Latest / UK Column Radio / Escape Key: Reverse Engineering the Architecture of Totalitarian Control

Transcript

Escape Key: Reverse Engineering the Architecture of Totalitarian Control · UK Column Radio

0:01
Hello. It's Ben Rubin from UK column,
0:05
and I'm really excited today because I am speaking with
0:11
someone who has been doing phenomenal work over on Sub
0:15
Stack, a man who has been through the guts of global
0:20
technocracy and producing some of the most amazing, insightful
0:26
articles about what's happening around us and how these
0:33
technocratic control systems have imbued every part of our
0:38
society, where they've come from, what they're doing, what
0:40
they're planning to do next. And it's an absolute pleasure to
0:44
have Escape Key with us today. Welcome.
0:47
Well, thank you very much and very thank you very much for the
0:50
introduction. I'll hopefully I'll live up to
0:52
can be that sort of grandiose statement, but thank you very
0:55
much. That's very humble of you and I
1:00
would expect nothing less but. We all stand.
1:03
We all stand on the shoulders going to sit.
1:05
That's a minute one, kind of. It's kind of genuinely believe
1:08
that. I completely, I completely agree
1:10
with you. So just just to start off, could
1:15
you tell us a little bit about your approach that you've taken
1:19
over? I think it's two years.
1:21
You said to me that you've been looking through the guts of
1:25
what's happening around us and going back and reading through
1:28
old policy documents and public statements and that kind of
1:31
thing. Like what?
1:32
What exactly have you been doing for the past couple of years?
1:35
And also, what prompted you to start doing this work?
1:38
Well, what actually, again at all?
1:40
Was it a piggy leaks thread over two years ago posted on Heidi
1:44
Lawson and the sort of thought most of the people in that
1:47
thread congratulated and basically as opposed to actually
1:50
trying to basically build on the narrative.
1:52
And I thought, well, basically I might as well kind of just see
1:54
if if that's anything I can take up.
1:55
It's regards to high lasting. And I sort of expected to find
1:58
kind of basically a few sort of links kind of basically, but I,
2:01
I just kept dragging up more stuff and it's just
2:03
unbelievable. Kind of basically it was just
2:04
one thing after another. And then finally, kind of
2:07
basically I sort of thought, OK, I'll probably used to the end,
2:11
then discovered who is this or who her husband was kind of
2:14
basically was Peter, Peter Pio. And and then I dragged dragged
2:18
up a comparable amount on him And it was just, it was it, it
2:21
was just sort of enlightening because basically, I mean, you,
2:24
you go online in those days kind of on Twitter kind of which is
2:27
sort of relatively free of censorship.
2:28
Kind of you sort of found, you found a lot of you found a lot
2:36
of sort of links to, you know, the Gates Foundation and stuff
2:38
like that kind of base. But there's never really any
2:40
sort of coherent sort of structure about it kind of base
2:42
because you can, you can there are a lot of, of, of things
2:46
which they fund. You'd spend all year basically
2:49
just running around in rings trying to make sense of of all
2:51
the, of all the, of all the grants kind of which they hand
2:55
over. And it's the same thing with
2:56
Rockefeller, etcetera. Because it's just it, it's just,
3:00
it's just so vast that you cannot possibly, you know,
3:04
figure it all out because by looking at it.
3:06
But it was just kind of strange because Howdy Larson and Peter
3:11
Peel, that sort of combination, for the first time, I sort of
3:14
felt like I had something to hold on to, if you know what I
3:16
mean. Like like something based from
3:18
which you can sort of start understanding all that stuff.
3:21
And that's basically kind of how I got started.
3:23
Was that probably May 20, obviously 2023, I think.
3:27
And then, you know, the next sort of thing is really you
3:30
start to establish like how do you act to decide for that?
3:33
And I'm quite familiar basically with systems, the system's
3:39
approach effectively ultimately input output analysis where, you
3:43
know, for any given event, you have some things which are
3:46
required in order to produce an output, right?
3:48
Kind of basically. And unbeknownst to me, you know,
3:51
it's just sort of how I've gradually sort of zoomed in on
3:54
on using that in order to understand and sort of reverse
3:58
engineer the entire sort of full structure.
3:59
And that's basically sort of, yeah, eventually, eventually I
4:03
wrote, I wrote, I wrote discovery, which was sort of
4:07
probably my first sort of aha, really major aha moment where
4:12
sort of outlined sort of this strategy kind of using input
4:15
input, output analysis through, you know, source source material
4:20
and, you know, documents and stuff like that.
4:23
And once you got, once you have that sort of structure, once you
4:25
have that sort of skeleton, you're just sort of building
4:27
that, if you know what I mean. Yes, so, so that was Heidi
4:32
Larsen, you said and and was it Peter Peel?
4:35
I'm not familiar with those names.
4:37
All right, so Heidi Larsen, can I guess one of those people
4:39
who's been involved in, you know, any, anything one of those
4:43
people who love a good vaccine. That's what I usually say.
4:46
And you know, PO basically was supposedly one of the original
4:49
doctors in regards to what was it Ebola in, in 1976, right.
4:54
OK, all these all these sort of claims are all very highly
4:57
dodgy, quite frankly, when you start looking at it, because
5:00
there are a lot of, I mean, I'm not, I'm not going to go out and
5:03
sort of say none of this is real.
5:04
I'm just sort of going to say that there's sufficient doubt
5:08
for me to, if I wanted to investigate, can I can, you
5:12
know, you know, my brain is sort of saying that there's more to
5:15
it, but I I just can't be bothered because, you know,
5:19
given what we experienced during COVID, which is obviously fake.
5:23
Yeah, it's, it's that sort of part of the narrative.
5:25
It's kind of wrapped up in my mind.
5:28
OK. And you, I think you mentioned
5:29
with Jiki leaks as well that I'm familiar with Jiki leaks.
5:32
Is that? Yeah, yeah.
5:34
So that's OK. So you've seen some stuff
5:37
talking about the, the, the kind of pharmaceutical industrial
5:40
complex and it sounds like you're, you're you, you're,
5:47
what's the word I'm looking for? You'd already become suspicious
5:50
during the COVID era, by the sounds of it, because you, this,
5:53
this sort of said, it set you off about two years ago in 2023.
5:56
But it sounds like you'd already had some suspicions about what
5:59
was happening around us before that.
6:00
Was that triggered by COVID? Yes, so the very second I'm
6:06
writing about this and pretty much my first subject post
6:09
called Red flags, you know, when we were being locked down by
6:15
Boris Johnson, it just it just seemed completely unreal to me
6:18
basically because my immediate sort of thought was this is
6:21
going to be enormous or expensive.
6:22
I mean, this is going to be a multiple of of, you know, the
6:25
2008 financial crisis and, and I just sort of thought there's
6:31
insufficient evidence for this kind of in my book because I
6:34
don't see, I don't see hoards of people dying on the streets.
6:37
You know, it just all seemed really strange, right?
6:40
And then around that point in time, basically I started, I
6:42
started reading up on CNBCS and other sort of websites
6:47
information and I found, I found, I think it was from March
6:50
the 11th 2020 on CNDCS website. You had a had a story about
6:57
about that so far, kind of all the deaths, 9898% of them
7:01
basically were older than 60. And then I found another
7:06
statistical analysis kind of basically saying that 99.5% all
7:10
had comorbidities. And when you said you were
7:13
looking at these sort of numbers that everyone is old and
7:15
everyone's got comorbidities, like fair enough.
7:17
Kind of basically if you're old, you're probably more likely to
7:19
have a comorbidity. I'm certainly not screwing with
7:21
that. But when you look at the
7:23
statistical analysis in this regard, kind of there seems to
7:27
be no reason for anyone else to be worried, right?
7:29
Because the, the, the narrative that began spreading at that
7:32
point in time was like, oh, you know, the young people haven't
7:34
caught them. It just makes no sense because I
7:38
have young kids in school, right?
7:39
Cardigan, the very second, the very second where anyone that's
7:42
got an illness in school, every child has it and brings it home,
7:45
you know, to their parents. So it's just like, you know, oh,
7:47
this magically only spreads around elderly people.
7:50
I mean, what a lot of you know, this is completely lunatic.
7:54
This our narrative. And, and, and the, the average
7:58
age of death was like 82, which is, which is higher than the,
8:02
the, the normal average age of death.
8:03
So is there anything COVID makes you live longer?
8:06
By the sounds of it, you know it's just just nonsense.
8:09
It was, it was just complete and utter nonsense.
8:12
Yeah, basically. And, and then I think it was in
8:15
June, there was a study out in The Lancet, I think it was an
8:20
answer anyway, kind of basically kind of where frontline staff of
8:24
the NHS, they've done investigation into 200 people,
8:28
kind of 200 frontline staffers, right?
8:30
And they've found that 44% of the frontline staff kind of
8:34
basically had essentially were diagnosed with COVID, as in
8:37
they'd had it at some point in time, right?
8:39
And not a single one had required hospital
8:41
hospitalisation. It's just like, look at those
8:44
sort of numbers, like those people most at risk, like half
8:47
of all people have had it because that's fair.
8:49
Let's be honest, going to be some of them will step through
8:51
the gap. So let's just say basically one
8:54
out of two basically have had this illness, right?
8:55
Kind of. And not a single one even
8:57
required hospitalisation. Most of them weren't even aware
9:00
that had it. It was just like, yeah, that's
9:03
definitely something was not quite right here.
9:05
And then of course, there's all to talk about like we needed a
9:08
vaccine for this. And that.
9:10
That just sort of seemed almost comical to me because pretty
9:14
much the first thing we were told basically by Boris Johnson
9:16
was that this is a highly infectious, fast mutating virus,
9:21
right? OK.
9:21
First off, if if it's highly infectious, then we're all going
9:24
to get it, right? That's not really two ways
9:26
around that. And if it's fast mutating, can
9:28
it then no, no, no vaccine will ever do, right.
9:31
Or rather, the vaccine would need to be so planned, kind of,
9:34
you know, to catch all the strains there.
9:35
It just seemed like complete nonsense.
