
That pandemic came from the cafe in Star Wars.
But actually, C3PO is heavily involved in this entire story.
P3CO is the organisation that's been charged with investigating this, is that right?
That is the Enhanced Pandemic Potential Pathogens Committee.
They've got a committee that examine potential pathogens that could cause pandemics and it's called P3CO.
That's right, yeah.
There's going to be some really good jokes about that in the video and that's why I've dressed as Princess Leia for this conversation.
Shall we have a look at Here's The News?
No, Here's The FN News?
Absolutely.
After this we're going to be talking to Silky Carlo from Big Brother Watch who reveals that the Twitter files revelations are merely a complement to a much bigger story.
Governments around the world have not only been spying on their citizens but manipulating and censoring the narrative.
We're going to have to come off YouTube now because there's content in this video that we're simply unable to show because of WHO guidelines that are still used on Google platform YouTube.
But click over and watch us on Rumble exclusively to see, well, if not the truth and a different perspective on this story.
Here's the news.
No, here's the effing news.
Thanks for refusing Fox News.
Here's the news.
No, here's the fucking news.
Bill Gates, remember him.
From windows, from the paperclip, from the farming, from the medications, has been spitting truths about vaccines that we're astonished we're even allowed to show on this platform.
And he predicts that the next pandemic could be man-made, something to look forward to, and so different from the last one.
Here's something that's going to astonish you in the light of recent events.
Bill Gates talking about vaccines.
The current vaccines are not infection blocking.
They're not blocking infections.
No, they don't do that.
Okay, but I thought I remember.
No, you don't remember anything.
But are they broad?
Uh, they're not broad.
Oh, they're not broad.
Okay.
Anything else?
So when new variants come up, you lose protection.
Oh, so if there are any variants, you lose protection.
Hmm.
I suppose they must at least work for a long time.
And they have very short duration.
Oh, okay.
So, what do they do?
Am I allowed to ask that?
If vaccines are as ineffective as Bill Gates there, not me, Bill Gates seems to think they are, then you have to wonder why he was so keen to protect those patents.
Hey, we don't want you imitating our ineffective, not broad, don't last very long vaccines.
Make your own vaccines!
Poo!
Maybe the vaccines for this pandemic didn't turn out to be as effective as we were initially told.
Am I allowed to say that?
But don't worry, because there's always a new opportunity for people that are hustling on the front line of globalist big business, and the next pandemic is just around the corner.
At least that's what the global elite is praying for, whether it's at Davos or that other global entrepreneur and titan, Bill Gates.
Bill Gates has warned Australia to be ready for the next pandemic, which could be man-made and far more brutal.
Bloody hell, that's not a very cheery thing to say to the people of Australia.
Haven't they dealt with enough lately?
Mr Gates told the Lowy Institute think tank in Sydney on Monday that political leaders needed to set aside their differences and work together to prepare for the next virus.
It's nearly exactly our message, except his one leads to pharmaceutical solutions that require centralised power, and ours lead to democratic solutions that lead to people power.
He called for greater global cooperation using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example of how countries could improve on their response if they work together.
That is a cry for centralised authority.
They can improve their response if they work together.
I know on Sesame Street that would sound like a fantastic sentiment.
Oh, what should we do?
Firstly, get Elmo vaccinated.
And then what should we do?
Well, we'll just all work together, Mr. Snuffleupagus, Big Bird.
What's being described there and presented as sort of harmonious and phatic kumbayami lord style this whole has is centralized authority.
And unelected organizations like the Gates Foundation and the WHO and the WEF being able to come together in little think tanks and come up with ideas and suggestions and solutions which, by the way, never disrupt the interests of the powerful, by the way, never inhibit the ability of big tech to surveil, big government to regulate, big pharma to profit.
No ideas, even when they're talking about climate, flying there in private jets.
Never any solutions like, why don't you stop flying around in private jets, if indeed that's what you care about.
What their agenda is, is how do we keep control, continue to profit, and never interrupt the trajectory of our domination?
You'll never hear a suggestion coming out of there like, look, we've done a lot of reflection in the old think tank, and I'm not going to have a private jet anymore.
I can't justify it.
I can't go around the world talking like this and still have a private jet.
It's wrong.
Or I'm going to get rid of the private jet.
No, can I not shut up and keep the private jet?
Yeah, but no one's going to trust you.
Mr Gates praised Australia's policies in helping to keep infection rates low before vaccines were rolled out.
Do you live in Australia?
What was your experience like?
How did you enjoy the internment camps?
What's it like being in Australia?
Are you proud?
Are you happy with your country's response?
What about you, people in Canada?
Other liberal democracies that pride yourselves on being lands of freedom and tolerance and openness and inclusivity built After post-colonialism, with new and inclusive dreams, how do you feel about this?
Isn't it pretty obvious that the new information age means it's difficult to control information, the new ability to communicate means it's impossible to stop radicalism, and therefore centralised authority needs to create ways in which to legitimise its ongoing power.
Isn't that what's happening?
Do you think that's what's happening?
Let me know in the comments.
He also said US policy, and by extension Australia's, which is weird, towards China.
Wow, one unilateral policy there between the US and Australia, even though Australia has a different historical relationship with China, different geographical relationship with China.
