Latest / UK Column Radio / Jerm Warfare - Escaping climate agendas and social credit systems

Transcript

Jerm Warfare - Escaping climate agendas and social credit systems · UK Column Radio

0:35
None OK, known online as escape. Thank you for joining me in the
0:42
trenches. Thank you for hosting me.
0:47
Where do you want to escape to or from?
0:53
Conditional finance, I think that's the, it's the biblical
0:57
mark of the beast. And as incredible as it sounds,
1:01
they're implementing it right, Right this very second.
1:06
What the mark of the receipt? Yeah, basically kind of the IT,
1:12
it, it, it fundamentally comes down to conditional finance.
1:18
Well, the central bank digital currencies through the Bank for
1:22
International Settlements Innovation hub, Project Rosalind
1:25
have got a three party lock. That's one of the functions.
1:28
So Project Rosalind is one of the on the innovation hub
1:34
projects kind of and in the detail sort of the API.
1:36
And in that API there's a function which is essentially
1:41
lock in a quantity of money kind of basically cut with a third
1:44
party lock. So in a normal circumstances,
1:46
like say, for instance, basically, can I bought a bought
1:49
a pint of milk from you, my central bank wallet, digital
1:54
currency wallet would effectively lock the amount of
1:56
money kind of you would receive kind of for the good.
1:59
And then it would sort of send a code to your wallet and your
2:02
wallet would accept it and the money would just transfer it.
2:05
But they've implemented functionality for three party
2:08
lock and the, the third party is essentially an organization or
2:13
any kind of institution which would validate whether the
2:15
transfer should go ahead. And the, this is, this is an
2:18
obvious place to check whether you've got sufficient amount of
2:20
carbon dioxide, you know, carbon emission credits in your, in
2:24
your sort of secondary or tertiary sort of bank account.
2:28
And if you don't, then, you know, you're presented with the
2:31
option that either you cannot go forward with the transaction as
2:34
in I can't buy the, you know, pot of milk or whatever kind of
2:37
base from you or your system sort of says, ah, but you have
2:40
to pay extra taxes. And consequently, the goodwill
2:44
effect would become more expensive from our perspective,
2:46
which effectively, if you think about it, that's a social credit
2:48
system. OK.
2:50
So I mean, we've jumped right into this, but let's just make
2:54
sure that we've got absolute clarity here.
2:58
So when you talk about central bank digital currency and they
3:03
like, let's just break these apart quickly.
3:09
Yeah, they that would be so in the sense of the central banks,
3:14
you know, they cooperate through the Bank for International
3:16
Settlements. The Bank for International
3:18
Settlements have got an innovation hub, which is
3:21
effectively a bunch of research projects.
3:23
One of the research projects is basically, you know, Project
3:26
Rosalind, which details an API with a number of functions.
3:31
And that's where the programmable currency comes into
3:34
into play. Now, a number of of central
3:37
banks themselves, like the ECB, Bank of Israel, the Swedish
3:42
central bank, they're all detailed conditional payments
3:47
where effectively kind of basically a payment becomes
3:48
conditional upon some sort of external, you know, some sort of
3:52
external validation. And that's effectively what I'm
3:56
saying. Can I this external validation
3:57
and this sort of conditional payment effectively builds on
4:01
the three party lock basically in Project Rosalind.
4:03
So consequently, kind of the Bank for International
4:05
Settlements can claim that they're not the ones doing this,
4:08
But it it's kind of like, you know, loading the gun and
4:11
placing right in front of a of, of an armed killer.
4:13
Can I, you know, it's, it's sort of right, OK.
4:15
You know, you know, they're definitely influential in this
4:20
regard, let's put it that way. But by and large, the by and
4:23
large the Bank for International Settlements creates a bunch of
4:27
research projects which the individual central banks then
4:30
will implement and then everything will just integrate
4:32
kind of basically through, you know, other projects, etcetera.
4:37
Yeah, I mean, this has been gradually rolling out around the
4:40
world. I've seen a couple phases of
4:42
this here in South Africa. But now explain what's going on
4:45
in the US where where Trump is. They've made a big Hoo ha about
4:50
him being opposed to it and rather introducing stable coins.
4:56
OK. That's somewhat of a bit of a
4:58
break kind of from that conversation basically kind of
5:02
with regards to what's happening in the United States, kind of
5:05
I'd rather focus kind of basically on the Stargate AI
5:07
because that's from essentially kind of distinguished really
5:09
matters, man, it's over there. The the way I see effectively
5:14
this entire structure is that essentially they implemented in
5:17
small steps here, there and everywhere, right, But in
5:20
different order. And basically kind of the
5:22
European Union has got one track and the United States has got a
5:25
different track. And the track United States is
5:28
on is effectively basically as the provider of the sort of
5:30
technocracy, so to speak. So a lot of essentially the AI
5:33
Stargate initiative is essentially by building a
5:35
colossal digital twin which will model the entire world on basis
5:39
of all available sort of global surveillance information.
5:42
So that means real time satellite stream streams kind of
5:46
via sort of Elon Musk's spy satellites that he's placing
5:49
into orbit for the intelligence community as well as kind of
5:52
basically on mobile phones, social media sites, you know
5:56
city IoT centres, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
5:59
All that all that information gathering kind of goes through
6:01
basically a number of organisations, Palantia, of
6:03
course, it's one of them. And effectively, basically
6:06
that's all rooted into this sort of Stargate AI initiative, which
6:10
will be used to sort of predict the future.
6:12
And basically then effectively through this future prediction,
6:16
they will model sort of a, a, a policy response.
6:20
And that policy response will primarily be railed through
6:24
essentially conditional finance. And that's sort of sort of the
6:28
point because the EU is focused on one part of that pipeline and
6:31
the United States is focused on a different part of that
6:33
pipeline. So yeah, basically, I mean,
6:35
essentially all this sort of technologies going in
6:37
everywhere. Can I?
6:38
It's just a question of, you know, order order.
6:40
OK, wait, so so so CBDC's and stable coins are not really
6:45
different? Well, stable coins effectively
6:47
can I basically get is is into one to one packing?
6:50
Can I basically have a particular of a particular, you
6:54
know, asset or, or whatever, but basically that's not really what
6:58
I'm focusing on here. Can I basically, can I, we can
7:01
talk about kind of basically sort of fuel split kind of
7:03
basically cut off the future sort of CBDC or the wholesale
7:07
retail split basically of the central bank digital currency
7:10
basically. But what I'm talking about here
7:11
is really just the architecture itself in regards to how this
7:14
will function kind of from the retail perspective, how it will
7:16
look to you and I basically. And is it inevitable?
7:23
It's not inevitable. It's it's not inevitable.
7:26
I get a lot of I get a lot of comments on on sub stacks sort
7:30
of saying, oh, whoa, it's us and stuff like that.
7:32
I don't think it's inevitable at all.
7:34
I think I think we're kind of up against it kind of basically in,
7:38
in the sense that the timeline is fairly short, right, Because
7:42
citizen ID basically will go through European Union very soon
7:45
in 2026. The legislation will pass or
7:47
will come into force kind of base where every citizen EU
7:50
basically can well, you know, basically be have a digits ID
7:53
effectively. Now in addition to kind of
7:56
there's also another bit of legislation which is going
7:58
through which no one is talking about.
7:59
It's the carbon CC BAM kind of was carbon based adjustment
8:04
mechanism, something along the science I wrote about it quite
8:05
recently. Basically kind of what that in
8:08
effect does is that it mandates for every imported good, it
8:13
should have metadata, metadata for every imported good where
8:19
effectively, you know, for each individual item, it'll have a
8:21
description of so much carbon dioxide was emitted during the,
8:24
you know, basically during the development of of this input,
8:28
you know, this, this imported good.
8:31
But the point here is that it's not just the carbon dioxide
8:36
emitted kind of for the final stage of that pipeline, it's for
8:39
the entire pipeline itself. So that means effectively kind
8:42
of if you import like a radio or whatever, the, the sort of
8:47
metadata would include information about basically how
8:50
much carbon dioxide was produced was used kind of basically in
8:53
the production of of that radio through the entire supply chain.
8:56
So that in effect means kind of basically you have a carbon,
8:59
carbon cost for every for every imported item, basically kind of
9:03
in the EU by C Bam right now, initially it, it only relates to
9:07
70, 70 products, but they're already talking about basically
9:10
broadening by Noah 300 or something along the science,
9:12
right. And once we've got 370,
9:14
obviously they're just going to broaden until they've imported
9:17
until it's on every single import, right.
9:19
And once it's at the stage of kind of basically covering every
9:23
single import throughout the entire European economy, kind of
9:25
the next step is obviously just moving it straight down to the
9:27
retail level. So effectively, every single
9:29
time you go down to the shop, you will know exactly how much a
9:32
pint of milk imported from Poland or whatever have cost in
9:35
terms of carbon emissions. And that's sort of the point.
