Latest / UK Column Radio / Weekly UKC Banter Episode 22 - The influence of the World Economic Forum is overstated

Transcript

Weekly UKC Banter Episode 22 - The influence of the World Economic Forum is overstated · UK Column Radio

0:38
Speaker 1: I'm on a farm just outside Pretoria. Just down the
0:42
Speaker 1: road is the G twenty. It's starting and it's chaos.
0:48
Speaker 1: Roadblocks everywhere, police everywhere. The whole thing is just a
0:52
Speaker 1: big theatrical performance.
0:56
Speaker 2: What's the same every time they run one of these events.
0:58
Speaker 2: It was the same in the G seven couple of
1:00
Speaker 2: years ago in Cornwall, and the same when we were
1:03
Speaker 2: when we attended Builderberg, and all these types of events
1:05
Speaker 2: are the same.
1:07
Speaker 1: Uh, she read, hold on, hold on, you attended Builderberg.
1:11
Speaker 1: I thought that's very secretive.
1:14
Speaker 2: No, No, I didn't personally attend Builderberg. We attended. We
1:17
Speaker 2: attended the protest pen that was set up outside Building
1:21
Speaker 2: Berg in twenty thirteen, and they had all the all
1:25
Speaker 2: the protesters in verticomas cattled into one little field which
1:31
Speaker 2: they had a They had an entire canal between us
1:35
Speaker 2: and the and the venue and an effort to keep
1:38
Speaker 2: everybody away. So justifire, I was not personally.
1:44
Speaker 3: Not entirely, not entirely.
1:50
Speaker 1: The funny thing, though, is that the worst kept secret
1:56
Speaker 1: is the Boulder Book. I mean, they went on for
1:58
Speaker 1: decades denying their existed, and then I think it was
2:01
Speaker 1: in the nineties when they said, oh right, Okay, okay,
2:04
Speaker 1: it's a real thing. And the changes every year that
2:08
Speaker 1: they have they have different people who attend.
2:13
Speaker 2: Yeah, well yeah they do, but there's a but there's
2:15
Speaker 2: absolutely a core that is there every year. And so
2:20
Speaker 2: the year the year that we went, one MP that
2:25
Speaker 2: was Michael Meecher attended the protest pen and was very
2:28
Speaker 2: outspoken and then risked questions in the House of Commons afterwards.
2:32
Speaker 2: And actually, you know, he did a very good job
2:35
Speaker 2: as far as it went, because he managed to get
2:39
Speaker 2: ken Clark, who was former Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
2:43
Speaker 2: was on the Bilderberg steering committee at the time, to
2:46
Speaker 2: come into the House of Commons and make a Statemdonald
2:48
Speaker 2: and ken Clark attempted to you know, sort of make
2:51
Speaker 2: fun of the whole thing and and pretend that it
2:54
Speaker 2: was nothing other than sort of a boy smoking club.
2:58
Speaker 2: But he didn't succeed. Actually, Major's point was made.
3:04
Speaker 3: How Cluinchel Do you think Boldeberg still is?
3:06
Speaker 1: I mean, do you think the Fabians have got more
3:09
Speaker 1: influence these days?
3:11
Speaker 3: No? I think I think that.
3:14
Speaker 2: I think that all these types of secret organizations have influence.
3:20
Speaker 2: But that's because you see the same faces and names
3:23
Speaker 2: at them all and so you know, these types of
3:31
Speaker 2: meetings that are held under Chatham House rules, So people
3:35
Speaker 2: go in and they speak freely, but they they're never
3:37
Speaker 2: attribute if even if there's a reporter there or a
3:40
Speaker 2: journalist there and somebody is writing something about the meetings,
3:46
Speaker 2: nothing is ever attributed to anyone. So this is supposedly
3:50
Speaker 2: to give people the confidence that they can speak freely
3:53
Speaker 2: at these events, but of course what it actually does
3:56
Speaker 2: is keep this this err of secrecy around the whole thing.
4:01
Speaker 2: You know, we can it's good that we know that
4:04
Speaker 2: these things are going on. I'm not sure. I'm not
4:09
Speaker 2: sure how valuable it is to go and protest at them,
4:14
Speaker 2: other than just to keep drawing attention to the fact
4:17
Speaker 2: that they are happening. And I think that there's there's
4:19
Speaker 2: certainly value in that.
4:20
Speaker 4: Yeah, I was going to say, I think I think
4:22
Speaker 4: to draw attention is really critical because you look at
4:25
Speaker 4: the you know, we talked about it a little bit
4:26
Speaker 4: last week, but the G twenty, let's say, all the fanfare,
4:30
Speaker 4: the razmatas, the chaos around it, but the point of
4:33
Speaker 4: it is that it's very very public, and it gives
4:37
Speaker 4: the not just the participants but also the rest of
4:40
Speaker 4: the world something to hang their hat on. When an
4:42
Speaker 4: actual fact, it is very important to chart and record
4:47
Speaker 4: events like Builderberg because it's it's as though the G
4:53
Speaker 4: twenty is in effect an inversion of that. It is
4:56
Speaker 4: very public and it it looks like this is where
5:01
Speaker 4: such and such a decision or policy comes from. When
5:04
Speaker 4: an actual fact, if it weren't for the coverage of
5:07
Speaker 4: and reporting around events like Builderberg, we wouldn't be able
5:13
Speaker 4: to see how these connections do actually manifest that and
5:17
Speaker 4: in doing so, therefore it undermines the narrative, you know,
5:21
Speaker 4: and I think physically undermines the narrative surrounding events like
5:25
Speaker 4: the G twenty because it makes you realize where stuff
5:30
Speaker 4: does happen and does matter in comparison with what we're
5:34
Speaker 4: told matters and where things happen.
5:38
Speaker 2: But you know, your question earlier about whether the Phibians
5:43
Speaker 2: are more influential or not, I mean, I think this
5:46
Speaker 2: is another organization that people have almost no understanding of.
5:51
Speaker 2: They don't understand what was set up to do, they
5:53
Speaker 2: don't understand who the founders were, They don't understand the
5:57
Speaker 2: fact that a significant proportion of the current Starmer regime
6:02
Speaker 2: are members of the Phibian Society, and so they don't
6:06
Speaker 2: therefore understand necessarily where government policy comes from or what
6:12
Speaker 2: ideologies might be influencing current government policy. And you know,
6:17
Speaker 2: you look back at the founders of the Phibian Society
6:20
Speaker 2: and you've got people like Huxley and it G. Wells,
6:24
Speaker 2: and these are these are people that were Itchy. Wells,
6:27
Speaker 2: you know, is known as a science fiction writer, and
6:30
Speaker 2: that's really all. He's broadly known for the fact that
6:35
Speaker 2: he was an absolute World one world government proponent and
6:41
Speaker 2: actually wrote about this and fiction, but he wrote many
6:45
Speaker 2: non fiction books as well, absolutely designed to to sort
6:50
Speaker 2: of drive political policy at the start of the twentieth century.
