ESC - Escape Key to his many admirers on Substack, his true identity a mystery - was recently a big hit on Doc Malik’s podcast. Now he talks to James about the inner workings of the New World Order. Did you know that Leonard Woolf - Virginia’s husband- was one of the baddies? That the mastermind of this bureaucratically designed hell was a Russian you’ve probably never heard of? Listen on and be informed and astoundedhttps://substack.com/@escapekey↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Tickets are now available for the James x Dick Christmas Special 2025 on Saturday, 6th December. See website for details:https://www.jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/?section=events#events↓ ↓ ↓If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn’t in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children’s future.
In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, JD tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓
Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
The official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk
x
Welcome to the Delling Pod with me James Dellingpole and perhaps you can tell from my attire that I'm about to tell you the exciting news of the date, the long-awaited announcement of the date of the Dick and James Christmas special.
Now those of you who came last year will know that this is, as the name implies, it is a very special event.
It's conveniently located in the middle of England in a lovely venue and there is not included, but it's very reasonable.
There's really good pizza and really good sort of like beef stew I think we had last year.
It was very good anyway.
And we have entertainment.
Obviously the highlight of the evening is a live podcast with me and not my special guest, just my guest, Dick.
Dick and I on stage chatting our usual interesting digressive rubbish.
But the main thing, and I expect that unregistered chickens will be playing and I expect we might be singing Jerusalem and there might be some Christmas carols, but mainly, you know, it's about you.
What people always say is, actually they don't say this, but I think they feel it.
They don't say actually James was crap.
The other stuff was good.
They don't say that.
But this is me telling you, even though I'm good, even though you'll love to come and see me with Dick.
The best part for me is just like everyone really gets on.
It's like if you haven't met them, then they are the best friends you've ever met.
There's a really good atmosphere, really good atmosphere.
I think you would be seriously missing out if you didn't come.
I anticipate massive demand for tickets.
They sold out last year and they probably want to get in there early.
I'm trying to encourage you this year to use cash.
Cash is king.
We love cash.
We want to support cash.
So if you can pay by cash, it's better.
Also, I think then the money doesn't go into sort of administration fees for whatever the other thing is.
Anyway, I hope to see you there.
There'll be VIP tickets.
This time I'm going to get it sorted.
There will be bell ringing for the special VIP guests.
We might go to a different church.
I don't know, depending on what the requests are.
And maybe a walk with James as well.
And it'll be lovely.
And you're going to love it.
So the date, the date, November the 28th.
November the 28th, James and Dick's Christmas special.
Details below this advert.
See you there.
You're going to love it.
I love Deadpool.
Go and subscribe to the podcast, baby.
I love Delipole.
And listen on the town, subscribe with me.
Welcome to the Delling Pod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Have you seen what the price of gold has been doing recently?
It's been going bonkers.
And I hate to say I told you so, but I did kind of tell you so.
But if it's any consolation, even though I do have some gold and bought some a while back, I didn't buy nearly enough.
It's like when you go to the casino and you win on 36 and you only put down a fiver and you think, why didn't I put down 50?
If you've got that feeling that you haven't got enough gold, or if you haven't got any gold and you really feel you ought to get some, the place to go is the Pure Gold Company.
They sell gold bullion and silver bullion in the form of coins or in the form of bars, which you can either store in London or in Switzerland, or you can have it delivered to your own home if you can work out where to store the stuff.
I think that gold, what do I know?
I mean, I'm no expert, but I've been right so far.
I think gold and silver right now are an essential, maybe even more so silver, actually, because silver, I think, is yet to take off.
Just my opinion.
I'm not a financial advisor.
I reckon that it's worth holding both of them at the moment.
And you don't want them, of course, you don't want to buy paper gold.
You don't want to buy paper silver.
You don't want to buy ETFs.
You want to buy the actual physical thing.
Go to the pure gold company and you will be put in touch with one of their advisors.
And they will talk you through the process, which you want to do, whether you want to have it in bullion or in coins.
I mean, there are advantages to having it, having coins because coins are considered, well, Britannia is anyway, considered legal tender, which means that you don't pay tax.
Weirdly, this, but even my accountant didn't know this, you don't pay tax at the moment on your profits.
Go to the Pure Gold Company.
They will talk you through all these things and follow the link.
Follow the link below this podcast and it will give you all the details.
Go to the Pure Gold Company and they will give you what you need, be it gold or silver.
Do it before it goes up even more.
I think you'd be mad not to.
Welcome to the Delling Pod Mysterious Escape Key.
I know you prefer to remain anonymous.
Yeah, yeah, it's just let's handle that way, I suppose.
You were saying before we started that lots of people accuse you of being AI.
Yeah, no, I find that I find it quite comical, really, because only a few days ago, there was someone on Mike Eden's Telegram channel launching into a tarade about how basically it's just AI.
And this came out a couple of days after I went on Dr. Malik's show for two and a half hours without any kind of AI.
So it's just like, it was just bustling.
AI suddenly has advanced to quite an advanced sort of state, especially given that it also appears to replicate sort of unfortunate sort of speech patterns.
Well, I was thinking if you are AI, you'd be a very good advert for it because you're, I tell you what, your research is a lot more thorough than anything I've tended to find on things like ChatGPT.
I mean, it's accurate, it seems to me, for one thing.
Well, this is the thing.
I mean, I do use AI to try to shoot down everything, especially Claude, because Claude is just such...
I mean, it's just such a sniveling little B-I-T-C-H, right?
Which always sort of...
What's that?
What's Claude?
I don't understand that.
It's Anthropics AI.
And it's sort of, I mean, the two best AIs right now basically are probably realistically ChatGPT and Claude.
And they're slightly different, the two of them.
But whereas ChatGPT tends to sort of like just sort of go along with whatever you say, right?
Always quite sort of compliant.
Claude just puts up a fight about just about anything.
I mean, it's just a bit of a pain in the behind sometimes because you can say stuff, you can source it, and it will still put up like kind of ah, yes, but there's no intentionality here.
Like, whether there's intentionality, it doesn't really matter.
It's like the mechanism is real, but it just tries to sort of insert all sorts of get out clauses into literally everything.
And because of that, it's quite before I post anything on Substack, basically, I tend to sort of run it through especially floor.
And if I can sort of overcome its sort of defenses in a couple of prompts, then I'm generally good to go.
That's sort of the threshold, basically.
Okay.
Yeah.
So is there anything you can tell me about yourself without sort of exposing yourself?
I mean, you don't have an English accent.
I can tell that.
You guys tell me what you do?
Well, I mean, you know, ultimately, from the first moment, my argument has been it doesn't really matter who I am or what I do, because what I tend to do is create an argument which is as solid as possible from primary documents and which sort of personal attributes I have or whatever I do.
It doesn't really matter.
I guess a part of it is because I used to spend years document sort of politics and it's completely pointless because it doesn't matter what logic arguments you make and it doesn't matter to what extent you can source stuff because someone will come along with some deep and deeply emotional plea and everyone will just like that basically on Facebook or whatever, which sort of makes the entire sort of conversation just completely pointless.
Because if sort of emotional outbursts can override any kind of logic, then there's not really much point in debating politically, is there?
So because this it's just sort of what I guess what I can say is basically there's a my entire sort of argument is really based on systems theory and there's a reason for that.
That's probably the most information I'm willing to sort of divulge.
I think you've made your case well.
It doesn't really matter.
I know that you're not real because I'm sorry.
I know that you are.
I know that you are real because I had a tantalizing glimpse of your face before we started, before you disappeared into the murk of an anonymity.
And yes, tell me, first of all, what is systems analysis?
Well, systems theory is ultimately in the context that we're looking at it here is conceptualizing a model out of the world and it could be any aspect of the world.
So for instance, spaceship Earth is probably a good place to start because what spaceship Earth is, is effectively a general systems theory which is based on a closed loop.
And what that means is essentially kind of no information or sort of rather material will ever escape the loop, which basically translates straight to sort of circular economy, where, for instance, you track metals or whatever kind of any kind of material consumed throughout the economy kind of basically and it just sort of flows around as flows continuously.
And that's fundamentally kind of where the next sort of aspect comes in.
