Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 3, 2022 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:13:20

Alex from Thinking Slow

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I know I always say I'm excited about this special guest but I really am.
	Listen mother come subscribe with me.
	I love DellyPod. - Welcome to the DellyPod with me, James DellyPod.
	I know I always say I'm excited about this special guest, but I really am.
	Alex from Thinking Slow is one of those people that has cropped up quite a lot in my life in the last couple of years.
	All these kind of private geniuses who suddenly emerged, blinking into the light, and in their different ways are helping us combat the monstrous evil that surrounds us in the world.
	Is that a fair description, Alex?
	That's a fantastic description, James, and I've likewise very much enjoyed your electronic company in this journey, because you've certainly helped us get the message out by retweeting our material, and I'm very grateful for that.
	So, Alex, is thinking slow an organisation, or is it just a kind of a thing that you do, a sort of pseudonym?
	It's well, I think it started out as a pseudonym and it's it is growing slowly into an organization because one of the things we figured out, you know, now it basically is to get off social media and to do much more real world activity, you know, writing to MPs and we've had a
	A couple of rounds of getting volunteers and we have a small team now of about eight people and we might expand that a bit more but it's going to become much more than me and a couple of other guys in Sudan and it's going to become a bit more of an organisation in the next few months.
	Is that what's called grassroots activism?
	Exactly that, yeah.
	And it's, again, it's getting into the real world so tweeting and retweeting isn't going to get us anywhere and we want to get into almost like a think tank kind of structure where you write your results on a policy paper or whatever issue it is and send that in to whichever part of the government should get it or even to individual MPs.
	Wow, you're more of an organised thing than I realised.
	We're going to talk today, are we not, about a really interesting discovery, I think, that you've made about Twitter.
	Now, I know some people will be going, well I don't care what happens on Twatter, on Shitter, or whatever disparaging thing you want to call it.
	It's obviously an organ of big tech, of the insane authoritarian left, and blah blah blah.
	I still use it reluctantly because, well, A, I enjoy the cut and thrust of encounters with people who absolutely hate me, which is obviously the majority on Twitter, but also I think it is, it's where the, it is like the public square, isn't it?
	It's where people, influencers, let's say, where they go to spa And in that sense, it's quite important.
	It punches above its weight in terms of the national and international debate.
	Yeah, I would say people are missing a massive trick by just dismissing Twitter and saying, I'll go off somewhere else and do this somewhere else.
	Because once you understand the volume of the bot traffic, you have like two critical questions to ask.
	Who is organizing that traffic and what is the purpose of that traffic?
	And once you get a handle on what that is all about, you begin to understand You know, we already understand roughly the agendas at play, but you understand much more about the kind of psyops that are being used on us through Twitter.
	I mean, it sounds a bit far-fetched, but all of those enormous volumes of bot traffic all have a purpose.
	Yes.
	And I think that's the trick we've got into.
	We've started uncovering the different kind of bot farms and what they're doing, and it becomes kind of sinister in a way.
	When you get more into what what's really going on.
	Okay.
	Well, I'm so that's it's important to understand that because you're understanding your enemy you're understanding what the other guys are doing and you use and you're understanding the applied psychology.
	They using it's much more insightful than just walk away.
	This is this is really good for me.
	Not least Alex because you come across to me anyway.
	As a credible witness.
	You're not excitable like I am.
	You're not fly like... You told me you've got a degree in... You're a physicist, aren't you?
	By training.
	Physics.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Physicists are sort of solid, reliable types, generally.
	Well, I mean, you know, I'm solid and reliable now, but I do get up at three in the morning thinking, how is this bot connected to that bot?
	And there's quite a few long hours of work have gone into this.
	This isn't like a vision that suddenly come about.
	It's actually tons and tons of analysis, basically, to get to where we are now.
	I can start with, I mean, I can start the process of just describing how we got to untangling these bots.
	Well, how do you better first tell me the essence of what you found?
	Well, the essence of what I found is, and this is kind of interesting, not many people know this, but there's already computer science analysis that shows 54% of Twitter traffic is bot generated.
	So, and there's a separate issue, it's like, why is there all this controversy with Elon Musk?
	Because he must have had people who have seen that same paper.
	It's a computer science paper from Cambridge.
	Estimating 54% traffic is fake.
	We estimate it's higher than that.
	But the important issue, again, is understanding that traffic is being used for specific purposes.
	So the simplest way I could say this is, if we all accept that the mainstream media was always involved in politics, you had your blue papers and your red papers.
	They're influencing their readers with opinion pieces.
	Basically, all of that has been translated into Twitter, but it's all done by bots now.
	They don't do it by individual opinion polls.
	They do it by flooding various individuals and various ideas of traffic.
	Through that traffic, they not only push their own agenda up, but they obviously flood the likes of us who are not being boosted with that volume.
	You've heard them talk a lot about flooding the zone and I've begun to understand what that actually means.
	I mean, they really are flooding the zone with their people and their messages and burying any dissent.
	And one more interesting thing is that also they play both sides.
	So they amplify both the left and the right at different times to achieve different ends.
	And the right side is more to do with choosing their own winners.
	So I think we're seeing some people pop up as spokespersons for the libertarian movement, who we're not really sure about.
	Who are these people?
	Where do they come from?
	That's all bot-generated traffic, promoting those individuals into positions of being spokesmen without having any credentials or any support, really.
	It's all bot-driven.
	That's really interesting.
	So what you're describing there is a form of controlled opposition that we sort of freedom fighters might imagine that these people who seem to be sharing or parroting our views online, and they're being given prominence, we're going, yeah, way to go, guy.
	I don't know who you are, but you sound like my kind of person.
	And we have to ask who is promoting this person, yeah?
	Yeah, absolutely.
	I don't know if I'll name them here, but I think we should work on this.
	There are a couple of people, OK, there's a couple of people who are fifth column, and without being sued, I'm relatively certain that Mr Melville is one of those people because His whole background doesn't add up, and almost all of his volume is to do with bots, and he now is the spokesperson for us, essentially.
	It's all bot-generated publicity that's pushing him and his immediate circle to the top of this hashtag things on the top of the timelines and all the rest of it.
	Okay.
	Yeah, I mean, that's obviously a big claim.
	But do you...
	But my thoughts on that are, yes, I did not know who this guy was.
	I blocked him on Twitter during Brexit because he was one of those really aggressive Remainers.
	Not that I care about Brexit at all anymore, but he was an aggressive Remainer who really kind of Did sort of set the mob on Brexiteers like myself.