6:55
Speaker 2: And you know, one of the one of the real
6:58
Speaker 2: significant policies that they was at that time was the
7:02
Speaker 2: notion that Russia had to be dealt with. And here
7:04
Speaker 2: we are one hundred and twenty years later or whatever
7:06
Speaker 2: it is, and still we're trying to deal with Russia.
7:10
Speaker 3: And if we want to.
7:11
Speaker 2: Know where that that sort of policy comes from, we
7:13
Speaker 2: can look at organizations like the Phibian Society and try
7:17
Speaker 2: to try to work out, you know, why Britain in
7:20
Speaker 2: particular is so determined to feel in inverted commas with
7:26
Speaker 2: with this Russia bear.
7:31
Speaker 1: What makes these groups very interesting for me is that
7:33
Speaker 1: they just think tanks, you know, they're just NGOs or whatever.
7:37
Speaker 1: They don't actually you know, they don't actually enforce anything.
7:41
Speaker 3: Their ideas just get adopted.
7:46
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think I think it's a mistake to say
7:47
Speaker 2: they're just because because you know, this comes back to
7:51
Speaker 2: the question of where government policy comes from. And so
7:56
Speaker 2: there are some there are a lot of thing tanks
7:58
Speaker 2: out there that are just thinking thanks, but there are
8:01
Speaker 2: some very special organizations that aren't just anything, and they
8:05
Speaker 2: are they're they're extremely influential, they're extremely significant, and we
8:10
Speaker 2: should be watching what they're doing very very closely.
8:14
Speaker 1: Which ones do you think we should watch more closely?
8:16
Speaker 1: I mean the World Economic Forum for example. I don't
8:18
Speaker 1: even think you can protest. They surround that place with
8:21
Speaker 1: so much military and they are very in your face,
8:25
Speaker 1: for example.
8:27
Speaker 2: Yeah, but I think I think even though they're yes,
8:30
Speaker 2: well well precisely, they are in your face, and because
8:32
Speaker 2: of that, they're they're in fact less important than others.
8:36
Speaker 2: It's the ones that we're less aware of.
8:38
Speaker 3: Uh.
8:39
Speaker 2: And of course UK column viewers or people that are
8:42
Speaker 2: watching similar kinds of content will be more familiar with
8:46
Speaker 2: with some of the big names like Chadam House, for example,
8:50
Speaker 2: or Canceled Foreign Relations or Phibian Society, these types of organizations,
8:57
Speaker 2: because we're talking about these the regular business, but the
9:01
Speaker 2: average man in the street isn't what to have heard
9:03
Speaker 2: of them. Whereas so you know that part of part
9:10
Speaker 2: of the job that we have is to try to
9:11
Speaker 2: work out what the hierarchy is and work out which
9:14
Speaker 2: which ones are the most influential.
9:16
Speaker 4: But also to a point I don't think I mean,
9:18
Speaker 4: of course it does matter which are more influential than others,
9:22
Speaker 4: but I think it's more a case of the principles
9:27
Speaker 4: and the fact that by association with people who do
9:31
Speaker 4: make decisions as part of a legislature or an executive
9:35
Speaker 4: or indeed a judiciary, they are in effect having improper
9:38
Speaker 4: relations with people who are outside of that particular system.
9:41
Speaker 4: And there is a sort of an inherent subversion of
9:46
Speaker 4: due process and democracy by not not by the existence
9:51
Speaker 4: of think tanks, but certainly by the way that what
9:56
Speaker 4: is produced by think tanks in the way that it's
9:59
Speaker 4: arrived at and then disseminated, that the way that's conducted
10:03
Speaker 4: and the relationships between the people who are apparently supposedly
10:06
Speaker 4: part of a political system that's supposed to involve the
10:12
Speaker 4: people is maybe not always, but I mean in so
10:17
Speaker 4: many respects. I mean, the examples that we could bring
10:20
Speaker 4: out far too numerous dimension but the way in which
10:23
Speaker 4: they do end up expressing themselves make it very very
10:26
Speaker 4: obvious that this is simply policy and legislation sort of
10:32
Speaker 4: but by other means, and that's that is not how
10:36
Speaker 4: things should be conducted at all. And therefore, again, you know,
10:39
Speaker 4: the idea that there should be secrecy rather than transparency
10:43
Speaker 4: just goes to show how how of course that the
10:47
Speaker 4: whole situation is. But like every like every other element
10:50
Speaker 4: of corruption in society, we are we are what's the word,
10:58
Speaker 4: we're effectively pushed conditioned, sorry, conditioned is the word by
11:02
Speaker 4: the small things, the little corruptions that are our ideas.
11:07
Speaker 4: As we talk from the UK to South Africa will
11:10
Speaker 4: each have a slightly different idea of what that means.
11:13
Speaker 4: We both know in principle what it means, which is
11:16
Speaker 4: that you're accepting a version of something, whether it be
11:23
Speaker 4: an event or a communication or whatever it is, that
11:26
Speaker 4: is not according to the proper process and I think
11:30
Speaker 4: mundane as it might sound, things like in the United Kingdom,
11:34
Speaker 4: things like que barging are really good example of that.