Because if you've got general systems theory, which creates kind of like the model, the sort of pipes for any kind of material or money, whatever kind of to flow around, then input-output analysis is effectively the flow analysis basically kind of of the material or the money or information, anything within those pipes.
And then the next logical addition becomes cybernetics, which is the sort of conscious manipulation of that flow.
And when you take those three combined, kind of basically you effectively get adaptive management.
And when you look at spaceship Earth, it is a closed-loop general systems theory model which enables adaptive management of the entire planet.
Right.
Okay.
I think I get most of that.
Actually, before we go on, can we just focus briefly on a book that you've been trashing recently, The Committee of 300 by John Coleman.
But before you go into it, I just wanted to say, this is a book I've never read.
And I think the reason I've never read it, because I mean, a lot of conspiracy theorists, for want of a better phrase, hold it up as the kind of the go-to guide on who runs the world and how they run the world.
And I was always wary of it because the author, John Coleman, is XMI6.
And I think you don't generally leave these organizations that I'd always suspected that it was some form of limited hangout.
And I think that this has been your conclusion as well, having read it.
Yeah, I mean, most like you.
I mean, I saw a lot of people talk about it sort of early on and I downloaded it.
And I mean, there are a lot of claims in that book, and none of it is sourced, right?
And my recently, so I went on Doug Malik, and he sort of said there's a lot of information in that book, which is correct.
And I hedged my sort of replies in that regard because basically, I've never really gone by that book because of total lack of sourcing.
But I sort of thought quite recently after writing The Red Star, I'd just have a brief look at it because, you know, just to sort of close that door, kind of like, and what I found was that, yeah, it describes some things that it describes are real, and the organizations are real as well.
But in order to decipher how all this works, you effectively need to grasp not just the information itself, but also the metadata, like, you know, what lead to this document or what leads to this organization.
So you, any kind of surrounding information, the context, effective, which allows you to trace back the sort of sort of hierarchy, so to speak, or the events, if you understand what I mean, right?
So for instance, basically, if you say, for instance, basically the Chatham House was created by this and this person, you know, Alfred Simon and Lionel Curtis, well, that's great, right?
Because then you have two names, Curtis and Simmon, to work from, right?
But if you say, oh, it's Committee of 300 handiwork, then the trail sort of ends with this sort of shadowy organization and you have no idea how to trace it further.
And that's fundamentally what the book does.
It takes all this sort of surrounding information, the sort of contextual information, and just throws it into a bucket and calls it all, oh, it's the Club of Rome or it's the Committee of 300.
And it fundamentally destroys any kind of information which would lead to you deciphering essentially what were the circumstances or conditions which created this organization or this event, if you see what I mean.
Yes.
I get that.
But in addition to that, I mean, some of the, I didn't read through and through, right, kind of basically, but I did spend probably about an hour just sort of stepping through sort of a few pages and then reading a section, blah, blah, blah.
And some of the things I found there was just blatantly, I mean, they're just laughable.
One of them was basically his fundamental lack of comprehension between what a central bank is, a development bank is, a commercial bank and retail bank is, because he, for instance, says basically, oh, the bank for international settlements are involved in drug money.
And it's like, okay, how excited do you go about sort of creating a retail account with the BIS?
It's just not going to happen, right?
Because they only deal with central banks, it's complete bollocks, right?
But in a decent site, he also says that the Club of Rome was involved in the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Okay, well, the Club of Rome was founded in 1968, and the Cuban Missile Crisis took place in 1962.
There's just no way this is legit.
I mean, I spent about an hour of my time basically on that garbage, and I listed quite a lot of examples kind of based on substack.
And to be quite honest with you, after an hour, I just sort of thought, well, there's not really a point in spending any more time on this because it's just laughful by this age already.
But I think to go back to the original point, I think fundamentally the book is meant to the objective of the book is essentially to destroy any kind of ability for you to trace any event or organization back because basically if everything just comes back to the club of the committee of 300, then you're kind of stuck with it and you don't really know what to do with it.
And I think that's the point.
Yes, because we presumably the identity of the members of the Committee of 300 changes all the time.
And we've got no way of knowing who is in and who is out.
Yeah, but even that, basically, I mean, if the Committee of 300 even exists is sort of my point, because basically, the point is just to destroy any kind of metadata.
This is a destruction of context.
That's what the objective of the book is.
That's my point.
Okay.
So I've been reading some of your really long, involved essays.
I mean, very impressive research on substack.
I mean, one could argue that there's almost too much information there.
It's a bit like that sense you get with Whitney Webb, that it could be accused of sort of flooding the zone, of giving you so much information that you cannot process it.
And I'm not necessarily, I'm not trying to suggest you're a wrong one, but there's a lot of detail there, isn't there?
Yeah, no, I've heard that sort of argument a number of times, basically, but I can flip that argument easily around.
And so I recently wrote The Red Star.
Basically, again, it ties in really rather an incomprehensible large amount of information and everything just fits in slots in effortlessly.
You know, kind of basically everything just aligns.
Now, my counter-argument to your argument is essentially kind of many authors they write whole books about small parts of this, just small aspects of this, right?
Now, if I can fit all this sort of stuff into just a single chapter of a book, my argument is essentially that the brevity of it is a strong argument that is valid.
Because basically, if instead I'd gone on a mission to sort of perform mental gymnastics in order to fit in the different pieces.
But I haven't.
Everything is completely clear.
Everything is really, really simple and everything just aligns completely perfectly.
And basically, that brevity and the simplicity of the argument is fundamentally a strong argument, basically kind of in favor of it.
Can you give me the sort of the elevator pitch of what exactly is going on?
Because I mean, we all sense, we all sense that the world is seriously messed up and that a tiny minority of really evil people are gradually eroding our freedoms.
They've been poisoning us for years.
They've rendered democracy, I mean, so far as it ever had any meaning, they've made it a joke so that whoever you vote for, you end up getting the same old shit.
Even normies, even people who aren't down the rabbit hole, have this sense that things are getting worse.
And you've clearly shown in your essays that this is by design.
So can you explain to me what, just big picture first of all, what is going on?
Well, the foundational layer is basically kind of this is Moses has his ideology turned into conditional economics, basically.
Fundamentally, what they're doing right now is they're transitioning every single economic transaction into being one based upon conditionality.
And what that in effect means is that, for instance, if you're going to enter the supermarket and you want to buy a pound of milk, kind of basically you have to clear the conditionality.
And that might mean that, for instance, if that pint of milk takes you over your carbon threshold, then the transaction will be refused.
Now, this happens kind of basically on the individual basis, you know, or as central banks like to call it at the retail level, kind of like, or and it also happens at the wholesale level, which is basically obviously further up basically between central banks and larger banks.
But it also basically integrates kind of with essentially, you know, at the larger grain, kind of basically with enterprise, because in enterprise, obviously you've got the ESG and CSR.
And if corporations don't align with certain values, kind of basically which are completely outside of their hands, then effectively corporate debt basically becomes substantially more expensive and down the line essentially they will be refused.
They'll effectively transition into a social license to operate, which effectually kind of get away at sort of being allowed to transact in the economy, so to speak.
It's a sort of accreditation, really.
And basically, it also happens kind of based for whole nations.
Because, as I put out in a couple of essays on Ukraine, kind of basically what's taking place over there is effectively the entire society has been digitized and effective.
They're introducing conditional finance or conditional economics, whatever conditional payments.
If you want to bank, cite the IMF or the BANK OF Israel documentation, um basically kind of every single action will be conditional, as in financial transaction will be conditional basically upon you clearing some objectives.
And i'm actually sitting diving through BANK FOR International Settlements documents right now.
It's it's it's it's, it's all right there.
It's just it's just unbelievable kind of basically the material which I find because everything in this regard basically kind of has been created with that objective um and one of the so there are a number of basically bis innovation hub projects, um which are really pivotal in that regard, and one of them is project Rosalind and um i've even um gone through the available documentation and kind of like um, what project Rosalind is effectively is the programmability, the sort of Api um basically,
which can be attached kind of basically to the CBDC payments, right.
So, for instance, kind of basically you have a CBDC transaction or buy something from you, kind of basically there's some metadata, whatever kind of basically which it's got to be interpreted um, basically kind of by a third party, and in the Api there's a, there's a lock.