Why would there be one centralised agenda towards China?
Why would there be?
Needed a more conciliatory and cooperative political approach in tackling major problems.
I see China's rise as a huge win for the world.
Do you see China's lockdown response as a huge win for the world?
Bags of dead cats.
Tower blocks of people sobbing.
Ah, kumbaya, me lord.
But the big headline from Bill Gates' think tank hoedown was that the next pandemic could be man-made.
Man-made pandemic?
Are we allowed to discuss that here?
What about the last pandemic and its origins?
Has that narrative altered?
Is there more evidence?
Are we allowed to have a conversation about that?
According to a new report in The Intercept, Dr. Anthony Fauci conspired with influential scientists around the world, including at the World Health Organization, to quell concerns that SARS-CoV-2 may have leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, newly unredacted email.
The newly released emails raised questions about Dr Fauci's motives in dispelling public scrutiny over the potential that the novel coronavirus had escaped from the Wuhan laboratory.
Fauci had misled Congress over the extent that the National Institute of Health had funded the Wuhan lab as a subcontractor of EcoHealth Alliance.
The Wuhan laboratory was also funded by the Pentagon, contract award show.
The unredacted NIH email show how public questioning that SARS-CoV-2 may have escaped from a laboratory was a concern for the group's scientists, lest it become a conspiracy theory.
Oh, you don't want that coming out!
In case it becomes a conspiracy theory.
But also, more of a concern that it could become a conspiracy theory is that there's all sorts of integral, actual, demonstrable relationships between Interests that ought be declared explicit and made public, because otherwise, not only is that lacking in transparency, it is a conspiracy.
Bill Gates wants more cooperation between these organizations.
How much more cooperation do I want to move into one house and get married to each other?
They seem to be cooperating just fine.
Emails were exchanged among Dr. Anthony Fauci, the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases chief, Sir Jeremy Farrar, a top scientist at the World Health Organization, Christian Anderson, a leading immunologist and microbiologist with Scripps Research, Professor Edward Holmes, a biologist at the University of Sydney, Dr. Francis Collins, former director of the National Institute of Health, Chris Elias of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, George Fugao of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, Victor J. Zhao of Duke University, and various other influential scientists and philanthropists around the world.
It's an interesting collusion between state-funded organizations, unelected globalist entities like the WHO, and private foundations that are often presented as primarily philanthropic rather than political organizations that are about asserting control or looking to exert influence.
That list in itself, unless it led to transparent communication, I think is cause for scrutiny and concern.
Remember, in the early days of the pandemic, there was a clear attempt to control the narrative.
All of this inquiry about the possible Wuhan lab origin was completely suppressed.
Many of you will have seen Jon Stewart's joke on TV saying it's kind of ludicrous that it's not being discussed when there's an institute of virology that bears the same name as the place of origin.
It's very peculiar.
And to know that these people, people that operate in the upper echelons, this is what people mean by the elites.
There are powerful institutions, some governmental, some private and corporate, some media-oriented, and conspiracy theorists believe that they communicate with one another in order to establish an agenda and push particular stories and narratives in order to prevent democratic control being meaningful.
Let me know if you think that any red flags will be raised around that little list.
The academic paper, The Proximal Origin of SARS-CoV-2, published on March 17, 2021, had definitively propped up the rival theory to the lab leak theory that SARS-CoV-2 had natural origins.
But the final form of the paper was far afield of its initial stages, as shown by the NIH emails.
The influential academic paper evolved from its early stages, seriously entertaining three rival hypotheses, the bioengineer theory, the lab leak theory, and the natural origins theory, which seems to me, by the way, how science ought be conducted.
And if you genuinely were interested in creating a clear and open relationship with the public, which I would assume is necessary during a time of pandemic, which requires cooperation, it's It seems to me that they were confronted with the idea that cooperation was required and chose a different path.
Management of the narrative.
Management of the information.
And then have the gall to complain about the rise of conspiracy theories when continually information keeps coming to the surface to suggest that much of what was previously adjudged as conspiracy theory territory was actually an alternative truth and in many cases now a more valid one.
To one that attempted to close the book on public inquiry into the possibility that SARS-CoV-2 had escaped from the Wuhan laboratory.
Now, if you have a bias towards a particular outcome, and you want to prevent people reaching a particular conclusion, in this case, the idea that CoV-2 had escaped from the Wuhan laboratory, when it was a serious theory under contention, even under their own analysis, the next line of inquiry that you have to undertake is, why?
Why did they not want that line of inquiry to be investigated?
Well, let's just have some speculation and conjecture.
Because it would diminish public trust in the kind of organisations that funded that research, especially to learn that the people that funded that research are now being charged with the response to the pandemic.
It would make us further query how much we could trust Big Pharma.
It might, in fact, make us want to hold Big Pharma to account when it comes to profitability.
It would damage further our trust in public institutions.
Well, now it seems that all of these ideas were at least legitimate cause for speculation, if not entirely verifiable.
The evolution was due in no small part to the feedback from Dr. Andy Fauci, Dr. Francis Collins, and Sir Jeremy Farrah, the unredacted email show.
Evolution, like it was just like, oh, natural selection!
It's not natural selection if the head of the NIH is going, don't put that bit in, exclude that.