9:38
So it was just sort of like around that point in time,
9:41
basically just sort of, you know, my sort of sort of
9:45
personal stance sort of hardened and they say I was just not
9:48
going to take any of these bloody vaccines.
9:50
And yeah, then in itself kind of basically turned into a little
9:53
bit of fight, of course, because a lot of people kind of discreet
9:55
very, very strongly kind of with that perspective.
9:57
And on a couple occasions, I went down to the doctor for
10:00
other reasons. I've got hey fever and, you
10:02
know, go down there for the annual sort of consultation kind
10:05
of to get your hey fever sprays and stuff like that.
10:07
And the doctor was very insistent upon me taking this
10:10
stupid vaccine. It's like, I'm not saying that,
10:14
but yeah, it was just, it's just, it was just, it was, it
10:17
was just a you're caught in some sort of parallel world where the
10:20
entire sort of world had just like, you know, been seduced by
10:27
some really strange narrative which didn't seem to conform
10:30
most to reality. It was just really odd, you
10:33
know? But yeah.
10:37
Yes. And, and at that point, I guess
10:40
you're beginning to see the, the architecture of control appear,
10:44
right, Because there was this deference to authority, to
10:48
experts, to unelected groups of people, sort of, you know, who'd
10:53
always been hovering in the background than we'd never
10:56
really known about. But all of a sudden they're
10:57
front and centre and they're on the news and they're telling you
11:00
what you can and can't do. And I suppose the question is,
11:02
well, where have you come from and where did you get your
11:05
authority? Yeah, I know I would.
11:08
I would agree with that, but I didn't, I didn't really
11:10
personally snap onto that until a bit later.
11:13
Basically I said the reason why I sort of thought there was
11:16
something really badly wrong was because of was because of the
11:19
2008 financial crisis. Because that, I mean, I was
11:22
sitting watching in real time basically as the market sort of
11:26
virtually collapsed, you know, in 2008, 2009.
11:30
And then I've watched the markets just go up in an almost
11:33
linear fashion for the next four or five years.
11:35
And it was just like, kind of like, this is not real.
11:37
This is absolutely not real. There's something kind of, you
11:40
know, very, very wrong with the financial markets because they
11:42
don't, they don't behave this way, right?
11:44
Kind of like fundamentally something was clearly sort of
11:48
saving them from behind the scenes and then gradually buying
11:50
up, you know, and you can see, you can see as it is right today
11:53
kind of as you see, you know, BlackRock and Vanguard etcetera
11:57
and State Street, who are all essentially exit fronts for the
12:01
New York Federal Reserve. I mean, clearly what happened
12:04
was basing in fronts like that were given an infinite budget to
12:08
start buying up, buying our bets of any type.
12:11
I mean, don't hold me to that. I might be wrong in this regard,
12:13
but it just sort of seems like logical to me that that would be
12:16
what took place. But I haven't.
12:18
I investigated in death, so don't hold me to that.
12:21
OK, that's interesting. It takes us very neatly towards
12:24
central banking actually, because one of the things that I
12:27
was keen to pick up on and and you know, you cover an enormous
12:30
scope of different areas in in the on your sub stack.
12:35
But the one we, we're going to focus on today is the, the
12:39
central banking system, but most specifically the clearing house
12:42
mechanism, because you have identified that as a pattern, a
12:47
template that is being well originated in central banking,
12:52
But there's been been deployed in lots of different places.
12:55
Could you, could you talk to me a bit about the, the
12:57
clearinghouse and where that came from and what its purpose
13:00
is in, in banking? And then we can have a a
13:03
discussion about where you've seen it deployed elsewhere.
13:06
Yeah. So basically in the late 18th
13:09
century there are one crisis after another and it effectively
13:14
led to a system. At that point in time you have
13:17
to understand there wasn't a single currency.
13:18
There were a large amount of currencies and there were a
13:20
large amount of banks and there was no advanced system where
13:24
electronically banks would sort of exchange cash with one
13:27
another. Can I guess people are
13:28
depositing cheques etcetera, right.
13:29
So what what happened around that point in time following a
13:33
couple crisis was that all the leading banks send sort of
13:38
representatives down to a Tavern in London at that point in time
13:42
and they're all cleared versus one another.
13:44
So for instance, if if one person was sending money to
13:46
another bank kind of basically and and vice versa, all these
13:50
banks would meet up and they would clear kind of those
13:53
transactions versus the end of the day.
13:55
And all these sort of provincial banks, which effectively
13:59
basically could clear all their activity with these
14:02
clearinghouse banks. And that's fundamentally these
14:04
sort of structures. So you'd have you'd have a
14:06
number of clearinghouse banks and you'd have kind of all these
14:09
sort of provincial sort of banks which would clear with the
14:11
clearinghouse banks. Now one of those basically, you
14:14
know, was the Bank of England. And in 1844, they were issued a
14:18
monopoly on currency on on, on British, you know, you know, the
14:25
pound sterling. And it was effectively a
14:28
monopoly, which gradually was phased in.
14:30
So I think it was about 1920, all the other competing
14:32
currencies were finally eradicated.
14:34
It's something along those lines.
14:35
But anyway, it's not really important.
14:38
What's important is essentially now that everyone is clearing
14:42
specifically in the British found sterling, right, that
14:46
effect means kind of the issuing currency places the Bank of
14:50
England right at the apex. And what that in effect means
14:54
that that you'll have some bank in say Leicester which will
14:57
clear kind of its activity with, you know, the Midland Midlands
15:02
Bank or whatever kind of which is a member of the Clearinghouse
15:05
association. And then all the declaring house
15:08
banks will then meet up and settle via the Bank of England.
15:11
So as in the Bank of England kind of just withhold all the
15:13
accounts. Now this sounds like efficiency
15:17
and of course it is efficient relative to all the banks
15:20
meeting up with one another. It cuts down enormously on all
15:22
those people meeting up with one another.
15:24
But if you think about it, it places the Bank of England in a
15:27
very, very convenient position because at any point in time
15:30
they can essentially refuse to clear transactions.
15:34
And that's fundamentally would, if, if there were to do so, then
15:38
that bank which would be cut off, correct from that system
15:41
would more or less immediately collapse because they run out of
15:45
out of credit base almost immediately.
15:46
And, and all the transaction would be so become so heinous,
15:49
like expensive to, to conduct relative to everyone else that
15:52
it would just be a suicide sentence to be effectively cut
15:55
off. And that basically places a
15:56
substantial amount of power basically in the Bank of England
15:58
sense. And that was essentially kind of
16:00
the sort of structure with the Bank of England, the central
16:03
bank kind of basically at the very top.
16:04
And then you have the clearing banks.
16:06
And then you have all the provincial banks at the very
16:08
bottom, which are clearing through the middle layer, so to
16:10
speak. And then in 1913, we saw
16:13
effectively the exact same model being phased into the Federal
16:16
Reserve in the United States, basically where you have, you
16:19
know, the the data concept of primary dealers, but it's
16:21
effectively the same principle which is phased in.
16:23
And then in 1892, so in, in the 19th century, there were a
16:29
number of monetary conferences. And in 1892 a very important one
16:34
happened where they're discussing the, the backing, the
16:38
asset backing of the currencies. And you know, some people want,
16:42
want bimetallic, basically someone, someone of the currency
16:45
backed both gold and silver and others only wanted gold.
16:48
So, you know, gold backed currencies.
16:49
And Alfred Ruschild turned up at that event and frankly delivered
16:55
sort of speech kind of that he'd written six years before,
16:57
essentially singing the praises kind of this clearinghouse
16:59
system which essentially kind of get existed in England.
17:04
Now by the time basically the conference was had, he was no
17:06
longer a director of the Bank of England.
17:08
He he had booted up and he had left it basically a year before,
17:12
as far as we recall. But the point is, since he had
17:14
written the material six years before when he was a director of
17:17
the Bank of England right now in 1892 as well, Julius Wolf kind
17:21
of was his academic from Zurich. He basically came up with a
17:28
system for performing, you know, what he suggested during global
17:33
clearing, you know, much the same way kind of basically kept
17:35
up with gold as a central asset in into on an international
17:38
basis. But he's so the people inside
17:42
was that in those days kind of they would ship enormous amounts
17:45
of volumes of gold basically from 1:00 central bank to
17:47
another, which obviously is in, you know, I mean, you could get
17:50
rough for starters, right? But it also it's pretty
17:53
inefficient, right? So what Julius Wolf essentially
17:55
suggested was instead of doing this, we will assign certain
17:58
central banks kind of and their votes as sort of depository
18:03
institutions and instead of trading the gold itself.
18:06
So sending all the gold around kind of will just have receipts
18:10
kind of base for these golds. So at any point in time, if, if
18:13
a central bank would sort of go kind of base, well, we actually
18:15
want to back the gold, they could, but it's obviously far
18:17
more efficient not to do that. And that's fundamentally kind of
18:21
basically what happened. Now that there was a book quite
18:23
recently, Bob, what's his name? Rogers?
18:27
David Rogers, what's his name? I forget kind of it's it, it,
18:31
it, it revolves around seed and Co, you know, about stock
18:36
trading. Yeah.
18:37
And, and that is fundamentally the same principle.
18:39
But this is about gold and clearing of gold kind of
18:42
basically essentially. And they said basically this was
18:46
this was suggested in 1892 kind of by Julius Wolf.
18:49
And there was the Express model which was implemented Bank for
18:53
International Settlements in 1930.
18:56
And when you actually read up basically essentially how the
18:58
Bank of International Settlements basically was
19:00
established, it's actually very interesting because so you have
19:04
the Bank of England which operates with this model and the
19:06
Federal Reserve had also been established by then kind of
19:09
basically which operated with the same model.
19:11
But you know, basically since as hyperinflation in Germany took
19:16
off in in you know basically 1919 to 1923 as far as we
19:21
recall, the Doors and the Young's planned stabilised the
19:26
German economy kind of its refusing American tax dollars.