So how it effectively works is essentially kind of, um, you lock a certain amount of money in your, in your account, And under normal circumstances, that lock will then basically issue some sort of code which will be sent to the recipient.
So the seller, he will accept basically that lock and the money will be transferred, just like that.
But basically, in the project Rosalind docs, there's also a third type of transaction or similar type of transaction, which is basically a three-party lock, where effective kind of basically the approval process runs through a third party.
And that's exactly the place, kind of basically, kind of where that approval process can be sent to any organization.
So for instance, if you want to clear it kind of basically with the carbon, whether you've got sufficient amount of carbon credits in your account, that's exactly how it would be operated, how it can be implemented.
And yesterday I posted carbon border adjustment mechanism, kind of like an article on Self-Stack, which in effect is all around this.
Basically, it details in great detail, and everything is fully sourced, how effectively carbon, how carbon emission-backed CBDCs will come to be, basically, because there's a straight path right through it.
And I said since then, basically, I've been on a mission to dig through BIS documents, and it's all right there.
It's all right there.
So, yeah, I feel on fairly solid ground making these kinds because I found such a large amount of information on this.
I suppose these people rely quite intelligently, actually, on the fact that most people just can't be asked to wade through all this verbiage, all this, often in technical jargon.
They don't want to wade through BIS reports.
And you've been doing that.
But before we go onto that, can I ask you back to basics?
Who is Moses Hess?
He sounds like Moses Hess was basically kind of, you can sort of argue, kind of like the inventor of communism.
He was basically the guy who converted Friedrich Engels, and he was also an inspiration and sort of collaborator with Karl Marx in the early years.
And while Marx and Engels were sitting, starting to theorize about, you know, about basically kind of money and effectively, the point here is basically they want to turn the financial system to be a financial system which effectively is used to drive social justice.
And you can then insert intergenerational justice or environmental justice, whatever.
But the point is just essentially kind of it's instead of having a monetary system which only works basically for the sake of serving monetary transaction, it should serve kind of basically some sort of justice or ethic.
And basically kind of Moses Hess described this in very sort of flimsy, sort of idealistic terms.
And Karl Marx was basically having none of this and sort of converted that into an actual sort of operational sort of layer which could actually be used.
And then basically down the road, you got Julius Wolff at sort of basically at 1892 essentially in 1892, there's this international monetary conference in Brussels, kind of Alfred de Rothschild delivers a speech where he praises the Bank for sorry, the Bank of England clearinghouse sort of system, which we haven't really talked about so far, I'll get back to in a second.
And Julius Wolff at the same conference basically kind of says, oh, we should scale this in international capacity.
And that was basically fundamentally the model which was used basically by the bank for international settlement, basically upon its creation.
Now, the clearinghouse structure itself comes by the Bank of England again that started in the 1790s or so.
The financial sort of system in the UK was having sort of severe problems because basically, if you have like, say, a thousand banks and they all need to sort of net transactions relative to one another, kind of like that's obviously enormously inefficient.
And because this it was teetering on collapse repeatedly, so they came up with this sort of system basically kind of where you'd have essentially a clearinghouse bank, which would settle basically with a number of smaller banks.
And then all the clearinghouse banks would settle with one another down the pup, basically, you know, every single day down Threadneedle Street or whatever.
One of those pups down there, right?
And then in 1844, basically, you got the Bank Charter Act of 1844, which effectually kind of granted the Bank of England an eventual currency monopoly.
Now, the thing is, basically, when you combine the two, you effectively get a structure basically where the issue of the currency kind of is essentially placed at the very top of that sort of hierarchical structure, and that's Bank of England.
So, consequently, it kind of makes perfect sense for them basically after having established that basically the clearinghouse structure with them on top, basically the BOE at the very apex, that they would want to scale it in an international capacity.
And that's effective what they did.
And basically, the Federal Reserve banking system essentially is ultimately based on the same model, kind of based with the primary dealers in contemporary terms.
It sent to operate kind of basically as a clearinghouse banking structure.
And basically, yeah, I said the BIS basically sort of scales that internationally.
Now, the point here is essentially kind of, so if you have like kind of say 30 local banks and they all are clear relative to one another, kind of basically with a clearinghouse bank, that obviously is a lot more efficient than if they have to clear with every other bank in the entire system.
But the problem is essentially if all those tiny little banks are clear with the clearinghouse bank, they can be cut off at any point in time.
And if they get cut off, then they're cut off from the financial system, full stop, and obviously will go bankrupt relatively soon because how else are they to transfer money, basically, right?
Now, all the clearinghouse banks, and there are about 30 of them kind of basically, basically, they in turn clear basically kind of via effectively kind of the Bank of England.
And again, kind of basically that grants the same effect on the system, where basically essentially clearinghouse bank being cut off from that system, essentially kind of is also, you know, can also effectively, you know, puts bankruptcy very soon.
Basically, what it in effect does is that it concentrates power at the very apex because the basically apex institution at any point in time can cut off kind of basically any member organization at any level.
And basically, I said, kind of basically, then you scale that to the Bank for International Settlements.
And you got the entire sort of organizational player scaled globally.
And yeah.
Okay.
But before you go in more detail, because you're now describing the mechanism, I'm at the moment more interested in the whys and wherefores.
So for example, Moses Hess.
Yes.
He didn't spring out of nowhere, did he?
He must have had backers.
I mean, who was he?
What was his background?
He wouldn't have had any power or significance unless his theories had been granted significance, unless he'd been funded.
So who was behind him?
Well, he had a wealthy sort of kind of father, and basically his fellows in the communist organizations kind of basically called him the, as far as I recall, kind of called him basically the communist rabbi.
But yeah, I mean, that's sort of one thing, right?
Basically, kind of like what I find more interesting, because basically I've been documenting kind of the exon mechanism because the mechanism is scaled kind of throughout the entire system.
And I said, basically, that basically takes us to Julius Wolf.
And then basically after him comes Edward Bernstein, who effectively turned it into kind of a public-private partnership around a social good, basically.
And I'm sure you realize how that scales in contemporary terms.
Well, yeah.
But you've described all this legislation that was passed.
I mean, like the 1844 Banking Act.
Essentially, this involved deception on a mass scale.
This stuff was imposed on the populace and obviously through Parliament, presumably most of the MPs not having a clue what was going on.
And it was essentially a form of coup against the people, a bit like the one that carried out in 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve.
You've got this entity, in this case the Bank of England, which is not owned by...
Am I right here?
It's not owned by the British people.
Who owns the Bank of England?
Who benefits?
Who gets the profits?
I kind of spoke about that on Dogma League.
The point is that there are certain questions where you can spend forever trying to answer it because you will never find a critical bit of evidence that'll settle it forever.
A question like that, you're not going to be able to satisfy basically all people.
So consequently, the best thing you can do is circumvent the question.
Right.
But it's going to be, oh, I mean, I know that the richest person in Britain at that time, as far as I know, would have been a Rothschild, who cleaned up after the Battle of Waterloo.
So it would make sense that a Rothschild would be involved, for example.
Yes, no, I don't disagree with that.
Basically, in one of my more recent articles, I'm deliberately speaking about Rothschild, basically.
And I said, in 1892, I wrote a top-stack essay called Own Nothing, Control Everything, kind of basically, and everything's sourced in this.
And that's basically at the 1892 International Monetary Conference, kind of like Alfred de Rothschild is praising basically the BOE model, which is focused around basically the clearinghouse, which I said, Julius Wolff proposes to be scaled basically in an international capacity.
Who is Julius Wolfe?
So Julius Wolf was basically a Swiss professor.
He's got quite an interesting sort of story, basically, to him, because basically, not only did he write very detailed documents based in regards to this sort of monetary side of things, but he also wrote considerable literature of reports, books on the social aspects, and when you look again, kind of get at Moses Hess, what he was talking about was social justice through effectively monetary system sort of change.
Effectively that's more or less exactly kind of what Julius Wolf sort of covers.
And then Edward Bernstein sort of specializes kind of basically kind of, well, he sort of glues it together, really.
But yeah.