	But then we sort of had this rapprochement where he seemed to be becoming the voice of the resistance to, a sort of soft voice of the resistance as we said, but things like lockdowns and vaccines and so on.
	So I'm interested to hear that he's being promoted by bots.
	How can you tell?
	Yeah, that's kind of a long story, but if I make it very short, I mean, firstly, there's really two ways of doing it.
	One is I do a benchmarking, so I'll compare the average likes that you get, I get, Peter Hitchens gets, and another group of people, there's about eight in that group, and I'll come to a figure of about 400 likes per tweet and over the last 10 tweets.
	I mean, it should be more than ten, but ten is a rough... it's enough to get a rough feel.
	And then I'll look at... I'll look at... I'll look at a James Melville, and the other guy is... Stadler, or Stadlin, I think?
	Yes!
	He's one of the weirdest things that I've... Stadlin!
	...ever come across.
	Right, right.
	And all of those guys... yeah, all of those guys are on five thousand plus.
	And I can do that through different groups.
	I can do it, compare journalists to journalists, MPs to MPs, because that's how I've seen the momentum MPs.
	Momentum MPs are on about 7,000 likes per tweet.
	Your average Labour backbench is on about 20.
	So I'm comparing peers against peers.
	So that immediately will say to me, OK, this doesn't make sense.
	Like these, you know, because you have to remember that in terms of voting, you know, round numbers, the Conservative Labour roughly 50-50.
	So it's not a difference in the size of their audience that's causing you to be 200 and Stadlin to be 5000.
	You know, the audience size is the same.
	And if anything, the sort of right-leaning is a bigger audience.
	So why on earth is this guy, you know, 50 times, 100 times more popular than a well-established sort of journalist center right?
	And that's your beginning of like, that doesn't make sense.
	And then you start looking at the actual accounts that are liking and retweeting.
	And I mean, in a nutshell, I just say one key Metric is that the account doing the liking will have huge volumes.
	It'll have like 150,000 tweets, 100,000 tweets, maybe then 200,000 likes, and it'll have maybe 200 followers and 300 following.
	So your net followers is basically zero for that account.
	It's following as many people as it's followed by, but the volumes are enormous.
	And that's your big hint that there's something wrong, and then you can start peeling down and looking at different metrics.
	But that's the first one.
	If you just look at the account, you can see enormous volumes of tweets and likes, but really no followers.
	And you'd think there's no human being that would sit there.
	You know, these volumes are so big, you're talking about seven days a week, nine to five, liking, liking, liking, and having no followers.
	It's just not a human thing to do.
	And that's your basic clue.
	Have you been doing a lot of, kind of, counting?
	You've been looking at people's follower base?
	Yeah, I've developed Yeah, exactly so.
	I mean, what I do is I split those two groups, so I have a group of nine people who I know are people, and I work out various averages for things like likes per tweet, tweets per year, and another giveaway is retweets as a percentage of tweets.
	So, you know, an average person, there's quite a wide range, but an average person will be about 45% of their tweets will be retweets.
	For the bots, that's about 75% plus.
	So most bots are just retweeting.
	They're not generating any original content.
	So that's, for example, another flag that tells you, OK, so you've got the high volumes, low followers, lots of retweets, and then there's a couple more things that finally nail this account down as a bot.
	So I'm just comparing the averages for people versus these other accounts that I suspect are bots.
	And, you know, in most cases I'm coming up with bots, basically, with a few people mixed in.
	That's why I get the 80% figure, because everything I've looked at so far, 80% has been bots, and 20% have been people and or borderline, I'm not quite sure, either way.
	So, are you saying that, in fact, it's not 50% of Twitter that is fake, but 80%?
	80 is 80% is my my estimate and I don't have I don't have all the numbers the 54% is fully backed up by a lot of calculation from Cambridge so you know all the methodology is there and for my for my purposes you know the important thing is that we're all seeing a window on Twitter so I think we've done another experiment which you put on the internet if you
	If you open the same tweets that we look at, but from another account, from another person, we will see a completely different set of replies and likes, and everything will be totally different.
	Someone else logging into Twitter looking at the same thing will have a completely different view than what we see.
	So I'm looking, obviously, at my view, and 80% of that, I would think, plus minus is bots, based on some samples that I've done.
	But someone else looking at Twitter who's a non-player character might have a different percentage because they won't see the same replies that we see.
	Right.
	That's another weird factor of Twitter.
	You've kind of explained something which is...
	This has long puzzled me, and I think a lot of people, like myself, about Twitter.
	Maybe this applies to other social media sites as well, I don't know.
	But you see these characters emerge, and you wonder who the hell they are, and why and how they've suddenly become a thing.
	You mentioned Matthew Stadlin.
	What is Matthew Stadlin, other than the kind of A character who produces really, really annoying tweets relentlessly, but on the basis of what?
	I mean, who is he?
	Where did he come from?
	This would explain that somebody out there has decided that he is a useful force for their cause, whatever that cause might be, and so they've promoted him.
	Is that the deal?
	Absolutely, absolutely, and the bot activity seems to be split into two groups, which is sort of notionally left and right, and I think the guys really in the background play both sets, but I've done more work on the left-leaning set, and that set of bots, they promote somewhere about four MPs, they promote about three or four media talking heads like Stadlin.
	I think it's James O'Brien from LBC.
	Yes.
	Another one.
	George Monbiot.
	George Monbiot, yeah.
	Yeah.
	So that's the sort of media side.
	And then, you'll be very pleased to hear, I was thrilled to hear, that some of the guys that really irritate us, who are massive talking heads, like Gary Lineker, almost all of his traffic is bot generated.
	Almost all of it.
	And, you know, he's on crazy number of likes.
	He can get 26,000 likes just by saying, wasn't that a great game?
	And it's all fake, basically.
	Well, I can't say it's all fake, but The vast majority of that traffic is fake and so that part of the machine, I think you're right, is amplifying those messages and I've kind of put those messages down as nationalization, climate alarmism and woke issues.
	I mean that's sort of three sort of great reset stroke far-left interests and those things are amplified by that bot farm.
	That's really interesting.
	Who are the other ones, apart from Lineker?
	Deborah Meaden also has a lot of bot traffic.
	Yeah.
	Deborah Meaden, who was on Dragon's Den.
	And again, is just a kind of inconsequential person with very...
	Very sort of drearily doctrinaire woke stroke lefty views, who somehow has achieved prominence on social media for, yeah, now you've explained why.
	Okay, her, yeah.
	Who else?
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Gordon Brown is not one with a lot of fake traffic.
	Because I can't imagine a single person would give a tosswap to Gordon Brown.
	I mean, yeah.
	Ex-Chancellor.