19:28
And so the Young plan can only was pushed through by
19:33
essentially relinquishing some level of control to the Allied
19:37
essentially the United States basically in the United Kingdom
19:40
and the UK and US basically reorganise kind of basically the
19:43
banks started haven't been able to dig up information exactly
19:46
what it was they did, but I've been able to dig up information
19:48
that they did it. But it just seems really
19:50
convenient that this happened in 1929.
19:52
It's immediately kind of it's before the Bank of International
19:54
Settlements came to be. But what's also interesting in
19:57
regards to the BIS was that just exactly at the moment, exactly
20:01
at the moment kind of where they're having the pivotal
20:04
discussions about the BIS, the financial markets crash.
20:09
And that's basically a very subtract essay about this titled
20:13
Black Tuesday. And, and it's incredible because
20:16
on that very same day, JP Morgan sent a cable to London
20:20
basically, or France or forget exactly why they had the
20:23
negotiations. Well, in effect said that this
20:27
needs to be a central bank for central bankers and the
20:28
governments not to be involved. Basically, it's just like
20:32
incredibly convenient on on on the same day the markets
20:35
crashed. It's almost.
20:38
It's almost as if it was coordinated in some way.
20:41
Yes, exactly. That's what he sort of like sort
20:42
of think and when they did, when he didn't look at what came
20:45
afterwards regards to all the major sort of things that
20:48
they're trying to push through. There's always some, some
20:50
disaster happening at same point, some.
20:53
So yeah. But that's fundamentally, that's
20:55
fundamentally the structure that you have this hierarchical sort
20:58
of pattern. And, and essentially if in more
21:01
contemporary context, if you, if you're anyone speak of
21:03
subsidiarity, it's that's basically what it is, though
21:06
from you from a different perspective, what it's claimed
21:09
that everything is decentralised to the lowest appropriate
21:12
extent. But the key to that question is
21:14
the key to basically this, this sort of claim of subsidiarity is
21:17
to what extent, to what extent is it appropriate to hand
21:23
control over global things like alleged climate change?
21:28
Obviously that would be centralised basically like, you
21:30
know, for the entire world. It's, it's, it's basically an
21:32
inversion where everything that's everything that's of
21:36
convenience is centralised to the, to the greatest extent, you
21:39
know. Yeah, no, absolutely.
21:41
They were running on the same operating system basically,
21:43
whether they realise it or not. Can I, can I just recap, right,
21:46
because you've just been through a whole bunch of stuff there.
21:48
And I want to, I want to break it down so that my, my tiny mind
21:51
can, can make sure that it's actually got what you're
21:56
describing right. So if we wind it back to the the
21:59
late 18th century in England, there's a finance, there's an
22:04
economy, there's a financial system.
22:07
People are transacting with each other using banks that already
22:11
existed. And as trade increases, the
22:16
amount of transactions increase. And particularly we're thinking
22:19
about cheques, right? Because this is not about cash
22:23
particularly. This is about people writing
22:27
commitments, cheques to each other, to other institutions,
22:32
and the people that they're banking with need to keep track
22:36
of where these are being issued to and who's paid who and what
22:42
amount of money you actually still have in your bank account.
22:44
And if, if you've, if you've paid something where that
22:48
actually needs to go to like it's a huge administrative load
22:52
in the background of this system and essentially what they've
22:56
done, you said it's really complicated for us to do this.
23:01
And actually it's to the point where the system is about to
23:05
collapse because there's so much complexity and the
23:08
administration required to handle this is, is, is taking up
23:12
so much, so many man hours and so much time that it's becoming
23:16
unworkable. So the solution is we all get
23:19
together in one place at the end of every day and we settle all
23:26
of the transactions that have happened across the payment
23:30
network in that day. And that just makes the whole
23:33
thing a lot, a lot more efficient.
23:36
That's the, that's the initiation point, right?
23:39
And then basically the so that, so that's happening.
23:43
And then you mentioned something that I wasn't aware of actually
23:46
that it was only in the mid 1800s that the Bank of England.
23:49
So the Bank of England was just another significant bank, but
23:53
actually. Significant bank.
23:54
There was a high significant. Bank, because there was a bank
23:57
for the, for the role, for the, for the crown, basically.
23:59
Right, but it didn't have a monopoly on money creation until
24:03
later, right? I didn't.
24:05
I didn't know that. That's a very interesting point.
24:08
The bank, the bank charter Act. Oh, I mean, I, I can even talk
24:10
about that basically since it's the 1844 bank charter Act.
24:14
And it's interesting because the that in the run up to that,
24:20
there were a couple of financial disasters.
24:21
Kind of his guess. There always are.
24:24
And David Ricardo at that point in time essentially was on the
24:30
wall path because he wanted to get rid of all competing
24:32
currencies. Now, Dan Ricardo is kind of an
24:35
interesting sort of person because he's also referred by
24:39
Karl Marx of all people. So, yeah, OK.
24:43
Funny how these things come together.
24:45
Isn't it? Yeah, It's funny, isn't it?
24:46
Yeah. And, and especially, especially
24:48
when you look at the 1848 Communist Manifesto, Speaking of
24:51
1 central bank, like with one issuing one credit, you know,
24:54
essentially being in control of all credit.
24:56
It's just like, oh, it's, it's funny how all these things seem
24:59
to converge around this time, you know?
25:01
And Marx was in London a lot around that time, was he not?
25:04
Oh, yeah, of course. He was basically yeah, OK.
25:07
And and basically around this point in time, you know, anyway,
25:11
it's just. So, so, so, so they were, so
25:14
they were current. So that's really interesting
25:17
because people I think would would struggle to understand
25:19
that now and what may be less so because of what's happened with
25:21
crypto, right? But the idea that that you can
25:24
have lots of different currencies in circulation and
25:27
not just the the currency that's been issued out of essentially a
25:32
state mandated central bank, you know, that's what we've become
25:37
used to. But actually there were
25:38
different types of currency in circulation in in pre 1844.
25:42
Was it you said? Yeah.
25:44
But I mean, so I went to, I went to Hong Kong about 10 years ago
25:48
and I was quite astonished basically to find that there are
25:51
a number of different currencies and the large, yeah, the large
25:54
banks essentially issued their own currencies.
25:57
Wow. Yeah, I didn't.
25:59
Know that. I didn't know that either until
26:01
I arrived. It was just like, wow, like, you
26:03
know, basically imagine, imagine a central standing with a 10 LB
26:06
notice says HSBC on it. But yeah, that's a central
26:10
situation. I suppose it's a bit like when
26:12
you go to Scotland, I think they have RBS notes, don't they?
26:15
Or they used to. I don't even know if RBS exists
26:17
anymore. I'm, I'm, I'm kind of out of
26:20
touch with what's happening in banking these days.
26:23
But, but anyway, so, so they were, they were given the
26:25
monopoly and then at the same time they've gone OK, we're also
26:29
going to take sole centralised control of the clearing house
26:34
mechanism that's used to settle transactions across our net, the
26:39
whole, the whole British banking system and those things coincide
26:45
with each other. Well, think of it this way,
26:47
right? If you have, if you have like 30
26:49
clearing institutions, so imagine you've got like 300 or
26:52
3000 banks, right? And 3000 banks all clear their
26:56
activity via say 30 clearinghouse banks.
26:59
And those 30 clearinghouse banks might have their own separate
27:03
currency unit, right? Now imagine kind of if all those
27:06
30 banks all of a sudden are being told, you know, 29 of you
27:09
will have to go. That means essentially kind of
27:12
the central clearing institution all of a sudden becomes just one
27:15
of those. Whereas before basically when
27:17
you have, you know, thirty types of currency, you'll have 30
27:20
different sensors of, of power, so to speak.
27:22
Because if they're the bank issuing the currency, kind of
27:24
basically then they're automatic in charge.
27:26
But if they eliminate every other sort of bank, kind of
27:29
basically suddenly you only have one in charge.
27:30
And I haven't looked into this. I will just say kind of
27:33
basically logically that's that's where this sort of leads.
27:36
Yeah. So there's a huge consolidation
27:38
of power. Massive.
27:40
Yeah. And and then essentially what
27:42
what that what they're doing there, if you think about like
27:45
what that role actually entails, they at that point take
27:48
ownership of truth across the banking system.
27:53
Would you would you agree with that?
27:57
I think it depends on kind of basically who's who's deficient
28:00
truths we're talking about here. Well, what what has and hasn't
28:04
happened on the on in the network, right?
28:06
Because essentially you need to settle every day down to all of
28:09
the ledgers across all of the institutions need to reconcile
28:12
with each other. And therefore that is the
28:15
settled current state of play in the banking system gets to find
28:21
that the meeting controlled by Bank of England with other
28:26
participants. So therefore they're controlling
28:28
what what what what what reality is in a way I don't.
28:32
I don't. I don't necessarily disagree
28:34
with what you're saying. It's just like when someone
28:36
tells me what truth is, I guess. Are you sure?
28:39
Because Because a lot of people tell you what truth is these
28:42
days, and a lot of people are not right.
28:44
OK, well, no, it's OK. So they would think that they
28:47
have control of truth. Maybe we put it like that
28:50
rather. Than I'm not I'm.
28:52
Not making, I'm not making an objective statement.
28:54
I'm just saying that within this, within their closed loop
28:57
system, they're in control. They control the unit of account
29:00
is how I, how I put it OK and everything, everything is built
29:04
up around that. OK, right.
29:07
Very good. So this is that's, that's I'm,
29:10
I'm now clear on that. And, and then essentially what
29:12
they're running, it's kind of a franchise model, right?
29:15
Because people look at the banking system and they know,
29:17
Oh, well, I can go into Lloyds or I could go into HSBC or I
29:20
could go into, I don't know, nationwide, like any, any of
29:23
these different kind of retail banks on the High Street or
29:25
they're less present on the High Street these days.
29:27
But you understand what I mean. But they, what they don't
29:30
realise is that actually what you're dealing with is just a
29:32
franchise of the Bank of England central banking system.
29:37
So. I think that objects usually to
29:39
that. Yeah, I know what you mean.
29:41
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I'm sure they would object to it
29:44
because, you know, but if you strip it away, that is
29:46
essentially what's going on in the background, right?