That's much more God.
That's intelligent design, not evolution.
Follow the science!
The academic paper upon publication was soon weaponised by the mainstream press to attack critics of the Wuhan laboratory as conspiracy theorists, but behind the scenes the authors themselves were taking the possibility that the virus escaped from a laboratory more seriously.
So even they themselves knew it was a legitimate possibility, while we, you, were being told, no, no, you're a conspiracy theorist.
Right, do some more research on that because it actually could have been that.
That was the reality.
I'm not even saying it came from that lab.
I'm saying that they thought that it might come from that lab.
I'm not even saying those vaccines are not effective.
I'm saying Bill Gates is saying that those vaccines are not effective.
I'm not even saying that the next pandemic might be man-made.
Bill Gates is saying that the next pandemic might be man-made.
This, along with information that's being leaked, which at this point we can't include in these videos until it's more verified and we're more confident in it, Suggests that even some of the more extreme ideas that are discussed have some truth and authority to them.
So clearly gain-of-function is somewhat controversial and clearly even according to organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, WHO, NIH, all of those organizations listed is potentially contentious and I would say potentially dangerous.
It's good to know that the NIH aren't carrying on with gain-of-function research and if they are, I want to be damn sure that it's not vague or secretive.
You want it out there and explicit and clear.
The National Institute of Health, formerly headed up by Anthony Fauci, should improve how it regulates lab-generated viruses that could pose a national security risk, according to its biosecurity advisors.
Sometimes I think that, actually, we have conversation at a particular level, but really the conversation should be happening, like, way down deeper.
And this is an example of that.
Like, stop doing that research!
Like, why are we not having that conversation?
The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity highlighted wide gaps in the oversight of controversial projects that create enhanced pandemic potential pathogens in preliminary recommendations to the NIH.
That means it might cause a pandemic.
Privately funded research that risks causing a pandemic occurs largely in the shadows, the group found.
Okay, we gotta do some research.
We're dealing with tiny, weeny little microbial things and tiny little tweezers and stuff like that.
It is dangerous.
I've been in the bat caves extracting stuff from bats.
It's dangerous.
So, let's get into the laboratory.
Now, where have you built that laboratory?
Here!
In the shadows!
Oh, well, that's great, Cozy.
You know, as we all know, in shadows, those are the perfect conditions for working with tiny little microbial substances.
Meanwhile, NIH-funded research with pandemic risks is falling through the cracks of the agency's vague internal processes.
How come they so confident when they were saying, like, it can't have come from a lab?
You ain't got any cracks in your vague model.
It's full of cracks.
Could it have gone down any of the cracks?
No.
Could it?
Yeah.
Don't have cracks!
On paper, NIH-funded projects that could pose a pandemic risk are subject to an extra layer of regulatory review by the Enhanced Pandemic Potential Pathogens Committee, or P3CO.
Master Luke, don't put that research by the cracks.
Shut up, 3PO.
No, R2.
I don't think we should tell the public what we're doing.
It's none of their business.
I don't think that I am in this for the money.
Don't be so rude about Pfizer.
What do you mean it's none of Bill Gates' business?
Listen, I preferred the Ewoks.
In practice, the NIH refers few research projects for closer scrutiny, the NSABB says, echoing the concerns of non-partisan experts.
So experts that ain't got any skin in the game say, listen, you've got to be very, very careful with this type of research.
And they say that you don't have to.
Opinion is divided on the subject.
Impartial experts say there should be scrutiny.
Paid for and bought up experts say do what you want.
In rare instances where projects are referred for review by the P3CO, the deliberation occurs in secret.
Oh good.
The composition of the P3CO is unknown to anyone outside of the process except for the NSABB and a few members of Congress.
Master Luke, you don't think us keeping this all secret will lead people to think that we're somehow profiteering, introducing regulation, not being honest about the risks and gain of function, the possibility that the last pandemic could come from a lab, that this research could lead to more pandemics coming?
Oh, that's a very good point, R2.
So there you have it.
Whether it's Bill Gates or the NIH, new information is coming to the forefront that appears to verify and validate some of the most extreme conspiracy theories of just a couple of years ago.
This doesn't mean that we should all be marching around saying, I'm right, I'm right, thumping our chests and fist bumping and fist pumping.
It simply means that we must stay alert and stay awake.
Extend a hand of friendship.
Make sure you've watched it first, though maybe that don't matter either, to people that you formally disagreed with.
Be willing to open your heart, but do demand truth and demand to be treated like an adult, which ultimately means we have to behave like adults.
We have to be responsible, awake, transparent and clear.
Let us demonstrate to them how we want to be governed, how we want to be led.
Ultimately, that we should be governed and led by ourselves.
But that's just what I think.
Let me know what you think in the comments and chat.
I'll be reading those comments in just a second.
Thanks for choosing Fox News.
Here's the news.
No, here's the fucking news.
Keep letting us know what you think in the comments and the chat
and thank you for your kind words and compliments.
I'm joined now by friend of the show Silky Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, who's here to talk about these revelations that demonstrate that the kind of things we've learned from the Twitter files recently are part of a much bigger and indeed global problem.
Silky, thanks for coming on the show with us.
Thank you for having me.