	Failed ex-Chancellor.
	Oh, you know, QED.
	QED.
	You know, his last, he did a think piece, if you could call it that, in the mirror.
	Tens of thousands of likes.
	And it begs the question, who are all these people?
	Because I don't think he's too popular within his own party, let alone, you know, with the opposition.
	Who are all these people?
	And if you start digging into it, I can only do samples.
	I do six at a time.
	I'll just do a screenshot of six, and I'll look at those criteria that we spoke about, and I'll say, OK, 80% of these look like bots, basically.
	And then it starts to add up.
	Then it starts to add up, well who are all these people?
	Well, OK, all these people are just noise, essentially, an amplification.
	OK, before we start speculating on how this operates and why, just tell me, OK, Gordon Brown, he's not really a celebrity though, he's a kind of ex-politician, so who else in the Lincoln League?
	There are names floating around in my brain which I can't quite capture.
	People in the same league as Stadlin and so on.
	Owen Jones?
	I think I gave you... I'll tell you the MPs.
	The MPs are quite interesting because they're the momentum guys.
	Bryant.
	Bryant's very heavily... What, Chris Bryant?
	The underpants man?
	The gay Paul Elliot.
	Zara Sultana.
	I thought she was a spoof character?
	No, no, no.
	And she, I mean, for example, she did a selfie a couple of days ago that had 16.2 thousand likes.
	You know, go figure.
	So that's all amplification.
	And the other guy is Richard Bergen.
	And Claudia Webb is the fourth one of the MPs.
	Richard, yeah, Richard Bergen.
	Incredibly stupid guy.
	Yeah, Bergen, yeah.
	I mean, really, really, you know, just unbelievably thick.
	Who yet got a place at Cambridge.
	Yeah.
	It sounds like he was selected way, way back, and then he's now being... his asinine tweets are being amplified.
	Yeah, so that would make sense to me.
	Richard Bergen, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Claudia Webb, yeah.
	Those are the main ones I could remember off the top of my head, and they... I'll tell you another one.
	I may as well say it now because it's in my film.
	It's Ed Davey.
	I was kind of very surprised about his accounts, very heavily amplified as well.
	Right.
	Well, I suppose because he's... that's for the Green Agenda.
	I think so, yeah.
	And again, you can just do a benchmark.
	So, I don't remember the exact number he's on, but let's say it's 3,000.
	You look at the deputy leader of the Liberal Party, she's on, like, 30 or 40 or something.
	So, you know, you can say, look, you know, the leader's going to be more popular than the deputy, but 3,000 versus 40, no, no, it just doesn't, it doesn't add up.
	And then you start going through, and it's all the same bots, basically.
	Have you done any Americans, or is that not beyond your purview?
	No, I mean, the thing about the system is you start stumbling into different areas, and I've just started getting into that.
	And the only thing I can say about Americans is I'm kind of worried, and I haven't done any real work on this yet, that there's sort of radicalization going on.
	That there's one video shooting around now, some Canadian guy screaming there's going to be blood, sweat and tears.
	Uh, you know, all dressed up in his farmer's outfit and these, you know, real yokel.
	Messages like that are getting very heavily amplified by sort of these, what look like right-wing, but they're actually bots.
	And that's kind of concerning that, you know, that part of the debate's being radicalized.
	I'm going to do a bit more work on that.
	That's interesting as well.
	I mean, I...
	You know what Twitter's like, that sometimes you see something that catches your attention and you press retweet without really investigating whether... Say you get some dramatic footage from somewhere and you assume that the caption is accurate and that it is what it purports to be and then later on you think, well hang on a second...
	How do I know that this is what it purports to be?
	And then you discover that actually it was taken somewhere miles from where it was supposed to have taken place, and probably three or four years ago.
	And you think, I've been had!
	There are these malign... well, I suppose the best complexion you could put on it is that some of these people are just irresponsible and just kind of articulate.
	But I think it's more orchestrated and malign than that, isn't it?
	It serves an actual dangerous purpose.
	100%.
	I mean, that for me is just a suspicion.
	And I'm actually going to talk to one of these applied psychology people and ask them, what kind of impact would this image or video have on this kind of peer group?
	And I'm sure that's going on.
	And as you said, if it is going on, it's very, very malign and it's quite dangerous.
	You know, you're radicalising your own population, heading into a massive economic Well, I mean, it's not a collapse, but in terms of real wages, it is a collapse.
	Oh, I think it is going to be a collapse.
	And there's going to be a lot of discontent.
	Yeah.
	And you're radicalising people, you know.
	And then, of course, to get to the big question, where's Twitter in all this?
	You know, because if a guy with a spreadsheet knows plus minus what's going on, they clearly know as well.
	Oh, I don't think they know.
	I think they're just trying to run a business.
	They couldn't possibly know.
	Well, my theory with them is obviously they're conflicted because their whole market cap is propped up by traffic volume, so nobody at Twitter is ever going to turn around and say, well actually that paper from Cambridge that shows even 54%, let's just take that, there's another paper that shows less than 54% from another university, but I think the 54% is more credible.
	Nobody at Twitter is going to say, yep, that's correct, we're going to cut in half our traffic figures because we don't believe this other half.
	You're just never going to do that sitting inside Twitter.
	Do you think that this is why the Elon Musk thing fell through, or do you think he... I mean, he must have always known, mustn't he, that that whole thing was inflated?
	He must... I'll tell you the funny thing about that is his account's very heavily boosted as well.
	Is it?
	So I have no idea what on earth that's all about.
	I can't begin to understand It's as you said, he would have known.
	I mean, you don't you don't go around making bids, multi billion dollar bids without knowing what's going on.
	And if I've read those two or three computer science papers, then his people would have read them as well.
	So he he would have known.
	And to me, it's a whole mystery what on earth is actually going on with that story.
	I think I'd like to give credit to Michael Sanger, who I think was the first person I know who pointed out the extent to which I think Chinese bot farms were pushing the lockdown and pushing all the kind of extravagantly over the top and completely unnecessary measures.
	And he produced page after page of reproductions of Twitter sites, of Twitter people saying, That we really need to lock down now.
	You know, Boris, move because it's really urgent and our health is in danger.
	Repeating the same message.
	You must have seen those.
	Yeah, I just did one.
	I put up a video today on sewage.
	You know, sewage has suddenly become a big issue.
	I just typed sewage.
	My MP voted for water.
	If you type that into Twitter, you'll get 240 odd exact same messages from grassroots activists.
	All the same message over and over and over again.
	So, it's still going on.
	That's really interesting.