29:49
And and actually the other thing you mentioned, which I find
29:51
really interesting is that you've got 2 tiers below the
29:54
Bank of England. So they're the central bank, but
29:56
then you've also got the clearing house banks, which is a
29:59
privileged position in the hierarchy.
30:01
And if I remember, there were like 1617 of those, something
30:04
like that. No.
30:07
So I've read a number of documents kind of.
30:08
Some of them say that's 26 and and another said 39 so.
30:12
OK. All right.
30:13
There were there were relatively low amount of them and the but
30:16
the point is just you had the 3000 provincial banks would then
30:19
settle through deep, deep, you know, clearinghouse that they
30:23
were a member of the clearing houses would then settle kind of
30:26
basically kind of by the Bank of England.
30:27
Yes, Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it's a pyramid structure.
30:31
That's what we're looking at, yeah.
30:32
Exactly. And, and when, when, when this
30:35
model was then brought into the United States and then basically
30:37
the Bank for International Settlements was again exactly
30:40
the same structure, but just within global capacity where
30:43
essentially the central banks themselves then basically become
30:46
notes within that hierarchy. But that's actually.
30:50
Sorry, go on, but. That's actually where it becomes
30:52
interesting because one of those I went to the reason I sort of
30:55
thought kind of this Bank for International Settlements was
30:58
sort of sort of the centre of power.
31:00
But I think that's actually a little bit of a misunderstanding
31:02
because essentially the the BIS effectively coordinates the
31:07
currencies in such way that basically whoever sort of owns,
31:10
so to speak, the settled currency is in effect the
31:14
organisation on top. So that means basically the
31:16
Federal Reserve Bank of New York is for all currency transactions
31:19
involving your stolen is the Fed basically faculty in charge?
31:23
And for the British pound sterling, the Bank of England is
31:26
in charge, if that makes sense. Think, think, think of the BIS
31:31
as a forum more than anything in this regard.
31:33
But I mean, I need to, I need to look into more into basically
31:36
kind of how it makes sense for it to work that.
31:38
Way OK, but I'll come back to that in a second.
31:42
And then and the the operational framework, the manual for this
31:49
is come from, you mentioned a member of the Rothschild family.
31:55
I didn't catch the first name. Alfred.
32:00
Alfred the Rothschild, yes, OK. And then also Julius Wolf was
32:06
slightly later. So basically we've got
32:08
operational specifications defined in the late 1800s in
32:15
London by a vanishingly small number of people.
32:20
I mean, we're talking, you know, we've got two names here.
32:22
There's probably not that many others around them who are
32:26
feeding into this. And this is a hugely complex
32:29
administration that they're specifying has then become the
32:34
de facto template for central banking in, well, it's
32:37
approaching every country on earth now, right?
32:39
Because this is a universal system that they're rolling out.
32:43
Yeah, I, I, I think, I think the sense of the system itself is
32:46
actually fairly simple. But what these people are
32:48
really, really good at is making it really, really complex and by
32:53
dressing it in, in different clothes, so to speak, because
32:56
the same model they roll out based in, in every aspect.
32:59
But it, it's just, it's just, you know, so impenetrable.
33:04
Some sometimes the, the, the, the language.
33:07
I mean, it seems like if you read, if you read contemporary
33:09
United Nations documents, you know, with a sopium phrasing,
33:13
it's kind of amateur in comparison to it.
33:15
But I mean, you can clearly see basically that they, they
33:18
practise the same, you know, techniques.
33:21
They they make something fairly simple, fairly complex,
33:24
basically just just just by explaining it in a complex way.
33:27
Yeah, so they dress it up in a load of unnecessary information.
33:32
And the the devil is in the detail, as they say, right?
33:35
You have to really dig in to find the little Nuggets of
33:37
information that that are important.
33:40
And so then this template has been replicated at the Fed 1913
33:45
then replicated the Bank of International Settlement and the
33:51
who's who's kind of controlling these institutions because a lot
33:54
of people, particularly with the Bank of England, I think because
33:57
it says England, people think, Oh, well, this is a state
34:02
organisation, state run, state owned.
34:04
But it, it's not, is it, is it private?
34:07
And if it is private, who's actually who owns it and who's
34:10
pulling the strings? I can ask that question
34:13
continuously. It's one of those sort of things
34:15
if you, if you actually attempt to investigate the ownership
34:20
structure, you know, the official document say, oh, it's
34:23
owned by the state basically. But I mean, it's, it's very,
34:26
very cloudy, very, very opaque. And it's, it's, I haven't, I
34:31
deliberately haven't addressed it head on because there are
34:34
certain questions which are designed to waste time, right?
34:38
So, for instance, I've, I've spent a lot of time kind of
34:40
basically regards to addressing sort of climate change, for
34:42
instance. And I've never done that by
34:44
taking on the sort of taking on the monster, so to speak, where
34:48
it's, where it's the strongest, right?
34:50
Because there's certain aspects of of these conversations where
34:53
they've spent decades, you know, strengthen the argument so you
34:57
can, they can have you run around in circles for years.
35:00
So this is no point in even addressing this considering
35:03
consider, for instance, basically gain of function,
35:05
right? Everyone's, I was speaking about
35:07
gain of function almost immediately, kind of when the
35:09
sort of scandemic broke out, right?
35:11
And here we are five years later.
35:12
Can you, can you please tell me what exactly materialised from
35:14
all this? It's just been a classical waste
35:16
of time from our perspective, kind of basically.
35:17
And the same thing is in regards to this sort of conversation
35:20
about who controls the central banks.
35:22
It's from, from our perspective. I I can, you know, tell you
35:25
basically what, what I believe, but I'd, I'd rather finish off
35:29
my sub stack article on it and then I'm not quite there yet.
35:32
OK. No, that's, that's no, totally,
35:35
that's that's absolutely fine. I also think another interesting
35:38
perspective on this, again, which is coming from some of the
35:41
stuff that you've written, is this idea of ownership versus
35:44
control. So actually, you don't need to
35:46
own everything if you can make it do whatever you want it to
35:48
do. Which is the same thing as
35:50
owning it anyway, right? Exactly.
35:53
Yeah, that's that's basically kind of, you know, sort of like
35:55
if you if you heard the term sort of own nothing controlled
35:58
everything, right, Between both Ross Shield and Rockefeller
36:01
associate with that, that that phrase, right.
36:04
Basically, kind of if you think about the clearing structure, if
36:07
you you own the clearing note and you refuse someone to trade,
36:11
then it doesn't matter how much money he's got in his bank
36:13
account because you can't use it anyway.
36:14
Think of all the people kind of in regards to the talkers, the
36:17
talker rallies in Canada what their bank accounts sort of
36:20
seized or you know, closed for a while.
36:23
You know, it didn't matter if that 10 million Canadian dollars
36:26
based on a bank account because they couldn't use them, right?
36:29
It requires you require, you require access to the system.
36:32
And it's, it's interesting really, because so classical
36:35
Marxism of course, speaks about, you know, it's control over the
36:39
means of production, right? Kind of it's but Alexander
36:41
Bogdanov, who is, you know, one of the people I've covered the
36:44
most and one hell of a intelligent person.
36:48
But you can always acknowledge that, acknowledge that even if
36:51
you strongly disagree with him. But like, he was no doubt an
36:54
absolute genius, right? And he acknowledges this.
36:58
He says Marx, what's wrong in this regard?
37:00
It's not about who owns the means of production.
37:02
It's about who effectively performs the administration.
37:05
Yeah. And that's again, kind of
37:08
basically the sort of expert panels and the sort of
37:10
subsidiarity structure comes in because, you know, for each
37:13
individual note, hierarchical note, you know, basically that
37:16
clearing, whoever controls that clearing will effectively sort
37:20
of, you know, put a step to your, your, your activity, your
37:23
business activity if they don't like you.
37:25
And so if you own the means of production, it doesn't really
37:27
matter if you can't sell into the market.
37:30
Right, exactly, exactly. OK, so then how have you, how
37:39
has this then been lifted and applied elsewhere?
37:41
Right. So we've talked about this idea
37:44
of a clearing house, which I I've described as the sort of
37:46
control of truth in the system. You're not quite so sure, but
37:49
you know, it's about controlling a, a system in a way that it
37:57
will, it will behave in the way that you want it to.
38:02
That's you're then seeing this pattern applied in every area of
38:07
the system now, right. So this is this is this idea
38:10
that there is a kind of there's a hierarchy.
38:13
There's a bunch of vanishingly small group at the top or even
38:17
sometimes individuals at the top of the pyramid, then some kind
38:20
of selected gilded few who can sit in the level below that.
38:25
The kind of experts that get appealed to as being the, the,
38:29
the body of knowledge that we should all defer to and, and
38:33
then these sort of structures and then where our politicians
38:38
go to say, oh, well, we must listen to these people.
38:40
And actually this is a way of degrading democracy, right?
38:44
This is actually controlling supposedly democratic systems.
38:47
And you can see them across every part of our society.
38:52
It's not. It's not really democracy at
38:53
all. Probably the easiest way to
38:56
understand the clearinghouse mechanism, or at least the way
38:58
sort of really snap to if you imagine a tug of war, right,
39:02
you've got you've got two teams, you know, basically trying to
39:05
obviously beat the opponent, you know, basically with the rope
39:08
between them right Now, imagine if all of a sudden a judge
39:12
decides that he has to sit in the middle and he has to sort
39:14
of, you know, pull a little bit in this direction or that
39:16
direction. That's effectively going to base
39:18
what the middleman does. He just sort of dictates, no,
39:19
it's not fair what you're doing on this side.
39:21
So I'm just going to help out a little bit in this sort of
39:23
direction. That's that's sort of basically
39:26
what the middleman sort of does based in this regard.
39:28
The expert panel basically they said and dictate like who should
39:30
be helped a little bit and who should be, you know, penalised
39:34
in that regard. And, and basically we spoke with
39:36
Julius Wolf before who effectively traded the
39:39
foundation of the, you know, the gold receipt, you know,
39:44
international trading basically gold receipts, right.