What has been revealed about the nature of the British government's editorialising of the narrative around the pandemic and the degree to which they're prepared to intercept and control public communication around initially this subject?
What we found through a long-term investigation is that the government has set up a number of secretive units that claim to counter disinformation and after struggling to get information about what these units are actually doing, what we found is that they are also monitoring and recording Basically dissenting opinions, people criticising the government, and this impacts MPs, journalists, academics and experts, campaigners, who are ending up in central government files with notes about things that they've said where they've criticised government policies.
This was particularly happening during the pandemic, but the indication is from the documents that we've got is that they've been looking at other topics, but it was absolutely rife during the pandemic.
On this show we've consistently said that the emerging terms, misinformation and disinformation, which are presented of course as a means to regulate data, ensuring that negative, conspiratorial, whack job, woo woo, QAnon information doesn't come to dominate the public sphere, is a way in which the public narrative can be curated. It
is, in essence, as you have demonstrated, a means for shutting down dissent, controlling dissenters,
smearing them when necessary to ensure that only one narrative is available. Furthermore, we've
regarded the pandemic, whilst to a degree as a unique phenomenon, as more revelatory than anomalous. It
reveals the way that power operates.
So whilst at the moment you're focused on the pandemic and how these organisations that claim to be about misinformation are in fact about shutting down dissent are Particularly culpable with regards to the pandemic.
It's going to be applicable elsewhere.
This shows you how they operate.
What do you think are the most interesting aspects of the revelation?
Who in particular has been affected and what should our global audience be most concerned about?
Well, I think the big picture, as you say, is that what we found definitively is that the words misinformation and disinformation are being used as blank checks, really, by the government to extend power over speech and over information and what people can see and what people can share, what they can hear.
Which is a concern, and as you say, yes that happened during the pandemic, but the staff and the resources are now being applied to other things.
So the information environment is more controlled.
In terms of specifically what we've found they've done, to give you an example, David Davis, the MP who is a well-known civil libertarian, So he's sort of like a Republican, if this was American politics, Conservative for UK audiences, quite a significant political figure, ran for leadership like 10 years ago.
Any SAS or something cool like that?
Boys like that aspect of Dave Davis.
So him, what about him then?
So he criticised the policy of vaccine passports, mandatory vaccine passports, which lots of MPs did.
It was the biggest rebellion in Parliament since the rebellion on the Iraq war.
Wow.
And yet his name and some of his media comments and social media posts about the issue are found in these counter misinformation files.
Nothing that he said wasn't Accurate, and wasn't true.
And separately, we actually had a video that we put on our Big Brother Watches YouTube channel of David Davis giving a speech about vaccine passports removed.
Of course we kicked up a fuss about it and it was reinstated, but it now makes us think, you know, we know there are censors in government, we know there are censors on the social media companies, less so on Rumble, So what is the connection between the two?
And ultimately that's what these units are doing.
They're not just keeping these records for fun.
Firstly, they're doing it because they want to craft their own messaging and target their own messaging towards things that are unflattering and to basically be able to counter some of the criticism they're getting.
But the other thing is to flag stuff to social media companies for them to take down.
And we've even got ministers saying in Parliament that that's what these units are doing.
They say daily we tell the social media companies what to take down and we are helping them to find misinformation.
But until now, everyone thought, everyone just created in their heads because of this vacuum of information, it must be the coordinated Russian disinformation, it must be this, it must be that.
No, it's the politicians you're electing, it's the experts in your universities, it's the campaigners who are trying to protect your human rights.
These are the people that are ending up in government files.
So they're using ideas around Russian disinformation and manipulation of the public space to further facilitate censorship.
It interests me The political figures that one would once have assumed were part of the establishment, certainly an elected politician, is subject to censorship.
This shows you that there is, firstly it demonstrates, one of the things we've been talking about on this show, that the terms left and right are becoming somewhat redundant because the idea of personal individual freedom should be a political absolute, whether you're on the left or the right or wherever you exist.
It also shows you that there appears to be an agenda Certainly people are being censored, information is being controlled presumably in pursuit of an objective that is so particular and bespoke that even presumed members of the government are outside of it.
We've seen sort of an MP censored now, that dude the other week that asked a question about vaccines.
So that makes me query the nature of democracy, our understanding of democracy.
Whose democracy is it?
Who is pulling the strings?
Where is the power coming from?
Well, can I counter one of the things that you said, that there's not a distinction between left and right?
I think there is an important distinction between left and right.
Big Brother Watch is non-partisan, but I did see some right-wing narratives come into what would typically be left-wing campaigns during the pandemic.
My concern is that some extreme points of views that you might associate with the right
are being sold into the left.
So why doesn't the left care about censorship anymore?
Censorship is not even a modern right-wing quality.
This is like 19th century earlier kind of stuff.
But now it seems that the left is quite, in fact is often seeking the government to do
more and more censorship of inappropriate information and so on.
That's my concern.
The liberal establishment advocating for authoritarianism has been one of the defining themes of the last few years.
Vaccine mandates being pushed for, censorship as you've just mentioned.
So it makes me feel that the principles at the heart of that movement are in need of rigorous investigation.
Yeah.
