(0:00 - 1:39) In George Orwell's novel, 1984, the populace was largely controlled by the Ministry of Truth, which, through absolute control of the media, information, and education, was able to convince the people to blindly accept the government's narrative. While Orwell's novel was inspired by Stalin's Soviet Union, the irony of the book is that this kind of control has been growing in all countries around the world since before he began writing the book in the late 1940s. In fact, throughout history, the powerful have sought to control the message because they understood that the easiest way to control people was to have their willing cooperation in their own subjugation, and this could be accomplished if they could control what people believed. In May of last year, I first interviewed Judith Brown, a retired nurse from the UK who, about two years ago, began using her considerable research skills to unmask the so-called fact-checkers, to reveal who they really work for and what their role is in controlling the message. Since then, Judith has launched her own sub-stack and has expanded her research into the entire information control and propaganda structure, not just in the UK, but around the world. In this interview, Judith reveals the interconnected web of the globalist's ministry of truth and their complete control over the narrative, not just what people hear, but what they can say and even what they're allowed to think. (1:46 - 1:53) Judith, thank you so much for coming back on the show today. Thank you very much for inviting me, Will. It's a pleasure to be here. (1:54 - 2:07) And I was so pleased when I found very recently you had started your own sub-stack. For my viewers who missed that in my introduction, I have interviewed you in the past. About a year ago, we talked about fact-checkers, which is something you spent a lot of time working on. (2:07 - 2:29) But now that you've got your own sub-stack, you're talking of sort of a broader range of things than that. You're getting into the controlled media as well. And of course, the fact-checker is a part of that. We'll get into that later. But very recently, you put out this excellent article on conspiracy theory and in the context of the way the media is controlled. So I'd just like to invite you to talk about that article and the conclusions you came to. (2:30 - 6:14) Well, I suppose that I started feeling motivated because I just started thinking, well, what is a conspiracy theory and why are people so against conspiracy theorists? And then I sort of thought, well, actually, I am a conspiracy theorist because I do believe that there are groups of powerful and wealthy people, people like the Bilderbergers, people like the World Economic Forum, governments, the CEOs of big corporations, banks. And they do get together and they do sort of plan our wealth for us, irrespective of what we vote for in elections. They tend to do what they want to do. And so I started to think, well, really, we should start thinking of the world conspiracy theory in a different way and thinking, yes, we do think there are conspiracies. And I actually found a quote from someone at an American university who said that he was a conspiracy theorist because he believes that the wealthy conspire and went on to say, if you don't think that the wealthy conspire, I call you an idiot. And I sort of thought it was a bit amusing, but I sort of thought there was a lot, there's a lot in that. So I sort of found someone who was thinking along the same lines as me. So- Coincidentally, that quote was from 2019, just before most of us started to realize, yes, he's right. And I like what you talked about with conspiracy theory, because it all comes to how you want to use that word conspire. If you're using it in a paranoid sense and it's not true, well, of course it's a theory, it's a crackpot thing. But if you use that word conspire in the sense that you just did, that yes, all of these powerful people do get together and they do conspire, then technically speaking, that is a conspiracy, therefore conspiracy theory, because we're trying to understand what it is that they're doing. Exactly. And when you look at both fact check groups, and as I've been doing more work on media literacy recently, you can see that people constantly talk about conspiracy theories, and they also conflate different ideas like, for example, flat earthers with people who are suspicious about the effects of the COVID vaccination, or people who think that all of the people like the royal family all died some time ago, and that there are these lizards that impersonate them, and they associate that with people who are critical of some of the, for example, narrative on the climate. So, they sort of proflate these very bizarre theories with really genuine questions that people have. In one book that I read on, which was talking about conspiracy theories, they linked a young man who killed his brother, thinking that he was a lizard, with conspiracy theories, although the book also said he was diagnosed with a mental illness. Well, if he was diagnosed with a mental illness, it wasn't a conspiracy theory that caused this, it was the mental illness. And so, therefore, he was found not guilty of murdering his brother. So, I think that looking at a lot of these books on conspiracy theories, they always assume that the people who are saying narratives, the supposed official narratives, are in fact all doing it for nefarious reasons, for attention, in order to make money through clickbait. (6:15 - 6:33) And the real sort of agenda that people should follow is the official narrative. They