39:47
So what he frankly did basically care was he wrote a book in in
39:50
1892 which fundamentally came down to defining a system of
39:54
public and private partnership, which effectively focused around
39:58
kind of basically this financial mechanism, which is basically
40:01
the full clearance system for blah, right?
40:04
But in 1899, a Marxist provisionist by the name of
40:10
Edward Bernstein released a book titled Evolutionary Socialism.
40:16
Evolutionary Socialism. Sorry.
40:18
And what that book in effect said was that, yeah, the public,
40:21
I like the, I like the idea of a public private partnership, but
40:24
it needs to be put to use for some sort of social good.
40:27
And which is incidentally, exactly kind of based what Tony
40:30
Blair in his article in 1991 in Marxism Today, he said the exact
40:35
same thing. But anyway, so that was 1899,
40:38
right? Kind of basically.
40:38
And then in 19 O 6 to 1914, something along those signs,
40:43
Arthur Pennsy and TDH Cole of the Fabian Society, they
40:47
introduced the concept of guilt socialism, UK guilt socialism,
40:50
which effectively kind of this was the same model, right?
40:52
It's about cooperatives, expert panel cooperatives and, and,
40:56
and, and basically, how should I put it?
41:03
It's essentially kind of the same mechanism again, right?
41:06
Kind of. But the point here is
41:07
essentially the mechanism. Then what's lifted by Leonard S
41:11
Wolf was also basically a member of the Fabian Society and he
41:15
wrote essentially a book which he called International
41:17
Government and it's, it's and it was probably kind of by the
41:21
favourite side as well. And, and it's, it's an
41:23
astonishing sort of book. Now, 2/3 of the book is pretty
41:27
tedious and boring, right? Can I be suppose it's the final
41:29
third is actually really interesting because what he's
41:31
saying in that book, and obviously it's 2 words to a
41:34
letter part of it. So no one pays attention was
41:37
that that they want to get rid of sovereignty.
41:41
And the reason the way they're going to get rid of sovereignty
41:44
is essentially kept by creating an international structure where
41:48
effectively international organisations like a
41:51
contemporary NGO would be in charge of its specialised field,
42:01
so to speak. So you'd have like a postal
42:03
union which would be in charge of all things relative to, you
42:06
know, mail, etcetera, right? And the way essentially power
42:12
would be gradually syphoned off the individual sovereign nation
42:16
to the to these NGOs would be that these NGOs would insert
42:20
themselves into their own specialised field and they would
42:23
then apply pressure to the individual nations basically to
42:27
get rid of free movements of labour, right?
42:30
And also free tariffs. Because essentially by
42:35
eliminating tariffs and opening borders, it would very slowly,
42:40
but gradually sort of by necessity, equalise taxation
42:45
between different nations. So if you if you have like
42:47
French basin, two nations say no way in Sweden, right?
42:50
If one of them has a massively different taxation system to the
42:54
other, then by eliminating tariffs and eliminating free
42:57
movement, kind of basically, you know, they would they would have
42:59
to harmonise kind of the rules because otherwise kind of people
43:02
would just go where more financially beneficial.
43:04
You know, and that's fundamentally what happened,
43:06
especially in 1990s where all of a sudden there was this wave,
43:09
colossal wave, kind of basic on neoliberalism, you know, with
43:13
Krugman and and Stiglitz and and so forth.
43:16
I mean, there were a huge amount of them with Greenspan obviously
43:18
in, in deep in the Federal Reserve.
43:22
And you had Larry Summers and, and interesting, Larry Summers
43:25
was actually the person, one of the two people kind of basically
43:27
who introduced at bulls to the concept of, of independent
43:32
central banks kind of basically in the Bank of England under the
43:36
Labour government in 1997 was essentially granted its
43:38
independence. And that was because of at
43:40
bulls. I mean, very few people know
43:42
about this. It took it took quite a long
43:44
time to to find that that Fabian tracked.
43:48
But yeah, that's basically how that came to be.
43:50
But anyway, going so so. That so that was from Leonard
43:53
Wolf at the turn of the last century.
43:56
And and and and. OK writing about international
43:59
governance. Yeah.
44:01
So that's in 1916, OK, nine at that point I'm obviously what
44:05
World War One is waging, right, kind of basically.
44:07
And in 1919, you know, after the Basai Treaty or the other kind
44:10
of we have the we have the League of Nations and the League
44:14
of Nations, kind of one of the one of the Co founders was
44:17
Alfred Simmons. And Alfred Simmons used
44:20
international government as the sort of blueprints for how the
44:23
system should work. And and he then basically, I
44:27
mean, he's a very interesting character because in 1924 he was
44:29
part of the IIC, which was the administrator, part of the Lady
44:32
UNESCO. And in 1926 he wrote a book
44:35
called called the third British Empire, where he essentially
44:38
said we need to get rid of the British Empire and we need to
44:41
reestablish it. Basically, it's an economic so
44:43
shell basically connect and the aspect that needs to guide some
44:48
future strategy needs to be international social justice.
44:51
That's basically more or less what he said in that book.
44:53
But at that point in time, he also founded, Co founded the oil
44:56
industry of international affairs, Phantom House with
44:59
Lionel Curtis. Lionel curious.
45:01
Basically in 1918, I think it was basically writing about the
45:03
Commonwealth nations, basically, you know, I mean, it's it's it's
45:06
it's astonishing because all this sort of just lines up one
45:09
thing after another. And I mean, I used to say, yeah,
45:11
I quite a lot basically just to Fact Check and God knows what
45:14
else, especially all three is pretty good for that because
45:16
it's just such a pain in the arts at times because it insists
45:20
on the mainstream media narrative kind of.
45:23
But yeah, it's it's, it's just, it's one of those sort of things
45:27
when you just reminded of how incredibly accurate all these
45:30
sort of things are. It's just one thing after
45:32
another. There's never any overlap or
45:33
anything like that. It's literally just one thing
45:35
after another. It's like, clearly planned.
45:38
Yes, indeed. And Simmons, an interesting one,
45:41
right? Because I think he was related
45:44
to the Miller Group, was he not? Is he working?
45:47
Because a lot of what went into the creation of Chatham House
45:50
came out of the Rhodes Milner Group.
45:52
Yeah, but then, but then, but then he's, he's also basing,
45:57
he's thinking around publications coming out of the
46:00
Fabian Society. Yeah, I mean, a sense of, but I
46:04
mean, that's not really so strange because basically when
46:06
you trace back like who Cecil Rhodes, if I could borrow this
46:10
money from, basically you find familiar names, you know?
46:13
Yes, yes, Well, I think, well, Natty Rothschild I think was one
46:18
of the executives of his wills and one of, I think he had like
46:21
7 wills or something. You know, it's, it's, it's
46:23
amazing really. But this sort of this, this
46:26
coincidence, this is what I think people, a lot of people
46:29
struggle with, right, Is that you look at the Fabian Society
46:32
that is ostensibly A socialist organisation.
46:36
Every man, every Labour Prime Minister that we've had since
46:40
the formation of the Labor Party, which actually itself I
46:43
think may well have been a Fabian project, has been a
46:48
member of the Fabian Society. But then also these people are
46:52
working hand in glove with the central banking system and the,
46:56
the international financial supposed elites, right?
47:01
So actually this, the way I think about this, I, I try to
47:03
break things down as simply as possible for myself, right?
47:06
Which is basically This is Money and power, power and money
47:09
working hand in hand with each other and.
47:12
Yes, but there's more to it than that.
47:14
Basically, because if you actually look at the Communist
47:16
Manifesto, everyone sort of thinks it needs to be a violent
47:19
revolution. But Englis himself in his later
47:21
writing sort of say kind of, no, it doesn't actually need to be a
47:23
violent revolution. All we need is for it to always
47:26
travel in One Direction and never take a step backwards.
47:28
So even if it sort of comes down, slows down to an almost
47:32
total crawl, it's acceptable just as long as it it heads an
47:35
steady March towards socialism. Right.
47:40
And so this, this is the long March.
47:42
Yes, so to speak. And and obviously that's
47:44
basically where the failure insider comes in because they're
47:46
all about, you know, very, very slow sort of bulk towards the
47:50
end objective, which is identical connected to that of
47:52
communism. Yes, right.
47:54
When I strike, I strike hard, which is what I think we're in
47:57
at the minute. I think we're in the striking
47:59
hard bit at the moment. But what's?
48:01
Faster. I think they're trying.
48:04
Yeah, they're certain. They're certainly trying.
48:06
I think that they lack the the constitution for it.
48:10
I think some of these people like Starmer, I don't think he's
48:13
quite got it in him, to be honest with you.
48:14
I hope. I hope not anyway.
48:16
I, I just disagree. I think Starmer is, I think
48:20
Starmer is going to do whatever it takes.
48:22
Kind of I don't, I don't like him at all.
48:25
He's he's an executive committee member, kind of basically a
48:27
figured society. He he is right in there.
48:30
But I think, I think I think quite possibly kind of the
48:33
biggest issue that they came up against kind of during during
48:36
COVID was that they fundamentally expected to be in
48:40
control of information by now. And they haven't managed to seal
48:43
that deal. And I think that's fundamentally
48:45
what they find themselves up against.
48:46
Because if they controlled the message everywhere, you know,
48:50
sort of there have been one thing kind of based, but there
48:52
are an increasing amount of us who, who sort of realise there's
48:56
something not quite right here. So I think kind of basically
48:58
they're in the position right now, if they slam too hard, can
49:00
people are going to object. And I think they're trying to go
49:03
it slowly kind of based about people waking up.
49:05
So they're in the position that what the hell are we going to
49:08
do? And that's where it's slightly
49:09
fair that all the, you know, they keep drumming, drumming the
49:14
beats of war, you know, kind of basically, I don't like that
49:17
because unfortunately war is one of those situations would would
49:21
simultaneously enable everything they're trying to do basically
49:24
kind of through authoritarian about grabbing power, you know.
49:27
Well, because it's national security at that.
49:29
Point exactly. Exactly.
49:30
Yeah, No, no, I completely agree with you.
49:33
And I think we can see what they're doing.