One of the people you just you just mentioned the Iraq war I mean Tony Blair was just at Davos talking about worldwide mandated vaccine passports so that kind of shows where the left have come to in terms of you know vaccine passports and freedom of speech.
The common thread I think is authoritarianism and authoritarianism has been sold into um the the the the certainly the left establishment and I because you know so one of the if we're looking at the pandemic The people who are really affected, everyone talks about being locked up at home.
A lot of people weren't locked up at home.
A lot of people were working.
Nurses, teachers, you know, the binmen, the postmen, a lot of people were still working.
And who was advocating for them?
You know, I think there's a lot of the left that was left adrift during the pandemic.
And unfortunately, because of The some of the institutions of the left being enamored with this with the promise of authoritarianism as saving lives and all of this kind of thing.
A lot of people were then funneled towards more right wing groups.
So, for example, I'm aware that there was a right wing workers union that was trying to scoop up some of the nurses around vaccine mandates.
Many of those nurses are migrant nurses that actually that right-wing union believes don't have a right to be here.
Do you see what I mean?
There is a distinction between right and left but the authoritarianism has seeped into both sides and that's why I think you do need a non-partisan group like Big Brother Watch that and you know voices like yours that without fear or favor will criticize in a non-partisan way that authoritarianism.
In a sense, Suki, what I'm saying is that centralised power has become about authoritarianism and only uses the tropes that used to be associated with the left as an aesthetic to distract from the fact that their true agenda is precisely the authoritarianism.
And Gareth's point about Tony Blair ultimately being a globalist emergent in the era of Clinton, which is precisely the point where both, to a degree, the Democrat Party and certainly the Labour Party in this country Dissolved their traditional relationship with both the union movement, but I think even in a sort of a more diffuse way, the ideological connection to what I would call ordinary working people and became essentially elitist parties.
We're seriously comfortable with people becoming fabulously wealthy.
We are funded in the same way.
That's sort of like part of my major concern.
So this whistleblower Silky, I was about to say, who is it?
That's the one thing you can't tell us.
But should we have a look at this bit of footage together and tell us what the process is of getting a bit of information like this obviously while protecting the source.
How did this, how did you get this interview and everything that you can tell us that isn't sensitive or dangerous?
Who is it?
No, not who is it.
How did you get this interview?
How did you get in touch with Whistleblower?
And how come they know this stuff?
They work there?
The Whistleblower, yes, was part of the 77th Brigade of the British Army, which is an elite information ops, non-lethal, psychological warfare kind of unit within the army.
That claims, as you would hope, to only do operations overseas.
And what the whistleblower told us is that actually they were doing general searches of social media that without doubt meant that they were monitoring and then flagging up central government Brits, people on their own soil.
In terms of how we came to meet this whistleblower, it's pure synchronicity actually.
Universe works in mysterious ways.
We were doing this investigation about other units within government and didn't tell anyone and the whistleblower came to us at the same time.
Should we have a look at some of this interview?
It became very much a kind of monitoring sentiment.
I did that the voice should sound like that.
We were so worried because her voice is a biometric.
What does that mean?
You can identify people?
Yeah, so we were just so worried about it's actually an actor's voice modified.
It's not even their voice modified.
I think you've gone too far there.
We couldn't, well, I'm not letting anything happen to him.
No, that's an amazing thing that they've even found a way to bypass anything that you would do to their own voice, that now technology can find a way through that even.
Ah, so it's got to be an actor's voice and then disguise the actor.
He's a member of our staff, which is why we changed it.
They couldn't use the actor in the end for fear of privacy issues, so they used his dog.
My real complaint is that you've denied a proper actor, like myself, who's an equity card holder and a member of SAG, real work.
We can't afford you, I'm sorry.
I would have done that just for the experience of the role, but I would not wear that red hooding.
As you can see, I dress elegantly.
The British public and how they perceive the Conservative administration doing a Covid-19 response.
It was just all logging in as a guest to Twitter and doing like what we would call a sift.
Why is he wearing that red hoodie?
Is that even their red hoodie?
Is Russell getting too bogged down in the aesthetics of this?
The real story here!
Who is that person?
And what are they wearing?
I know, I shouldn't really care about those.
I've got sidetracked into the wrong things.
A sift. So just inputting a search term, whether it be COVID-19, ventilators, Tory lies, whatever.
Whatever the search term was, you'd run the search term and you'd look at the top tweets.
The government in this country are also pressuring Twitter or using tweets.
So what happens after that?
Once they've got the information, like these are popular tweets, what are they doing then?
It's a really good question.
We don't know.
There's so much that we don't know.
We've done endless freedom of information requests, parliamentary questions.
You know, as it stands, this unit denied it was even doing this kind of work.
So, you know, I think this will go on.
These are the questions that they have to answer.
Why did they want to have records of this stuff?
In the context of what we know as a result of the Twitter file revelations, having someone in essentially a special forces position reveal that this kind of investigation and process is taking place is further evidence that governments around the world are collaborating presumably with big tech and are attempting to control the narrative.
Around the pandemic and that in itself is a demonstration that there's a kind of presumed parentalism between the governing and the governed.
That it's not a sort of service organisation.
What can we do for you?
How can we help you during this pandemic?
That they are interested in exerting control and management of power.