don't take into account, of course, how official narratives have been wronged so often. I mean, we all know that there weren't weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, for example. (6:34 - 6:56) We know that what Hitler was saying in the 1930s, it wasn't logical theory. And yet, those events caused wars which killed lots of people, and these were from governments. Of course, there are other things relating to health, such as the thalidomide issue. (6:56 - 12:49) The thalidomide issue, adopters and medical professionals were advising people to take a particular drug, thalidomide, and that resulted in a lot of harm to children. In the same way, in the COVID pandemic, since the pandemic and the lockdown, people have shown that the lockdowns and the non-pharmaceutical interventions caused actually quite a lot of harm. They caused social harm, psychological harm, emotional harm, educational harm. They caused a lot of harms. And then when people evaluate the effect of those non-pharmaceutical interventions, what they find was that the effect of them was negligible. So therefore, the harms seem to outweigh the benefits. And no government has ever produced a cost-benefit analysis to show otherwise. And so, what I'm saying is, you can't believe what official bodies say, you can't believe what governments say, and you can't believe what professionals such as medical personnel say. And really, all of us should be able to investigate those and not be smeared by people who are saying that we're behaving nefariously, or foolishly, or that we're gullible. They should be taking these sort of queries that people have seriously. I also think, these sorts of rumors, Will, they've been around for generations, for millennia. For example, people think that Caesar was murdered because of false rumors that were spreading around about him, and that caused people to murder him. So, you're talking 2000 years, people have lived with these rumors. Certainly, when I was young, there were various old wives' tales, which people believed, and yet it didn't really do us any harm. And so, I think that there is a place for maybe training people to not accept facts, but to look critically at those facts. But the difficulty these days as well, there's so much smearing of people, probably like you or I, or even more senior people, parliamentarians, top epidemiologists. So that if people see an article by, for example, Martin Kulldorff, if they look, although he was a top epidemiologist at a top university in America, Harvard, I think, and he therefore made comments on a different way of dealing with the COVID pandemic. But he was smeared. And if you look on websites now about Martin Kulldorff, if he made any statements, it would say that he was a conspiracy theorist or that he promoted vaccine hesitancy or whatever. So, if you- Well, of course, they went after Martin Kulldorff because he was the co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration. The Great Barrington Declaration, right. Yeah, which obviously, they didn't want people to adopt that policy and they didn't want governments to adopt it. I think that the only person who did adopt it was DeSantis of Florida. I don't know of any others. But obviously, the World Council for Health, which you and I both know of, if you look on Wikipedia, it makes sort of very derogatory statements about the World Council for Health. And unfortunately, now, the situation is that if you go onto Wikipedia, you can't correct any false information about yourself or about your organization. Although Wikipedia says that it's an open source, but you can't add citations and also negative stories. So, I think both fact checkers and, which I want to talk to you about later, media literacy trainers, they actually talk about upsourcing and lateral reading. And by that, bilateral reading may mean if this author has written one article and you think that it's quite good. We've used the example of Martin Kulldorff, for example. So, if you read an article by him or saw a tweet by him and you check him out, and you did an internet search, what you'd find would make you think that he wasn't a person worth following. Or the same with the World Council for Health. And the same with them looking at source. Again, if you look at the sources, if the source isn't one that the government approves, they've already smeared those sources. So, you can't find any, if you do upsourcing and lateral reading, you won't find confirmation that this is a good site. Also, there's a tendency to say that alternative news sites may look really good, but actually, they're there to fool you. So, this takes away the credibility of, say, journalists like yourself, or UK column, for example, in UK, that look like credible news sources, but they're sort of like they're detracting people from looking for their information on Trump. Well, yes, of course. If you look me up online, I'm a white supremacist and a far right extremist. (12:50 - 13:20) But I wanted to comment on some things you were just saying, because I think it really pulls things together and it provides people with a practical guide in a way for almost assessing who they should be listening to, or at least determine that that's a possible source of good information. Because you were talking about the fact that they won't, when we come up with going for conspiracy theories, the mainstream news or information sources, they won't respond to the argument. What they do is they turn around and slander the person's character. (13:20 - 14:24) As you were saying, they would conflate something like people who believe in