11:39
Speaker 4: The day that people accept que barging is the day
11:42
Speaker 4: that they care less about corruption at any level. And
11:48
Speaker 4: it is extraordinary where that can take you. The lead
11:52
Speaker 4: item on the BBC News this morning was, oh, my goodness,
11:58
Speaker 4: do we really have to keep talking about this in
12:00
Speaker 4: this way? The COVID inquiry? But of course that it
12:04
Speaker 4: is so incredibly overt, the way in which that's being used,
12:08
Speaker 4: not just as an exercise to whitewash what did happen
12:11
Speaker 4: at the time, but also to retain in the consciousness
12:14
Speaker 4: of people the elements which are absolutely well outside of
12:20
Speaker 4: anything that should have happened or should ever be able
12:23
Speaker 4: to happen. Again, this idea that you know, not considering
12:28
Speaker 4: whether or not something should have happened in the first place,
12:30
Speaker 4: but whether the timing of it was right. This whole
12:34
Speaker 4: thing was a total total corruption, but we have come
12:40
Speaker 4: to accept it. And I think that's the danger, and
12:44
Speaker 4: that's why when we talk about whether it be think
12:48
Speaker 4: tanks or you know, I absolutely but I well, I
12:52
Speaker 4: would bet that the way in which let's say the
12:55
Speaker 4: security for the G twenty has been conducted. I bet
12:58
Speaker 4: that rules have been bent, if actively broken in order
13:01
Speaker 4: to do that. And as an example of that, but
13:03
Speaker 4: by way of sort of how corrupt these things can be. Okay,
13:07
Speaker 4: different because it's not governmental, of course it is, but
13:10
Speaker 4: the Davos meeting, the World Economic Forum gathering in Davos,
13:15
Speaker 4: the airspace is cleared for that for that event, and
13:19
Speaker 4: that is run by the Swiss authorities and they share
13:26
Speaker 4: data with the World Economic Forum. So on an issue
13:30
Speaker 4: of sort of quasi national security, there is a technology
13:36
Speaker 4: and information surveillance capability as well as in effect defense
13:42
Speaker 4: capability in terms of sort of presenting the idea that
13:46
Speaker 4: there's a threat, a threat from the air. And all
13:49
Speaker 4: of this is done without anybody batting an eyelid. It
13:54
Speaker 4: is completely remarkable. But when you read it and you
13:56
Speaker 4: read about the Swiss aviation Authority and their relationship with
14:00
Speaker 4: the World Economic Form, that is absolutely improper and should
14:04
Speaker 4: never ever have been allowed to happen, and yet it does.
14:07
Speaker 4: And what's more, we all accept it.
14:12
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's that acceptance that's that's a problem.
14:14
Speaker 1: But I mean, as Mike said earlier, what real difference
14:20
Speaker 1: as protesting make how do you actually then get that acceptance?
14:28
Speaker 2: Well, they they because most people don't know that the
14:31
Speaker 2: things happening, and it's you know, it's I don't know
14:36
Speaker 2: if you saw, uh, haven't been Somemmon's visit to Washington.
14:44
Speaker 2: But one of the journalists dared to ask what you
14:49
Speaker 2: know about his role in the killing of the journalist Kashagi,
14:54
Speaker 2: and Trump railed on the on the journalist, first of all,
14:58
Speaker 2: calling a fake use, which, well, there may be something
15:01
Speaker 2: in that, but that's not the point in this particular case.
15:05
Speaker 2: He then went on to say, why are you here
15:08
Speaker 2: embarrassing our guest? Right, But the role of the role
15:12
Speaker 2: of journalism is supposed to be the whole authority to account,
15:16
Speaker 2: which is what this journalist in this case was doing. Uh.
15:21
Speaker 2: And but the problem is that a lot of the
15:26
Speaker 2: for for many of the deeper state activities, shall we say,
15:32
Speaker 2: journalists are either editorially prevented from shining light on them,
15:39
Speaker 2: or they are perhaps linked to the deep state themselves,
15:42
Speaker 2: and therefore they will not ever go near those particular topics.
15:47
Speaker 2: And so it's it's only the likes of us that
15:51
Speaker 2: are talking about this stuff to any degree. And so
15:55
Speaker 2: it's not something which is in the public consciousness to
15:59
Speaker 2: a level which is required to sort of put any
16:02
Speaker 2: kind of opposition to it. So the basic answer to
16:06
Speaker 2: your question is it's because not many people are aware
16:09
Speaker 2: of the connections between in this case, the Swiss aviation
16:13
Speaker 2: authorities and Davos, and you know, Davos is something that
16:17
Speaker 2: gets absolutely whitewashed or it certainly gets a lot of
16:24
Speaker 2: very pro coverage in the mainstream media. It never gets
16:28
Speaker 2: any kind of challenge in the mainstream media, and so
16:31
Speaker 2: most people just think it's a place where you know,
16:35
Speaker 2: business people go to talk and make good decisions for
16:40
Speaker 2: the benefit of the world, which of course we know
16:43
Speaker 2: is not the case.
16:45
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, I agree with you, Mike, But something
16:47
Speaker 1: I've been thinking about I don't know if I asked
16:49
Speaker 1: you or if it was somebody else, But I sometimes
16:53
Speaker 1: wonder whether Uvollo are or Class Swab or are speaking
17:02
Speaker 1: from a from a point of want or are they
17:06
Speaker 1: speaking from a point of futurism. So like, for example,
17:09
Speaker 1: if I say to you, in the next fifteen years,
17:13
Speaker 1: we're going to be living in a sort of massiveillance state. Now,
17:18
Speaker 1: am I saying that in a way that I want
17:20
Speaker 1: to see that, or am I kind of making a prediction.
17:25
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean I think I think that, you know, frankly,
17:29
Speaker 2: I think that the role of the world I can
17:30
Speaker 2: form is somewhat overstated. I think that that actually its
17:35
Speaker 2: main role is is a sales job. That they are
17:40
Speaker 2: there to discuss certain policy, and to a certain degree
17:44
Speaker 2: it has public coverage, and so it's it's a softening
17:50
Speaker 2: up exercise for the general public. So okay, they we
17:55
Speaker 2: might or they might view that that they overstepped that
17:59
Speaker 2: mark somewhat with the Great Reset Document and the response
18:03
Speaker 2: they got from that. But you know, nonetheless, they have
18:09
Speaker 2: publicized the intention, the policy intention, and they got some
18:14
Speaker 2: pushback on it. But has that pushback still is that
18:19
Speaker 2: still there or has that already mainly dissipated to a
18:23
Speaker 2: few motivated campaigners. I think that the vast majority of
18:30
Speaker 2: the population are once again back to sleep with respect
18:34
Speaker 2: to that whole policy area. And now we're into the
18:39
Speaker 2: world of AI, where ninety nine percent of people don't
18:43
Speaker 2: understand AI in any way, shape or form. They are
18:46
Speaker 2: they're interfacing with it on a very superficial level to
18:50
Speaker 2: create silly little video clips and silly little graphics and
18:55
Speaker 2: so on. They have no real concept of what AI
18:59
Speaker 2: is already capable of. And and you know, the thing
19:04
Speaker 2: that I find most staggering about it is how quickly
19:08
Speaker 2: that that whole the capability is developing. We go back
19:12
Speaker 2: on the two years and really was pretty pretty poor.