	So, because you're right, I've reached the point where I glance, I skim the newspaper now just to see what not to think, or rather to see what the enemy are trying to make us think.
	And I have been struck by the number of sewage stories.
	You know, the one about the beach in Sussex was that the pipe pouring out sewage onto the beach.
	What do you think they're trying to achieve here?
	Well I think that's just political point scoring.
	I mean the big picture to me is the system, the Great Reset is one way or another spiritually aligned with Marxism and the left is being allowed to score big points against the right.
	The right's being squashed now I think through all this All the silly tricks like the sewage story suddenly becomes massively amplified through social media.
	And I think that's what's going on.
	They're just getting ready to sort of electorally wipe out the right.
	Why is sewage a right wing thing?
	It's just being used to attack the Conservatives.
	Is it?
	Right.
	There's no more than that, basically.
	Yeah, yeah, because if you type in the message, I don't remember the exact wording, but it's on my Twitter feed, it's something like, my MP voted to allow, you will literally get this 240 accounts, and then there'll be a picture of a Conservative MP underneath each one of those tweets.
	Right.
	And there's hundreds of them.
	So they're attacking the Conservative Party for whatever regulation they relaxed or changed and blaming them for allowing sewage to be sort of dispersed into wherever it's being dispersed into.
	Right, you're right.
	So Twitter is a sort of a more extreme version of our Shitty newspapers, because the agenda is so transparent in all the papers I read, whether it's the Telegraph, the Mail or whatever, or the Guardian.
	But Twitter can do this to the nth degree, can't it?
	Because it can magnify.
	Yeah, and also for us we're maybe to some extent not quite so ready for it.
	I mean I've never done anything on social media until I started this thinking slow to get this data out there and naively you assume you're dealing with people and you understand in a while that you're not dealing with people.
	But the extent to which they've now flooded this whole thing with this bot traffic, to me was shocking really.
	And I've been looking at it for days now, but I'm only now getting used to how much of this bot traffic there is.
	Yes, I understand that, because even when you suspect somebody is a bot, or a member of 77th, which is pretty much the same thing, You can't stop yourself looking at the picture and looking at the biog and thinking, well, this has got to be a real person because it's a picture of a person and they've got a name and it says what their hobbies are.
	I think it's almost our human instinct, isn't it, or nature to trust that you see a picture of a human name and you think, well, it can't be a bot.
	Well, I mean, I think the other thing about bots is, of course, there's always human interaction.
	It's, you know, a human has programmed it to do something and set it up.
	So there is always human, and this actually looks to me like there's some hybrid bots that sort of do bot things, and then someone will step into them and start doing some replies.
	So there's always a bit of a hybrid.
	What I've learned on some of them at least, the ones, as you said, with all the flags and all the things, those are all hanging out there for you to recognize your symbol or your hashtag or your phrase and you follow them.
	It's like baiting a hook for a fish, as far as I can see.
	I call those things the overt bots.
	That, you know, all of that stuff is out on display, so you go, oh, he's one of mine.
	You know, he's got a Union Jack, he's got a cross, he's got a tractor, he's got a something else, a glass of milk, he's one of my guys, I'll follow him.
	But it's all, again, trickery.
	It's all there to entice you to follow this thing which is actually just a bot.
	Yes.
	Did you see the Easter Island head thing?
	There's a gang of people with Easter Island hats.
	I saw something about it, but I didn't... yeah, I saw it was buzzing around, but I didn't follow it.
	I mean, they're well dodgy.
	I mean, for me, it's an instant block anyone who's got a Ukrainian flag in their... well, or pronouns, I suppose.
	Ukrainian flags and pronouns are a deal-breaker for me.
	I think quite a lot of Ukrainian stuff was also amplified as well, which I find a relief too, because I was at times thinking, can everyone, can, you know, is the whole nation believe this is a black and white, you know, good guys versus bad guys?
	And you can see the bot traffic also playing a role in that.
	Yes, you've actually put your finger on something which I think goes some way to explaining why they do what they do.
	That it is very discomforting for people of our persuasion to see what seems to be a massive public opinion taking a position diametrically opposite to our own.
	And you're thinking, well hang on a second, it's designed to make you feel small and lonely and powerless in the face of these vast forces, isn't it?
	It is, and it works.
	I mean, not for all of us, but it certainly makes you feel lonely.
	I mean, of course, a lot of people will then just go along with the current thing.
	I mean, that's why it is the current thing.
	They won't have the research background to stand their ground.
	I mean, the only reason I can stand my ground is because I've done so much homework on a lot of these issues that you think, well, that's what it says.
	It's in black and white, so I don't care how much propaganda you fling at me.
	You know, this is what I think.
	But, you know, for other people that don't have the time, you know, who are doing full-time work and children or whatever, they can't possibly be in that position.
	So, of course, they're going to be influenced by this.
	I mean, it is a psyop, basically, this fake mass support for these issues that they generate artificially.
	So, how would it work?
	Obviously, if I were to try this, if I were to decide, right, I'm going to amplify, I'm going to create a bot farm and amplify all my prejudices to give the illusion that I'm the all-conquering God Emperor.
	I'd be brought short by the fact that I have no technical skills, but also there must be other barriers.
	How do you get to do this?
	Yeah, that's for me the big question.
	I mean, I think all of us can buy bots.
	This is not my area at all.
	I know that you can make them and they're not that super difficult to make.
	And I know you can buy them.
	There's been scandals in the past about buying huge volumes of bots.
	But, you know, the thing to me is I'm assuming, you know, someone in the system is seeing all of this, you know, it is obvious once you've seen it, once you've seen it, you can never unsee it.
	So somebody in Twitter must see all this going on.
	I'm guessing if you or I tried to do it, and let's say we did a pro-Russian bot farm, that would be shut down within 10 seconds.
	Yeah.
	Whereas somehow this other operation just goes and runs and nobody seems to do anything.
	Well, it's a bit like... So as long as it's on message, it's allowed?
	It's like Wikipedia.
	If you or I tried to... Let's say I personally went to my Wikipedia page and tried to make it more accurate.
	I'd soon get shot down because I don't fit the profile, even though I probably know more about me than most of the trolls who do the Twitter editing.
	You're right, you've got to be part of the accepted in-group in order to do this stuff.
	So, I mean look, I've come to the conclusion in the last two years that the entire world is a simulation, well an illusion, that everything one reads in the newspapers is either a lie or a truth designed to lure you in a particular direction.
	And the scale of the deception, People in the acting industry, for example, or people in the pop industry, or all the opinion formers and entertainers.
	So many of them seem to be in the service, often knowingly so, of the lie, of the great lie.