wizard people with those who question the COVID vaccines, and they lump those together. And they were talking about Martin Kulldorff and co-author of the Great Barbarian Declaration, a very, very well soundly thought out scientific argument. Do they try to counter his argument? No, they just attack his character. And so it seems to me, and I've been using this guideline myself now for quite some time, quite honestly to determine the sorts of people I want to invite to interviews, to what degree are the mainstream sources, not just the news, but social media platforms, just almost what you see commenting from the comments that go on, because we know a lot of those are bots, AIs that are out there to intentionally go after those people. To what degree has that person's character, not their theories, not their information, their character been attacked. And when I find someone whose character has been attacked to a great deal, but no responses to their arguments, that's probably somebody I want to talk to. (14:25 - 16:58) Yeah, I think that that's a good rule of thumb because it gives them an opportunity to speak to audiences, which of course is why I'm so pleased to be speaking to you today. I started my sub stack. I've also got some articles published on Panda recently. So I'm starting to build up a group of people that are interested in censorship. I'm either reading about it or I've spoken to a few people who are also doing bits of research as well. So it's helping to network amongst people who are undertaking research into censorship. So yes, it's really useful. And maybe from the interview with you today, I'll be able to network a bit further with people who've got similar interests. I'm sure that you will. And of course, throughout this interview, we'll be displaying your sub stack address on the screen several times. We'll also be providing a link underneath this interview directly to it. And folks, it is very much worth your time, even though Judith has only printed at this point in time, a handful of articles. They're extremely good articles. So I want to continue on now, Judith, because we started out with this excellent, I think, very clear thinking on what conspiracy theory is, what it should be rather than what it's labeled as. But now you've got a series of articles on there, which when I looked at them and saw, okay, they're about how the media itself has controlled such things as how everybody's got the same slant on stories. And that and the fact checkers and how they tie into that. And all of this had been sort of in the back of my mind, but it didn't really gel as a mature concept until I read those articles and realized we're looking at the Ministry of Truth from 1984. It's this huge structure to control not just information, but the conclusions that people will draw from that information. So I'm going to let you run with that. Well, I think that the articles relating to the mainstream media talking about how the same stories keep appearing. I don't think that I spoke to you last time about, for example, the way that newswires are being coordinated. Certainly, they are in Europe. I haven't sort of read so much about different parts of the world, but Europe, in fact, I'm just trying to think of his name, Mike Binns. I listened to him, an interview that he did, and he was talking about how close NATO is to the European Union. (16:58 - 17:21) And of course, a lot of the things that can't be introduced in USA because of the First Amendment can be introduced in Europe. And so therefore, there's been a whole range of censorship activities in Europe. And one of those is the creation of content and paid for by the EU. (17:21 - 23:10) There's a group in Europe that gets together. They're all the newswires in Europe. And instead of them competing with the stories, as of course, to get scoops used to be the aim of organizations, so they didn't share with other organizations. They were hoping that their newswire would clinch the story. But instead of that now, this has been funded by EU, and they're collaborating on story creation so that they all follow exactly the same story. They use organizations that create graphics, videos. They're all linked into this European paid hub so that then the same stories go out to not only in Europe, but in different parts of the world in multiple languages. And it's ready, sort of like provided copy so that newspapers, obviously, newswires sell their wares to all sorts of broadcasting media and print media. And so the same stories are going out to all of them from the newswire. So that's one way of coordinating apart from their links with the fact-check industry. Can I jump in with a question, Judith, before you go on? I'd like to know, do you know to what degree these various news organizations are financed by the European governments? And the reason why I ask that question, here in Canada, the big three broadcasters are heavily financed by the government to the extent where the CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which of course was originally an offshoot of the BBC, received so much funding from our government that Elon Musk, a few months ago, labeled it on Twitter, what is now X, as state-sponsored media. Yes. Yes, it is indeed. And I think that the EU is funding a lot of newswires as well as funding fact-check groups, media literacy groups. There's enormous funding from the EU. And certainly, we've got a branch of NATO in Europe called Stratcom. And there are obvious links between the EU and Stratcom. You can see there's joint things going on between the two of them. And I think I also read an article