19:16
Speaker 2: It's already vastly improved, and it's going to improve exponentially
19:20
Speaker 2: as we go. As we go on, and and we're
19:23
Speaker 2: going to find that we are interfacing much more with
19:28
Speaker 2: with AI at a point when it's already too late
19:31
Speaker 2: to stop it. So so you know, and and the
19:34
Speaker 2: question is, and it brings us to another question, and
19:37
Speaker 2: that is whether we should even be attempting to stop these, uh,
19:40
Speaker 2: these types of policies or whether we should just be
19:44
Speaker 2: looking to divert them for of course a little bit,
19:48
Speaker 2: because we end up in a different destination that way.
19:51
Speaker 1: Something you said, I think it was in our last
19:53
Speaker 1: chat which resonated with me is the idea of gridlocking
19:58
Speaker 1: trying to trying to slow things down. You're not going
20:00
Speaker 1: to stop a lot of these things, but you can
20:02
Speaker 1: slow them down. You can create a lot of confusion
20:05
Speaker 1: within the system. Something Elon Musk said for what it's
20:08
Speaker 1: worth some time ago he said, Look, AI is yet
20:13
Speaker 1: to stay. So instead of having open AI as the monopoly,
20:17
Speaker 1: let's create competition so that we can, in so doing
20:22
Speaker 1: create some sort of accountability. That's also another strategy, isn't it.
20:27
Speaker 2: I think it's a strategy that's going to feel if
20:29
Speaker 2: AI is going to fail, it's going to fail because
20:32
Speaker 2: it's it has already turned into a financial bubble, and
20:36
Speaker 2: that bubble is on the on the basis of actually nothing.
20:39
Speaker 2: And the reason I say that isn't because isn't because
20:42
Speaker 2: it doesn't work. Because for what it does at the
20:44
Speaker 2: moment it does, it's it's increasingly becoming a workable thing.
20:50
Speaker 2: But where it doesn't work is financially because they're piling
20:56
Speaker 2: billions and billions and billions of dollars into building data
21:00
Speaker 2: centers to solve a problem that actually most people don't
21:04
Speaker 2: want solved. So what exactly are they are they hoping
21:09
Speaker 2: to achieve with it?
21:10
Speaker 3: At the end?
21:10
Speaker 2: I mean, I believe that their end goal is and
21:14
Speaker 2: I think that the furlough schemes that we saw during
21:16
Speaker 2: COVID were a sort of trial run for this kind
21:21
Speaker 2: of a pilot scheme, is that that human beings ultimately
21:27
Speaker 2: are simply going to be consumers that we've We've headed
21:30
Speaker 2: that way largely already, and so sitting in front of
21:34
Speaker 2: television screens watching AI generated product on Netflix is our
21:41
Speaker 2: ultimate destination as far as the people behind this this
21:45
Speaker 2: idea are concerned, and you know, everything that gets produced
21:48
Speaker 2: will be produced by AI. Actually, Ben Rubin and I
21:51
Speaker 2: were talking about this on the way and in the
21:53
Speaker 2: car this morning with with respect to music, because there's
21:57
Speaker 2: a YouTube channel run by a music producer called Ric Piato.
22:01
Speaker 2: He was talking about where he's asking the question of
22:05
Speaker 2: why heavy metal music does not exist anymore. Effectively, it's
22:10
Speaker 2: more or less disappeared. There's no market for it, there's
22:13
Speaker 2: no interest in it. And one of the reasons he
22:17
Speaker 2: believes is because young people are not learning to play music.
22:22
Speaker 2: They're not learning musical instruments, so they're not producers. And
22:26
Speaker 2: because they're not producers, they're not interested in that type
22:28
Speaker 2: of music, which tends to require the ability to play
22:32
Speaker 2: an instrument of some kind. Kids are already have already
22:37
Speaker 2: become consumers. And then Ben was talking about the fact
22:40
Speaker 2: that this is great for the record companies because they
22:43
Speaker 2: love it. They don't have to anymore. They don't have
22:46
Speaker 2: to engage with human beings to produce the product.
22:50
Speaker 3: They just engage with the AI, and.
22:51
Speaker 2: They're generating more and more AI generated music which is
22:55
Speaker 2: being consumed. So so humans become the consumers, the AI
22:59
Speaker 2: becomes the users, but the producer. But in the meantime
23:03
Speaker 2: that's the destination that they want to see. But in
23:05
Speaker 2: the meantime they're not getting that much back buy in,
23:08
Speaker 2: I don't think. And and so the question is whether
23:13
Speaker 2: they can actually build this infrastructure without the entire economy
23:18
Speaker 2: and financial system going boom in the meantime.
23:22
Speaker 1: Charles, you wrote a piece recently called Driving Toy Dystopia.
23:26
Speaker 3: How long is that road?
23:29
Speaker 4: Well, it depends where you consider it.
23:33
Speaker 3: Funny enough to just on.
23:34
Speaker 4: The longevity of AR is interesting okay, again created by
23:40
Speaker 4: the BBC. But the I forget his name, Pitch eyes
23:43
Speaker 4: it the Google bloke saying that he first of all,
23:48
Speaker 4: he's you know, exactly the word that might use the bubble,
23:52
Speaker 4: the AI bubble. He he absolutely considers that there's a bubble.
23:55
Speaker 4: He don't and actually he's not talking just financially, but
23:58
Speaker 4: practically as well, and speaks relatively candidly bearing in mind
24:06
Speaker 4: what he does or when I say Google, I mean alphabet.
24:09
Speaker 4: He posits that most organizations would be affected, and I
24:17
Speaker 4: think that probably is the case now, So I don't
24:19
Speaker 4: think remarks like that should be ignored and certainly should
24:22
Speaker 4: be set alongside whatever anything like Elon Musk might say.
24:28
Speaker 4: Going back to the World Economic Forum and not necessarily
24:33
Speaker 4: directly related to this, but what I think is interesting
24:35
Speaker 4: about the World Economic Forum compared with Builderberg and think
24:40
Speaker 4: tanks that we know less about. I mean, let's face it,
24:42
Speaker 4: the vast majority of people have never heard of Davos
24:45
Speaker 4: the place, let alone the World Economic Forum or Claus
24:48
Speaker 4: Schwab or any of the other stuff that we might
24:50
Speaker 4: be fairly conversant with. So that's the first thing to consider.
24:54
Speaker 4: But also in terms of the sort of layered approach
24:57
Speaker 4: the World Economic Forum is really done, because of course
25:01
Speaker 4: it is public facing. It it makes as much of
25:03
Speaker 4: a splash as it can, and therefore, if there are
25:06
Speaker 4: to be sort of you know, awkward questions to be
25:09
Speaker 4: asked in Parliament about whether or not the World Economic
25:12
Speaker 4: Forum should have influence here there and whatever, that draws fire.