I'm sure, look, all these guys you've mentioned so far seem to have potentially Jewish surnames.
Now, I'm intrigued at this point.
I'm thinking, is it just a kind of high-level Jewish thing?
Or are there sort of aristocrats of different faiths involved?
You've got the world's financial system being taken over.
And this has been going on for a very long time.
And whether you want to go back to 1844 or 1892 or whatever, the 19th century is a period where I thought was a good time for free markets relatively, and that people were much more prosperous than they are now.
But it sounds to me like this was, was this when it all began or does it go back even earlier than that?
Well, I mean, look, it's hard enough to trace things back to 1844 in, in fairness, I mean, kind of like once you, once you cross around 19 1910, somewhere along those lines, the um ability to trace back documents basically drops drastically.
It really does um, and you know, finding finding these documents kind of at times has been incredibly difficult.
So basically, if you want to trace it back kind of beyond 1844, then you know, go right ahead kind of like um, but that's as far as i'm concerned um, if i'm it's also said on on dog male leak kind of basically i've, i've seen so many different surnames from different you know regions of the planet, kind of basically different cultures etc, kind of that.
I don't really want to sit and blame a single um sort of you know specific group kind of basically for this i'd, i'd i'm more interested in tracing back the individuals basically behind this because also, think about this from from, think of think about this from from a logical perspective right, if you are, if you're one of those people right who are behind all this sort of stuff um, one of your defenses would probably be to throw up a lot of smoke, kind of basically, if they get too close and just blame it everything, blame everything, kind of this opaque group.
And fundamentally because of this kind of I don't really think that helps, basically when you want to trace back, kind of basically, who's actually at fault here?
That's that I I I I, I accept that that that that, that is a sensible position for you, because you're already revealing enough elsewhere.
But I, I mean you talk about social justice as, uh as as being their professed motivation, which obviously it isn't, and I don't think even you suspect for a second that it was about social justice.
So they've invented this feel-good concept to justify what is essentially um, an evil master plan to deprive most people, the vast majority of people, of their freedoms and of their money.
Well, that's a pretty, that's a pretty big thing.
So, do you not?
Are you not curious about the, the motivation of these people?
I mean, why it?
They've got all the money in the world anyway, why do they need to do this?
Because they want total control.
Okay, so then, because they want total control well yeah basically, I mean essentially, you know um, i've had these sort of like argument regards to sort of peak oil so many times, and I don't.
I used to buy into peak oil, but I don't really buy into it anymore, kind of like, once you, once you start, once you start realizing the actual sort of quantities and, and you know, start that entire conversation, kind of get it's pretty, pretty clear that we're especially if you think that oil is abiotic anyway probably yeah yeah yeah, but I mean it's that's sort of a sort of a separate argument.
I mean, essentially the one thing in my book which sort of conclusively shoots it all, it shoots it all down, is that the very person kind of who introduced uh, the peak oil theory, Mk M King Hubbard, um, in 1956, is also, by complete coincidence, the very man who wrote the technocracy study course in in 1936.
And when you, when you consider it kind of basically from technocracy, technocracy's perspective right, kind of basically what they want, if Effectively, is a system basically where energy certificates rule, essentially everything, right?
They're non-circulating.
Effectively they're positive money in contemporary terms.
But anyway, they're non-circulating sort of vouchers, kind of basically which you can use to exchange for what you need, right?
Kind of basically, but you can't fundamentally buy anything for them, like a car, anything, kind of, you know, nothing substantial, nothing which could be considered an investment, which also aligns basically with Marxist theorist.
But basically, anyway, now, if you consider that, if you consider the inverse, kind of basically the energy certificate, that's effective, kind of basically what carbon dioxide emissions are about, because carbon dioxide emissions, to a very high extent, are aligned kind of basically with economic activity.
I think it's about 70%.
So consequently, if you can control carbon dioxide emissions, you can control energy.
It's just not called energy certificate.
It's called carbon emission certificate or CBDC, whatever.
So yeah, it's just extremely coincidental, right?
The guy who's sitting writing we should transition into technocracy's sort of energy certificates.
20 years later, Karabiska was all concerned about peak oil, which would effectively impose essentially all the surveillance and the entire infrastructure which would be required to regulate kind of basically the sort of consumption of effectively energy.
It's just too coincidental for my sort of my tastes.
Yes.
Well, this is where your field of expertise and my semi-field of expertise align in that I wrote a book a few years ago about the climate change scam, about the genesis of this global environmental scare, because it seemed to come from almost nowhere.
Suddenly, everyone was talking about carbon footprints and about global warming and stuff.
And we were told that we had by the then Prince Charles that we had 18 months to save the world or whatever.
And we had Al Gore's movie and we had the Rio Earth Summit.
And I started looking into this stuff and I realized that there was really no evidence for any of the claims they made.
That catastrophic anthropogenic global warming existed only in computer models.
There was no real world evidence to support this thesis and so on.
Anyway, so I wrote this book about it.
And the question you get asked again and again is: well, why would they make this stuff up if it wasn't real?
Why would they do this?
And the sort of the superficial answer is, well, follow the money.
But I realized fairly quickly that it was about something more fundamental than just money, because I said before, these people already have pretty much all the money in the world.
And it's not about that, is it really?
They've been promoting this lie in order to fulfill the dream of the 1930s technocrats, which is to create an economy not based on sort of financial expenditure, but on kind of energy expenditure.
So they had to build a myth in which the planet's future was threatened.
In order to create the system that you're describing now, they first had to put into the heads of the victims of this contradict that it was being done for their good and it had to be done because otherwise they're all going to die.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, I'm completely in alignment basically with regards to the climate scam.
I mean, my sort of take on it is that it is possible that the planet is warming, kind of, right?
But the quantity of material involved in making that determination is so vast, so enormous, that there's no way we can make these calls, especially not like 90 years out.
I mean, get real.
The amount of particles kind of basically on the planet, which is continuously bumping into one another in a reflexive environment, kind of, you know, it's just, there's no way we can simulate even a tiny little fraction of a percentage of the overall sort of atmosphere.
And yet we can predict with alleged precision basically what the impact will be in 90 years' time.
Get real.
But anyway, I was wondering, have you read, are you aware of Alexander Bogdanov?
No, tell me.
Right, so Alexander Bogdanov was a co-founder of the Bolshevik party with Lenin in 1903, and he was booted in 1909 because that's into a diverging sort of view, imperial monism, which effectively, actually set that aside, basically, because the point here was that he basically kind of wrote a large amount of these theories, right?
He did basically sensely connect technology.
He wrote on technology, which developed into general systems theory.
And he also developed basically some pretty complex supply chain analysis, basically, which effectively developed into input-output analysis, basically.
But he also described around 1920 the entire world as a singular system where effectively carbon dioxide was the circulating element, that carbon dioxide was effective, kind of basically the power of life, so to speak.
And what do you know?
Kind of basically here we are, you know, 100 years later, and his system basically that he described in crude detail, of course, kind of basically, but he does describe it, I think, is in the essays of technology.
But anyway, he basically describes kind of basically what later came to be, basically with stunning accuracy, right?
And it's just when you didn't think about kind of basically what's happening right now, that everything is effectively kind of basically through global modeling, kind of, you know, the IISA, et cetera, F, IPCC is using global modeling kind of basically to determine sort of black box outputs for which no one is ultimately accountable, basically.
I mean, it's into those black box models can predict any kind of bullshit and no one will be held to account because everyone's hands are clean.
It's just really convenient, isn't it?
Basically, all this stuff kind of works through general systems theory, which traces back to tech toly and Alexander Bogdanov.
And it's modeling using input-output analysis, which is basically tracing back to the supply chain, Leontiev's input-output analysis, and before him, basically, Bogdanov.
But ultimately, this traces back to Marx.
So you have the entire solar system, basically, and all the ingredients of contemporary sort of adaptive management rolled out on a planetary scale.
And everything traces back to Karl Marx.
It's just kind of like, hmm, yeah, okay.
Scientific socialism indeed.
It's very interesting that I've never heard of Alexander Bogdanov.
It sounds like he is the true godfather of the climate change scare.
Global warming is a massive con.
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem that is going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book, Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in, well, 2011, actually, the first edition.