9:38
Because basically if you have a central bank digital currency
9:40
and you've got a number of, you have a carbon allowance in that
9:44
regard, kind of, you know, basically one thing is the cost
9:46
of that milk. But the, if your carbon sort of
9:49
balance kind of basically does not allow you to buy that pint
9:52
of milk, the supermarket like Sainsbury's might sort of sort
9:56
of say, no, you can't afford to buy this or you cannot buy this
9:58
because your central bank, you know, your carbon emission
10:01
credit is kind of basically sort of negative if you buy this.
10:04
So either we're going to tax you a little bit more.
10:06
So you have to pay another 10P in order to buy that pint of
10:08
milk because that way you pay for your carbon emissions, blah,
10:11
blah, whatever. I mean, this is all theoretical,
10:13
of course, because it's all bollocks.
10:14
But anyway, or the alternative reason, since you can buy this,
10:19
you know, environment friendly, you know, sort of cockroach
10:22
milk, basically, you know, whatever disgusting substitute
10:26
substitute they have in, in mind for you.
10:28
And you might, you might think this sounds crazy, right, kind
10:30
of basic, but it's not, it's not that far off because basically
10:34
kind of go down to some supermarket chains in, in the
10:38
UK, they will remind you of your carbon, your carbon, you know,
10:45
your carbon allowance effectively.
10:48
Yeah, No, it's basically kind of like they have to go there
10:51
slowly. So they will not tell you about
10:52
your footprint. They will tell, tell you about
10:54
your allowance. You're allowed a certain amount
10:55
of carbon. And if you, if you go to your
10:57
bank account, like if you're with NatWest, for instance, they
11:00
keep track of essentially kind of how much carbon dioxide you
11:02
have essentially spent through your current through your
11:05
purchases. So we're not far off the stage
11:08
where since the final final few things just sort of sort of all
11:11
connect to one another, all, all the initial, all these sort of
11:16
separate steps which will eventually connect their all,
11:20
all the motion, all of them. So it, it's just a question of
11:23
time before they unlock, but it's in 20/20/26 is quite a big
11:27
year because C Bam comes through in January and this ID comes
11:30
through in EU as well. So yeah.
11:34
But yeah, I I mean the sense that there are obviously more
11:37
steps to it basically about 2026 is a fairly major year.
11:42
Well, we'll talk about that in a second, but carbon, so
11:46
sustainable development is basically the whole purpose of
11:51
the UN and and the IPCC. So is everything about that?
11:57
Do all roads lead to carbon emissions?
12:02
No, it's not just carbon emissions, but carbon emissions
12:04
is the most obvious one because that's the one they've.
12:07
So they've basically spent since at least 1968, the 1968 UNESCO
12:12
Biosphere conference regards to establishing kind of this
12:17
environmentalism nonsense. Right now, from our perspective,
12:21
essentially it's, it's possible that the climate is changing,
12:23
but the quantity of material you'd need to simulate in order
12:26
to comprehend whether that is actually happening, it's just so
12:29
vast that there's no way we can do it, right.
12:32
It's it's sitting, sitting projecting 90 years into the
12:35
future on basis of a tiny, tiny, tiny little bit of a total
12:40
material kind of basically simulated basically is, is
12:42
completely absurd. But the the most visible,
12:46
obviously one visible one obviously is, is CO2, right,
12:50
cannabis. But once we're with CO2, all
12:53
these mechanisms are fickly being created not specifically
12:58
for carbon dioxide cannabis. They're they're created cannabis
13:00
for for any input really. So that means when we speak of
13:04
essentially the bank for International settlements
13:07
project Russell into three the three party lock sort of
13:10
function basically can the third party which approves your
13:13
process might not just be one party.
13:15
It might be sort of a container of parties where one will take
13:18
your carbon dioxide, your your your emission credits, right,
13:22
And another one will determine kind of basically what where you
13:25
are in regards to sort of social justice, whatever kind of if
13:27
this is, you know, culturally in inappropriate for you to buy
13:32
whatever item, whatever ridiculous nonsense, right.
13:34
And the third one could be basically kind of well, are we
13:36
in a health emergency then you're not allowed to buy
13:38
certain sets of sets of goods as we saw during COVID, right?
13:41
So in fact, we kind of the the the three party lock essentially
13:45
is a blank check for basically, can I, you know, telling you
13:49
kind of you can't buy XYZ for any reason.
13:52
And the three party lock kind of basically there in, I mean, it
13:56
applies to each individual transaction, right?
13:59
It's literally per transaction. So if I buy a pound of milk with
14:01
you, the, the, the, the check will be, you know, executed on
14:05
that. But it also it it also operates
14:07
kind of basically in terms of like from a from an enterprise
14:10
perspective, right, where businesses, you know, basically
14:14
they have to adhere to ESG regulation and CSR blah, blah,
14:17
blah. Now, a lot of this stuff is
14:19
voluntary, right? Kind of basic, but these sort of
14:21
things, you know, always tend to be sort of like, yeah, the
14:24
initial voluntary, but once after a certain period of time,
14:27
they sort of gradually shift towards, you know, mandatory,
14:30
right? So that doesn't necessarily mean
14:33
that they they're by force, right?
14:34
Kind of about what they will do basically in terms of
14:36
enterprises, just to make sure that if you if you refuse
14:40
basically sort of BSc legislation, then it will cost
14:43
you twice as much money to raise, raise money on the
14:45
financial markets, which obviously basically is, you
14:48
know, you might as well, you know, commit suicide
14:52
financially, right. Cannabis.
14:53
No, no large enterprise will do that because they're all deeply
14:56
embedded Karabinsky in in the financial markets.
14:58
You know, if, if Coca-Cola tomorrow kind of had to pay
15:01
like, you know, 10% interest rate kind of based on debt as
15:04
opposed to 2% kind of, you know, sort of it would be financial
15:07
suicide for them to do it. So it's just essentially kind of
15:10
just sort of gradually forcing this through kind of basically
15:13
through every sort of Ave. So you have the individual
15:16
through, you know, the conditional payments, CBDCCBDC
15:20
stride kind of you have a sense of the enterprise through
15:24
various sort of levels, levels including sort of the cost of
15:27
debt. But you also have the sovereign
15:29
nations where you can see, for instance, Ukraine right now,
15:31
they're in the middle of, you know, they're in obviously,
15:34
basically the state of emergency and states of emergency are
15:37
really great from the perspective of wanting to push
15:39
through egregious legislation, which is exactly what's taking
15:42
place right now. Because basically they've
15:44
instituted a framework where everything got has gone digital
15:48
and everything effectively every, every payment is
15:52
essentially conditional upon a set of terms.
15:55
So it's basically it's this sort of conditional architecture
15:58
which has been rolled out not just through the individual or
16:00
it will be rolled out through the individual soon enough, but
16:03
also through the corporate and through a sense of the
16:05
sovereign. So everyone is dependent upon
16:08
essentially, you know, upon upon, you know, basically
16:12
adhering to, you know, whatever the requirements are.
16:15
And so, you know, whoever said those requirements are frankly
16:17
kind of basically the navigator of spaceship Earth, so to speak.
16:21
Well. Who created the architecture?
16:25
Well, that's, that's sort of you had to go back to 1966 where
16:29
Kenneth Bolding posts a paper called the The Economics of the
16:33
Future Spaceship Earth. And basically kind of what he's
16:36
describing is it's a closed loop general systems theory model of
16:41
the entire planet. Now, the best, the best way
16:47
probably to understand it. I mean, this is a simplified
16:49
version, of course, but it's very easy to understand it that
16:52
way, right? You have 33 component,
16:55
fundamental and adaptive management, right?
16:57
You have general systems theory, which is a model of, of whatever
17:01
you try to understand or manipulate, right?
17:03
Then you have input output analysis, which is effectively
17:05
an understanding of flow within that model, right?
17:08
And then you have cybernetics, which is effectively the
17:10
conscious manipulation of that flow in order to, you know,
17:13
create kind of a sense of outcome, right?
17:15
If you equate that to the veins of your body, the veins of your
17:19
body is essentially the general systems theory model.
17:22
That's where the blood can sort of flow around, right?
17:24
Then you have the input output analysis that that essentially
17:27
kind of revolves around the blood exit flowing in those
17:29
veins. And the cybernetics would
17:31
effectively be you trying to consciously manipulate the flow
17:34
of blood within those veins in order to get some in order for
17:37
you to move your arm or whatever.