25:16
Speaker 4: And that's really critical to understand because it means that
25:19
Speaker 4: the World Economic Forum takes all the heat off so
25:23
Speaker 4: much of the other stuff that does go on, because
25:25
Speaker 4: you're never going to get that discussed, Okay, obviously Mike
25:30
Speaker 4: talking about ways in which it has been, but very
25:32
Speaker 4: very infrequently. Whereas the World Economic Forum, because worldwide politicians
25:38
Speaker 4: are co opted into having their name splash all over
25:42
Speaker 4: the WF website and you know, the Young Global Leader
25:45
Speaker 4: programs and all this stuff. So that's the sort of
25:48
Speaker 4: the public you know. Look over here a bit which
25:52
Speaker 4: works very well. Sorry, just an AI anecdote while I
25:57
Speaker 4: remember because it is priceless if anybody doesn't understand what
26:00
Speaker 4: algorithmic bias means, and this might help some while ago,
26:06
Speaker 4: I mean, I don't really I'm not interested in it,
26:08
Speaker 4: and I don't really understand how it works, but I
26:09
Speaker 4: understand that you can ask certain AI things to do
26:12
Speaker 4: stuff for you. So I found I found whatever an
26:17
Speaker 4: AI website's called that says that it generates posters. So
26:20
Speaker 4: I asked it to create a poster to respond to
26:25
Speaker 4: a news item, and the headline for the news item
26:28
Speaker 4: was something like this was with the Online Safety Act
26:33
Speaker 4: in mind, with something like UK column journalist imprisoned for
26:37
Speaker 4: misinformation or something like that. And the poster it created
26:43
Speaker 4: was of a whole load of sort of gold streamers
26:47
Speaker 4: flying in the air in celebration and hands raised holding
26:51
Speaker 4: classes of champagne. I absolutely kid you not. I've got
26:55
Speaker 4: a screenshot of it. So I'm asked it to do that,
26:59
Speaker 4: and then I smitted exactly the same request, but I
27:02
Speaker 4: took out UK Column and put in BBC and it
27:06
Speaker 4: just flatly refused. It said, no, I'm not programmed to
27:10
Speaker 4: make stuff you know about sort of unfortunate or criminal
27:16
Speaker 4: or I can't remember what excuse it used, but I
27:18
Speaker 4: mean that was to me, well, first of all, it
27:22
Speaker 4: was amazing. There was a distinction between the organizations that
27:24
Speaker 4: you'd put into it, but the very fact that I
27:28
Speaker 4: hadn't referenced celebration, but it just took it that the
27:33
Speaker 4: imprisonment of UK column journalists should be celebrated was absolutely amazing.
27:40
Speaker 4: So I'm sorry that's not directly related to all of this,
27:43
Speaker 4: but it is. It is nonetheless fairly incredible. And I
27:47
Speaker 4: don't think, you know, you should give people an insight
27:50
Speaker 4: into into how this stuff works, because I really do
27:56
Speaker 4: not think people think about this. We've had Ben has
27:59
Speaker 4: talked possibly Ben and somebody else in recent weeks about
28:04
Speaker 4: the way in which AI is being adopted by, for example,
28:06
Speaker 4: the prison service and indeed probation and police. I mean,
28:11
Speaker 4: the inherent dangers of in meshing all these systems with
28:16
Speaker 4: this are just so unbelievably gargantuan. It's just, you know,
28:23
Speaker 4: it's scarcely credible, and on what you know, it's exactly
28:27
Speaker 4: like the COVID jab y Okay, we'd all heard of
28:30
Speaker 4: computers and the internet and this, that and the other.
28:32
Speaker 4: But to immediately decide that you want to throw your
28:35
Speaker 4: lot in with what is in effect and unproven technology
28:39
Speaker 4: in the same way that people had heard of vaccines
28:41
Speaker 4: and pharmaceutical products, but at the same time absolutely content
28:45
Speaker 4: to queue up to take a product that had never
28:48
Speaker 4: ever been used before and was full of a whole
28:50
Speaker 4: load of stuff that they were unaware of. Is amazing,
28:53
Speaker 4: But it goes back to this idea of marketing and
28:57
Speaker 4: its alliance with corruption, and how susceptible people continue to
29:02
Speaker 4: be to it. It is phenomenal, but I and you know,
29:06
Speaker 4: to your point of whether grinding systems down ever has
29:12
Speaker 4: a permanent effect, I would say that it does. But again,
29:15
Speaker 4: like a lot of these things, why on earth would
29:18
Speaker 4: we ever hear about that? I mean, things do. Things
29:21
Speaker 4: absolutely do disappear and just sort of never talked about again.
29:26
Speaker 4: So there's no you don't really necessarily know that a
29:30
Speaker 4: victory has occurred. You have to you have to sort
29:32
Speaker 4: of infer that. But I but I really do believe
29:36
Speaker 4: that that push back in the form of either non
29:40
Speaker 4: compliance by just not engaging with a particular scheme or
29:44
Speaker 4: policy or whatever it is you're you're supposed to do,
29:48
Speaker 4: yields effects in the same way that interrogating that system
29:52
Speaker 4: and pushing it, you know, and you can have all
29:55
Speaker 4: the AI like, you've still got to have people to
29:59
Speaker 4: do stuff. I really do believe that that that does
30:03
Speaker 4: that does happen. And I and you know, again to
30:05
Speaker 4: bring up a soundbag, just just in my own experience
30:08
Speaker 4: in relatively recent times looking at the way in which
30:12
Speaker 4: policing matters, because after all, this is this is in
30:15
Speaker 4: large part what things do. Come down to people's concerns
30:18
Speaker 4: about not doing stuff because they say, oh, well, you know,
30:20
Speaker 4: you're there'll be a huge fine or who goes to prison? Well, yes, okay,
30:24
Speaker 4: this I'm absolutely not trying to suggest that those things
30:30
Speaker 4: can't happen. But having been on the other side of
30:32
Speaker 4: the fence and looking at the volume of what what
30:37
Speaker 4: would be described as crimes that just go absolutely nowhere
30:40
Speaker 4: simply because that are not the resources to to be
30:44
Speaker 4: able to to progress it. And AI again is not
30:47
Speaker 4: it's absolutely not going to change that. So there is
30:52
Speaker 4: that there there is absolutely a case to be made
30:55
Speaker 4: for continuing to push into continuing to oppose and finding
31:01
Speaker 4: that that that systems, all things that have been introduced
31:04
Speaker 4: do fail.