	Everything is about deception, because obviously the world is the realm of the Prince of Lies.
	And this really supports that theory, does it not?
	100%.
	And as I said, it's shocking.
	And once you've seen it, it's so obvious.
	Like you said, you've been asking those questions on Stadlin, you know, how does this happen?
	And then as soon as you compare the volumes, and you see who's doing it, you go, it's just, it's fake.
	Yeah, yeah.
	And then and then everything makes sense again, you know.
	And it is huge deception and there are all these applied psychology angles to it as well, which was looking into as well.
	But you're right, the main one is the peer pressure kind of making you feel isolated and someone who hasn't done his homework and doesn't have the time will have to go along with the group thing because That's what you do.
	Well also, there are lots of very easily, shallow, easily led people out there who think, who should I follow on Twitter?
	I know, I'll follow, I'll follow Piers Morgan because lots of people read him and it's a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?
	It's that... Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean, I've often wondered about how the traffic of people like Piers Morgan, I mean, I don't understand how somebody so obnoxious can continue to draw the crowds long after he's been discredited.
	Or somebody like Dr Schillery, the jab-pushing doctor from that Breakfast TV programme.
	I mean, like, do people really...?
	Yeah, I haven't seen Yeah.
	I'll tell you another interesting one if you're into names.
	The Left Bot Farm pushed Dominic Cummings very hard in early July when he was attacking quite heavily Boris Johnson.
	And suddenly he had a few days where each one of his sort of attacking tweets would take about 15,000, 16,000 likes.
	And then that lasted, I don't know, a few days.
	I don't remember, five days, say.
	And then he went back to sort of more normal levels.
	So, you know, they just turned the volume up.
	When they need it, and then it's back off again when they don't need it.
	And I suppose it's possible that these various characters, Stadlin and so on, don't even know that they're being boosted.
	It's just a kind of... Yeah.
	Yeah, I mean, you know, I covered this a bit in the video that some would have to be a bit, they'd have to be egomaniacs to think they were really so massively more popular than their peers.
	But they are, they're probably narcissists.
	I don't know.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so they probably think this is the real deal and, you know, why not?
	7,000 likes per tweet, you know, for a backbench Momentum MP, but for anyone normal that would think that's not realistic.
	Yes.
	Are there any... so you mentioned those Momentum Labour MPs.
	I mean, you know, it's odd.
	I find myself Much more sympathetic towards Corbyn and Co than I used to be.
	I rather wish he'd been Prime Minister instead of Boris Johnson for various reasons.
	Is that just because they're known to be troublemakers?
	What would be the aim of promoting them?
	Well, I mean, I'm guessing here again, but I do think a big part of the Great Reset, which we know about, is losing private property.
	And your right to liberty is very tied in with private property.
	And of course, I don't pronounce it wrong, but Bergen and Zoltana, they're all in for nationalization.
	You know, that would be the spearhead of the organization taking away Private property through, you know, nationalizing energy and then nationalizing something else or something else.
	You know, they are they are Marxists.
	So yeah, they believe in full state ownership and that also fits in with the Great Reset.
	I find that to be the weirdest possible combination that you have sort of oligarchs in the background, but actually letting the sort of neo-Marxists have their agenda and then implement it.
	Yes, except let me attempt another explanation just on top of my head.
	It's that, it's that worse is better type thing.
	You think about, I always used to be puzzled by why a billionaire like George Soros will be pumping money into all these groups designed to create, well, sort of mass immigration, to create all manner of division.
	I think that part of the raison d'etre of the predator class is to cause maximum disruption in order to weaken and divide cultures.
	Well, it's divide and rule.
	And I was thinking that what does Twitter really promote?
	Twitter really promotes the cut and thrust Of the culture wars, that stuff about transgender and stuff and stuff that I've come to see is actually a distraction from what's really, you know, we should be much more worried about the war on food, the coming economic or currency system collapse, central bank digital currencies.
	Meanwhile, You know, all my former conservative commentator colleagues are still fighting a really principled war against pronouns and against Cambridge colleges doing crazy stuff.
	And I think a lot of this stuff is there purely to distract us from what matters and to enable columnists in the Telegraph to write trenchant pieces saying how much they deplore when How crazy the world's got.
	And you're thinking, yeah, this craziness was designed by the predator-parasite class in order to distract you from real shit.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I mean in our little organisation we're focusing only, we're focusing on this issue, the PSYOPs, how they're using PSYOPs to control people.
	We're focusing on the funding of the think tanks that are writing policy and we're focusing on how they're transferring decision making and policy making up to UN stroke WEF and those are the only three things we look at so everything else is a distraction and You can't afford to get sucked into it, otherwise you miss, as you said, all the important stuff.
	And I think the news is there to distract you.
	I mean, there's nothing useful in any of it, to be honest.
	Very rarely, anyway.
	No, the news is not real.
	The news is there to frighten you.
	But tell me a bit more about how People are contracting out their decisions to social media and how they're pushing policy in that way.
	In terms of the mechanics?
	Let me give you an example of what I think you're saying.
	I've noticed that increasingly Newspapers, when they're trying to construct an argument about something or push a narrative, they will quote somebody or several people from Twitter saying what they want to.
	Okay, so they want to demonstrate that people have been really shocked by a TV program.
	They will find a few people from Twitter who may well be Bots or fake characters.
	But you seem to be suggesting that something larger scale was going on in the way that the think tanks are using Twitter opinion as a way of advancing policy.
	No, I mean, that's just like a separate line of work to your point on the news, that we don't look at the news, we look at those three things separately.
	That's not necessarily to do with The Twitter story, those are just the three work streams we have that have no.
	That's why we avoid the news altogether.
	Basically, we're just looking at those three issues.
	And this is one of them.
	This this whole applied psychology and manipulation of Twitter traffic is one of them.
	I totally agree with your point about how retweeting somebody's tweet or tweeting your own edgy or sarcastic tweet about something is not going to win us the war by any stretch.
	At the same time, I wonder...
	MPs!
	I mean, they're absolutely bloody useless, aren't they?
	They're just kind of bribed £300,000 a year, you know, £80,000 plus expenses, to do absolutely sod all.
	Name me any MP who's done anything properly to resist the Great Reset.
	They don't exist, do they?
	Well, I think the backbench MPs on the Tory side have done a pretty decent job, given what everyone else has done.
	So, you know, the Swains and the Walkers... Until they get shut up.
	Yeah, I mean, but that's why they're on the back bench, I guess.
	And I think that's the tragedy.
	Those are the guys with the integrity.
	I relate.
	I don't know any of them, but I can relate to what they're saying.