17:38
I mean, under this self, it's a simplified kind of basically,
17:40
but it's very good and very easy way of understanding what how it
17:43
effectively works. So when you speak of Spaceship
17:46
Earth, you speak of a closed, closed loop, sort of general
17:51
system steering model, right? And by a closed loop, that
17:53
effect means just much like like the veins in your body, they're
17:56
also closed loop because otherwise the blood would spill
17:58
out somewhere. And fundamentally kind of that's
18:02
what that is what Kenneth Balding discussed in that 1966
18:06
paper. And that then became circular
18:09
economy because essentially kind of instead of, instead of
18:12
measuring blood, you can measure kind of base the flow of credit,
18:15
basically, you know, money kind of through the system, or you
18:16
could measure metals or energy, anything really kind of it's
18:21
just a matter kind of of having that exosol system where you can
18:23
model everything kind of again and analyse everything.
18:27
And that's fundamentally where you then get to in contemporary,
18:31
you know, contemporary world. We have basically kind of, we
18:34
have, we have standards organisations like ISO and OECD
18:38
basically sort of telling us kind of basically what's of
18:41
importance to be measured. And then we have, we have the
18:46
digital ID, which doesn't apply just to the individual, but also
18:50
kind of basically to enterprise and animation.
18:52
Any, any aspect of a system will effectively kind of basically
18:55
have a have an asset tech is I would like to consider them.
18:59
And then basically the third aspect of the general systems
19:02
theory model is the accreditation, which effectively
19:04
kind of is telling is, is a is it's sort of a database of
19:08
information about who is allowed to transact with everyone else.
19:11
So for instance, if you consider it from the economic
19:12
perspective, then basically the accreditation will dictate
19:16
whether I'm allowed to buy a pond, a milk from you, because
19:18
it might be that we're just not allowed to basically exchange
19:21
money whatsoever, right? So that's the general system
19:23
steering model itself. You have basically through these
19:25
three. Then in the input, output and
19:28
analysis basic aspect, kind of basically we have a sense of the
19:31
data, which is basically global surveillance.
19:33
You know, it could be, it could be literally anything kind of
19:35
get, you know, your Facebook feed, whatever, anything kind of
19:38
basically it's just any, any input of data, right?
19:40
Kind of basically which obviously relates to all the IDs
19:43
which are in the system. Then you have the audit
19:46
basically as well, which effectively you take the data
19:48
and you have the model and then you can sort of see did did
19:50
people do what they're expected to do?
19:51
Is that is that a, you know, legit sort of transaction or, or
19:55
behaviour pattern and those two together data.
19:58
And the audit is essentially is the input output analysis, which
20:01
basically connect models, the flow of of in this particular
20:04
case, kind of basically money, but it could be applied to set
20:07
metals or energy, whatever kind of right.
20:09
And then the final aspect kind of basically kind of is
20:11
essentially you have. You have a faculty, A
20:13
procurement rail and we'll get back to that in a second because
20:17
it takes a, that's a little bit long, little bit more
20:19
complicated to explain kind of basically.
20:20
And then you have finance yourself, which is the actuator.
20:23
And that's where the conditional finance comes in.
20:25
Because essentially if you're a good boy and you've carried out
20:28
done what exactly you were supposed to do and you haven't
20:30
broken any rules, then basically every trade like I can buy that
20:32
pint of milk from you. The procurement is a little bit
20:35
more complicated, right? Because basically what it's,
20:38
it's all nice and dandy having this sort of complex system, but
20:41
if no one adheres to it, kind of, you know, sort of it's not
20:43
really worth anything. And that's where procurement
20:45
comes in. Well, procurement effectively
20:48
is, is essentially any, any state expenditure forces
20:53
alignment with this sort of system.
20:55
And when you think of United Nations, kind of they do a lot
20:57
of business with public private partnerships, kind of, you know,
21:00
with large enterprise, they'll want a piece of that pie, of
21:03
course. So they're all adhere kind of
21:05
basically to this sort of system basically, which allows for
21:07
adaptive management right through the sort of conditional
21:10
finance. But the small, small and medium
21:14
sized enterprises, they will be forced in line basically through
21:19
large enterprise having the expectation that all their
21:23
inputs also adhere kind of to the same structure.
21:25
And of course they will do that because otherwise kind of they,
21:28
they miss out on all those lucrative contracts.
21:31
And what that in effect means kind of basically said the
21:33
entire system will align to the same structure and said general
21:36
systems theory, general systems theory kind of basically the
21:39
input, output and analysis and then basically actuated through
21:42
the through the cybernetic financial sort of lever
21:46
effectively enables adaptive management.
21:49
So when we go back to, you know, Kenneth building kind of base,
21:53
what he was effectively talking about kind of base was a
21:55
planetary scale adaptive management system.
21:58
Basically, that's fundamentally kind of what it comes down to.
22:01
And that's basically what we're building right now where the
22:03
primary actuator runs straight through finance.
22:07
It's it's all about kind of based conditional finance.
22:10
You know, if you're a good boy, you do what you're supposed to
22:12
do kind of based essentially, then you're allowed to buy, buy
22:14
a pint of milk. And if you're not, then I'm
22:16
afraid you're just going to have to go home and you can't buy
22:18
anything and you can't feed your kids.
22:20
So, you know, everyone effectively will be forced in
22:22
line. That's that's what they plan on
22:23
doing. Is this a new idea, or is it an
22:28
old idea that just was never able to be implemented?
22:32
That's a very good question, basically.
22:33
So if you start going through marks in does capital, he starts
22:38
speaking about basically producer consumer relations and
22:40
CBD CS basically with conditionality is effectively
22:43
that where effectively you can stop individual sort of
22:47
transaction basically sense that the individual producer consumer
22:50
sort of sort of connection. But I didn't say he also speaks
22:53
in fragment on machines about, about basically the future sort
22:59
of what's called automation of society, right?
23:05
And in general, I mean, a lot of kind of basic Marx's writings,
23:08
Marx and Igus's writings, they come back to kind of that's one
23:11
big gaping hole kind of basically into our ideology,
23:13
right? We have the 10, we have the 10
23:18
planks of which the 5th plank kind of basically it's about,
23:21
you know, sort of centralisation of all credit in a, in one
23:24
central bank effectively, right. But there's one big gap, right,
23:28
Because this this describes an intermediate state where
23:31
effectively, you know, the dictate the dictatorship of the
23:34
proletariat will sort of come to be basically kind of again,
23:37
that's supposed supposedly a works dictatorship, but that's
23:42
only a sort of temporary sort of sort of station.
23:45
And the ultimate survey station is essentially, you know, kind
23:48
of this paradise kind of basically where the state just
23:50
naturally Withers away. And and if you read, if you read
23:53
like this kind of, I mean, it's complete.
23:54
It's just, it's kind of ridiculous, right?
23:57
Because you spend so much time sitting, analysing and
23:59
critiquing, you know, the existing system, right?
24:02
But basically when it comes to describing how you go from the
24:04
middle stage to the final stage, there's virtually no
24:06
information. But if you go to Lenin, I mean,
24:11
in 1918, he speaks of accounting and control.
24:14
And what accounting and control is, is effectively surveillance
24:17
and auditing, right? And that's basically the system
24:19
kind of they tried to implement kind of in savage Russia.
24:23
It's obviously enormously, you know, it's not great basically
24:29
obviously because they don't have the technology that we have
24:30
today, right. And then a little bit down the
24:33
road kind of basically find technocracy, kind of start
24:35
discussing essentially exactly the same system just from the
24:37
perspective kind of basic of of energy tracking, right.
24:42
But we also have kind of based one person who's probably one of
24:44
the least cover people, you know, in sort of history, really
24:50
kind of basically and Alexander Bogdanov, who Co founded the
24:53
Bolshevik Party with Lenin in 1903.
24:56
And he came up with something called technology.
24:58
And what technology effectively is, is a precursor to general
25:01
systems theory, but in a distance.
25:02
I kind of he also described complex supply chain analysis,
25:05
which effectively is input output analysis.
25:08
And Leon TF almost certainly kind of basically had access to
25:10
his papers before he left Russia, basically can write.
25:13
And Leon TF in the sense of the man who became famous for
25:15
developing input output analysis.
25:18
So effectively you have kind of basic, both the input output
25:20
analysis aspect and the general systems theory aspect.
25:22
They've both come back kind of basically to the same person,
25:25
Alexander Bogdanov and essentially again, Bogdanov
25:30
primary. So he let's say basically who's
25:33
a Marxist, right? Kind of.
25:34
But he fundamentally disagreed with Marx in the sense that he
25:37
he at home abhor any kind of sort of violence.
25:40
Kind of he he wanted it to be sort of a Fabian Smith
25:42
transition to sort of scientific socialism.