49:35
And I agree that they thought they'd have more control of the
49:37
information. I also think that they thought
49:39
the the population was more stupid than than them.
49:44
And actually, it turns out that's that's not the case, not
49:50
universally anyway. And a lot of what I'm seeing is
49:56
what they're, what they're calling epistemic security,
49:59
which, you know, is, is very much about knowledge and truth.
50:02
You know, it's inherent in the word epistemic.
50:05
And they're using a similar approach to what we're talking
50:09
about here, right? It's a, it's a clearinghouse
50:11
approach. You've got organisations like
50:13
the the Trusted News Initiative, which could be a proxy for the
50:17
Bank of England in the, in the central banking system and then
50:20
below that which is coordinated by the BBC.
50:23
So you've got another British organisation in there.
50:26
And then below that you have, you know, I can't remember all
50:29
of the names in it, but I think the Telegraph, the Financial
50:31
Times, CNN, all those types of organisations are in there too.
50:36
And that's, that's a, the same pattern essentially as what
50:41
you've described in the clearinghouse model.
50:42
It's exactly what they tried to do in, in the media space during
50:45
COVID. And they, you know, they, it's
50:48
evolved. They've moved it on from the
50:49
Trusted News initiative because I think that.
50:51
But think about this, just think about this for a split second,
50:54
because that actually gives us opportunities, right?
50:56
I agree with you, right? But now imagine, remember kind
51:01
of during COVID, we, we had like 1020 media all posting, hello,
51:06
posting exactly the same message or the same story at exactly the
51:09
same point in time within minutes, right?
51:12
Think about this for a split second, right?
51:13
Because if you've got 10 mainstream media outlets which
51:15
all supposedly independent, but post more or less exactly the
51:19
same information at the same point in time, then there is 0%
51:22
likelihood that it wasn't basically controlled from sort
51:25
of higher up of, from within the organisation.
51:28
It's not a dependent journalism is what I'm saying.
51:30
And that it, it, there are these sort of things which they
51:33
haven't really thought to, they've skipped a beat there.
51:36
But in some regards and, and fundamentally, there are certain
51:40
things kind of basically you can use to call them out because
51:43
basically there's just no way that the Telegraph and, and, you
51:46
know, some organisation in the United States would release
51:48
exactly the same story at the same time.
51:51
It's completely absurd, you know?
51:53
Yeah, yeah, right. And, and actually, you can, you
51:57
know, it looks like someone's issuing press releases.
51:59
And then actually in, in in a similar fashion, if you look at
52:02
the role that organisations like Reuters or The Associated Press
52:08
or the French one, I think it's called AFP, the role they play
52:11
in the system, again, is similar to what we're describing here.
52:15
They've become the sort of central focal point at the top.
52:17
People go to them and say, oh, look, Reuters has issued
52:20
something. I'm basically going to copy and
52:22
paste what they've written and then put my logo on it.
52:26
And I might put a few additional lines.
52:28
But broadly speaking, is the same thing, right?
52:30
And, and this is exactly the same model that they take in
52:34
every single area of the system. I mean, you talked about climate
52:36
change. That's basically what the the
52:39
IPCC is, right? That's the central bank in terms
52:42
of climate data. Would you say, I mean, if I, if
52:47
I can come and just basically there is a concept called an
52:49
information clearinghouse, if you can look it up, it's there
52:52
is, there is, there is an information clearinghouse and
52:54
essentially kind of a central organisation which administers
52:57
information. And I'll let some to them.
53:00
You know, when I look into global surveillance, basically
53:01
where we have have scope reports which effectively led to the
53:07
global environment monitoring system in the early 60s, sorry,
53:10
70s, kind of basically where they wrote these incredibly
53:12
detailed reports, which just seemed like superhuman at the
53:15
time. And when they founded, you know,
53:19
Gems, they also founded Infotera, which was essentially
53:22
the information clearing house, which administered information
53:24
in that regard. But furthermore, kind of
53:26
basically in the 1920s, Rockefeller spent rather a lot
53:29
of money on PAC 1313, which is the public administration
53:34
clearing house. It's it's the same model which
53:36
they applied basically in every setting.
53:39
Wow, OK, fascinating. I've got so much written down
53:46
here. I'm going to be, I'm going to be
53:47
research. You've given me a lot to go and
53:50
research. Yeah, where I will say, like the
53:54
information that you're gathering is is astonishing,
53:57
right? What's your approach?
53:59
I mean, obviously it's like desk based, right?
54:02
Or are you going into libraries? Or like where are you getting
54:07
all these gems from? As, as I said, basically my
54:10
background relates to systems analysis and you know, I just, I
54:16
just sort of, you know, gradually move in the direction
54:19
kind of basically just using input output analysis basically
54:21
on, on information and, and the likes.
54:23
And yeah, and that's, that's fundamentally it.
54:26
And I mean, I will say probably for the first year, it was
54:29
really difficult to sort of find the next step because very often
54:34
the biggest issue in regards to finding information, it's really
54:38
fun knowing what to search for because these people, we'll
54:40
readily rename everything you know, And it's very makes it
54:44
really difficult to trace sort of the next step in a lot of
54:47
situations. But like, you know, basically
54:48
with time, you sort of like learn the little tricks and you
54:50
sort of realise, OK, it could also mean this.
54:52
And one of the things, so Philly Ilyona, I was sitting looking
54:56
for inclusive something regards to EU, right?
55:00
I think it was, I think it was in regards to gay rights or
55:04
something kind of kind of said something about inclusivity or
55:06
whatever, right? And I could not find the next
55:08
step. And then, yeah, all of a sudden
55:11
sort of realised, hang on, what's the opposite of
55:14
inclusivity? It's like exclusivity.
55:17
So I searched for that and boom, there it was.
55:18
There's all the information. I was looking for it.
55:20
They had just like literally flipped kind of the script.
55:22
Now, it was not about being inclusive about it being
55:24
exclusive. And they do this all the time
55:26
where they just like flip the script kind of, you know, and a
55:30
lot of this stuff took a long time to work out initially.
55:33
Kind of once you spot the pattern and sort of understand
55:35
how they work, you know, in the most dishonest way you could
55:38
possibly imagine, you know, becomes a lot easier.
55:41
Now, yes, that's one of the approaches I take is I think if
55:46
if I was just pure evil and I wanted to do the most damage
55:49
possible in the most conniving way, then what would I do?
55:53
And I go and look over there and it's like, oh, there you are,
55:56
that's what you do. That's the bad thing that you're
55:58
doing. Okay, It's pretty much every
56:00
time. Yeah, fascinating, isn't it?
56:03
Yeah, so that's a good one. The inversion of meaning, the
56:08
way that they play around with words and they kind of hide
56:11
things in in plain sight. And then also I find that
56:14
they'll run these programmes, you know, like they have these
56:17
sort of transformation entities that they'll run for a period of
56:21
time and then they'll shut that one down, They'll start a new
56:24
one. It's basically doing the same
56:25
thing and it's got most of the same people in, but it's just a
56:28
way of kind of camouflaging what they're doing and hiding their
56:31
tracks as they go along. Yeah, it's it's it's it's
56:39
maximum opaqueness by intent. It's basically what organised
56:42
crime do. It is organised crime.
56:46
It is organised crime. Exactly.
56:47
Yeah. And they're the people running,
56:49
running the global system at the moment.
56:51
Isn't that, isn't that encouraging?
56:53
Delightful. Just to go, just to go back to
56:56
the, to the banking system and I've got an eye on the time.
57:00
We'll probably wrap it up fairly soon, but I'd, you know, I'd
57:03
love to do another discussion at some point if you're open to it.
57:05
But to go back to the banking system, you, you did say
57:08
something earlier which I found interesting and it'd be good to
57:11
get your take on. You mentioned that the Bank of
57:14
International Settlements, your interpretation of that is that
57:17
it's basically a forum for the, for the central bankers.
57:20
But, but actually, if you go to the US, the, the head of the
57:24
snake in the US is the New York Fed because it's responsible for
57:28
the, for the, for the US dollar. And you go to England, then the,
57:33
the, the head of the snake is the Bank of England because it's
57:35
sitting on top of sterling. Do you think that they're
57:38
looking to migrate to a single global currency at some point,
57:41
at which point the Bank of International Settlements will
57:44
become the app, the absolute top level?
57:46
Do you think that that's on their agenda?
57:49
I think, I think what they're going to do is if you remember
57:53
the EU solution, they're going to do it in stages basically
57:57
where you know, they have to make currencies, you know, align
58:04
within a certain boundary like 15% or 20% or whatever.
58:07
And then basically 10 years down the line, suddenly it's 2%.
58:09
And then, you know, once every currency is aligned within a
58:11
certain threshold, they'll just go, well, why do we have all
58:14
these currencies and collects them?
58:16
And I think that's, I think that's absolutely going to
58:18
happen. It's just a question of time.
58:20
And I also think, I also think that's initially, initially
58:25
they're going to back the future currency by, by carbon, by
58:33
carbon dioxide effectively, because there's not going to be
58:35
1 carbon currency. There's going to be two types of
58:38
currency. There's going to be 1 based on
58:40
carbon sequestration, which is strangely aligned with
58:43
convention in biological diversity.
58:45
And I think kind of basically it will be a yield producing
58:47
currency. And the yield it will produce
58:50
basically will be the the carbon emission permit sort of
58:56
currency, which is basically central United Nations framework
58:59
for climate change, UNFCCC. And I think kind of the trading
59:04
currency will be the, the carbon emission permit one, that'll be
59:08
the one with an expiry date, yada, yada.
59:10
And there will be effectively the inverse of the energy
59:13
certificates of the Technocracy Incorporated.
59:17
And I think kind of basically currency, which is based upon
59:20
carbon syncrisation will be limited ownership, as in you'll
59:24
be have to belong to some sort of inside club in order to be
59:26
allowed to own it eventually. And I think once they have that
59:31
entire system in place, then they will gradually start moving
59:33
across basically declare that's the carbon dioxide, the problem
59:39
has magically solved itself, but it's not quite as bad anymore.