that actually said that because the First Amendment couldn't apply in Europe, they've obviously had people like Musk have had to agree. At the moment, he is challenging in some parts of the world. But at the moment, he's had to agree to restrictions on Twitter, on X in Europe. And that means that in effect, he's also censoring in other parts of the world as well to meet with Digital Services Act, the European Censorship Act. And if he doesn't do that, he's going to have to pay 6% of his total turnover internationally to the European Union. So obviously, those sanctions are so big that he's applying with them. Because he's applying to them in Europe, it makes him very difficult to have different form of censorship, for example, in America and other parts of the world. So in effect, it's meaning that he's having to censor in the same way worldwide as is required by the Digital Services Act in Europe. And actually, I did some research before I started doing fact checking on online services, online with acts, and they're meant to be providing security and safety. But they're called different things in different parts of the world, and it was quite difficult to find them. But I think I've found that about 50 countries have passed sort of online legislation similar to the Digital Services Act in Europe. And even sort of USA with its First Amendment, it's actually got some things put into some legislation that gives the government the opportunity to censor. I mean, obviously, I couldn't find all countries because countries, these online Security Act censorship acts are called different things in different countries. And also people are using different languages. So these are sort of like, pretty ubiquitous, they're appearing in all countries in the world. But it's the one in Europe, which has got such big penalties, that's actually causing social media companies to have to comply. And I think that then talking about the Digital Services Act is going to take about two years to bend down. So we don't know how that's going to go in the long term. But Musk is doing a bit I'm not, I mean, I'm not 100% convinced on Musk, but I think that he is, he does believe in free speech. So for example, he's got a standoff with the Brazilian government at the moment. I read today that he's actually, that some doctor that in Canada, which would be interesting to you, had published Twitter posts in the pandemic, sort of like criticizing Faxe. And he's actually taken on her case, and he's paid a fines of $300,000. And he's fighting her case. So I think that Musk is doing his bit, but he's still having to comply when the penalties are so large, and it's having a worldwide impact. So there's that. But I actually, apart from the conspiracy theories, I've also been working on media literacy recently. I don't know whether you read my post on media literacy. (23:11 - 25:11) I did. And I'd like you to explain to our viewers what you mean by that, because it doesn't mean what people might think it means. No, exactly. I mean, in theory, I think that media literacy training could be an excellent thing, teaching people how to look at posts critically, how not to accept things at face value, and to sort of do some research themselves on things. And obviously, to prevent online fraud, children are very vulnerable on the internet to sort of like bullying and grooming and things like that. And so therefore, these sorts of issues, people should be trained in it. I've not got an objection to training in media literacy. But I think now, looking at the growth of it, I think by 2024, I think it's actually bigger than the fact check industry. And it's really below the radar. A lot of people don't know about it. But instead, it's actually persuading people that they need to follow government narratives and training people so that they only accept those narratives and they reject anything other than those narratives. And debate is restricted within a very narrow overton window, and any debate outside that isn't allowed. Because if I can interject, so it seems to me is not just from reading your own article on it, but reading some others as well. You and I would say, well, media literacy properly practiced would mean go and find opposing viewpoints and try to find multiple ones. Don't just rely on one source, try to find multiple, then compare what these are saying, and then think about what makes sense. But the way they're teaching media literacy is go and find other viewpoints that support the official narrative. Yes, exactly. And don't pay any attention to ones that contradict that narrative. (25:11 - 26:09) Yes, that's exactly what that, yeah. So, for example, if there's one website that compares stories in mainstream media and saying, well, this one's saying this, this one's saying that, this one's saying something else. For example, I read one story which was saying that the deaths in Gaza are underestimated, another that said they're about right, and another that said they're overestimated. But they were all in mainstream media, and then it was asking people which one they think would be the most plausible one. But of course, what they're not doing is saying, look, compare this COVID story on an alternative news site, like, for example, Consortium News with the COVID story on mainstream media. They're not actually asking people to do a wide comparison. (26:10 - 26:50) And of course, they're not warning people about smearing. For example, I've done quite a few media literacy courses in the last few months. So, I should be really, really brainwashed into sort of thinking the story. But they say that they