	And they very much seem to be pro-liberty and prepared to stick their necks out.
	But then, of course, then they're never too near the center of power.
	They're always on the back bench.
	So, you know, I definitely have a lot of time for those people.
	But everyone else is They've done nothing really.
	Not one really principled objection on the basis of liberty really from any of the left or any of the sort of fake conservative people buzzing around the power structure.
	It's only been those backbench people.
	Is it not because as I've come to realise, and probably you have too, that MPs have absolutely no power because all the decisions are taken already at a supranational level or they're taken by steering committees.
	They can't do anything.
	They can't.
	I think this is a big shock.
	I know you've had those debates with Toby Young, but for me it's always been, listen, everything these guys say ten years later becomes our policy.
	These guys being Bill Gates and the Rockefeller Foundation and all the rest of them.
	Literally everything, net zero, Gates first said that in 2010.
	Mass vaccination, Gates said that in 2010.
	Lockdowns for Rockefeller, 2010.
	10 years later, we're implementing all of them.
	And, you know, to not think that there's any link between those events, I just don't understand, you know.
	Those guys, to me, are really setting the big picture, sort of global, and then we are part of that global policy.
	To me, that's the way it works, and I don't understand why people can't get their heads around that.
	Yes.
	So, what I'm saying, and I don't want to be a party pooper, but, like, why bother writing to these useless bastards?
	I mean, what...
	Yeah, I think, well, I think that's all, it's the only tools we got really.
	I think that's the only way.
	I mean, I'm looking at this, there's definitely not going to be any quick wins or anything even close to that.
	It's just, we have a limited number of tools and I think that's all we have and we can use them.
	And I think, One of the things we want to do is expose more the funding structures of these think tanks and then go from there, basically.
	We know the ones that are being used essentially to censor the internet, like this Institute for Strategic Dialogue.
	The people in the know know who funds those think tanks, and they've got these nice fancy names, but let's put it out there more widely.
	Look, this is funded by these guys.
	And it's doing the agenda of these guys, and that's not necessarily the agenda for us as people.
	Yes.
	So it's, I agree, it's...
	We're not gonna have any quick wins, but it's the only tools we got available right now So what that's what we're gonna have to do.
	I'm totally with you on the show their workings method I think it's really really important when you show that that their methods It's like they're caught they're caught naked when the tides the tides gone out.
	It's and it Yeah, I I can see that that would, it helps.
	It's a shame, you know, back in the day this would have been an article in the Daily Mail or in the Telegraph.
	I mean I know that the papers have always been in the service of the the elites really the predator class i mean you know you you look look back at i've seen the future and it works the the um lincoln steffans reporting for the new york times i think it is on on on the glorious soviet soviet miracle i mean the papers have always the mainstream media has always lied but i don't think it's ever lied quite so flagrantly um and shamelessly as it has recently
	that there is no way you could place this this what you your findings now nowhere in the mainstream even the spectator wouldn't be interested in writing about it i'm ashamed to say yeah yeah um So all you've got left is...
	Yeah, it's disappointing to say, hey look guys, I've got some pretty convincing evidence that the, and actually Liz Trust's account is also being boosted.
	Is it?
	Which should be a huge deal.
	Yeah, it should be, right?
	I mean, we're about to choose a PM and some guy is running a bot program boosting one candidate.
	Who is that somebody?
	Where are they from?
	What's the agenda?
	And then we've got, you know, Gordon Brown, Gary Lineker, sitting Labour MPs.
	Nobody wants to know.
	Because obviously when you find it you sort of fall off the chair and then you find out no one's going to touch this.
	Well, but in a way doesn't it give an indication of what's going to happen?
	Because...
	We know that the people who control everything are the string pullers in the shadows.
	And therefore, if the bots are pushing Liz Truss, it probably means that Liz Truss is going to be the next Prime Minister.
	Because...
	Yeah, for sure.
	Yeah.
	Well, that in itself is interesting.
	Tell me a bit more about these right-wing figures who are promoted.
	I mean, I wouldn't necessarily call James Melville right-wing.
	He considers himself to be a right-winger.
	Yeah.
	I'm just getting into that.
	Yeah, it's just getting into that side of it.
	And Matt Goober is another one with huge traffic for no clear reason, which looks quite bot-driven.
	That's interesting.
	The other ones, I don't have enough.
	Yeah, I don't have enough stuff here.
	But there's also seems to be quite a lot of traffic going into everything to do around GB News.
	So all of the sort of sofa, GB News, so GB News itself and and the people that sort of the more celebrities that are involved in that seems to get a fair bit of traffic.
	Right.
	That, I suppose, is the divide and rule thing, isn't it?
	It's that they, whoever they are, have sensed that GB News is the closest the mainstream has got to a voice of the right, and it wants to promote that, I suppose, to create division, maybe?
	Yeah, I don't know.
	I mean, I think to some extent they need to use the volume to offset the crazy left volume, because if, let's say, we wake up and see Twitter every day, it's just like neo-Marxism, you know, wall to wall, that will be gone within a week.
	So they need to sort of offset some of that with Right-leaning bots to sort of keep some semblance of balance.
	I think that has to be part of it.
	And I think for me the other bit, this new initiative with Matt Gubber, I'm kind of quite nervous about that.
	I think that's going to be a lot of libertarian energy and time going off into the long grass.
	That's my theory on that.
	What I don't know about his initiative, I mean, I don't know anything about Matt Gubber.
	Yeah, he's setting up something, I don't remember what it's called, a forum of something, something, you know, freedom, whatever.
	And so he's sort of calling to action people to join there.
	And, you know, if people go off into that, they'll assume something's happening.
	And, you know, it could just end up all going off into the long grass.
	A forum for limited hanging out.
	You know, you're diverting their energy and attention into something that isn't going to really, you know, Get the ball over the line.
	You could be doing a really useful service here, Alex, if you've got the time and the inclination.
	Because one of the great questions, which you often hear asked in in sort of awake circles is which person can we trust and which person is actually a shill or an enemy within and it's very hard to tell but in a way I think that if somebody's got lots of bot traffic they can't be a good guy can they?
	No.
	I don't think they can be.
	No, I mean, they occasionally... No, you haven't.
	But they do occasionally chuck some out to people who I know are good people, because you can't make it too obvious, right?
	So if they're going to support four people, they'll need to give bot traffic to 15 people, within which the four have a disproportionate share.
	So you will see names of good guys with bot traffic.
	But that's just like chaff.
	Tell me a bit.
	about your own journey.
	I mean, have you been, were you a normie who's been radicalised by events?
	Yeah, completely.
