Russell chats to the director of Big Brother Watch UK, Silkie Carlo, who brings us an exclusive investigation about the collusion between the government and social media companies, how they spy on your speech and suppress information. Find out more about her work here:https://bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/ For a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here https://russellbrand.locals.com/Come to my festival COMMUNITY - https://www.russellbrand.com/community-2023/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/
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.
Stay Free with Russell Brand.
See it first on Rumble.
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 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 is being affected and what should our global audience be most concerned about?
Well, I think that 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 like a Republican, if this was American politics, conservative for a UK audience, and quite a significant political figure, ran for leadership like 10 years ago.
Any SAS or something cool like that?
I've always liked 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?
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. 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 that 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 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 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 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 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 the, certainly the left establishment, 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, the binmen, the postmen, a lot of people were still working and who was advocating for them?
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 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.
The 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 think the voice should sound like that.
We were so worried, because a voice is a biometric.
What does that mean?
Oh, 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.
I'm not letting anything happen to him.
That's an amazing thing that they've even found a way to bypass anything that you would do to their own voice.
Now technology can find a way through that even.
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 and 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 And 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?
It sounds 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're 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 facts that, you know, the whole domestic population was being surveilled was just like collateral.
And it's the same here, from what the whistleblower is telling us, is that just 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 an authoritative way that the information had to be removed because there was, 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 briefings where they're told, "Oh,
you might want to watch out for Russian disinformation." And so 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, Silke,
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 for 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 militarising 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, 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 or whatever.
It's 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, Bell Rubiro-Addy, 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 happened 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.
Was it you?
Yeah, yeah.
I had 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.
I was a bit.
No, but I think you are.
You're a bit bit spying on me.
I want a tax rebate if they're not spying on me.
Some of the stuff that they were interested in.
They were interested in anyone with an audience, anyone who was criticising government policies around this time.
Even on my tweets, they're looking at how many people it reached, 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.
It ought never have been, it ought 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, Manguri, 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 was 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 Ploroduct placement.
I'm fine, thank you very much.
I just throw this away, I don't even like it.
Do 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 strange.
So I think we should, part of the pushback, obviously we're going to do 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, you know, we should all just speak more freely and be tolerant of people, other people who we 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.
He's the sender of it.
I see evidence, yeah.
I'm in the middle of that.
And they shut him down.
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.
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, were all discussing the possibility of Three 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, demonstrates that this has been taking place because we're being gaslit on a global scale now, it's like it wasn't happening.
Yes.
and 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.
Yes. Yep.
Good. What's this? It's okay, I've got a few questions.
Firstly, see this bit here where it says, you know, do not roll out COVID vaccine passports.
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?
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 service of free healthcare 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.
I think more generally about how did we fall into this awful period of totalitarianism and what does
the hangover feel like? 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. So I don't know yet where formally this kind of stuff is going to
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 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.
They're spying and they're, 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 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.
Join me tomorrow, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