emphasize that mainstream news is really well fact-checked, and therefore, the mainstream news is really likely to be completely accurate. That's a sort of like a very prevalent story on fact-checked groups. They point to sort of that. (26:50 - 27:22) I was going to bring that up myself, because especially here in Canada, the government's pretty much openly talking about this in their own media literacy doublespeak, that only mainstream media news sources, and they even label it trusted media, you can only rely on the mainstream media sources. But as you've already pointed out, as most of my viewers know, they're all controlled and funded by the same people, and largely by governments. So, of course, you're going to get the same story with minor variations from all of them. (27:22 - 28:34) I think that looking at media literacy, it's when you look at the actual media literacy training groups, they tend to be paid for by governments. But when sort of media literacy groups go out, so the actual fundamental sort of structure of media literacy training tends to be government supported in different parts of the world, as far as I can see. But then when people actually are doing the media literacy training, that's quite often paid for by the usual suspects, Google, Microsoft, Meta, and so forth, so that they're actually paying people to go and offer the courses. And the courses are offered in person, they're particularly aimed for students, young people, but they're also offered online. There's just so many different ways of training. I mean, in my article, I've listed a few ways, such as the SIFT and the CRAP, well, maybe that's quite well-named, but different sort of systems, media analyzer. (28:34 - 30:01) And then there's this Cambridge social... CSDL, I can't remember. Social Disinformation Lab, maybe, or something like that. I can't remember. I might have that wrong. Which is in Cambridge, headed by Sander van der Linden. When you look at it, they're funded by the American government, the British government, and Google, Meta, a big foundation. So, they're funded by all the usual people. But they've been very influential in media literacy training. And they've, in particular, been very innovative and organized sort of games. There's one called Bad News. I've done that one a few times. And all of the conspiracy theorists are people who've got just sort of evil people who sort of set out to deceive others. And the person who takes the course adopts the persona of this evil person. And then they set out to attract people to believe their stories. And then they persuade them to use different techniques, such as demeaning people and making extravagant straight statements, and so on, to attract more followers. (30:02 - 32:09) And what they've found is that when young people do this course, because they then think that people who are sending out information narratives that are different to the government, they think of them all as being like this evil person in the Bad News game. And so, therefore, they sort of feel suspicious. So, what the MCSDL is talking about, this part of Cambridge University, what they're talking about is inoculating people. So, they're talking about conspiracy theories as viruses. And then they're inoculating people by this course against viruses. And they have found that when they go back to people, sometimes they've gone back. They may be looking at more information outside the narrow Overton window. But then they're sort of suggesting that they offer booster courses to them, so that they're once again brainwashed. But that's what it is, it's a form of brainwashing. I don't see what else you can say. Well, and I'd like to give my own example, Judith, because the things that you were talking about. But here's a tactic that they use a lot. They start with a statement that everyone knows to be true, unquestionably true. And then they draw from that a conclusion that sounds like it should be true, but isn't. And just let's follow this one here, because they do this. This is how they do the global warming argument. They start with CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Yes, it is. We all learned that in school, that is absolutely true. But then here comes the law. Therefore, if we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we'll lead to a runaway greenhouse effect that's going to kill us all. It doesn't work that way. That's completely false. But if you don't know the science, you're going to buy that. Now, what have they got? They've created in this person's mind, this foundation of a truth, a truth which no one, even you and I, is going to deny. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes, it is. Now that they've got that foundation, everything that gets built off of that, to them, seems completely rational. And if you deny it, you're a conspiracy theorist. But they take it one step further, as you were pointing out very early on in the interview. (32:10 - 36:49) Okay, so now, if you've bought in to the man-made global warming narrative, and somebody else is denying that narrative, well, now what they'll do is they'll say, well, if they deny global warming, they're probably flat earthers too. Yes, exactly. They just keep building on that one tiny little bit of fact, from which they have drawn these incorrect conclusions to completely mislead people. And then, as you say, they get into the media literacy training, which says, shut off your brain, don't listen to anything that isn't the trusted media sources, that is, mainstream media, funded by governments, funded by global corporations. And they've convinced