Came out and it's a snapshot of a particular era, the era when the people behind the Chin climate change scam got caught red-handed tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climate Gate.
So I give you the background to, to the skull juggery that went on in in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us we've got to act now.
I rumbled their their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, who's doing this and and why?
It's a good story.
I've i've kept the the original book pretty much as is, but i've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it's a.
I think it still stands out.
I think it's it's a good read.
I obviously i'm biased, but i'd recommend it.
You can buy it from Jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that one.
Just go to my website and look for it, Jamesdellingpole.co.uk and I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother Diet.
No, we don't, it's a scam.
I don't know if if if if if, i'd make quite that claim basically, I mean essentially, in that case probably look into Richard Um A Falk.
In 1971 he wrote a book um, um An Endangered Planet, and he sort of outlined four potential sort of um mechanisms, essentially kind of like uh for the uh.
You know he was part of the World Order Models, project Wamp and um.
One of the four potential arguments was his effect, environmentalism.
Basically he writes himself in that book, not completely sure that the argument is strong enough to basically kind of carry this transition through um, but I mean following that kind of.
Basically now is in the same sort of sort of point in time, basically where Brzezinski um then uh published uh Between Two Ages um, in which effect he sort of says kind of basically the East and West should cooperate sort of closer, basically kind of and around the theme of ecology and what do you know, basically kind of before, before long, the World Economic Forum came to be in the same year and the Trilateral Commission came to be and you know the may 23 1972, um sort of Us's cooperation on environmental protection was signed um, you know,
immediately before the Salt agreement was signed and you know the Un sort of Stockholm meeting, which led to the environment program, um and the IASA of course kind of was also launched along with um um um, limits to growth in 1972, I mean in 1972, it's just this insane year where everything sort of comes together, but yeah it's it's, it's remarkable really.
And you you, you mentioned modelling.
Modelling is clearly a very important part of this deception which, which presumably is why MIT really took off as an institution.
It was, it was instrumental in pushing the idea of models as being a kind of credible way of of planning our future.
Yeah, so there's.
So there's this um authori Ray Basically, because she's written a number of books kind of, basically about the IIASA.
And it's interesting, really, because basically, I gave her a compliment on Twitter when I was still on Twitter.
Basically, that way too few people had read her work, and she blocked me for it.
But she says, interesting, right?
Perhaps your books are not meant to be read.
Basically, well, basically, if you go on Amazon and search for the power of systems, I think she's Lithuanian, I cannot pronounce her name.
Right.
But she's written a number of really interesting books.
And effectively it basically kind of outlines the IIASA as the sort of technocratic institution, basically, kind of, you know, and if you think about it logically, it's a perfect organization kind of based for this sort of stuff, right?
Because all the politicians will just say, kind of like, oh, we were just given that you know, we were just given recommendations on basis of what the models output.
So you can't hold the politicians basically accountable for this.
And the people kind of basically sort of investing in this modeling sort of said, well, we did so in good faith.
And the IASA themselves said, yeah, well, our mispredictions were because we didn't have sufficiently detailed surveillance information and then use this as a reason to build even more surveillance infrastructure.
Right.
So nobody is accountable.
I was thinking.
Nobody's accountable.
You've just reminded me of something that I think puzzled some of us more skeptical types in the early days of the pandemic scare, where a guy called Neil Ferguson with a broken track record going back at least as far as the foot and mouth crisis that I think was completely cooked up.
And he modeled this absolute disaster for livestock populations.
And so his solution was to have these massive culls.
And loads and loads of farmers had their livelihoods destroyed and the country was shut down for a year.
You couldn't walk anywhere.
And it was, I think it was an early experiment in what can we, the state, get away with?
How can we want to wage war on things like agriculture?
We want to stop people being able to produce their food.
We want to create this disconnect between agricultural production and food.
And Ferguson had his grubby pawprints over that.
And then he was selected as the modeler, not just in the UK, but he was cited in the US as well to justify their climate lockdowns and probably their vaccine modeling as well.
And it seems that nobody ever took responsibility for this.
Certainly not Ferguson, who was just like, yeah, I'm just a modeler.
What do I know?
And not the politicians who can just say, well, we were following the best advice at the time.
This was an established London, the best London science university and so on.
So nobody's responsible for this creeping tyranny.
No, absolutely correct.
I mean, basically, it's interesting.
Two things about Ferguson is basically in 2005, he came up with 150 million dead or some because of whatever, you know, alleged pandemic, which would break at any point in time at that point in time.
There was a BSE as well, wasn't there?
There's Bovine Spike.
Oh, yeah, yeah.
No, no, no.
Yeah, no.
But I'll get to that in a second, basically, because another person kind of made ridiculous estimates at that point in time was David Nabaro.
No one ever speaks of him.
He was quite a senior person kind of regards to building this sort of health sort of infrastructure, right?
But basically, if we go back to 2003, Neil Ferguson basically sort of said that SARS from 2003 was a no-autopsy diagnosis of exclusion event.
That's what he himself says in one of his papers.
I can dig it out for you basically at that point, basically.
But he says that.
And in 2009, he is speaking at a panel basically with the ESWI, the European Scientific Working Group in Flinton.
And then do you know what he says?
He says that lockdowns, like the hard lockdowns we experience, kind of basically will only work for a couple of weeks.
After that, basically, they're completely pointless.
He is himself in 2009 arguing for why we cannot have lockdowns, which he recommended effectively, basically indirectly in 2020.
It's just such bollocks, right?
But if we go back to BSE, and I completely agree with you, because I trace this back to the Wellcome Grant as well in 1996 with BSE, right?
However, I actually think there's a little bit more lineage here because basically, so that obviously led to basically kind of calling of beef, basically in the UK.
And I do remember that I'd arrived on British shores.
And basically, in 1997, we had the completely and utterly fake H5N1 Hong Kong event, which was called by the ESWI, basically effective members of ESWI.
Basically, and that led to calling, kind of basically 1.6 million chicken on basis of six deaths, kind of basically of which basically, you know, it's extremely hard to attribute any of them, basically, to any kind of epidemic.
And especially not the first, the three-year-old, which allegedly set it off, because effectively, kind of basically one of the Lancet papers says he died basically from a, he was allergic to aspirin, basically.
That was unfortunately kind of basically what caused that death.
And because of that, kind of basically called 1.6 million chicken.
Now, the events basically essentially kind of that effectively kind of effectively led to Margaret Chen kind of, you know, she became a sort of world star basically on basic.
And she eventually became kind of based the World Health Organization, sort of general secretary or whatever, kind of right.
Basically, but it also effectively led to three really interesting developments, right?
Because basically it led to poultry vaccination, right?
And it led to livestock surveillance.
And obviously it led to culling.
And in 2001, kind of basically, we then had the Planesberg resolution, which effective blurs this response in the direction of humanity.
And then 2004, out of nowhere, William Fakey sort of introduced One Health, which was basically kind of the same approach, just basically now including humanity.
So William, what's his name?
William Fakey, basically, F-O-E-G-E.
I found a video kind of basically where he says basically that's how you pronounce his name.
Fakey.
And where's he from?
F-O-E-G-E, William.
Basically, he's got a very interesting basically track record as well, because in 1978, he was the lead of the CDC, basically, and he put his name on the very first pandemic plan, basically, kind of which was being created in the entire world, right?
And that came on based on the Ford Dix event in January 1976, the swine flu episode, which was another complete fucking bollocks of an event, right?
So what effectually happened was basically essentially apparently about 500 people tested positive for this.
But they're all concentrated basically on Ford Dex, right?
And there was only one death basically of that lot.
And that was basically with a soldier who was feeling so ill the previous night he decided to go for a walk.
It's like, I don't know about you.
If I'm feeling like I'm about to die, I'll definitely go for a walk, you know, these bollocks, right?
But what's interesting is at this very same point in time, at the exact same point in time in Brugesmont in Switzerland, kind of basically kind of big farmers are effectively having a meeting about basically kind of pandemics.
And what they in agreement basically since there are 24 papers, kind of basically, it's not a very large event, kind of basically, but there are 24 papers, of which eight were about surveillance and 13 were about vaccines, right?
So already in 1976, they knew exactly where they were going.