25:46
And basically kind of that was essentially what his system
25:49
enabled kind of because you don't really notice this is
25:52
going in basically by everyone in society kind of this, this
25:54
this creeping sort of system of conditional finance basically is
25:59
already up in, in operation. Like for instance, basically if
26:03
you go to the G77 and well development aid, this system
26:06
essentially has been in place kind of since the 1970s.
26:09
Like, you know, basically if, if third party nations, they don't
26:12
do as they're expected to cut it in there in their sort of
26:15
project papers catabase, then they will not receive the next
26:17
tranche of eight. And it's very simple catabase.
26:19
In other words, they don't really have an option.
26:21
They have to go along with this. Otherwise Canada will not get
26:24
development 8 and kind of half the population might stop, you
26:26
know, so it's, it's, it's sort of you they can't really refuse.
26:30
And that's, that's, it's, it's interesting because I also
26:32
traced back kind of basically how this sort of system worked,
26:35
you know, came, came to be kind of basically said they'd place
26:37
it through development aids. And it's, it's originally based
26:41
on McNamara's PBBS, which was instituted based through the
26:45
Department of Defence in 1961. And that then scaled kind of
26:48
basically third world development aids.
26:51
And today basically kind of give you a read on funding kind of
26:54
projects through United Nations. You'll find Result based
26:57
management with KPIs, which is basically the same system just
27:00
developed. You know it's literally
27:03
everyone. So is this a natural progression
27:08
of technology, or is this a sort of more nefarious design with
27:14
other motives? I, I can answer that very, very
27:19
simply. Kind of basically, let me just
27:20
find it kind of, it's because basically I went through this
27:22
quite, quite recently, right? Let me see if I can find it,
27:26
right? Kind of.
27:26
So we had, we had the most ridiculous sort of list of, of,
27:31
of things basically which took place not to do it from memory,
27:35
right? So in 1987 we had the Montreal
27:39
Protocol. And what the Montreal Protocol
27:41
basically related to was the was ozone.
27:44
I kind of basically kind of the ozone layer apparently being
27:47
destroyed. But what no one, no one really
27:55
discussed was basically in the Montreal Protocol, there was
27:58
specific language relating to swapping emission permits and no
28:03
one really discussed at that point in time because it wasn't
28:05
monetized or anything like that, right?
28:07
So this is 871988 the IPCC comes to be, right?
28:12
And in the same year, almost as soon as basically the IPCC came
28:16
to be, then the New York Times basically on on its front page
28:19
announced that kind of, you know, global warming has
28:22
officially started. It's like, it's just like how
28:25
lucky for us, kind of basically the IPCC just came into being in
28:29
the same year, right? And then in 1989, we had AG 7
28:32
Summit and basically that's where the FATF Financial
28:37
Financial Action Task Force came to be, right?
28:40
And basically what the FATF does is that they prosecute financial
28:45
crime like, you know, money laundering and stuff like that,
28:47
kind of basic. But their mandate has strangely
28:51
come to include even our environmental crime basically
28:53
over the past few years. And if you look at the 1989
28:56
papers coming from that, from that summit from which FATF was
29:01
came to be kind of basically they also spoke about
29:03
environmentalism at a point in time where, you know, no one, no
29:07
one had any idea this was going to be fused into finance, which
29:09
is just a little bit odd, right, Kind of basic.
29:11
And then in they also spoke, Oh yeah, they also spoke about debt
29:15
for nature swaps, which were like kind of, you know, how the
29:19
hell they could have focused on debt for nature swaps at this
29:22
point in time. It's just absolutely
29:23
astonishing. But, and then basically in 1990,
29:27
the IPCC in Working Group 3, they discussed kind of basically
29:32
kind of how to create a system for trading carbon, you know,
29:36
carbon emission permits basically, kind of.
29:38
So they didn't sit still within two years of existing, they're
29:40
already outlining how the future trading system will will will
29:43
come to be. And in 1991, the Global
29:46
Environmental facility came to be, which effectively is the
29:49
sort of financial backstop for the Convention of Biological
29:52
Diversity, can end the United Nations Framework Convention on
29:55
Climate Change through an FCCC, right.
29:59
And then of course, basically the Earth Summit, you know, in
30:01
1992 basically established kind of bases, those two UNFCCC and
30:05
the CBD. But in 1992 we also had the
30:09
first of two reports titled combat and global warming.
30:11
They're very difficult to get a hold of these these these
30:15
reports basically kind of search for it on myself stack kind of
30:17
basically because, you know, two people were, you know, managed
30:21
to drum it up for me kind of basically kind of, and I
30:23
basically kind of covered it pretty much every single page
30:26
just because they're pivotal, right?
30:28
And what those two reports detail is essentially basically
30:32
the future trading system of carbon dioxide.
30:35
But it's not just about carbon dioxide because basically
30:37
towards the end of the first report, it says kind of, you
30:40
know, the sort of, you know, air and what does it says basically,
30:44
and water can no longer be presumed to be the sort of
30:47
common goods that we've we've sort of come to rely on so far.
30:50
They will have to basically have a market market based solution
30:53
sort of applied, right where that in effect means kind of
30:55
essentially kind of they will be traded assets and that's
30:58
fundamental. The system which we've seen
31:00
implemented kind of basically at the carbon dioxide level
31:02
basically right now where you know, the carbon emission
31:05
permits basically are traded like you know in a good right.
31:08
But they're the same system will be applied to any other
31:11
ecosystem service, right? And basically kind of all of it,
31:15
I mean all of it is sort of in motion right now.
31:18
If we go back to this timeline, we have a sensor from 1987 to
31:22
1992 basically just five years. We have this amazing sequence of
31:26
the entire sort of structure kind of basically with regards
31:28
to the financial banking of it comes to be.
31:30
We have the mechanism basically with regards to the trading we
31:33
have. We, we have basically kind of,
31:35
you know, the instruments kind of basically the CBD and UNFCCC
31:38
coming to speed kind of basically which, which will
31:40
allow this because obviously kind of what is being monetised
31:43
basically initially is the carbon emissions basically kind
31:47
of I've credits basically which effectively emanate from, you
31:52
know, Peruvian rainforest or whatever, kind of basically.
31:55
And that's effectively monetized through basically the global
31:57
environmental facility. So it's just, it's just
32:01
essentially, if this was, if this was a coincidence or
32:04
natural progression, basically, kind of, I mean, essentially you
32:06
would have won the lottery 100 times in a row basically because
32:09
it's just, it's just such bollocks, right?
32:11
But I mean, I can, I can conclusively dismantle kind of
32:14
basically this sort of erroneous conclusion anyway, right?
32:16
Because basically I worked in R&D for a number of years,
32:19
right? And, and in R&D basically kind
32:21
of you, you never know basically what the, what the end result
32:24
will be, right? You, you try something,
32:26
sometimes it pays off, but often it doesn't pay off and you will
32:28
basically have lost all the time, right?
32:30
It's a gamble, right? Cut against.
32:33
And consequently when you write cutting edge research reports,
32:37
you expect things that not to be completely perfect, right?
32:40
Basically you expect you have to go back and sort of write and
32:43
OK, basically we could go in this direction with it.
32:46
If you go back and read these reports like combating global
32:49
warming, which is cutting edge research basically, supposedly,
32:52
right? They're basically perfect.
32:54
They never really had to basically fundamental change any
32:56
of it. Everything was just absolutely
32:57
perfect. And from our perspective, kind
32:59
of basically having worked in Rd.
33:00
I'm saying it's total fucking bollocks, right?
33:04
Doesn't work like that. You would basically issue kind
33:06
of OK, these these corrections here from basically this article
33:09
basically in the previous issue, but that doesn't happen.
33:12
And, and, and that's essentially kind of what we see again and
33:14
again and again with another big case basically happening.
33:18
You know, this study off topic kind of basically it's, it's the
33:20
same sort of sort of situation, right?
33:22
In 1936, Keene's basically issued a general theory, right?
33:26
Kind of basically, which is basically kind of the financial
33:28
model of kind of basically of kind of cyclical sort of fiscal
33:31
policy basically kind of that the entire world operates with
33:33
right now, but no one is talking about.
33:36
Is that basically Kenny 19311933 and 1935, the Chatham House
33:42
worked on three reports which enabled the monetary policy
33:46
response supporting this framework.
33:48
Had those 3 reports not been released, then Keene's is
33:51
basically a general theory kind of basically would not have
33:53
really gained any traction because it would just be, you
33:56
know, hopeful basically more than anything.
33:58
But they literally established kind of basically conditions
34:00
for, you know, basically his general theory kind of just
34:03
become possible. And it's just you have this,
34:05
this, this magnetic alignment time and time and time again.
34:10
It's just essentially from, from the perspective, from the
34:13
perspective of research. It's bollocks.