31:05
Speaker 2: Because of that, of course they will, they will tend to,
31:09
Speaker 2: you know, target certain types of people. So but in
31:14
Speaker 2: the in the process, because the systems are so close
31:18
Speaker 2: to breaking point, I mean, if we if we think
31:21
Speaker 2: back six months or whatever it was to to the
31:27
Speaker 2: the the immigrant hotel protesters has ended up going to prison,
31:33
Speaker 2: and in order to make space for those people, rapists
31:36
Speaker 2: and murderers had to be released. I'm not sure whether
31:39
Speaker 2: I'm entirely accurate and exactly who was being released in
31:42
Speaker 2: order to make space, but that was certainly the headlines
31:45
Speaker 2: at the time. That so, no matter what you think
31:49
Speaker 2: about the people that were arrested and put in prison,
31:52
Speaker 2: that the fact that they that they were put in
31:55
Speaker 2: prison absolutely made the mainstream headlines and their for got
32:01
Speaker 2: massive public awareness around it. So so you know, it
32:05
Speaker 2: may be that that some of the some brave people
32:09
Speaker 2: are going to find themselves getting into a little bit
32:12
Speaker 2: of trouble, but that may have an unintended consequence that
32:17
Speaker 2: that is beneficial to everybody.
32:21
Speaker 1: Well, I mean that is also one of the interesting
32:25
Speaker 1: side effects that AI can be beneficial to a lot
32:29
Speaker 1: of people.
32:30
Speaker 3: It's not necessarily evil by design, no, I think.
32:34
Speaker 2: I think I think the issue here is not with
32:37
Speaker 2: AI in and of itself. There's two there's two major
32:40
Speaker 2: dangers with it, in my opinion, One is that we
32:45
Speaker 2: we use it in a way where we give up
32:50
Speaker 2: our own agency, and our own abilities, and our own skills.
32:54
Speaker 2: And to a certain degree, I've talked about this before,
32:57
Speaker 2: to a certain degree, we've already done this. The fact
32:59
Speaker 2: that we are now reliant on GPS navigation systems rather
33:05
Speaker 2: than using maps. We've given up a skill, right, and
33:09
Speaker 2: and that that is not easily a skill that's easily
33:12
Speaker 2: returned to. So so the day that that there's a
33:16
Speaker 2: massive solar storm that takes out GPS satellites, we're going
33:21
Speaker 2: to find ourselves in trouble because we've allowed ourselves to
33:25
Speaker 2: lose a skill which was a basic skill that we need.
33:29
Speaker 2: That that's one part of it. And I think we've
33:31
Speaker 2: got to be very careful to to if we're going
33:34
Speaker 2: to engage with AI and use AI, that we use
33:36
Speaker 2: it carefully and we're not becoming lazy and and deciding
33:43
Speaker 2: that we don't need certain skills anymore. So that's one
33:47
Speaker 2: point where I think it's it's really dangerous. It isn't
33:51
Speaker 2: about the AI in and of itself. It's about the
33:53
Speaker 2: application of AI and and the assumptions that come with that.
33:58
Speaker 2: So so for example, if if if we're making an
34:00
Speaker 2: assumption that the computer says no and the computer cannot
34:04
Speaker 2: be wrong, or if we're making an assumption that in
34:08
Speaker 2: order to deal with this massive backlog in criminal cases,
34:12
Speaker 2: we're going to replace the human the twelve human beings
34:16
Speaker 2: with an AI system instead, which is absolutely the direction
34:20
Speaker 2: to travel as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned,
34:25
Speaker 2: that becomes really dangerous. Or if we're engaging with a
34:29
Speaker 2: bank and we have built ourselves a society where the
34:34
Speaker 2: requirement to have a bank account is absolutely built in
34:38
Speaker 2: and baked into the foundations of everything that we do
34:41
Speaker 2: and suddenly we're kicking out the people that are working
34:45
Speaker 2: in the bank branches and we're relying on apps which
34:48
Speaker 2: are attached to AI systems. This is where it becomes
34:51
Speaker 2: dangerous because people become disenfranchised very very quickly. And of course,
34:57
Speaker 2: once once your fly in the system as being inappropriate
35:02
Speaker 2: for having a certain a certain facility, then you never
35:06
Speaker 2: get that back because there's never a human being that
35:08
Speaker 2: you can speak to to discover how you get that back,
35:12
Speaker 2: or to negotiate with or whatever, and the system is
35:15
Speaker 2: non negotiable with. That's the real danger, as far as
35:20
Speaker 2: I'm concerned, is actually the human beings deciding that the
35:24
Speaker 2: AI is right and that there's no requirement to have
35:27
Speaker 2: a human being involved in decision making anymore. And that
35:31
Speaker 2: applies whether it's our own decision making or whether it's
35:33
Speaker 2: the decision making of some institution or aspect of the state.
35:37
Speaker 2: That's where the danger is.
35:42
Speaker 1: So I guess one way of pushing back then is
35:45
Speaker 1: if you want to get a new I don't know
35:49
Speaker 1: if it's a new cell phone, and you're dealing with
35:54
Speaker 1: automations rather than with people perhaps don't support that company.
36:00
Speaker 2: Well I would I would even go a step back
36:02
Speaker 2: further from that, and I would say, why am I
36:04
Speaker 2: wanting a new cell phone?
36:06
Speaker 1: Uh?
36:07
Speaker 2: This is the point we've got to be at.
36:08
Speaker 3: What why are we?
36:10
Speaker 2: What are we actually? What is the society that we're
36:13
Speaker 2: actually wanting to build? And and you know, I said
36:17
Speaker 2: it a number of weeks ago. We need to embrace inconvenience.
36:20
Speaker 2: So so use the old cell phone that that doesn't
36:22
Speaker 2: that isn't the smartphone and refused. We've got to we've
36:26
Speaker 2: got to make some of these decisions about whether we're
36:28
Speaker 2: going to insist on you know, even something as I've
36:31
Speaker 2: talked about this before as well, even something as simple
36:35
Speaker 2: as going to the supermarket and refusing to use their
36:38
Speaker 2: automated increasingly AI attached checkout systems. Stand stand at the
36:45
Speaker 2: till until the human being turns up, even if that
36:47
Speaker 2: takes half an hour. And that's that's something I do.
36:50
Speaker 2: That's it's a very small, very small protest. But but
36:54
Speaker 2: but I absolutely refuse to use the automated checkouts.
36:58
Speaker 3: Uh.