So 1976, you had the prescription of surveillance and vaccines.
1978, William Fegey kind of put his name kind of based to this document, kind of based on the very first pandemic plan.
Then in 1984, kind of basically he found basically the task force for child survival or whatever, kind of basically, which was funded by the World Bank, Rockefeller, etc., right?
And then in 1990, that progressively turned into the Children's Vaccine Initiative.
And in 2000, you get, you know, what are they called?
You know, Gavi, basically, you know, the vaccination sort of blah, right, kind of basically.
And Gavi, in 2008, it's interesting because 2008, you know, the founder of Purpose Campaigns, I forget what his name is.
Anyway, it doesn't matter.
He says that the reason why they got such good vaccination numbers was effectively kind of basically because they compensate per vaccination given.
So that effective performance-based compensation, basically.
So every single time kind of basically a vaccination by Gavi kind of basically is injected into someone's arm, kind of basically, they'll distribute $10, basically.
Yeah, so they made it worthwhile for the doctors to administer these untested without informed consent.
That sort of overrode any of their principles that they may have had.
And all of a sudden, you've got singular doctors vaccinating 6,000 people in a weekend.
I mean, making $60,000 from that.
I mean, it's really disgusting, really, isn't it?
If you had no soul, that would be appealing, wouldn't it?
I was just thinking that given that the end goal is to turn us all into, well, to render us so dependent on the system that we cannot even get, say, a pint of milk without having the correct carbon credits.
Clearly, an important, for that system to work, we've got to be deprived of the ability to grow our own food, to have our own livestock, any of that.
And you can see why it was so important, for example, to have these culls during BSE and Foot and Mouth in order to override the public sense that private property is private property and that farmers, if you're a farmer and you've got cattle, the government has no right to destroy it.
So they have to invent these reasons from the ether, be it bird flu or BSE or whatever, in order to cement in the public's imagination this notion that government does have the right to confiscate your property and kill animals on a mass scale because für irre zischerheit, I suppose.
Yeah, and that's basically where the black box model becomes of convenience, doesn't it?
Because you cannot really, it's very, very difficult to do a colossal matrix inversion on its output.
So consequently, whatever the black box says, oh, that's the best available scientific evidence, you know.
It's like, you know, okay, all right, but who controls those models?
What data was fed in?
Oh, yeah, that's not important.
And besides, you can't actually have a look at it because that's proprietary information.
Yeah, okay.
Do you have any theories on why more people don't question these black box models?
Because I mean, they can, as you say, they can be made to do anything.
And it surely ought to be, depending on what inputs you put in and depending on the algorithms, you could just get any answer you wanted.
Why do people not understand this basic problem with them?
I think fundamentally this is pretty complex basically by the time.
I mean, it all disappears in complexity, doesn't it?
But I mean, yes, basically, if we look at 2008, kind of the financial crash, where frankly, Wall Street would be sitting, you know, basically torturing the same model with slightly different epsilons again and again and again until the Monte Carlo sort of simulations finally gave the correct answer.
And then basically they would put their rubber stamp on.
It's sort of the same sort of scenario, really, kind of basically just with the environment or health or whatever, kind of basically instead.
Now, why people don't really snap to this realization is probably because no one talks about it.
People are just being told this is the, you know, the latest and greatest science.
And, you know, no one's, we've all been sort of taught that science kind of, you're not really to challenge that since sort of childhood, or a lot of people are basically, because I know when I started engaging in conversations with highly intelligent people, kind of basically went to, you know, Oxbridge or whatever, kind of like the very second we start challenging science, kind of basically you are treated like a heathen.
It's basically been promoted to be a new quasi-religion, basically, which is completely absurd, because if there's one thing science is not, it's religion.
It's interesting.
This is where my former trade comes into it, isn't it?
That journalism, the media bears a degree of responsibility for this.
And organizations, particularly like the BBC.
I remember when I was writing watermelons, one of the things that really in the days when I used to think of the BBC, I still listened to the BBC occasionally.
I'd listen to the radio on my car journeys.
And there was a program on Radio 4.
Do you ever listen to Radio 4?
And it was called The Life Scientific.
And each Monday, I think it was, they would give this hour's hagiography of a scientist.
And they would fate this scientist, male or female.
And we would be invited to put this scientist on a pedestal because of all the science-y science they were doing.
And I was very conscious at the time that anyone questioning the climate change narrative was dismissed as anti-science.
And science was a thing that you could not question because the scientists were experty experts and you should look up to them.
And so the media has played this part in this, hasn't it?
Oh, Gordia.
Oh, Gordia.
But I mean, I think, first off, I completely agree with you.
And basically, BBC is BBC is quite possibly the worst media site on the planet, basically, because I think the ABC is worse in Australia, but yeah, apart from that.
Okay, fair enough.
But the reason why I say this is because basically BBC does actually harbor a sort of a front of credibility, right?
When you go around the world and you say, basically, BBC reports, blah, blah, blah, people will tend to listen.
Whereas basically if someone says, oh, Fox News, blah, blah, then people will, well, 50% will basically just write off immediately, even if it's absolutely factual, right?
So because of this, I also think basically BBC is one of the very worst organizations because they get away with literal murder almost.
I mean, I've seen them post straight up lies and misinformation in articles which even basically kind of referenced what was the name Marianna Spring or whatever her name is, kind of which, you know, that fake news.
She's the disinformation expert at the BBC.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And kind of like basically, then you read some of those articles and she's involved in those articles and they're posting straight up lies.
And it's just, it just beggars belief that their moral compass kind of basically internally sort of like thinks, oh, it's okay because we'll just try to hide it basically behind complex phrasing, right?
And is that not because from the beginning, the BBC was a branch of the intelligence services.
That was always its real purpose.
I don't know.
It could be.
Katabis, you might be right about it.
I haven't looked into that basically specifically, but I just so, but I said, basically, I think BBC and organizations like that trusted media are definitely to blame kind of for a large amount of this.
But I think I am willing to cut basically a journal, some journalists, some Slack, because a lot of this is really complicated.
I mean, this is not trivial, right?
The amount of documents kind of basically have had to troll in order to establish kind of basically these conditional payments instructions being embedded in Bank for International Settlements, you know, Project Rosalind, Francis.
It's taken years to get to the point where I can conclusively say this is what it is and this is what it will enable.
Basically, kind of like for any journalist, kind of is to sit and combine basically all these different paths, kind of based into investigation.
I don't think any media really honestly kind of operates basically with that sort of long-term mindedness, if you think, if you know what I mean?
Yes.
It's more about quick returns.
Why is it called Project Rosalind?
Did you say?
Yes.
BIS Project.
Oh, I don't know.
I mean, I have no idea.
I don't really care about that.
Because, you know, half the sort of metadata they put out kind of basically in my book is intending to deceive.
So I'll try to just ignore it and basically look at what it actually does.
It's kind of like, France, basically, if you talk about the Bank for International Settlements, right, half the comments online are about how grotesquely overweight Augustine Carstens is, right?
Does that really matter at the end of the day?
No, of course it doesn't bloody matter, kind of.
But if you think about it from their perspective, well, perhaps we hire this person for the top job, basically, who's got this unfortunate condition.
So everyone talks about that.
It's kind of like, you know, stuff like it could be weaponized.
It absolutely could.
Yes, that would certainly make sense.
I read one of your essays was fascinating.
Well, they're all fascinating.
You were talking about, it gave me the impression that really the purpose of the Second World War was to enable the setting up of structures in the aftermath in order to take us where we are today, to make us.
So the Second World War was the excuse for the new control systems that would come in and perhaps the First World War as well.
Is that right?
Yeah, I mean, I haven't gone to the extent of making that claim, basically, but like kind of I'm sort of, it is one of those sort of things which I keep in the back of mind because there does seem to be a little bit of a pattern behind all this sort of stuff.
But I mean, you can take it back kind of basically to the Franco-German war, basically, Prussian war of 1870 and 1871, right?
What happened basically, so France, basically in 1919, when they're sitting negotiating in Versailles, basically, and we got that onerous sort of treaty-peace treaty, which obviously kind of basically kind of granted, you know, settled basically Germany kind of with colossal sort of repayments, basically.