34:15
It doesn't work like that. It does not, you know.
34:18
Period. Basically.
34:20
So what what you're saying is that there's a lot more design
34:22
than emergence? Yes, I think what they're doing
34:26
is they're designing it kind of sort of like 1020 years ahead.
34:30
And then they've got basically essentially so many sessions at
34:33
the sort of Foreign Institute of International Affairs and sort
34:37
of Council on Foreign Relations, basically where they're just
34:39
sitting discussing and trying to attack this from every single
34:41
angle. Because I mean, don't take it
34:43
away from any of these people. They are highly intelligent
34:45
basically. And obviously, you know, they,
34:48
I, I mean, it's, it's fantastic if you think about it, kind of
34:50
they worked on something for, you know, basically probably
34:52
best part of 200 years. And they've had a few slip UPS
34:55
here and there. Kind of, basically by and large,
34:57
they're doing very well. Kind of, you know, it is, it is
35:00
very impressive what they do. I'm referring to what's his
35:03
name, Carstens The the the guy who's pretty much eaten all the
35:06
money. Is he is he just a pawn?
35:12
Well, I mean, that's what I sort of hypothesized quite recently.
35:15
Kind of if if you were, if you were the kind of pathological,
35:19
sort of pathologically manipulative kind kind of, you'd
35:22
probably want to install someone who attracted attention for the
35:25
wrong reasons, right? Kind of against, you know, you
35:28
can certainly make a lot of arguments about August and
35:31
Carson's basically in that regard.
35:33
And I do find that when I post it on on the bisi get a lot of
35:38
comments in regard and it is it's kind of, you know, OK, the
35:40
man, the fat, OK, get over it right.
35:42
Can this not really change anything?
35:44
It's like, no, it doesn't. You know, he's he's got an
35:48
unfortunate condition. Kind of it's great.
35:49
And now can we actually talk about Project Russell and, or,
35:53
or, you know, kind of some of the other research sort of
35:55
projects, Mandela, whatever kind of Embridge, whatever, kind of
35:57
basically kind of, you know, but most people sort of are just
36:00
seemingly attracted to discussing an unfortunate
36:04
condition, let's put it that way.
36:07
Your Substack is, it's called the price of freedom is eternal
36:12
vigilance and is, is one of those aspects of being vigilant,
36:21
adjusting how the programmable CBD CS or the programmable money
36:26
works because you you've made a few recommendations on that.
36:32
Yeah, no, I'm, you know, when I originally, I originally set up
36:36
a self stack because basically kind of I was thinking tired of
36:39
Twitter censorship and I deleted my account, what, 6 months ago
36:43
Now kind of it's just because, I mean, it's just for them to
36:46
claim that their free speech is such such a joke.
36:50
But originally when I started writing kind of based scatter
36:53
next, I realised where I was really going kind of, it's just
36:55
a sort of, you know, something is wrong kind of basically you
36:58
can't quite place your finger on it.
36:59
But that's obviously a feature of the system.
37:01
Basically the entire sort of point of it is they've created a
37:05
system where it's incredibly difficult to, to to decipher it
37:08
all because there's so many moving parts in this sort of
37:11
sort of system. So in regards to kind of based
37:14
starting to make recommendations in regards to CBD CS, basically
37:18
I brought it, I wrote it an article recently called How to
37:23
fix CBD CS. It's it's kind of like I'm not
37:28
actually expecting them to implement any of those.
37:30
It's more of a sort of test to see basically them ignoring it
37:34
kind of, it's more of a pointing out that that they're not going
37:39
to implement this because it would basically kind of puncture
37:42
the entire system. So one of the first sort of
37:44
things is basically can I the entire sort of system operates
37:49
on basis of the sort of clearinghouse, which comes from
37:52
the London Bank clearinghouse sort of system basically which
37:56
fundamentally placed the Bank of England on top of the hierarchy.
38:00
And this system is basically being brought in digitally right
38:05
now. So basically kind of the way it
38:08
works is essentially instead of having 1000 banks all transact
38:11
with one another, you find a bunch of intermediaries which
38:15
transact with the sort of sort of edge, the leaf notes.
38:18
And then you have a sense like all these sort of clearing house
38:20
banks which transact with one another, but also transact with
38:23
the sort of smaller banks. That's fundamental how the
38:25
system works. And then basically the bank Bank
38:27
of England is at the top because it's their currency, right?
38:31
It is a very efficient model, of course, because you want to do a
38:33
fraction of the amount of settling work relative to if
38:36
everyone had to settle basically relative to one another.
38:38
But it also essentially kind of grants the clearinghouse banks
38:43
an enormous amount of power because it effectively means at
38:45
any point in time they can cut off any of the small banks and
38:48
those small banks will go bankrupt immediately.
38:50
Or the Bank of England could in effect basically since they cut
38:53
off the clearinghouse banks themselves and they would
38:55
effectively be put out of the business very quickly.
38:57
So it's a hierarchical structure kind of basically, which
39:00
effectively is incredibly, you know, powerful and incredibly
39:03
sort of efficient basically. But it cost at the cost of a
39:07
sense of, of of of centralizing kind of basic oil control.
39:11
And basically kind of one of probably probably the first
39:14
thing which would be shot down was basically kind of my
39:16
suggestion is essentially kind of when the entire system works
39:22
on base of transferring every single bit of information
39:24
regards to all transactions basically right up the
39:26
hierarchy. Because that way you can
39:27
centralise on information and that way you can, you know, you
39:31
can predict effectively kind of basically what you're going to
39:33
do instead or whatever. It's more right.
39:34
Kind of basically my suggestion was basically kind of that when
39:37
the all the small banks kind of basically they do the settling
39:40
kind of basically they're letting out the transaction kind
39:42
of basically the clearinghouse bank.
39:43
Then the clearinghouse bank effectively needs to be split
39:46
into two where since they got all the information they
39:48
transmit to the clearinghouse bank, they'll be shielded off,
39:51
they'll be cut off, cut a biscuit from the flow basically
39:53
further up. So the so the clearinghouse bank
39:56
would only basically transfer sort of net flows kind of
39:59
basically sensitive to the system basically above and would
40:01
keep all the detail, the define grained information down at the
40:05
lower level. And they're so obviously not
40:06
going to accept this basically because the entire system
40:09
operates basically through through, you know, basically
40:12
essentially sort of. You know, fine grained sort of
40:14
control basically. And that would basically kind of
40:16
cut their ability kind of to, you know, to to targeted
40:21
censorship, etcetera, kind of basically against any individual
40:23
if they would cut it enough. So it's it's and I had basically
40:26
a number of other sort of suggestions, but that was
40:28
basically the first sort of one I thought of thought of
40:30
basically. But in, in general speaking,
40:32
kind of, I mean, this all these sort of technocratic
40:35
institutions, one of the major issues with them is that no one
40:38
is accountable, right? No one has ever held accountable
40:41
for anything, right? So if we look at kind of
40:43
basically, for instance, the so the Fabian Society in 2023
40:47
published this idea, right? Whenever the Fabian side has got
40:52
an idea, you know, it's not your interest basically kind of what
40:56
they wanted. It's called in tandem.
40:58
And I strongly suggest everyone read it basically because what
41:01
they're in effect saying, he said right now we have the
41:07
central bank kind of in control of monetary policy.
41:10
We have the Treasury in control of fiscal policy.
41:14
And instead of doing that, basically we need to have an
41:16
EPCC and economic policy central committee or whatever it's
41:19
called. And they should affect basically
41:22
kind of cooperating, cooperate kind of basically altogether,
41:25
you know, sort of in sitting in monetary and fiscal policy at
41:28
the same point in time. Now for these groups also should
41:31
include basically kind of like NGOs and sort of third parties,
41:35
you know, social justice, environmental justice, sort of
41:39
outfits which are there to sort of sit and dictate kind of
41:41
basically what the common good is.
41:42
Of course, I mean, the trick is here kind of basically that all
41:45
the all the sort of NGOs which are going to be involved in this
41:47
process kind of basically all captured basically by the
41:49
foundation class, right? But the point is basically when
41:55
the conditions for this EPCC to sort of kick in basically as, as
41:58
it's outlined in this idea is that basically kind of when the
42:01
interest rate, when the inflation drops below the lower
42:05
bound. I sincerely represent right.
42:07
Then the argument is essentially kind of monetary policy alone
42:11
cannot sort of fix the situation.
42:12
Kind of basically kind of we need the Treasury to start,
42:15
start basically spending more money basically ultimately on
42:17
public, I don't know, build bigger statues of Kia Starmer or
42:20
something, right? Basically kind of, but the what
42:25
fundamentally is not discussed here is essentially kind of the
42:28
organization which is responsible to make sure that
42:31
this doesn't happen in the 1st place is the Bank of England.