people to take whatever they're fed, and don't ever question it. But they may give the appearance they're questioning it, because, oh, yes, we're looking at different sources. Yeah, they're all coming from the same place. Exactly. And in terms of media literacy, you see, when you read the introduction to media literacy organisations, they all talk about protection of people from scams, and grooming, and such things. And you sort of read that, and you think, yeah, that's great. Of course, it is. I'm not saying that it isn't. But the way that they go about what they're doing, maybe it might protect people from scams. Well, from financial fraud, for example, so there may be some benefits to it in that way. But they're also, if you like, making people more vulnerable to government manipulation. I mean, the same as was written in Laura Dodsworth's book, The State of Fear, where they were talking about the psychological warfare on the British people during the COVID pandemic. They're doing the same thing, you know, all the time in persuading people that the only safe way, everything in the world is fearful. And in fact, part of, I don't know whether you read the bit, there was a report that was commissioned by the government in I think 2021, on media literacy. And it was talking about the issues that media literacy had to tackle. And there was a big list, maybe about 20 items. And some of those were things that you would really agree with, like grooming of children and bullying and so forth. But then they had things on there like potentially harmful information, and things that were sort of like much more contentious. And in fact, I think there were more of those on the list than things that you could definitely agree with. But when you saw, just as you were saying earlier, if you read the list, and you see grooming, bullying, and fraud and so forth on the list, you think, oh, yeah, that's good. And then maybe then lower down the list where it talks about issues that, you know, like unpleasant comments or something, you then start thinking, why is that included in the list? And I just think that human beings, you are different to me and to every human being is unique. What I might see as truth, you might not see as truth. But what I want is for me to be able to read what I want to read, and then for me to sort of evaluate that for myself and come with my own conclusions, which might be different to the conclusions that you come to. And not only that, but to be able to then express those opinions openly. You were just talking about the Online Harms Act there. Here in Canada, Bill C-63 was passed into law last year, our own Online Harms Act. And just like you were talking about, a lot of it's about preventing child pornography online and anything like that. It's been buried in there. There's two just unbelievably draconian clauses. Number one, that people can file an anonymous complaint against you. You said something that they didn't like, that they thought was hate speech. And they don't have to reveal who they are. So now you can be accused. And that, of course, in most countries, we have a constitutional legal right to face our accuser. That removes that. But even scarier for people who remember the Tom Cruise movie, Minority Report, where they were going out there or they were basically arresting or stopping people before they committed a crime. In this act, there's a clause in there that says that a person can file a complaint against you if they believe that you were about to commit a contravention of the act. And you can be subjected to house arrest. (36:50 - 41:03) Yes. Yeah, exactly. And I think that similar things to that have been said in a new policing bill in UK, where they're talking about people going on demonstrations and they say, if they think that you're going to a demonstration, they can arrest you. And of course, the bill that was passed in Scotland recently, about a month ago, I think, hate speech law. I think that in the first week, they had 8000 cases of hate speech filed, which the police, it's more than the police complaints than the police normally have in a whole month. It's double the caseload of the police. And in effect, I think that probably some of those where people are sort of like doing it in order to purposefully increase the police workload. I mean, yeah, I could think of things that people have said that I disagree with that I might think is a hate law recently. People on WhatsApp, I mean, for example, I have worked with Palestinians and I feel a lot of sympathy for what's going on in Gaza now. But some people have been saying quite different things locally in the village where I live. And so I could sort of put those forward as hate speech, that they've been saying hate speech and I could report that to the police, because that might be something that's happening in Scotland. But if I did that anonymously as well, you know, it's, I mean, it's just got to the ridiculous point, hasn't it? And as it's been pointed out, what you're talking about is entirely rational because what you're saying is, I've heard this person talking about say inciting violence, that they're planning to commit an act of violence. Okay. We already have laws in both your country and ours for that. It's illegal to incite a crime. And violence against another person is a crime. So we don't need these hate speech laws to prevent that. What are the hate speech laws for? They're there to control what people can say. So that, because when you control what people say, and then you get into everything we've been talking about with the media and how this whole ministry