36:58
Speaker 2: And you know, and every time I go into a
37:02
Speaker 2: bank branch, which isn't very often because of course it's
37:05
Speaker 2: very hard to do that these days, because they're opening
37:07
Speaker 2: times are so inconvenient for people. But we've got to
37:09
Speaker 2: embrace inconvenience, don't we. And anytime at bank teller attempts
37:16
Speaker 2: to convince me that I should be doing this electronically,
37:19
Speaker 2: then then I've got to I've got to push back
37:21
Speaker 2: on that. Or anytime the I'm sitting on the on
37:26
Speaker 2: the telephone line to the bank or whomever it is
37:29
Speaker 2: and they're saying, you know, this would be much quicker
37:31
Speaker 2: if you just went on the website and I'm standing
37:33
Speaker 2: there losing control of myself and swearing and blinding and
37:37
Speaker 2: all the rest of it. I'll just I'll just bloody
37:39
Speaker 2: mindedly sit on the phone and wait and because because
37:44
Speaker 2: that's that's how we you know, every time we do this,
37:47
Speaker 2: we're we're encouraging or encouraging the other party to believe
37:52
Speaker 2: that they cannot get away with just switching this stuff off.
37:56
Speaker 3: Protest of one of what you were saying, But Catherine Austin, Yeah, sorry, no,
38:04
Speaker 3: it's a lot of protests. Yeah yeah, but I mean
38:07
Speaker 3: that's what Katain Norton fits was saying.
38:09
Speaker 1: So if you have a lot of those, then you
38:11
Speaker 1: end up with protest of many, right, Yeah, that's it.
38:19
Speaker 1: But the thing though, Mike, is that you're making it
38:22
Speaker 1: sound as if all conveniences are bad.
38:29
Speaker 3: Must must everything be inconvenient?
38:35
Speaker 2: I know, My point is, My point is that not
38:41
Speaker 2: that everything has to be inconvenient, of course not. I'm
38:43
Speaker 2: not suggesting for one second that I that I switch
38:46
Speaker 2: off the electricity supply and switch off the heating in
38:49
Speaker 2: the house, and switch off the dishwasher and the washing
38:52
Speaker 2: machine and all and all this kind of stuff. I'm
38:56
Speaker 2: saying that we've got to be very careful about, you know,
39:00
Speaker 2: because I would argue that that spending four hours washing
39:06
Speaker 2: my underpants is not the best use of my time,
39:09
Speaker 2: and so chucking it in a washing machine is probably
39:11
Speaker 2: something that's that's a good idea four hours. Okay, Well,
39:21
Speaker 2: I'm glad you took it that way. It is going
39:23
Speaker 2: to be taken that way. But anyway, anyway, the point,
39:30
Speaker 2: the point is, you know, it's it's it's I think
39:35
Speaker 2: the decision point is coming when we're when we decide
39:38
Speaker 2: whether we're giving up our own agency or not uh
39:41
Speaker 2: and uh uh and putting ourselves in a position because
39:46
Speaker 2: we should be always asking the question, what happens if
39:51
Speaker 2: that system doesn't work anymore? You know, if the washing
39:53
Speaker 2: machine doesn't. If a washing machine breaks, that's going to
39:56
Speaker 2: be pretty inconvenient. But at the end of the day,
39:59
Speaker 2: I can't and still wash my clothes by hand if
40:03
Speaker 2: I need to, right, because that's not really a skill
40:06
Speaker 2: that any of us has lost. Doing it efficiently might
40:10
Speaker 2: be a skill that we've lost, but we can still
40:12
Speaker 2: do it. The point I was making about GPS navigation systems,
40:19
Speaker 2: well that that's where it starts to become a little
40:22
Speaker 2: bit more problematic because because the maps, you know, we
40:27
Speaker 2: may not have maps in our house anymore to get
40:30
Speaker 2: from A to B if we need to get from
40:32
Speaker 2: A to B. And so whether we whether we can
40:37
Speaker 2: relearn that skill or not, is neither here to do
40:40
Speaker 2: there if we can't actually obtain the information in the
40:43
Speaker 2: first place. So as you as you move further and
40:46
Speaker 2: further up the up the chain, we are, you know,
40:53
Speaker 2: giving up more and more of our agency. And so
40:56
Speaker 2: that's that's what we've got to be careful of. I
40:58
Speaker 2: think the tipping point, that big point is is any
41:02
Speaker 2: time that that we see human decisions being replaced. That's
41:08
Speaker 2: for me, that's that's the first thing.
41:11
Speaker 4: I think in I think to split it, you know
41:15
Speaker 4: what it comes down to, I think, in large part
41:17
Speaker 4: is whether you're and again this did come up a
41:19
Speaker 4: couple of weeks ago, but whether you're whether you're active
41:21
Speaker 4: or passive in life, in what you're doing. I got
41:27
Speaker 4: pound notes out of a cash point or an ATM
41:31
Speaker 4: last night, and when I put my bank card that
41:36
Speaker 4: I'm still able to physically possess into the machine, the
41:42
Speaker 4: first remarkable thing was that it wasn't covered in sort
41:45
Speaker 4: of tape and paper saying it's out of order, and
41:48
Speaker 4: indeed that it didn't just spit my card straight back out.
41:51
Speaker 4: But I cleared that hurdle. And do you know the
41:54
Speaker 4: first thing that came up on the screen, And I've
41:56
Speaker 4: meant to say this before, and it was at the
41:58
Speaker 4: back of my brain. I couldn't remember what it was,
42:00
Speaker 4: but it the first thing came up on the screen,
42:03
Speaker 4: even before I think, even before it asked me to
42:05
Speaker 4: type in my highly secure pin number or pin was.
42:11
Speaker 4: It just said seven out of ten customers check their
42:15
Speaker 4: balance before withdrawing cash, or words to that effect, and
42:19
Speaker 4: I just thought, I do not care. I don't mind
42:24
Speaker 4: if everybody does it or if nobody does it. It
42:27
Speaker 4: has absolutely no bearing on my life. Thanks very much.