42:34
It's quite literally their mandate kind of is essentially
42:37
like for them to ensure that inflation always stays around
42:40
2%. So if it drops down below 0%,
42:42
it's the Bank of England's fault.
42:44
But they of course, basically don't mention this.
42:45
No, no, no, it is someone else's fault, right?
42:47
And that's fundamental. Again, one of those sort of
42:49
systems designs kind of basically kind of no one is ever
42:52
there to be blamed. You know, basically in as a
42:54
matter of fact, they use every single crisis in order to
42:57
concentrate power. It would sort of because
43:00
basically kind of if you, if you look at if you look at certainly
43:03
the most recent sort of 30 years, kind of basically of of
43:06
of sort of of regulation, kind of basically in the UK and many
43:09
other countries, kind of they have fundamentally only shifted
43:12
more and more power towards the central banks.
43:14
And at no point in time have the central banks ever been held
43:16
accountable for anything. So in 2008, for instance, when
43:19
the entire markets crashed, kind of essentially kind of, you
43:21
know, you know, no one was discussing kind of, you know, or
43:24
actually kind of Peter Schiff and and once for the Austrian.
43:26
So the economists, they were talking about kind of basic base
43:29
rates being too low, which is correct, right?
43:31
Kind of basic by the central banks.
43:32
Certainly we're not going to accept responsibilities for
43:34
that. Of course, not kind of basic
43:35
sense of their beyond reproach. They're perfect, right, Which is
43:39
ex harmonic. I'll we'll come back to that.
43:42
We could come back to that. Anyway, it doesn't matter.
43:43
But the point is, the point is just the sense of the entire
43:45
sort of technocratic structure that they've built here in super
43:50
slow motion kind of basically ensures that at no point in time
43:53
will anyone be held to account. Because the sort of the
43:57
financial mechanism itself is one thing, right?
44:00
Kind of basically. But you also need to have a sort
44:03
of sort of understanding of where we're moving.
44:05
And kind of where we're moving is basically a sense of the tail
44:07
loss. And the tail loss is a sense of
44:09
the 1st 15 sustainable development goals, which
44:12
basically kind of can broadly be splitted over to three sections.
44:16
You have the natural resource base of land and air and water
44:20
and stuff like that, right? Kind of basically.
44:21
Then you have at the very top, you have the human well-being,
44:25
which relates to basically kind of human society.
44:27
And then you have a sense of the middle layer, which is
44:28
effectively ecosystem services. And basically the point they're
44:32
trying to do here is they're trying to balance the amount of
44:36
ecosystem services produced by the natural resource base with
44:40
those consumed by the human well-being at the very top.
44:43
That's fundamentally kind of what they're trying to do,
44:45
right? And, and they can then be traced
44:47
back to the 1968 UNESCO Biosphere Recommendation 3.3,
44:51
kind of basically steel cells. Exactly that.
44:53
It's human. Human humanity needs to be
44:56
brought into balance with nature.
44:57
Basically, yeah. You've argued fairly extensively
45:01
that money needs to be user controlled so that that's
45:07
obviously, that's obviously in opposition to central.
45:10
Where does Bitcoin then fit in? Again, I don't know, kind of be
45:19
sensitive sort of Bitcoin I've I've I've I've played a little
45:23
bit around with it basically, but I I think it's, I don't
45:28
know, kind of basically, I don't want to sit here because it's
45:30
making investment advice because basically, if there's one thing
45:31
you should not do is take investment advice from me,
45:33
right? But let me, let me.
45:36
Let me ask the question differently.
45:37
Is Bitcoin user controlled? Yes, to an extent.
45:46
Basically, as long as kind of the requirements basically are
45:49
fulfilled, I suppose because you still fundamentally expect to
45:55
be, your essence is still basically kind of, I'm going to
46:00
put it, you are relying on a structure of being there
46:06
basically. I suppose kind of basically
46:09
that's the argument continuously, isn't it?
46:11
Basically by the gold box sort of saying no, no, no, you know,
46:14
only gold basically, essentially indeed, in this sort of state
46:17
where magic kind of the entire world's basically electric grid
46:20
has been taken out, you know, only gold will will suffice.
46:23
I, I don't know, I, I, I don't really think I should be the one
46:26
sitting commenting on this because this is not really where
46:30
focused based on. But I will say one thing in
46:32
regards to kind of basically the programmability, right?
46:34
Kind of basically that's there was a sense of another argument
46:36
in my how to sort of fix CBDC's, right?
46:39
Basically because the conditional, the conditional
46:43
CBDC's basically where the conditionality, the
46:45
programmability kind of is on the central bank side is
46:49
fundamental. The issue based against now you
46:52
can sort of think of it this way, right?
46:54
Kind of it's now you could program into finance or into
46:58
your money into your wallet saying kind of if I've received
47:00
my paycheck today, then you know, by by steak in, in, in, in
47:05
the supermarket, can I go otherwise buy chicken, right.
47:08
So that would be me basically kind of programming kind of, you
47:10
know, by response, my financial sort of response based by
47:13
shopping in the supermarket. And you could argue kind of
47:16
basically that would be a good thing kind of if you you were
47:18
allowed to sit and basically do this programming kind of
47:20
basically sure, but that's not what they want basically.
47:22
But my argument is since they should be flipped, so it's your
47:25
program belt, it's not what they want.
47:27
They want their program belt. So basically the central banks
47:30
kind of basically and the associated actors can do the can
47:33
sit and program kind of basically sensing what should
47:35
happen. Basically kind of it's it's
47:37
well, they essentially seek to establish through their sort of
47:40
innovation hub projects is a giant financial operating system
47:44
and project Rosalind is the sort of API programmability layer.
47:47
The, you know, the sort of sort of place, kind of basically you
47:50
plug in your DLL or whatever kind of it's, it's, it's, it's
47:54
obviously simplified kind of basically, I'm not saying that
47:56
kind of basically, but it's it, it fundamentally is what they
47:59
seek to do. How close are we to all of it?
48:06
That's a good question. Basically I said 20262026, we've
48:09
got this ID coming in and we also have C Bam, C Bam
48:13
regulation, which is basically the sort of carbon, carbon cost
48:17
of everything sort of aspect. So you have but the CBDC without
48:20
this ID kind of basically you've got C Bam and those two sort of
48:23
combined kind of basically since I produced this whole system.
48:26
So those two are not terribly far away kind of basically from
48:29
X being placed. But one thing is since they're
48:31
having the system in place, another thing is basically
48:33
having it rolled out to the extent that it's fundamentally
48:36
useful. And as it is right now, kind of
48:39
basically, we're probably probably, you know, basically at
48:42
the earliest, we're talking about 20-30 or something along
48:44
those lines because there's quite one.
48:47
One thing is sitting, sitting trace kind of basically kind of
48:50
how, you know, fuel and metals and whatever kind of go through
48:54
the supply chains kind of basically and arrive in a nation
48:56
through, you know, imports. But yeah, basically Kenny, So in
49:00
in that regard, we're probably kind of basically a few years
49:02
away, but basically kind of in regards to kind of basically
49:06
where else we let me just see. I mean, I'm I'm sitting sitting
49:11
gathering detail kind of to right, kind of sort of a monster
49:16
sort of SA Catabisc and soft stack calic.
49:21
It's done here. Well, the point is those 2 alone
49:27
are probably basically since like, you know, 20-30 or
49:30
something along the science catabisc, but it's that's just a
49:32
technical sort of rails. We also need the full sort of
49:36
infrastructure kind of basically because if you just implement
49:38
this infrastructure without making people ready for this
49:41
transition, then you might very well cannabis cap huge riots and
49:45
stuff like that. And obviously kind of they don't
49:46
want that. So another thing they're doing
49:48
is basically kind of trying to fuse in fuse in kind of
49:52
basically this sort of system through effectively an ethical
49:55
approach. So we speak about like the 50
49:59
St. DS, 1 to 15 BD sort of tailors
50:04
basically of this sort of system.
50:05
They're trying to create kind of, and quite a few of those St.
50:09
DS obviously kind of related to the environment and environment
50:12
kind of basically essentially is where the IUCN comes in and
50:14
they're planetary stewardship, sort of which in 2000 turned
50:18
into a planetary ethics through the Earth Charter, kind of
50:20
basically. And and that's fundamentally the
50:23
sort of like most human side, right?