	It's been a horrendous journey from normal life to some kind of outer space of chasing around bots and Looking for globalists in various parts of the political system.
	But my thing was, I'm a physicist by background, so I know I can understand maths.
	So when I get something mathematical, I might not know all the workings and the detail, but I know that I should be able to roughly read it.
	And I started reading that Ferguson stuff when it first came out.
	And I read then also the data from the Diamond Princess and I just knew the model was wrong.
	And I also tried to communicate that at the time.
	And then Professor Levitt came out and said, hey, the model's wrong.
	It's wrong by a factor of, I think, He was maybe too optimistic that he divided Ferguson's figures by somewhere about six.
	I was a bit more about five, four.
	But anyway, we knew at that point that the assumptions in the Ferguson model were wrong.
	And that was it.
	I got stuck into that.
	And I could just see that nothing stopped.
	Hang on, we've got these facts that are showing this is wrong.
	The train keeps going.
	And then lockdowns we knew in July 2020 would actually cause more loss of life than COVID.
	But then the train just keeps rumbling on.
	So you're always looking for answers.
	Why are we doing stuff that's evidently crazy?
	Well, of course, the Toby explanation would be it's just because bureaucracies tend towards incompetence.
	And that's obviously, you know, there's obviously validity in that to some extent.
	But then you ask the question, do the people really pulling the strings?
	So they understand that, and they push the buttons on the incompetence in a way that suits them.
	So everyone plays their role, honestly, in the chain, but the guys at the top of the chain understand how to manipulate the guys below.
	I think it's something like that.
	The original panic-stricken comments came from Schwab, from Soros, and from Gates.
	They issued very early on, you know, this is an existential threat, you know, put on your tin hats, hide, this is it, this is the big one.
	So, you know, I think they set the dominoes falling and then probably the politicians did what they could, maybe working in good faith, but they were already being manipulated into the wrong decisions.
	Ooh, I think that's a bit, that's a bit cuckoosh of you there Alex, a bit Toby.
	I don't, I cannot imagine that anybody, any politician at cabinet level certainly, would not have been unaware That this was a massive deception.
	I don't, I cannot believe that.
	Yeah, okay.
	Farron, I don't, I, you could be, you could well be right.
	I just, we, we'll never know.
	But, um, yeah.
	Well, I hope we should have been aware at the trials.
	Well, I mean, this is the thing, isn't it?
	I think the only way to do it is a trial.
	I mean, if you had actual people in a jury listening, but if you let the system sweep itself all this under the carpet through a public inquiry, then I think these guys will get away with it.
	Well, yes.
	So, just going back to my original line of questioning, Your wake-up call was looking at the Neil Ferguson paper for Imperial, which was clearly a busted flush.
	I suppose, look, here's the thing.
	This is why I sort of upbraided you for being, I'm sorry it's a terrible insult, for being a bit Toby-ish.
	But, like, you and I are not kind of mister and mister special access to hidden information that no one else can see.
	That's true, yeah.
	The Diamond Princess was out there.
	Neil Ferguson's... How many articles did you read about Neil Ferguson's track record, his track record with foot and mouth?
	Yeah, no and I and I think that was also for me a bit of a a bit of a moment when I realized whoever put him there knew with 100% certainty he would produce a massively inflated number.
	Yes, that was his job and that's why they put him there and I think that for me was a bit of a oh and so Yeah, I'm not I'm sort of dancing around the issue slightly and I know the guys behind knew all this and they did it deliberately.
	Yeah.
	To what level the politicians were so, you know, I think these guys live in a sort of day-to-day WhatsApp, hundreds of meetings a day, stuff going on, emails all over the place.
	I don't think they have the brainpower or the mental space to actually sit down and read anything and think about it.
	That could be the only It's not an excuse, but it could be a possibility.
	Yeah, yes.
	Well, I agree that we can only speculate because it's hard to know.
	I mean, I have a debate on my Telegram channel about whether these people are Pure psychopaths, which I think they are, but also about why do they do things that would seem to harm themselves as much as anybody else?
	Surely no one does that.
	But then you get down that particular rabbit hole.
	This is just the thought that has occurred to me.
	Given that we know that the first and second world wars were started by the same people responsible, we're in the third world war now, it's an information war, but given that they were engineered by, for example, the central bankers, they were certainly funded by the central bankers of, Wall Street funded the Russian Revolution It funded the First World War and the Second World War.
	Well, some of their sons would have been called up, would have been exposed to the risk of dying in war.
	So, I think that answers the question, why would they do things?
	And also, presumably, some of these people must value the cities, the artworks, the churches.
	Well, they probably don't like churches because they're Satanists, but, you know, the architecture, the art, And yet they're happy to go along with that.
	So I think they are.
	They have got a sort of suicidal streak as well as a sadistic streak.
	Yeah, I think they're very dangerous people.
	And I don't think a normal person could comprehend what their thought process is.
	I definitely don't.
	But the more I begin to understand what they're doing, the scarier it is.
	I mean, I really, these people are beyond anything I've ever come across.
	If we're right, we're trying to understand how they operate.
	It's so, it's so terrible.
	Have you lost lots of friends as a result of your awakening?
	Yes, a bit, yeah.
	Because I'm always looking for volunteers, you know.
	I think the thing that bothers me is, you know, you called it World War Three, I'd kind of agree on that.
	I'm always assuming that someone will then immediately say, okay, what can I do?
	What can I do?
	Like, we've got to stop this.
	Whatever it is, even if it's semi-futile, we've got to stand up and be counted.
	And that never happens.
	People just like, oh look, let's go for a beer.
	Or let's go and watch something.
	It's like, No guys look this is really important everyone needs to all hands to the pump you know this is it and uh they they don't share my um enthusiasm it's not enthusiasm it's like feeling of having being compelled to try and stop this that's where the friction starts because they just There's nobody at the front, basically.
	There's no hands on deck when something needs to be done.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Do you ever wonder what it is within you that enabled you to see what's going on when so many others remain under the spell?
	Yeah, I mean, I have some East European background, and all my East European friends immediately got this.
	They said, yeah, of course the government's lying and they're up to something really bad.
	They didn't have to debate with them even for one second.
	And it's the distrust of your government.
	That's a huge advantage for anyone in East Europe, but the English people are just too trusting, and by the time they've really woken up, it's going to be quite late in the game.
	That's the issue, I think.
	Knowing that governments can really do evil stuff.
	I think it's very hard to go through the English education system, certainly, particularly private education.
	Which of course is the education of the ruling class and the opinion formers.