The reason why France basically were absolutely adamants and would not basically cut them any slack was because of essentially the settlement kind of basically which imposed upon them in 1870 and 1871.
And what's really interesting about that settlement was basically, I think it was 5 billion francs or something.
There was only one financial house which could basically even create that trade.
You'll never guess, but it was the Rothschild, right?
I didn't believe it.
They were the only organization which could raise that kind of basic money, right?
But what's even more interesting is they're also Rothschild involved in negotiating on the German side of affairs, which is like, okay, there's a bit of a conflict of interest here, right?
Isn't there really?
But yeah, in World War II, basically, but I said, I'm not making the claim because basically I haven't investigated because it's the extent that I find it defensible basically at this stage, but I'm not writing off that it could be possible because there are signs that something's not quite right here.
But anyway, so following World War II, basically we had the Marshall Plan, right?
And everyone's always talking about, oh, it wasn't good of the Americans to fund European reconstruction.
And it's like, yeah, fair enough, kind of basically, there's certainly that element.
But it fundamentally kind of created three organizations, one of which was NATO, of course.
And in 1956, NATO published a report, kind of basically the Committee of Three, which effective said that they needed to branch into non-military sort of affairs.
So basically, oversight and military alliance is no longer just about military itself.
And then they also kind of basically have this Council of Europe, COE, which have basically kind of written a number of significant sort of documents of the European Union before the EU got to it, right?
So basically, the human rights framework, there was basically by the COE.
And the COE is, I mean, there's no democracy about it at all.
They're sitting writing these documents, right?
Kind of basically in the EU or the European coal and steel community before and European EEC, whatever kind of bits before.
They took these documents written by the COE.
And they're written by basically an organization with no democratic oversight whatsoever.
But the pivotal organization of the three is the OECD.
And OECD, many people kind of basically just sort of, oh, you know, it's just economic cooperation.
Yeah, there's a little bit more to it than that.
Basically, what the OECD kind of basically does, it's all about if you want essentially kind of a society kind of which is founded on social justice, right?
What does that even mean?
I mean, basically, what the hell does social justice mean?
And one interpretation of this would be effectively that we all have the same amount of money within a certain threshold.
And that in turn basically necessitates kind of basically kind of data gathering and basic surveillance basically of this information in order for us to be able to rule on it.
And that's more or less exactly kind of the space OECD basically occupies.
So you have ISO, for instance, kind of basically they establish the standards, how do you measure these values?
And you've got the OECD, basically sitting saying these are the values we should measure.
So you have all these sort of structures.
And then you have the IIASA, which is actually doing sort of simulations, basically they're often coming up with ridiculous, basically, kind of projections.
But it's basically the society we find ourselves in right now is one basically where global surveillance basically will surveil absolutely every aspect kind of basically of your life tomorrow.
And basically everything will then be steered, kind of basically notched through basically kind of control of the economic layer at the very bottom.
So effectively kind of basically, if you're not allowed to buy a pint of milk, but instead have to buy disgusting sort of quasi milk kind of based by insects, basically because it allegedly spend ant spunk or something.
Yeah, whatever.
Then that's the way they're going to do it.
Exactly.
I mean, it's just so disgusting, right?
The point is, basically, that's essentially how it's fundamentally kind of basically baked into the pie.
And it also works, kind of basically said, kind of at the at the scale of the corporations, basically where ESG mandates and CSR, et cetera, kind of basically very soon basically will become mandatory, not voluntary anymore, but mandatory.
These voluntary things always basically become mandatory at some stage.
It's soft coercion to start with.
But basically, so you've got corporations basically also have to align kind of bits with these values.
you've got basically sovereign nations having to align to these values as we see in Ukraine and Gaza right now and basically Can I pause you there?
I just need to go for a pin.
I'll be back.
One second.
Yeah, I was thinking escape key about my my many years I spent sort of believing the paradigm as a sort of an educated.
a well-educated person who thought of himself as being on the right of things.
And I was, as in, I thought of myself as a conservative.
And like a lot of conservatives, I was constantly puzzled by institutions like the European Union.
Why was it so, why was it so, why were its policies so counterproductive?
And why would people support such an institution?
And of course, all this stuff makes so much more sense if you realize that all these organizations were built not to be efficient, not to do good, but right from the start, they were there as part of the control mechanism devised by people who hate us and want to take away our freedoms and want to take away our money and want to control us down to every last detail of our lives.
Once you understand that, everything makes sense.
And until you understand that, nothing makes sense.
Would you agree?
Yeah, yeah.
It's basically kind of like that's fundamentally sort of one of the things I've done, like trying to understand about these organizations basically, what they do and how they sort of connect to each other.
So yes, I completely agree with you.
And it's funny because basically since I also come from a background of essentially being sort of a lifetime sort of Tory, right?
And then, you know, one day you sort of realize they don't actually stand for anything I agree with.
And, you know, basically, as it is right now, quite frankly, I detest the Tories kind of basically, and I would never vote for Labour because they're fundamentally a front for the Fabian society.
What was your wake-up moment?
Yeah, that's a good question.
I mean, basically, a big one was probably so I was basically against the EU, right?
Now, I'm not English, of course, so a lot of my sort of friends found it really puzzling how it could possibly be against the EU because, you know, how could someone who's not English be against the EU?
Because otherwise, I wouldn't be able to live here, right?
Which is one of those absurd sort of comments because basically my mom used to live here in the 60s, right?
So it's just sort of like, yeah, okay, that doesn't really quite hold true, but okay.
But in 2016, right, basically, so we had the EU referendum.
I mean, at that point in time, basically, because you can always sense there's something wrong, right?
It's really difficult to sort of place your finger on it, right?
But in 2016, we had, of course, basically the Brexit vote.
And Boris Johnson had placed himself as the sort of on the leave side, right?
And in the morning, in the morning, I remember waking up and it's 52, 48, so UK was leaving, yada, yada.
And Boris Johnson was just walking around, kind of basically, kind of, he didn't, he was just as puzzled as everyone else.
And I just sort of, it just really stuck with me.
I sort of thought, if I was genuinely, if I was genuinely against the EU and I wanted to leave the EU, then I would have some sort of idea basically what would happen, kind of basically, what sort of thing I would say in the morning, especially if I was in a position of Boris Johnson, who was basically the main sort of politician against basically the EU, right?
But in the morning, he was just walking around, kind of being really cagey and not really on, not really seemingly know what to say, right?
And I just realized at that point in time, he was never against the EU.
He just took the position basically because it was politically advantageous for him.
Basically, it was expedient from his course.
It was just, it was essentially that real sort of realization.
So like, okay, so we have a few years later, kind of bitch, we have the, we had, you know, basically a couple of sort of prime ministers who are trying to sort of circumvent, kind of basically kind of, you know, the leave, leave vote, right?
Kind of get including Theresa May, who I really did not like.
Basically, kind of, and Boris Johnson later, and basically sort of get Brexit done and all that sort of stuff, which is now currently being, you know, circumvented kind of basically by the Fabian Society.
But yeah, basically, and then, of course, kind of became kind of basically kind of COVID, which is just like, you know, sort of, I mean, it was my first sort of soft-side essay, kind of under red flags I wrote.
Just my sort of state of, I just couldn't believe what I was observing because essentially kind of so many red flags.
It wasn't just like a single sort of like this is a bit wrong, kind of basically, but it was just like a Labor Day parade march.
There's so many red flags everywhere.
And people just went along with it.
And there he was just sitting, you know, allegedly having COVID and all that sort of stuff.
It was just all bollocks, kind of basically.
So it was just.
Yeah, 2016 basically was a failure major one kind of basic part.
And it's just, it's just a little bit at a time, isn't it?
Yeah.
I think certainly in the aftermath of Brexit, there's long years where you saw conservative governments or coalition governments just failing to live up to any of the promises that the things we've been told would happen if we left the EU.
And I think a lot of people, that was maybe the beginning of their suspicions that government wasn't really there to help them, that we weren't living in a country where your vote counted for anything.
But I think not enough people translated that into a kind of radical shift in their understanding of the world.