Eerily similar to post 9-11 when we were told that, you know, the US, I guess, army in their case, or secret services, were told that they were using the abilities and technology they had to spy on people abroad, but they were actually using it to spy on their own populations.
It sounds like that's exactly what you're saying.
That's exactly what happened.
In fact, we brought a legal challenge after the Snowden revelations about when government said that they were doing overseas interception of basically all electronic communications.
What they meant was that they were tapping cables that got everything.
And so the fact that, you know, the whole domestic population was being surveilled was just like collateral.
And it's the same here from, you know, what the whistleblower is telling us is that just, you know, English language communications were being monitored.
And without a doubt, that will have included British people.
Then the records are being sent up to central government.
And we know that they have a trusted flagger status.
So, absolutely what they're most likely doing with these records.
In fact, we know They've said on record all the time that they are flagging this stuff to the social media companies.
So we don't know what they flagged, but part of their function with these reports is to go to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and say, you might want to have a look at this.
You know, not we're telling you to take it down, but the kind of like mafia style, like you might want to think about this stuff that's on your platform and do something about it.
One of the things that the Twitter files demonstrated is that there was an ideological convergence of interests around, for example, the Hunter Biden story that meant that it wasn't even entirely necessary to instruct in a Uh, authoritative way that the information had to be removed because there was a, broadly speaking, an ideological alliance and one of the guests we had on the show, I think it was Michael Schellenberger, suggested that journalists are taken to sort of briefings where they're told, oh, you might want to watch out for Russian disinformation.
And so, you know, they might do stories, I don't know, about people's laptops so that when this information appears, they're already primed.
And I suppose what this suggests is, More broadly, to have a sort of a macro look at it for a moment, is that the government offering, the idea that the government there is there to protect you, rather than to control you, is challenged by these kind of revelations.
That's what I continually get from it, whether it's, as you say, in the aftermath of the Iraq war, in order to protect you, we must do this.
And then when you have the lens that, oh, I see what's happening, They need to be in control of us.
We are the enemy.
I know it sounds sort of somewhat grandiose and hyperbolic, but sometimes I think it's necessary to frame things in that way so that people recognize that what's happening is not some sort of anemic, drab, bureaucratic narrative.
We're talking about tyranny.
We're talking about our ability to freely communicate.
We're talking about democracy being a theatrical affair.
Rather than the legitimate execution of the will of the people.
And all of these things direct me to the need for radical, systemic change.
And I know that you're at the end of this, where it requires, I'm assuming, really laborious processes of requesting freedom of information.
when we spoke to Open the Books, is it, Gal, in the US, you can see that this is like a
kind of a legal, loyally, difficult, intrepid, intransigent process that requires devotion.
And all of us have got little roles to play, and I feel that when we're dealing with information,
what we're trying to do is alert people to deception, alert people to the true nature
of power, encourage people to look for alliances when it comes to those traditional categories
of left and right, traditional, progressive, because we are being confronted with, as this
story demonstrates, Silky, a sort of almost unparalleled capacity to exert power due to
the nature of technology and the willingness of governments to abuse it.
I'll just jump in because I think around that you were saying that a lot of this came through around the pandemic and obviously a lot of the Twitter files are being exposed at the moment about coming through the pandemic and obviously it's a very polarised time and the subject was very polarised but when you say Silky that these departments are being kept in place now and for the future They're going to get used to all sorts of things, and a prime example at the moment is the Ukraine war, or future wars, a war with China.
And now you're getting to the point where you can eliminate dissent around those, around people pointing out ways in which money is spent, whether that's helping Ukraine or militarizing Ukraine or whatever it is.
You're getting to a point, I think there was a report recently around the Twitter files that the government in the US was also white labelling, I think is the phrase, certain foreign activity of theirs that they wanted to promote.
We're doing these things in these countries and to, again, You know, eliminate any kind of dissent around them.
So it's not just about the framing around the kind of cause that people care about now.
Oh, pandemic, I'm pro-vaccine, or I'm anti-vaccine, whatever.
This is set in place now, and this is set in place for the future, and all these other situations.
Yeah, we already have an example in the report of a Labour MP, Bel Rubiro-Adi, who was, one of these units had recorded that she had signed a petition against the further eastward expansion of NATO.
So clearly, they were taking an interest.
Some of these units exist specifically to take an interest in foreign affairs.
But yeah, I mean, this is the kind of stuff that happens in the 80s with the whole Reds Under the Bed fear and the
intelligence agencies were keeping files on members of parliament. This is bigger because it's
not the intelligence agencies, it's a government policy unit that sets up secretive cells
within those units that are answerable to no one and they're not just spying on MPs,
they're spying on academics, members of the public, campaigners.
Was they spying on you because you went campaigners?
Yeah, yeah, I had some pages and pages of stuff and nothing, I'm pleased to say, absolutely nothing that was recorded about me was inaccurate.
There was no misinformation in there.
So in a sense it was completely illegitimate intrusion by the government in a manner that is not explicit or democratically sanctioned.
And no doubt you'll be on there.
I wasn't jealous Silky!
It was a bit.
No, but I think you are.
They're not spying on me.
I want a tax rebate if they're not spying on me.