59:42
But basically now it's a question of pesticide or
59:46
whatever, you know. And because these capabilities
59:48
are gradually going to face in the planetary boundaries
59:50
network, which is essentially not just carbon dioxide, but
59:52
it's nine different of these alleged boundaries, which I
59:55
mean, it's ludicrous, ludicrous, basically planetary boundaries
59:59
sort of concept. Because if you actually look at
1:00:02
that, they're all very on page, right?
1:00:04
In, in, in I think it was 2015, they had realised that the level
1:00:10
of something Catabys was outside the threshold, but they couldn't
1:00:13
tell you what it was. They just knew what it satisfied
1:00:16
the threshold. And in 2023, Catabysical when
1:00:19
you look at the update. It's still outside basically the
1:00:21
threshold, but now they know what it is.
1:00:23
It's, it's just like, makes no sense.
1:00:24
But how can you, how can you know, how can you know something
1:00:27
that's outside the threshold and not know what it is?
1:00:29
It's just complete and utter bollocks.
1:00:32
I'm sorry, pardon my friend. But if you think about, if you
1:00:36
think about it logically, right, kind of basically, if we go
1:00:39
from, you know, having our currencies fundamentally backed
1:00:43
by carbon dioxide and moving to planetary boundaries, and then
1:00:47
the next step after that basically will become any, any
1:00:49
kind of social inequality or whatever.
1:00:51
And that's effectively what Simon was speaking for in 1926
1:00:56
because he ultimately kind of spoke about, he spoke about
1:01:00
international social justice, which is effectively A moral
1:01:02
economy. And, you know, the head of that
1:01:04
snake is included inclusive capitalism, which is just sort
1:01:08
of sort of funny how it all announce, you know.
1:01:11
Yeah, indeed it is. Indeed it is.
1:01:15
And the thing about Ziman as well, for me, though, I find
1:01:18
this fascinating, right when I look at this and I think, who
1:01:21
are these people? Because he was ensconced in the
1:01:26
British Empire ultimately, right?
1:01:29
But in, in, in, it's not probably quite in its pomp.
1:01:32
So it was beginning to head on the kind of downward trajectory
1:01:37
in 19 the 1920s. Probably he's in nine to five.
1:01:41
It was the second to Boardwalk, which sat way, way too many
1:01:44
resources. There was right?
1:01:45
Probably the moment where it started declining.
1:01:47
Yeah, but he's sitting there in what is still essentially a
1:01:51
British Empire with a British monarch sitting on the throne
1:01:55
saying, well, we're going to have to jettison sovereign
1:01:58
nation state thing. That's no good.
1:02:01
And we're going to take the architecture and the apparatus
1:02:07
that's been created through this global empire, and we're going
1:02:09
to abstract it and just turn it into this global thing.
1:02:14
And that they're actually able to sit there and say that, you
1:02:17
know, like these, these administrators appear to have
1:02:20
more power in a way than the sovereign, the person who was
1:02:24
supposedly the emperor, you know, at that point of time.
1:02:28
It's, it's, I mean, First off, kind of like these people are
1:02:30
enormously intelligent. Kind of, you know, don't ever
1:02:33
sort of, I see a lot of people saying, oh, these people are so
1:02:35
stupid. It's like, no, no, no, no, no,
1:02:37
don't ever underestimate these people.
1:02:39
These people are really intelligent.
1:02:41
And as I said, I said, I briefly mentioned like the scope
1:02:46
reports, like scope one and three.
1:02:48
So scope essentially, like I was an organisation set up by the
1:02:50
International Council of Scientific Union, ICSU in 1969,
1:02:55
right? Kind of basically and scientific
1:02:57
scope means scientific committee on problems of the environment.
1:03:00
And they're effectively kind of the front runner in fabricating
1:03:02
all the climate change nonsense. Basically they're one of the key
1:03:05
organisations which fabricated that.
1:03:08
So the, the 1st and the 3rd reports related to the global
1:03:11
environment monitoring system, which is global surveillance
1:03:14
basically. That's what that's right.
1:03:15
And 1973 they, they, they wrote this, the sort of implementation
1:03:20
plan, the action plan kind of basically in this regard.
1:03:22
And in 1974, unit GEMS came to be, I saw, saw this stuff in,
1:03:27
in, in higher detail. Basically, it's, it's absolutely
1:03:30
true. But, but if you find kind of
1:03:32
it's the scope, the third scope report and you read it.
1:03:35
And I, I mean, first time I, I, I read it, I was absolutely
1:03:38
flabbergasted because it's just the precise level of detail
1:03:42
these people, these people include.
1:03:45
It's just, it's just almost superhuman, right?
1:03:47
Kind of basically, I, I, I was sitting reading and I was like,
1:03:49
how did you even think of this? Right.
1:03:52
But, but it's actually, if you go back to the 60s and you
1:03:55
consider this, the concept of spaceship Earth, what, and
1:03:59
Kenneth Bolding is the key person in this regard.
1:04:01
Kind of basically he's said in his paper from 1966 that we will
1:04:07
sort of transition from an open solar system to a closed system.
1:04:10
And that's fundamentally the key point here, because in a closed
1:04:13
system everything circulates, whereas in an open system things
1:04:16
come and they sort of go, right. But in a closed system, kind of
1:04:19
basically everything circulates. And that's where the circular
1:04:21
economy ultimately traces back to.
1:04:23
But it also means that kind of, if you consider the entire world
1:04:25
as just one Organism, so to speak, then you effectively
1:04:28
analyse everything in that regard.
1:04:31
And if you look at the scope reports, that's basically what
1:04:33
they've done. So they're sitting analysing in
1:04:35
regards to, you know, concentration of carbon dioxide,
1:04:37
the carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle and all that sort of stuff,
1:04:40
which is also aspects of calibration.
1:04:41
They look into it makes a lot more sense.
1:04:44
Basically all of a sudden, how come they, how come they almost
1:04:47
had this superhuman sort of view upon calibration sense of these,
1:04:51
these concepts? It's, it's fundamental because
1:04:54
their perspective, it's just they, they approach the issues
1:04:59
from a different perspective than you normally would, right?
1:05:01
Because you don't normally walk around sort of think, oh, I'm
1:05:04
just like a little Ant on this planet, right?
1:05:06
You think I'm sort of me and you know, physically when I go down
1:05:08
to the supermarket and buy something kind of, but these
1:05:10
people are sort of considering you as a consumer of those
1:05:12
things you find in the supermarket and put you into
1:05:14
sort of a cycle, you know, it's a note in a cycle, so.
1:05:18
That's so. No, it does.
1:05:20
So they're kind of viewing humanity is separate to
1:05:24
themselves, no? No, no, that's not, that's not
1:05:27
quite what I mean, basically. I mean, essentially they
1:05:30
consider essentially us as nodes in input output analysis.
1:05:34
So for instance, basically if I go down, if I buy a, a new
1:05:38
mobile phone at one point time, you know, basically there's
1:05:40
materials and that, yeah, at one point in time, basically it'll
1:05:43
be scrapped. Then they'll consider kind of
1:05:44
basically what happens to those materials, kind of get where
1:05:46
those go. And does that make sense?
1:05:49
So everything like for it's basically a kilo of iron will
1:05:51
never just be a kilo of iron. It'll be a kilo of iron in a
1:05:53
certain state, which is you can take that back to spinocy on
1:05:57
experiences and stuff like that. But, you know, that's just, you
1:06:00
know, that's much longer conversation.
1:06:02
OK. Yes, Well, maybe we should have
1:06:05
that longer conversation because that you just piqued my interest
1:06:08
on that particular point. And so then just to wrap up the
1:06:14
you've talked about, and this is out of one of your most recent
1:06:18
posts, where did you put this out just two days ago, right?
1:06:22
But it's this idea that you've positioned within the
1:06:25
clearinghouse protocol of crisis intermediation, conditionality
1:06:29
and control, right? This, this is the Hegelian
1:06:31
dialectic, right? Is this?
1:06:33
One, I wouldn't call it. There are aspects of of, of of
1:06:38
dialectics in there for sure. Going to be essentially kind of
1:06:40
like the crisis would essentially be like, you know,
1:06:44
think of COVID for instance, there was a crisis and alleged
1:06:46
crisis, right? Kind of basically and that
1:06:47
immediately, you know, I mean digits ID and stuff like came
1:06:51
through in three months in United in EU, right?
1:06:55
In the sense like in in in early 2021, they started speaking
1:06:57
about vaccination certificates, which are this is ID.
1:07:00
That's what they are, right? Kind of basically.
1:07:01
And within three months they went from discussing it in EU
1:07:04
Parliament to have a fully working solution, which just
1:07:08
worked. Florida State, right?
1:07:09
Yeah, OK. Now the EU never agrees on
1:07:13
anything kind of basically. So how the hell that could come
1:07:15
to be just organically can I guess it's update, you know, BS,
1:07:19
right? Basically had the solution
1:07:21
already, right. Then they called a crisis and
1:07:24
then they sort of say, well, basically kind of we need a
1:07:26
solution here. And here's the solution.
1:07:28
This is ID as in vaccination certificates.
1:07:30
And as part of that, that's that's where I'm talking about
1:07:34
kind of crisis is COVID in that case based then you need an
1:07:36
intermediation kind of basically and the intermediation and calls
1:07:41
for some level of conditionality.
1:07:42
Basically the conditionality will basically dictate who
1:07:45
passes and who does not pass. And that then these two control
1:07:49
because obviously the conditionality can be
1:07:51
controlled. And that's basically kind of,
1:07:53
you know, it's, it's the same again and again and again,
1:07:56
basically kind of where the intermediate structure is into
1:07:58
the expert panels and the conditionality basically is what
1:08:01
they speak of. Like it's into the ethic sort of
1:08:03
perspective. And the control then comes
1:08:06
through basically kind of having a number of indicators, which is
1:08:09
a sense of surveillance information.