of truth structure works, now you're starting to control what people can think. You take away certain words, words represent ideas. You can't use those words. Therefore, you can't think those ideas. And now we'll program into your head what we want you to think, what we want you to believe. Yeah. Well, I think that's particularly true. And I think that the free speech union in UK has been very involved with people, like for example, people who work in their workplace and have expressed views on social media. For example, to say that they don't think a man can be a woman. And it's a view point. And if you hold that view, you should be able to express it freely. But they've then been sacked from their jobs. There's a girl who was a member of a football club, and she'd been attending this football club for decades. She'd been a member of it, a season ticket holder for decades. And suddenly out of the blue, she has this message to say that she can't attend any football matches for two years, I think. Because on Twitter posts, she put that she thought that men couldn't be women, which is absolutely ridiculous. But not only with that, but she put in sort of a request to find out how the football club had got this information. And she found that she'd been, the football club had got people to sort of like follow her and spy on her and follow her when she was out in her home and walking to the shops. And so she'd actually been spied on, which is quite incredible. Yes, and it's intimidation tactics. It's not just applying social pressure or the potential for some kind of government penalty, but actual intimidation. (41:04 - 41:40) Yes, indeed it is. Making people feel like they might be in danger if they simply voice an opinion that's counter to the narrative. Exactly, exactly. That's absolutely true. So, yes, I think that maybe it's getting to the point now where it's so extreme that maybe even people that have believed that everything that the government does is, even if it isn't in your own interest, they think that it's in your own interest. So the government is acting with care and consideration towards its citizens. (41:40 - 42:20) But I think that people now are maybe, it's going so far that people are starting to realise that maybe governments actually do act to harm their own citizens as well as citizens in other countries. And I think that once you've crossed that boundary, it's very difficult to go back. And in fact, in a book written by Sander van der Linden, he actually says that once people have started to be conspiracy theorists, it's very difficult to detract them from being conspiracy theorists in his words, whatever he considers a conspiracy theorist to be. (42:20 - 43:19) So that's why he thinks that this pre-bunking system of media literacy training is working so well. But for example, we're meant to have left the European Union in UK, but what you find in the media literacy and the fact-checking groups now is that the groups that used to be funded by the EU, it now says that it's funded by the EU and somebody from Switzerland and somebody from UK. So we're still part of it. It's just that instead of being paid for by the EU, we're paying our own separate fees to belong to those groups. And the media literacy campaign in Europe, there's a European media and information literacy group. And all the people who, I think altogether, there's something like about 40 to 50 countries that belong to it, far more than are in the EU. (43:20 - 44:16) But they have to stay belonging to it. They have to go to a meeting once a year and report what they're doing on media literacy. So I mean, I'm from UK, so I was interested in reading what UK did. What I found was that Ofcom, who is the media regulator in UK, is actually in charge of the media literacy campaign in UK, which I didn't know until I went onto that website. And it said that they were in the midst of training a thousand new media literacy trainers and that they would start media literacy training in February 2024. So that's gone now. So I expect those are being working in UK and training in media literacy. So now that's just sort of UK. But if you think there's 40 to 50 countries that belong to ML, I can't remember who they all are. (44:16 - 50:47) It's listed on the site. If you imagine that they're also all training a thousand new media literacy trainers, that means that there's an awful lot of them now that are working in UK and particularly focusing on schools. And if a media literacy trainer comes to a headmistress who doesn't know anything about media literacy and says, oh, I can train your students for free in media literacy, and this is why it's so important, protecting children and so on and so forth, the teacher who doesn't know anything about media literacy is likely to accept the media literacy trainer. And maybe because she sees that person as an expert, then whatever that person says, even the headmistress is going to think, yeah, that's right. They're not brainwashing my children, but they're teaching them how to be safe online. So you can see how people succumb to this information, not sort of by pressure necessarily, but just by offering services for free, which they think would benefit their students. And therefore, they haven't got to fund it or look into it themselves. And of course they do, because they want to frame this as something that's going to be good for the children. And they do especially go after children. And you know this even better than I do. And it comes back to what you were saying a few minutes ago about how there was a comment about when somebody becomes a conspiracy