42:32
Speaker 4: But obviously what one is meant to take away from
42:35
Speaker 4: that is, oh right, well, yeah, I suppose I'll check
42:38
Speaker 4: my balance. I mean, okay, yeah, exactly it is, and
42:46
Speaker 4: it is fascinating. But the point of it is that
42:49
Speaker 4: it switches you from being active to being passive. And
42:53
Speaker 4: so although I was making an active decision to go
42:56
Speaker 4: to that machine to try to get cash out of it,
42:59
Speaker 4: which I'd say these days is absolutely never a given,
43:03
Speaker 4: it's horrid plastic key banknotes, which were sort of there's
43:07
Speaker 4: a different story, and no, actually is very relevant to
43:11
Speaker 4: the story because it was as far as I can see,
43:14
Speaker 4: there's absolutely no need to move away from the very
43:16
Speaker 4: durable notes that we did have to these dreadful ones
43:20
Speaker 4: now that last not very long if you don't sort
43:23
Speaker 4: of keep them in a lot of box. But anyway,
43:26
Speaker 4: the point of it was that at the moment of
43:28
Speaker 4: being active and putting my card on the machine, the
43:31
Speaker 4: machine was immediately and obviously it's not a machine somebody
43:34
Speaker 4: telling the machine what to tell me immediately trying to
43:37
Speaker 4: turn me into a passive consumer of whatever it is
43:42
Speaker 4: they want me to do. You know, well, I'll go
43:44
Speaker 4: and check my balance, you know, I mean, I might
43:46
Speaker 4: still be there. Who knows what the next thing that
43:48
Speaker 4: the next suggestion might have been. But but okay, it's
43:52
Speaker 4: small and probably banal example. But for those people that
43:56
Speaker 4: do still use cash, you still use cash points. It's
44:00
Speaker 4: it's not the question of whether or not people are
44:03
Speaker 4: checking their balance. I mean, that's neither here nor there.
44:05
Speaker 4: It is, however, receiving a command, directive and insinuation whatever
44:10
Speaker 4: it is, and responding to it and doing in effect
44:15
Speaker 4: what you're told. And this is exactly why the difference
44:18
Speaker 4: between paper maps and GPS, for example, is so terribly important. Now,
44:24
Speaker 4: I'm not going to suggest that if you follow a
44:26
Speaker 4: GPS that means you cannot read a map, but it
44:30
Speaker 4: does mean that you are now taking your lead from
44:33
Speaker 4: a device that has no idea what you're doing in life,
44:38
Speaker 4: what you're wanting to do with your life. And this
44:41
Speaker 4: can be said to be the case across absolutely all
44:44
Speaker 4: the engagements that we have with these things. So there
44:47
Speaker 4: are many points to draw out of it. But I
44:49
Speaker 4: do think it is this issue between active and passive,
44:54
Speaker 4: and in a sense it's the same thing with washing
44:58
Speaker 4: Mike's undyes, which luckily I've never had to do. For him,
45:01
Speaker 4: but you know it may come a time. So yeah,
45:05
Speaker 4: for I mean, I think I could probably whistle that
45:06
Speaker 4: down a bit. If I spend less time at the
45:07
Speaker 4: cash point checking my balance, then I can invest that
45:10
Speaker 4: time into, you know, really getting my hand washing skills
45:13
Speaker 4: up scratch. But the point of it is that it's
45:16
Speaker 4: the sort of well, you know, what if exactly like
45:18
Speaker 4: exactly like we say, what if the system goes down? Actually,
45:22
Speaker 4: you know again, let's get into real mundane and as
45:26
Speaker 4: my one of our circuit breakers keep keep tripping home
45:30
Speaker 4: and I think this fort anyway, The point is it
45:33
Speaker 4: has forced me to think about it and to to
45:36
Speaker 4: go around the house, you know, diagnosing or you know
45:38
Speaker 4: what is it this wrong? If I had a smart meter,
45:41
Speaker 4: if I had this O and the other, I dare say,
45:42
Speaker 4: all of that would have just been taken out of
45:44
Speaker 4: my hands. I wouldn't. I wouldn't have even had the choice.
45:46
Speaker 4: There'd be a the system would recognize the fought. They
45:49
Speaker 4: probably just shut the shut the thing off. Okay, that
45:51
Speaker 4: could be absolute misinformation. Maybe that wouldn't happen, But the
45:55
Speaker 4: point is it would be out of my hands. It
45:57
Speaker 4: would it would be it would be passive and actually,
45:59
Speaker 4: while we're on it, that is a good example of pushback.
46:02
Speaker 4: In the United Kingdom, there was meant to be a
46:06
Speaker 4: shutdown date for radio. Sorry I forget the word, but
46:12
Speaker 4: the old fashioned electricity meters are supposed to have a
46:16
Speaker 4: radio timer on them which switches between a daytime and
46:20
Speaker 4: a nighttime rate. Anyway, that was supposed to have ceased.
46:24
Speaker 3: Was it this year? Was it last? It was this year?
46:27
Speaker 4: And okay, there wasn't much known about it because a
46:30
Speaker 4: lot of houses already had done away with these things.
46:32
Speaker 4: And I again I speak sort of slightly personally on
46:35
Speaker 4: this because I do still have one of those old meters.
46:38
Speaker 4: The point is that when the deadline arrived, people just
46:41
Speaker 4: hadn't hadn't gone along with it. You know, you got
46:43
Speaker 4: pretty much an email a day from the electricity company,
46:46
Speaker 4: so yeah, come on, it's so secure, it's so convenient,
46:48
Speaker 4: will come and fix the smart meter for you. And
46:51
Speaker 4: people just didn't do it. And so what happened the
46:53
Speaker 4: government on the day on the deadline, they just wrote, oh,
46:58
Speaker 4: actually we're not going to switch it off. We're not
47:00
Speaker 4: going to switch that technology off, right, Okay, well there
47:03
Speaker 4: we go. So so that's a I would say a
47:07
Speaker 4: good example of resistance to the system and it having
47:12
Speaker 4: an effect. I have no idea what the plan, what
47:14
Speaker 4: the plan is. I don't think any information has been
47:16
Speaker 4: put put out about it subsequently. And this is what
47:18
Speaker 4: I mean. These victories sort of go without too much fanfare.
47:24
Speaker 4: They just say something very muted and then it just
47:29
Speaker 4: gets left alone, because, of course, to say anything more
47:31
Speaker 4: about it just draws the attent, draws attention to the
47:33
Speaker 4: fact that it failed.
47:35
Speaker 1: So, gentlemen, due to my complications trying to set up earlier,
47:41
Speaker 1: I found a spot here where there's no plug point
47:44
Speaker 1: and my.
47:45
Speaker 3: Battery is very low. Would it be okay if we
47:47
Speaker 3: truncate this this conversation so that.
47:50
Speaker 1: It doesn't die because I had no power lift on
47:53
Speaker 1: my on my laptop.
47:55
Speaker 3: So if it's we'll, we'll, we'll call it a day.
47:59
Speaker 3: I'll catch up with you next week.
48:01
Speaker 2: But it doesn't just before we go, jerm Does that
48:04
Speaker 2: not just sum up the summarizes conversation at one at one.
48:12
Speaker 4: We can that is absolutely well done.
48:17
Speaker 1: But from this from this little farm outside Prectoria, I'll
48:21
Speaker 1: be back in Capetown next week, Mike Charles, I'll catch
48:25
Speaker 1: up with you then, hyahm