1:08:11
And if the surveillance information is crossing some
1:08:15
threshold, then, you know, for instance, kind of during COVID,
1:08:17
if you have more than 80 cases per 100,000 people, then it's an
1:08:20
automatic lockdown, right? So basically then you have your
1:08:24
conditionality. If it's more than 80 or per
1:08:26
100,000, then it's locked down. And that basically simply kind
1:08:29
of means that you've got control basically kind of a statistic.
1:08:32
Yes, yeah. And becomes kind of algorithmic.
1:08:34
Almost exactly. Yes or no, Yes or no?
1:08:38
Yes. And and the you, you, I wasn't
1:08:41
actually going to say that, but that's absolutely fantastic.
1:08:44
And it's free to try to get in because there is ultimately the
1:08:47
end objective is because that way you can completely sidestep
1:08:50
all government specific because now you have an indicator.
1:08:52
So it's saying if it's more than 80, kind of you have to lock
1:08:54
down and that's something you can tell the computer to do,
1:08:56
then now you don't need anyone to do it anymore.
1:08:58
Right, which is exactly what they're talking about doing.
1:09:02
Exactly. And I talk a lot about some of
1:09:06
the organisations who are currently transforming the
1:09:08
political system internationally.
1:09:11
And one of the things that they talk about a lot is the idea
1:09:13
that at some point in the not too distant future, it will be
1:09:16
AI that is governing us. And they're very, very open
1:09:18
about this and presents. Absolutely, absolutely.
1:09:23
I've written a number of posts on it.
1:09:25
Yeah, cybernetic tourism is, is probably, probably the best in
1:09:30
that regard. But I, I mean, I've written a
1:09:31
number of them kind of basically also I've, I've written a sub,
1:09:35
sub, I guess they call AI for good, kind of basically our
1:09:37
soundtrack of papers supporting essentially this.
1:09:40
And, and the volume of material I found was just absolutely
1:09:43
astonishing. Kind of, I mean, there are so
1:09:44
many papers on them, kind of. Yeah.
1:09:45
AI for good is the sense of showing that there are five
1:09:48
steps because basically they even have computers now
1:09:51
experiments with writing legislation and interpreting the
1:09:54
written legislation. Yeah.
1:09:56
Since every single stage kind of discovered a human sort of
1:09:58
pipeline in politics, it's gradually basically being moved
1:10:00
on to computers. You also have have an aspect
1:10:02
kind of basically kind of titled computational ethics, which is
1:10:05
effectively kind of you know where you have an indicator and
1:10:08
across that indicator like more than 80 / 100,000 then you're
1:10:11
bad. If you're basically below then
1:10:13
you're good and that's computational ethics.
1:10:15
Then obviously you can scale that into multiple dimensions.
1:10:17
So say for instance basically amount of like 8080 cases per
1:10:20
100,000 people and how many deaths in the area?
1:10:22
Yeah, you just have a sort of vector of of statistics as
1:10:25
opposed to a single number. Yeah.
1:10:28
And the, and these are decided, well, currently decided by
1:10:30
expert panels, unelected, who are dictating what happens.
1:10:34
And they're allowed to do that because they're doing it in
1:10:37
response to a crisis, which means that we have to abandon
1:10:40
all normal, normal governance principles.
1:10:42
And we, and we just so happen at the moment as we're being told
1:10:46
to be living in a Poly crisis between and also a perma crisis.
1:10:51
So everything is always in crisis.
1:10:54
That's that's that's the end objective.
1:10:57
Kind of basically the end objective is the meta crisis.
1:10:59
And that's that's a concept. Daniel Schmuckberger whatever
1:11:02
kind of basic of the game B lot is talking about rather rather a
1:11:05
bit. Now in a major crisis, you will
1:11:08
continue to be in some level of crisis, which means the sense
1:11:10
that kind of democratic governments can never be trusted
1:11:12
to do anything. I mean the sense that democratic
1:11:14
governments basically will decide basically which, which
1:11:17
type of flower to plant in the, you know, town square of the
1:11:19
sort of plant beds, you know, basically and that's about it.
1:11:23
Yeah, yeah, exactly. That certainly feels like where
1:11:27
we're heading to at the moment. So something really must be done
1:11:30
about all of this. Fantastic.
1:11:33
Where can people follow your stuff?
1:11:36
Obviously we'll provide links to everything, but where?
1:11:38
Where should we direct them to? Escapekeep.subset.com.
1:11:46
Fantastic, your main platform for now.
1:11:50
Yeah, I mean, essentially, so I was on Twitter for quite a
1:11:53
while, but I mean, this is the most sensuous organisation of
1:11:55
the North. It's it's basically kind of we
1:11:58
spoke about clearing houses a lot.
1:12:00
Twitter is an information with public discourse clearing house.
1:12:03
That's what it is. OK.
1:12:04
If you talk about something kind of basically which we're not
1:12:06
allowed to talk about, then you get censored and and I mean it's
1:12:09
ridiculous towards towards the end.
1:12:12
I would, I would get very little traction with anything, could I?
1:12:16
And whenever, even the few tweets basically where I would
1:12:19
get like, you know, say basically 100 retweets, I would
1:12:21
go in and look at the retweets and the likes and 99.9% would be
1:12:26
of people who already followed me.
1:12:27
In other words, kind of basically the only people who
1:12:29
would be allowed to see my tweets would be those people who
1:12:31
would already followed me to stop me from enlarging my, my,
1:12:34
my sort of base, which is it stops free speech.
1:12:37
And at the same point in time these people are talking about,
1:12:38
we need to break down silence, information silence.
1:12:41
They're just liars, yeah. But yeah, I mean, since that's
1:12:44
one of the reasons why why why I quit Twitter because it's just,
1:12:47
I mean, it's just, it's just astonishing how we can stand and
1:12:50
talk about free speech, but it's because it doesn't practise it
1:12:53
at all. But yeah, basically the other
1:12:55
positive, sorry. The other positive regards to
1:12:57
sub stack, it's a sensor you can control P and print your
1:13:00
material and delete your account overnight if it should be, you
1:13:02
know, yeah, you don't have 100,000 messages on Twitter.
1:13:07
Twitter kind of basically just have like, you know, a couple
1:13:09
hundred articles basically kind of, you know, jumped on far
1:13:12
easier. Yeah, right.
1:13:13
Yeah, yeah. And actually I think that the
1:13:15
future is probably going to be offline largely.
1:13:20
Actually, I think there's you. You need real information
1:13:24
integrity, then it's you got to print that thing out, you know,
1:13:28
and. No, this is the thing.
1:13:30
This is the thing that I got. I'm slightly discreet here.
1:13:32
Basically it needs to be distributed and decentralised,
1:13:35
right? And, and this is actually one of
1:13:37
the most evil thing things they did during COVID, right?
1:13:40
Because basically everyone was sort of lauding must take over
1:13:44
Twitter. But if you think about what what
1:13:46
took place at that point in time, and that's sitting aside
1:13:50
that he's also a big fan of AI ethics, which is a huge problem.
1:13:53
But yeah, if you think about what actually took place at that
1:13:56
point in time, you had Gap, you had Telegram, you had Gator, you
1:14:02
had a number of other organisations, right,
1:14:04
Competitors, which we're all gaining followers very, very
1:14:08
rapidly, right? All of a sudden, you know, Musk
1:14:11
sort of announces, oh, I'm totally libertarian, come back
1:14:13
to my platform, right? And all those platforms were
1:14:16
just sort of ignored, you know, mothballed, right, kind of
1:14:18
Biscay. And that's fundamentally kind of
1:14:20
the biggest issue as regards to Twitter as far as I'm concerned.
1:14:22
One thing is the censorship basically, that's one thing.
1:14:25
But he fundamentally stop people, stop alternate platforms
1:14:28
from gathering pace. Yeah.
1:14:30
So yeah, it destroyed the market.
1:14:32
It's a classic, classic big tech move.
1:14:35
Basically. It's what they've all been doing
1:14:37
for the past 30 years often. And if you think about it, if
1:14:39
you think about it, right, all this sort of stuff regards to
1:14:41
the moral economy, the very same kind of what, you know, now, I
1:14:44
will say kind of perhaps, perhaps he's a good guy
1:14:46
basically. I mean, I do make mistakes.
1:14:47
I will say perhaps Elon Musk is a good guy and he's just like
1:14:49
forced behind the scenes. I don't know.
1:14:50
Of course, I'm not Privy to these conversations.
1:14:52
But what I will say is the few times where he sort of said, I'm
1:14:56
just going to publish, you know, I'm going to allow people to say
1:14:59
whatever they want, kind of basically all the big, all the
1:15:02
big advertisers suddenly disappeared.
1:15:04
Right now, I don't know about you basically, but any
1:15:06
organisation which has got that sort of power to sit and dictate
1:15:10
kind of basically who's there to advertise where that's highly
1:15:14
illegal in my book, that's, that's collusion and an outright
1:15:17
monopoly behind the scenes. I mean, that's the first thing
1:15:19
that should be attacked. It's, it's, it's absolutely
1:15:22
outrageous that anyone should have the sort of right to
1:15:24
dictate what is moral and what is not.
1:15:27
And, and, and unfortunately we didn't have time to discuss
1:15:29
this, but you know, the global clearing house sort of this one
1:15:33
aspect of this. The other sort of thing is, you
1:15:35
know, global governance through global ethics, because
1:15:38
everything spins around ethics. Once you realise, once you
1:15:41
realise that it's into the ethics are manufactured kind of
1:15:43
essentially that's, that's the it's game over in my book.
1:15:46
Yeah, no, I completely, completely agree.
1:15:50
Well, maybe we can have another discussion about ethics and
1:15:54
that'd be good place to, to, to pick things up.
1:15:57
It's fantastic to, to talk to you.
1:16:00
Thank you so much for your time. Thank you for all of the work
1:16:02
that you've been putting in. I don't see anyone else working
1:16:05
harder on this stuff, though. The amount of documents that
1:16:08
you've on earth and read over the past couple of years is,
1:16:11
it's kind of mind blowing to be honest with you.
1:16:14
So I'm kudos to you and to everyone at home.
1:16:18
Thanks for listening. I've been Ben Rubin for UK
1:16:21
column talking to Escape Key. Until next time, take care.