50:24
Kind of basically because every number, I mean, if you're just
50:27
given a number sort of saying, oh, you're emitting this amount
50:29
of carbon dioxide, kind of basically, you probably wouldn't
50:31
care kind of. And most people look at the
50:32
numbers sort of like, oh, OK. But what they in fact do is that
50:38
they reframe it to be your ethical responsibility to to do
50:41
a certain thing. So it had to be turned into an
50:43
ethical imperative. And we saw this basically kind
50:45
of during COVID where effectively basically failing to
50:48
wear a mask or whatever the hell kind of basically go all that
50:51
bullshit, right? Kind of basically it was all
50:52
about an ethical imperative. You know, if you didn't want to
50:55
take your vaccine, you wanted to kill granny and all that sort of
50:57
stuff. And it's the same thing in
50:59
regards to kind of basic planetary stewardship, right?
51:01
Kind of where if you don't do your thing in regards to sort of
51:04
saving carbon credits or whatever kind of basically can,
51:06
then you will be framed as an unethical person who who
51:10
deserves to be censored and have his job cottoned.
51:14
You know, kind of basically needs to pay twice as much for
51:15
his food down the supermarket. Basically, kind of because you
51:18
know, his social social credit score kind of basically so low.
51:22
Whatever, right? It's, it's, it's, I mean, yeah,
51:26
it, it all runs through finance ultimately.
51:28
Yeah, basically. Who's leading the way globally
51:31
in this? Well, that's the thing, right?
51:35
Kind of basically if you go, if you go right now, kind of it's
51:38
to Google and you type basically CNNCNNCNN Ross Shield, Spaceship
51:44
Earth. You'll find an article from 2019
51:47
basically of David Ross Shield standing, sort of declaring
51:51
himself the navigator of Spaceship Earth.
51:54
And it's, it's sort of quite astonishing.
51:56
I, I cannot believe kind of anyone would do this.
51:58
Basically, it just seems like such a terrible mistake to make,
52:02
right? Because as as said before, kind
52:05
of spaceship Earth is a closed loop general system steering
52:09
model, kind of which allows for adaptive management, which is
52:12
effectively what we see right now, right?
52:13
And the the actor, the actuator in that, in that sort of system
52:18
is basically financial, right? And what is what is the Rust
52:21
Shield dynasty known for? Kind of it's just sort of like
52:23
why? Why would you do this?
52:25
It's sort of like so yeah, basically can I but in in
52:30
general kind of basically can I, you know, it you see the same
52:33
names again and again and again can be essentially, you know,
52:35
Rockefeller can be obviously in their Carnegie's and they're
52:38
kind of basically. But though he specialized more
52:40
in the early solid stages to peace, hate peace conferences,
52:45
whether effectively whether yeah, I should probably quickly
52:49
kind of include that basically because one of the one of the
52:51
things which few people sort of talk about is the sense like how
52:54
you know, you see all the United Nations agencies to have this
52:57
sort of dual split of you have the General Assembly, which is
53:00
basically democratically elected candidates.
53:03
And then you have the secretariat, right.
53:05
And the split basically between the two is actually quite useful
53:09
kind of basically from their perspective, right?
53:10
Because basically the democratically elected
53:12
candidates, they will come and go every four years, right,
53:15
continuously kind of basically these people will come in come
53:17
out, right. So if from from a sort of
53:21
strategy of wanting to basically override democracy, basically
53:24
what you need to do that's very simple, kind of basically just
53:27
need to do very long term planning.
53:28
Kind of basically don't plan on on on base of five years, you
53:31
plan on base of 20 years. Because then kind of basically
53:33
did censor the people, the people who are there kind of
53:35
basically voting for or against kind of basically certain sort
53:38
of objectives in the system. They will not actually be around
53:41
to see it come into fruition. And that way you have a
53:44
secretariat which is sitting kind of basically planning all
53:46
this all kind of have some technical committees sitting
53:48
planning it for them, right? And all the people kind of
53:51
basically connect like at the sort of general assemblies,
53:53
they'll be presented kind of basically with these sort of
53:55
drafts basically where they get to, you know, add a comment and
53:58
stuff like that, right, Which seems on its own complete,
54:02
completely reasonable, right? I mean, who doesn't want to save
54:04
the Earth, right? Kind of basic about what they
54:05
don't of course, speak about is that the sort of architecture is
54:08
the trap. The the way they want to save
54:10
the Earth is fundamentally kind of the sort of the sort of
54:14
problem. And that's basically kind of how
54:17
it, I mean, that's basically the sort of strategy because
54:20
basically you can, when you look at Chatham House and you look at
54:22
council and Foreign Relations base, what do they do?
54:25
They sit and do extremely long term running.
54:27
That's basically kind of what they specialize in.
54:29
So you'll have like agencies kind of based CFI and and
54:31
Chatham House. I'm sitting thinking about the
54:33
20 year or 30 years, right. Then you have the secretariat
54:35
kind of basically, and you have the General Assembly and none.
54:39
So why says these things very, very slowly out sort of come
54:43
through into legislation and then 20 years time down the line
54:45
kind of all of a sudden people go where the fuck did that come
54:47
from? And it's kind of, you know, you
54:49
can't, you can't hold the current basic politicians sort
54:52
of accountable because basically these initiatives kind of
54:54
basically kind of came in like 20 or 30 years ago.
54:56
And, and what they're voting for right now, kind of basically,
54:58
you have no idea kind of basically what that's going to
55:00
be useful because obviously no one's going to tell you.
55:02
So yeah, basically it's, it's, it's, it's, it's incredibly
55:06
clever. Kind of the entire structure is
55:08
very, very clever, kind of no question about that.
55:10
But it's also incredibly deceitful.
55:13
Kind of it's, it just bears the hallmarks of, you know, the
55:15
Fabian Society basically left front and centre basically, you
55:18
know, pendant, pendant know about the key reports including
55:21
international government from 1916, which outlines the sort of
55:25
system of governance anyway. It's very easy to fall into the
55:29
trap of intellectualism, but the layman listening to this, what
55:35
can he do? Ask questions and ask questions
55:39
basically. So the sort of probably the one
55:45
of the more weaker gaps in the system right now, kind of like,
55:50
First off, of course, basically be aware of what they're
55:52
actually doing and try to understand and, and again,
55:56
basically ask questions about everything.
55:58
And that also means kind of, you know, basically going through
56:00
it. I mean, even me question kind of
56:01
basically everything I say. But that's the reason kind of
56:04
basically why I saw practically everything with primary
56:06
documents, right? Because I show you exactly where
56:09
it is in the document. You can download yourself and
56:10
see right. But anyone should basically just
56:13
make sure double check for everyone else, right?
56:15
But in general, basically ask questions.
56:18
And by ask questions, I don't mean at the top level kind of
56:21
basically of politics. And again, basically since I
56:24
strongly disagree with the use of violence in the things.
56:26
So please do not take that basically senseless reconvation
56:28
in that regard basically. But challenge local politicians
56:32
because as it is right now, especially in the UK, kind of
56:34
basically whenever you local politicians are put on the spot
56:37
that you storm out of meetings and what does that tell me or
56:40
what, what does that hopefully tell?
56:41
Basically everyone is basically they know damn well, they know
56:44
damn well. But they've just decided kind of
56:46
essentially that, you know, kind of it's in, you know, probably
56:49
his financial interest kind of basically go ahead with some
56:51
really, really awful suggestion anyway.
56:53
But when you see sort of Labour councillors basically refuse to
56:56
answer questions to his local, you know, sort of people, I
57:00
could say Tory councils because I hate both parties equally.
57:02
I think they're both traitors, quite frankly.
57:05
Basically kind of then then, you know, basically that that's
57:08
because it's a weak point and that's basically kind of the
57:10
area kind of wishing to be challenged.
57:12
But I mean, in in general, a lot of this sort of stuff comes from
57:16
the UK kind of basically because you know, sort of Tony Blair's
57:20
third way kind of base from 98 kind of was the starting gun for
57:24
a lot of this. But his what few people know
57:27
kind of base was that he in 1991 wrote an article in Marxism
57:30
Today where you effectively kind of basically kind of was
57:33
recommending sort of public private partnerships around the
57:36
social good. And the the key of course here
57:39
is censor who dictates that social good.
57:41
You know, it certainly isn't you and certainly it isn't
57:43
democratic, right? But yeah, it's basically kind of
57:48
the former sort of Blair and Brown government was censor
57:51
Fabian government and the current government is a Fabian
57:54
government. I mean, when they, when they
57:57
originally came to power, Kia, Stalin, etcetera, I looked up
58:01
and I found that the top 13, top 13 ministers were all members of
58:06
the Fabian Society, right? So out of 403, I think it is
58:12
members of Parliament which are from Labour, about 1/3 are
58:16
members of the Fabian Society, right?
58:18
So the actually statistical likelihood of this basically
58:21
being organic is less than three in a million.