Some of the stuff that they were interested in, you know, I think they're interested in anyone with an audience, anyone who was criticizing government policies around this time.
You know, even on my tweets, you know, they're looking at how many people it reached, you can see how many thousand likes, interactions, all this kind of stuff.
Also, Gareth, when you said it's a contentious subject, a contentious subject in terms of the pandemic, that there are different opinions, but the contentiousness in fact is part of the framing, that's part of what was created.
Never have been.
It will always have been.
This is a medical situation that we appear to be dealing with.
It seems that we might be able to get a vaccine.
Hopefully it'll be effective.
These are the people that most benefit.
We don't know.
Even, like, there's become this now accepted hysteria on our show on Friday with Martin Goury.
He talked about how...
He's broad perspective, Maunguri, former CIA agent who dealt with public-facing information.
He's fantastic.
He's not a CIA agent.
I don't know the right word anyway.
He's very particular about it.
But ultimately, he studied information.
And he said that establishment power has never caught up with the ability to communicate information and to organize and communicate.
They've never caught up.
He said that in 2001, as much information was conveyed in...
In that one year as in the previous all human history in one year and the second year doubled that so that he said that when you look at it on a graph it looks like a tidal wave and it's causing a kind of tectonic shift so like or in a sense it feels to me that what are I'm being careful how I say this but almost there's a sense that situations are welcomed if not engineered that Legitimise authoritarianism because in a new landscape there is a bigger requirement for authority because people can communicate, counter-narratives can appear.
Anything any of us say, opposing views, can just spring up in the chat.
Immediately, let us know in the chat what you think about that.
And can I offer you this drink?
It's not a Plorodac placement.
I'm fine, thank you very much.
I just throw this away, I don't even like it.
You know, I think one thing that I sort of hope comes from all of this is that maybe we shouldn't be careful about what we say.
I mean, obviously, if you've got a massive platform, then you probably need to be more careful than the average person, but individuals should not be too careful about what they say.
I think we've entered an era where Everyone fills up with their social media platforms.
They're kind of like their own PR manager and they have to be really careful and think about future employers and this, that and the other.
And actually, in a free society and in a democracy, and especially if we're all ultimately trying to find truths and make things better, you have to accommodate error.
You have to get things wrong.
You have to look in every corner and you have to explore all kinds of thoughts and you have to make mistakes.
Yes.
It used to just be accepted conversation and almost what's been lost in it is the idea of a kind of universal morality.
Ideas like kindness and tolerance and a willingness to listen to opposing views.
Those have been kind of lost in these new polemics.
where it's like you're this side or you're this side.
And there are new monoliths around information that post-Trump, everything is Trump in a sense.
Like the coronavirus is a divisive subject.
The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is divisive.
I.e. you can't query the narrative and NATO's role in exacerbating the conflagration without that being conflated
with, oh, so you don't care that Ukrainian people are being
killed, you're a pro-Russian.
Things didn't used to be like that, and it seems that there's a necessity to generate that kind of tension in order to facilitate censorship and authoritarianism, not because of a true morality.
Because if there was a true principle at play, then the position wouldn't shift in the way that it has In the way that earlier in the conversation we talked about censorship, Silky, that would have once been assumed to have been a liberal issue.
If you care about freedom, of course you care about freedom of speech.
Yeah, that central, some of these core principles that define democracy, it's the foundation of democracy.
Have suddenly been recast as a threat to democracy and a threat to society free speech is often talked about as though it's this kind of dangerous animal that has to be controlled and it's really it's really strange so I think we should know part of the pushback obviously we're going to do a We've got a big campaign launching, we're going to want people to sign the petition, go to bigbrotherwatch.org.uk to take part, thank you.
But also, we should all just speak more freely and be tolerant of people, other people who we I disagree with.
I think particularly during Covid, the idea that there was a set right and wrong was obviously nonsense because everything was new and all these different views about, even if it's about efficacy of vaccines and vaccine passports and lockdown and modelling, all the things that they were monitoring and seeking to control, as we found in our report, There was no agreed on answers to these questions, but people weren't allowed to explore, and even members of parliament, the people that represent us in our democracy, and even the experts.
One of the people who's in these reports is Carl Hennigan, Professor Carl Hennigan.
He's from Oxford University, he's from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, at Oxford University.
You know, putting someone like that in a disinformation report.
He's the person that should be speaking to the government about what the hell to do.
But they were trying to, you know, they decided... His whole job is evidence.
I've got evidence for this.
He's the sender of it.
I see evidence, yeah.
I'm in the middle of that.
And they shut him down.
At Oxford.
That's out of order, isn't it?
Yeah.
They've gone too far.
And he did also have articles marked as false on Facebook.
That were not false, I bet.
It was a study that he'd written, a peer-reviewed study.
His Twitter account was suspended for a while.
We forget how mental things got.
But as you say, the architecture is still there and it needs to go.
These units should be shut down.
Absolutely no mistake about that.
I'm guessing the taxpayers are paying for them as well.
Millions.
Not just for the units, but also for the contracts that they're giving to AI companies, some of which have links to government ministers, to outsource some of this work.
We're paying for these organisations.
We've probably even paid for that red hoodie.