theorist, it's very difficult to get them to go back. But if we define conspiracy theorists as you and I did very early on in this interview, there are a group of people who are conspiring and we are theorizing on what they are conspiring about and what they plan to do with it. That is a different definition of conspiracy theory, a definition that says people who know the truth. And this bothers them a great deal because one of the things that I've told people, I'm not just a journalist, I'm also the founder of Strong and Free Canada, which is one of Canada's largest freedom organizations. And I've said to people many times, the globalists are going to lose this war. And one of the reasons, just one of the reasons they're going to lose is because if you think of this two enemy camps, you've got the people who have been fooled by the globalists over here. You've got people who know the truth over here. Defections happen every day, but only in one direction. People go from that to this one. They come to understand the truth. And once you understand the truth, well, you're not going to go back and willfully believe something you know is not true. And so all of this media literacy, all of this stuff, especially that they're aiming at the children in the schools, is to program not to question. If you get them to stop questioning in the first place, well, now they'll never arrive over there, will they? Yeah, absolutely. I think that's exactly what they're doing. But yeah, it's very difficult. I mean, even within my own family, even though people know that I've been researching this for a long time, there are certain people who sort of think, oh, crazy mother. Don't feel bad. My entire family thinks I'm a nut job. Yeah. But because I see this different form of truth, I just feel sort of that I have to keep on. And actually, I've got a lot of eyesight issues. And the other thing is as well that I feel that I need to be doing it and publishing it whilst I've got functioning sight because if I live long enough, one day I won't have functioning sight. And so I just feel that I've got this incentive to do it. And that's partly why I'm publishing it now so that all of the knowledge that I've gained over the last, I suppose now it's 18 months getting on for two years, that I can share it with other people. So hopefully then other people will be able to take that on and maybe do further research into it. I mean, for example, I think I've been doing research on a lot of fact checkers, fact check trivia. And I looked at a lot of websites and I bought check and you can do this and you can see there's a lot of trivia on fact check platform sites, the reports of their fact checks. So I looked at sort of like the biggest news story at the moment, which is the Israel-Palestine war and looked at how AFP, which is the largest fact check platform in the world has done it. And I sort of like found that they only fact check fringe issues relating to that. They don't fact check major issues. And of course, it doesn't prove anything because what I've done is looked at some, done an eyeball check of some fact check groups and looked at one story on one website. But I think that that could be like, for example, another area of research, a valuable area of research, because if you could find, if you could prove that fact check platforms only fact check trivia, then you really sort of like a saying, well, why are people paying this large amounts of money for them to fact check trivia? So I think it is a valuable, it would be valuable way of investigating. So I'm hoping that some people will take the research further than I have and look at different things that they might want to research in the future. Well, Judith, I have to say, I think that your research is incredibly important. And let me explain why. It's not just because you're drawing back the curtain and you're exposing this entire ministry of truth industry so that people can understand how they're being deceived, how the society is being programmed. But once they understand it, it allows them to engage in greater critical thinking. And I want to give an example of that from something you were talking about 15 minutes ago. And you were talking about these programs to teach people to protect themselves against online fraud. And I plugged that into this whole structure we've been talking about and immediately drew this conclusion. And some people might agree, some people might not, but here's what I would go with it. All right. So now, first of all, we've done, what we're doing is there this public service to teach people how to protect themselves against online fraud. So the next step is going to be a bunch of fear-mongering stories in the media about people who have been fleeced through online fraud. (50:47 - 50:59) And then comes the bomb that they'll drop. You know, if we had CBDCs, that would be impossible. Yes. (51:00 - 51:04) There you go. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah. (51:04 - 51:44) All the program people into being sheep to accept the globalist control agenda. Yes, exactly. Well, hopefully, well, you and I aren't going to give up no matter how much we're censored. We're going to find ways of getting our message through. And I think there are other people who are equally as determined as we are. So hopefully, eventually, we will win. I'm certain that we will win. We might have to go through lots of trials and tribulations, but we will get there in the end. I believe we will. And thanks very much to the excellent research of people such as yourself, Judith. Thank you. Thank you for interviewing me, Will.