58:25
And when you actually read up on the history, basically the
58:27
Labour Party, basically, I mean, a sense of what it looks like,
58:30
you know, is that the Labour, the Labour Party is a front for
58:33
the Fabian Society. And you know, every, everyone
58:36
sort of goes after kind of basically individuals, sort of
58:39
members kind of basically of of of the government, right?
58:41
Basically kiss Damaro, you know, racial from accounts, whatever,
58:44
right? I mean, kind of based, but they
58:45
don't really matter because basically how it fundamentally
58:48
works is basically all these parasites, they all
58:51
fundamentally operate through the same channels, right?
58:54
So say for instance, we got rid of kids down by tomorrow, right?
58:56
Well, that's great. We would have an election and
58:58
another Fabian socialist space would come to pay off.
59:01
It'd be the new Prime Minister and he would or she would be
59:04
armed with fresh rhetoric. So everyone was like, oh wow,
59:07
Katabinsky breath of fresh air. But fundamentally all they're
59:10
going to do is shuffle their plants a little bit around and
59:12
dress it up in different verbiage and and puffs.
59:15
Your uncle kind of it's nothing fundamental.
59:17
It's going to change basically kind of it's yeah, it's, it's,
59:22
it's, it's, it's fundamentally kind of the Fabian Society kind
59:25
of wishes planned a lot of these things in, in, in, in in fact,
59:28
kind of basically it's I've, I've received a lot of comments
59:32
about basically, oh, you know, it's the royal family, you know,
59:34
basically being behind all this sort of stuff.
59:36
And, you know, there have been a couple of times basically where
59:40
I've sort of thought kind of basically, well, it could
59:42
actually be because basically I found some papers, but
59:44
ultimately I can't see it being them because 19, I think it's
59:47
1918. Basically, Lionel Curtis was
59:50
describing how the royal family had tried to regain power and
59:54
how they're systematically stripped up power kind of in
59:56
his, I think there's a book discussing the Commonwealth.
59:59
And Lionel Curtis basically said that the plan for the royal
1:00:02
family was basically that there would be a sort of pet mascot
1:00:05
for the entire project, right? And in 2003, the Fabian Society,
1:00:12
I mean, there are all the problems with regards to Paul
1:00:14
Burrell kind of based the former Butler, blah, blah, blah, right.
1:00:17
And in 2003, kind of basically, did you know, the government
1:00:21
sort of decided kind of, oh, right, well, let's have a look
1:00:23
at the monarchy, right? And of all organisations they
1:00:27
appointed to basically have have a review kind of basically of
1:00:30
the monarchy to Fabian's society.
1:00:32
Fabians are completely against basically and monarchy in the
1:00:35
1st place. And they appoint them to said
1:00:37
and basically draft the report, which is just unbelievable,
1:00:40
right? And, and I bought that report
1:00:42
because basically I couldn't find it online, right?
1:00:44
And in the 1st chapter, it basically says kind of basically
1:00:46
we need to convert the monarchy, basically become a pit mascot
1:00:50
kind of obviously not knows where it's, but they need to be
1:00:52
become a ceremonial sort of sort of organization basically.
1:00:55
Can I end and it then basically can I progress through the rest
1:00:58
of the book sort of saying this is what we need to do basically
1:01:00
in order to strip that power, frankly.
1:01:02
And when you see what's happening, kind of basically
1:01:04
they have carried out basically a number of these things.
1:01:05
They have stripped them a power and I think it is in 20/20/22
1:01:10
basically since the Fabian started society started talking
1:01:12
about it's it's about time we start revisiting the royal
1:01:17
family again. Basically perhaps we shouldn't
1:01:18
have a royal family. So in other words, kind of
1:01:20
essentially kind of cooperating with that report and that at
1:01:23
that point in time basically kind of postponed potentially
1:01:25
inevitable about 20 years right now.
1:01:27
What's also interesting is essentially kind of in 1998, the
1:01:33
clear government, a sense of reform, the House of Lords.
1:01:35
Now I, I get it kind of basically sense you might not
1:01:37
necessarily agree basically with the hereditary peers.
1:01:40
I get that right. But the point is basically the
1:01:43
monarchy basically, since I had its strong supporters in the
1:01:46
hereditary, you know, amongst the hereditary peers and the
1:01:50
Fabian Society, I think in 1996 wrote a report basically saying
1:01:53
strip those basically heritage repairs.
1:01:55
And that's what they did in 1998.
1:01:57
They reformed the House of Lords, got rid of those.
1:01:59
And once those heritage repairs basically got gone, then
1:02:02
essentially they can start reforming the monarchy.
1:02:03
And that's fundamentally what they did.
1:02:05
And, and, and it's just time and time and time again, kind of
1:02:08
basically you see, you see Labour announce some grand new
1:02:11
initiative like the reform of DNHS friends quite recently.
1:02:15
And you go back just a few years and basically look through
1:02:17
Fabian Society reports. And well, what do you know, kind
1:02:19
of the Fabian Society have researched exactly this just a
1:02:22
couple years ago. I mean, what an extraordinary
1:02:24
coincidence. And and it's just sort of, yeah,
1:02:30
what can I say? How can my audience follow your
1:02:33
work now you've been removed from from X?
1:02:38
No, I sort of removed myself because basically it got to the
1:02:42
stage where effectively I'd, I'd been sitting on 10,200.
1:02:46
So I'm being followers for a long time, right?
1:02:48
Kind of basically. And every single time I bounce
1:02:49
up to 10,300, it was just immediately kind of popped me
1:02:52
back to 10,200. So basically it was just so, so
1:02:56
absurd, right? But in addition, Seth, kind of
1:02:59
whenever when I tweeted something which actually sort of
1:03:02
like kind of, you know, gained a certain level of attraction, you
1:03:04
know, you know, sort of 100 retweets or whatever, I would go
1:03:07
through kind of basically whoever tweeted it and who had
1:03:09
liked it. And 99% of them basically where
1:03:12
people kind of who already followed me.
1:03:13
So in other words, what Twitter is doing is essentially can
1:03:16
making sure that new people do not see basically what you
1:03:19
tweet. And at that point, I sort of
1:03:21
thought, well, First off, kind of basically like what they
1:03:23
actually do, what I know they do is that they take everyone's
1:03:26
tweets, especially libertarians and train truck to be a more
1:03:30
useful tool in regards to censorship.
1:03:33
Basically kind of, and I don't want to support that.
1:03:35
But the other sort of thing, basically that point time, I
1:03:37
sort of thought, I keep going back to X kind of basically
1:03:40
because there's the sort of, you know, what if this will suddenly
1:03:43
magically gain traction. It never does, of course, but
1:03:45
you live in the oak, right? And I sort of thought basically
1:03:48
after a while, I sort of thought I waste, I waste too much, too
1:03:51
much time on this kind of basically, there's no point.
1:03:53
I mean, I've known this for a while.
1:03:54
So I just sort of thought, all right, I'm going to delete it
1:03:56
because I just, I'm strongly, so strongly object to their, their
1:04:03
definition of free speech. I mean, give me a break.
1:04:06
The algorithm ghetto. Yeah, the algorithm my eyes, I
1:04:10
mean, Yeah, anyway. OK, so so you're on sub stack
1:04:15
then? Yes.
1:04:16
And I'm also in Telegram, but it's my secondary channel kind
1:04:20
of basically it's sub stack. It's my primary.
1:04:23
What's the sub stack called? Yes, well, they all have
1:04:28
numbers, don't they? I don't know.
1:04:31
Yeah, I've got it. Yeah, it is.
1:04:33
Well, it's just escape AESC. Oh.
1:04:37
Yes, yes. So escapekey.substack.com.
1:04:42
Yes, escapekey.substack.com, yes.
1:04:45
And one of the reasons, I mean, it sounds like a lot of these
1:04:47
sort of like things I've noticed on Twitter, I've seen based on
1:04:49
sub stack as well. But there's the primary
1:04:51
difference regards to sub stack that at any point in time, if
1:04:55
you feel like they're getting too censorious.
1:04:57
And I don't think the intelligence community has
1:04:59
thought this out too well because from a gaming
1:05:01
perspective, it'd make more sense to route people to Twitter
1:05:04
than sub stack if the censorship becomes too much to bear.
1:05:07
Kind of based on sub stack, you can control P print to, you
1:05:10
know, save to PDF and take all your work with you basically in
1:05:13
5 minutes. And I think they made a bit of
1:05:15
mistake there because it would not take a long time basically
1:05:18
for me to essentially leave sub stack and set up basically
1:05:20
elsewhere. I haven't, I haven't done that
1:05:22
so far kind of bits, but I'm just saying I I think they've
1:05:25
royally fucked up there. They're not, they're not they're
1:05:31
not perfect. They are definitely not perfect.
1:05:33
Well, on that note, escape, thank you for joining me in the
1:05:37
trenches.