Even in our presentation today, we showed how top level organisations from around the world, whether it's the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the NIH, the Chinese Centre for Disease Control, We're all discussing the possibility of free origins for the coronavirus, bioengineering, lab leak, natural origin.
The fact that they settled on natural origin, censored alternative theories, we know that that was one of the ideas that was subject to censorship, even though there was no legitimacy to that censorship and it was something that should have been discussed.
That is authoritarianism, that is parentalism, it's undue censorship and I think that your story really advances It demonstrates that this has been taking place because we're being gaslit on a global scale now.
It's like it wasn't happening.
And it shows that this is precisely the sort of thing that has to be stopped.
So anything that you can give us where we can help you, we'll certainly do.
I'll try my best, Gareth.
I hope you're on board with this.
Ah yes, yep.
Good.
I've got a few questions.
Firstly, see this bit here where it says, you know, do not roll out COVID vaccine passports because we did a presentation with Tony Blair continuing to advocate for digital passports.
Tony Blair, former Prime Minister at WEF.
What's this thing about vaccines being mandatory and all this sort of stuff?
Yeah, this is my brilliant colleague, Mark, from Big Brother Watch.
He shared the official petition that was on the government website during Covid against vaccine passports.
So official petitions on the government website have to be fact checked and vetted before they can be posted.
This one at this time was live for a long time.
It had over a quarter of a million signatures.
And simply for sharing the link, he was included in one of these misinformation reports.
That can't be misinformation.
It's not.
Yeah, it was a campaign, ultimately successful campaign as well.
That's good.
Do you imagine that every government in the world, Silky, is engaged in operations of this nature, or significant governments at least?
I mean, I think if we have such blasé attitudes towards important terms like misinformation and disinformation, Then it's inevitable because all governments will always try to extend their power.
To have power over what people can say and what people can read and hear is the most extraordinary power imaginable.
That's why we called our report Ministry of Truth.
It is like the Orwellian idea of the Ministry of Truth.
It's information control on a mass scale.
So yeah, I think we've seen from the Twitter files that the US government was involved in similar things.
We have to have a proper conversation about misinformation.
Misinformation at the moment is basically this vague, nebulous, wrong information category that in the hands of government will mean information that's not flattering to them, information that's not convenient to them, information that opposes their policies.
The problem that I have with these type of revelations is they help to kind of bolster my more pathological sense that you just cannot trust authority and that your starting point is oppose, assume they're lying, start there.
And that in itself comes with problems.
Certainly it means I get a lot of parking tickets.
Are there any other revelations to come?
Like for example, I've sometimes had concerns around the use of the NHS branding around the tracking app because the NHS National Health Service in this country is sort of a beautiful surface of free health care built on the backs of the war dead and obviously on our taxis to this day.
I wonder if there are any revelations to come around the curating, controlling, sharing of private biometric data?
Well, in terms of around these units, there's got to be more revelations to come because there are so many unanswered questions.
Parliament needs to open inquiries into what they were doing.
Like you say, it's all publicly funded.
At the moment, there is no oversight.
They have a blank check.
This is embarrassing stuff.
The army shouldn't be using military power against British citizens on Twitter.
So there's a lot of extraordinary stuff in here.
So there has to be more revelations.
There has to be more that comes out.
And I think more generally about how did we fall into this this awful period of totalitarianism and what does the hangover
feel like?
You know, we need to actually have a reckoning with that.
The Covid inquiry of course is going on in the UK this year, but unfortunately they don't seem to be answering,
they don't seem to be even asking these questions.
You know, so I don't know yet where, where, you know, formally this kind of, this kind of stuff
is going to come to light.
But I think it's important that the public, certainly millions and millions of people, have switched on during this process.
It's been a massive backlash.
People are thinking differently about power.
You shouldn't trust power.
You shouldn't trust anyone who hasn't earned their trust.
Was trust earned during this period?
Not at all.
People were lied to, people were controlled and mistakes were made.
Obviously people had good intentions in government but you can't earn, you can't own that trust unless you've really earned it.
So they've got to come clean about all of this.
If people are going to trust that what happens under the misinformation and disinformation banner is actually benefiting democracy rather than harming it, which is what I think we've seen here.
You were right all along.
You knew something was going on.
You trusted your intuition and we have been, hopefully of some service, in helping to verify your intuitive understanding of the corruption at the heart of centralised authoritarian governments the world over and the nature of their collaboration, their spying and their, I'm going to say, skullduggery.
Silky, thanks so much for joining us today.
You've been a fantastic guest as always.
Let us know how we can support your ongoing brilliant work.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We've got a fantastic week this week.
Tomorrow, I'm going to be speaking to comedian and political commentator Jimmy Dore.
He's a great friend of this show.
He's been on.
He's a great Jimmy.
He'll be covering your stuff, I'm sure.
Later on in the week, I'll talk to Jimmy Tobias about the Wuhan lab leak theory.
We're allowed to talk about it now.
And on Friday, to ensure that our spirits remain pure and elevated, Deepak Chopra will be on the show.
Remember, if you sign up to Locals, you get access to incredible content, not least Stay connected.
The show where we respond directly to your questions, inquiries, requests.
We deliver whatever you want to you in an hour of fantastic conversation and communication.
Link is in the description if you want to sign up to that.
Join me tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
▲
Export Selection