	It's very hard to go through that and not come away with the belief that as an Englishman you've won the lottery in life and that we've got this marvellous Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, English common law, the envy of the world The monarchy, you know, our monarchy is not like all the other monarchies around the world.
	It's the old and they look... God bless the Queen, isn't she marvellous?
	It's very, very hard to come out of that system and not have this adject.
	faith in in authority that you trust the system you believe you know it's there to help you they wouldn't do you know you've got these wise civil servants advising you know we've all seen yes minister and i don't know you you yeah it creates this faith in this this rotten corrupt well and it's a it's a very it's a very emotionally difficult process to have that faith broken
	I mean, you have to face the facts, and your faith is destroyed.
	And as you said, it's everything you believed in.
	It's, you know, the royal family, the court system, the parliamentary democracy, the wisdom of the scientists in SAGE, All of that stuff is just rubble now on the ground and it's emotionally very hard and you have to break all of those things that you believed in and that you were taught and it's not for everyone.
	I can understand why people would rather put their head in the sand and just watch the cricket or something, you know?
	Yes, I think it was Ola Dammegjord, the Norwegian expert in assassinations and false flags, who described it as an heroic journey.
	Everyone who's chosen the path that we have has made their own personal heroic journey.
	You cannot do it in a group.
	Well, I've never seen it happen in a group.
	Men go, I forget the exact quote, men go mad in herds and regain their senses one by one.
	Yeah, Calbraith.
	I thought it was the chapter which, The Madness of Crowds.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, doesn't matter.
	I'm sure lots of people have had this particular insight.
	I really appreciate what you are doing.
	Well, look, I really appreciate what you are doing, because I think where can people find your read your findings?
	This thinking slow one dot com where everything is posted, including the Excel workings and quite a long PDF file explaining all this.
	We've just been shadowbanned on Rumble, which is a new one for me.
	We put up the last film in the series, the most hard-hitting one, and it's been shadowbanned on Rumble.
	So you can only get that directly through the link through Twitter.
	If you can find the tweet, you can see the film.
	We're going to try and put it up somewhere else now.
	We're locked out of YouTube, so we can't do anything on there for a while.
	So, I mean, through the website and then through the Twitter feed and also Telegram on Thinking Slow as well.
	And you mentioned you need volunteers.
	Obviously I'm not going to volunteer because I haven't got any of the skills that you might require, but tell me what are you looking for in your recruits and what can they do to help you?
	Yeah, I think we're not looking for huge numbers, but we're looking, we probably have about 10 now, maybe get another 10.
	But it probably, in a way, it's sort of more or less anything, you know, if someone's willing, we can find something for them to do, I think.
	But it's, you know, the best background would be something to do with research, like, Research in like financial statements or anything like putting together a policy paper or a piece of analysis or also on the tech side.
	We have one guy, but we'll probably do it with another guy posting all the stuff across the different social media platforms and getting it to look decent as well, which we're miles behind on.
	Those would be the two things, I think.
	I mean, if I were an independent billionaire, I would be funding organisations like... I mean, I would never put money into organisations like the IAEA, or the CPS, or any of these kind of supposed independent think tanks, which are anything but.
	I'd be helping out... people who really wanted to fight the fight, they should give... I mean, do you need money?
	Is that another thing?
	Well, we're thinking about it because I've been doing this now a long time pro bono and I put a fair bit, no, not a fair bit, a little bit of money in at least.
	And it can't go on forever, obviously, pro bono.
	So we're still kicking that idea around in the next quarter or so.
	Do we put together a package and send it out and try and get some money in?
	It's definitely not off the table.
	So we're just thinking about it, basically.
	And before I go, did you mention that you were something in finance?
	What was your career?
	Yeah, I worked more or less all my life, I think.
	I worked in pension funds and hedge funds and I've been an independent board director of a few PLCs.
	Oh wow, okay.
	So tell me, what's your prognosis?
	I mean, what manner of shitstorm awaits us in the next few months?
	I haven't done anything.
	I've been so focused on the truth as such that I've done nothing in terms of even thinking about money or actually, unfortunately, getting my personal stuff organized either.
	I've just been so deep into, let's find out what's going on, put it out there, wake people up, get people organized.
	My personal and financial stuff has not been looked at properly.
	But I think now there's so many...
	So many moving parts.
	I wouldn't really want to... I did a lot on gold about a year or so ago.
	I went quite into gold.
	Oh yeah?
	Tell me, just give me your thoughts there.
	Well, I don't know.
	I think they must be manipulating it in some way.
	For what?
	It just doesn't look natural given, you know, we've had a war.
	We've had mass money printing.
	I mean, we've had the best conditions for gold in history and nothing happened.
	And so you just have to wonder, you know, what is going on here, basically.
	I don't believe they can manipulate... I mean, this is just my Tuckney Havensworth.
	I don't believe that they can manipulate the price of gold forever.
	And I think there's going to become a massive decoupling from paper gold and physical gold.
	And you're going to find that you are not going to be able to get physical gold for love nor money.
	And it's going to be affected in the price.
	Yeah, I'm getting some physical gold.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Yeah.
	But you've got to have it...
	In a vault, not in your own country, I think.
	No, I have places where... I'm almost out of the UK now, I sold my house there.
	I don't, you know, although I'm trying to fight the good fight, I also have some escape plans as well, because the thing we've discussed is there's not enough people coming to put their hands on the pump to stop this, you know, it's just not going in the right direction.
	So I've hedged my bets quite a lot with the UK.
	Where else did you escape to?
	Sorry?
	Where is there to escape to?
	Costa Rica?
	Well, I think there's only East Europe, you know.
	There's Hungary, other places around East Europe, I guess, who are sort of vaguely not signed up to this agenda.
	I mean, there's few and far between, but... Yeah, Bulgaria.
	I like Bulgaria.
	I don't know what's happening politically, but if they're not signed up to Great Reset, then that's definitely an option.
	Yeah, well, no, I agree.
	Have they infiltrated the cabinet there?
	I don't know.
	Well, they probably have, but I think that in the former communist countries you've got a kind of better mentality because everyone just bloody hates the government.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's right.
	I think in Serbia they'll really struggle to really get this going again because it is neocommunism and the people in East Europe have had enough of it and I think it's going to be much harder to do there than it is in the West.
	Oh well, I've really enjoyed talking to you and very good luck with your research and your flight to wherever.
	Thank you, Alex.
	And everyone, if you've enjoyed this podcast, I do appreciate your support on Locals and Subscribestar and Patreon and Substack.
	Thank you very much.
	And yeah.
	Till next time.
	Thanks a lot, Alex.
	Yeah.
	OK.
	Thanks, James.
	OK.
	Bye bye.

▲