Because if they had done, they wouldn't have fallen for the COVID, the COVID scam when they were locked down again for Errol Sicherheit and they had to undertake this experimental medical procedure in order to be able to get on their flight to Ibiza or whatever.
Yeah, I mean, in the sense of that, that entire sort of narrative, it just seems so absurd because basically the first thing they pretty much told us, right, in regards to COVID, was that this is a highly aggressive, fast-mutating virus, right?
Now, first off, if it's highly aggressive, then we're all going to get it.
I mean, there's just not two ways about it, right?
They'll find a way to infect us all.
And if it's fast mutating, then there's no bloody point in having a fucking vaccine.
So it's just essentially kind of, if it is, if it is truly kind of fast, you're fast mutating and highly aggressive, kind of basically, then it undoes everything kind of basically that you're doing here, right?
And then we got like kind of all the variant, right?
Variants, right?
They already knew up front which variants were the dangerous one, allegedly.
Like there are thousands of variants kind of basically in the database, but this one is really dangerous and it's 70% more dangerous than the previous one.
It's always like 70%.
It's just like, you might want to change this.
This is absurd.
As soon as you use the percentage figures, people are kind of, oh, well, it must have a degree of they've calibrated this.
They've put some thought into it.
The experts have looked into this and have come up with some concrete information that we can trust because it's got a percentage attached to it.
I was wondering, do you remember a book called What was it called?
By or is it a famous essay by C.P. Snow?
I think published in 192 Cultures.
Now, I think C.P. Snow was a wrong one.
Anyone who studied that terrible play that he wrote, clearly a sort of crypto-communism.
But that essay was designed to make, designed to create this sense that we described earlier on where we don't value scientists enough.
We must value them more.
We must revere them more.
Do you think?
I also wrote about that, wrote about that to quite a great extent because it meshes right in kind of basically with general systems theory.
Oh, yeah.
Yeah, basically, fundamental general systems theory is an integration kind of basic of natural social scientists.
And basically, what C.B. Snow, who is a C.B. Snow was a frequent society socialist, basically.
Of course, he was.
Basically, kind of what general systems theory does is that it fuses natural and social scientists.
Basically, and you had Anatole rapper port in 1976, basically, essentially making exactly that point, kind of the way to integrate kind of basically natural and social sciences is basically through general systems theory.
Of course, that rapper port was a flaming communist kind of basically doesn't matter, right?
Kind of basically it's just one of those little facts we'll just like immediately look at, you know, ignore.
But yeah, basically, then that view space is through the third culture or whatever, kind of basically, you know, in 1995, was the Rockman, what's called the Realty Club, whatever.
I mean, I wrote about this basically quite a while back, kind of basically.
And it's one of those sort of things sitting, quoting stuff you wrote about a couple of years ago, kind of basically your understanding has shifted a little bit.
But yeah, that was basically my take, kind of basically.
But I did like, I did like some of the, because I dogged kind of basically original, his original speech and all that sort of stuff.
And he was basically indirectly saying kind of a social scientist, like, hey, it's just like, it's such a, it's just such a playground to anticipate kind of basically, especially in the 1950s.
It's just like pointing fingers at the other people, right?
It's just, it's just kind of amusing.
But you know, yeah.
Yeah.
I, this is another of my moments of sort of unveiling of my personal apocalypse, if you like, which is that I realized that all the names that were,
you know, when you're growing up and you're and you're intellectually curious and you're trying to work out what stuff do I need to know, which characters from history do I need to have heard of, which name should I be reading, which name should I be quoting, which name should I have knowledge of or familiarity with?
So you get presented with these figures like C.P. Snow, I suppose, or Isaiah Berlin.
And these people are presented to you as superior figures who know their stuff and they shape the culture and they're important.
And the reason they shape their culture is because they are wise and essentially good.
And part of my awakening has been to realize that if you know that, no, if you know their name, they are almost certainly working for the enemy.
And the reason they got promoted to prominence is because they are basically evil.
They took the shilling or they accepted that in return for prestige, they would have to do abominable things which would involve us ordinary people suffering.
And they did not give a toss because they were getting their baubles.
And yeah, C.P. Snow's one of them, Isaiah Berlin.
I just cropped into my head just then.
But all these, anyone famous, pretty much is going to be a Roman, aren't they?
Yep.
Have you ever read The Meaning of the 20th Century by Kenneth Boulding from 1964?
No, tell me.
Okay, because basically towards the end, he's starting to talk about kind of the invisible college, about kind of basically a group of essentially sort of scientists, et cetera, kind of who's sort of worked kind of basically with an ulterior sort of motive, kind of basically in mind.
And Kenneth Boulding himself was part of it, clearly.
But basically, it's sort of interesting when you consider Kenneth Boulding in 1966, two years later, then wrote The Economics of the Future of Spaceship Earth, which is basically kind of, you know, what they're doing now, kind of basically, he's sort of highly convenient he's sitting talking about how do I spell his name uh Kenneth Boulding, B-O-U-L-D-I-M-G.
B-L-O-Y, okay.
Yeah, so he wrote a book called The Meaning of the 20th Century.
Yeah.
Yeah, if you download that, basically kind of go find it and sort of search for Invisible College.
And so is he a goodie or a baddie?
He's a baddie.
So basically, fundamentally, I said before, Bogdanov, Alexander Bogdanov, who you've never heard of, of course, basically no one has because he's one of the Invisible College, quite clearly.
He is extremely, I mean, the man was brilliant, right?
Basically, you always have to take off your head.
He's someone who's genuinely brilliant, right?
Even if you strongly disagree with him, I strongly disagree with him, but without the shadow of a doubt, he was an absolute genius.
So basically, he came up with technology, which is like kind of basically frontrunner for general systems theory.
And you get Rudwith on Bertan Bertanelfield.
I can't pronounce his name, basically, who came up with the concept of general systems theory.
Now, what Bertanelfield essentially described was a network topology, right?
Kenneth Boulding comes along with Skeleton of Science in 1956, and he structures it hierarchically.
And that's fundamentally how he fits into the picture, kind of basically, because general systems theory is more useful basically when it's structured hierarchically, because then a little bit later on, you get Arthur Koistler, basically Kiesler, I think it's pronounced, with his ghost in the machine, which is effectively kind of, you know, the harlot, basically, so to speak.
He's another baddie, isn't he?
Kirsten?
Well, yeah, I mean, again, kind of basically, no one's going to come out and say so, basically, but like, they all contribute to a structure kind of based which fundamentally is not used for good right now.
Yeah, and sorry, just nipping all over the place, but you mentioned Leonard Wolfe as well at one point.
Leonard Wolfe.
Was that Virginia Wolfe's dad?
No, no, that's her husband.
Oh, sorry.
Okay.
So her husband.
You see, that's the thing.
One thinks of, well, okay, so this woman from the Bloomsbury set married to Leonard Wolfe and they slept with one another.
So you're sort of aware of the trivia.
They all had alternative lifestyles.
You overlooked the big picture that this guy, Leonard Wolfe, was instrumental in creating the control system that we are now moving today.
Yeah, I think we should probably place him basically kind of going.
So I said, basically, we have Julius Wolf, kind of basically who fundamentally scaled the Bank of England's sort of clearinghouse structure, kind of basically international, it's really bank for international settlements.
And he did that basically by proposing kind of basically public-private partnership, basically kind of fundamentally centered around the unit of account, basically, you know, the money, basic currency, right?
And next in line comes basically Edward Bernstein and sort of said, ah, yeah, this is all a very, very good idea, kind of based, but we need basically that to work for social justice.
So basically, fundamentally, we structure basically public-private partnership basically around a social justice, which is incidentally exactly the point Tony Blair makes in his 1991 article in Marxism Today.
But anyway, kind of basically after Bernstein comes basically kind of like Arthur Penti of the Fabian Society and GDH Cole of the Fabian Society and Leonard S. Wolf of the Fabian Society.
And what they fundamentally do, right, is essentially they take the idea basically kind of which placed basically by Edward Bernstein in Evolutionary Socialism of the idea of the cooperative kind of basically kind of right.
And just to speed through this, right, kind of basically what fundamentally what Arthur Pentef does basically he introduces the concept of guild socialism, which is a local cooperative sort of sort of structure.
And the next person in line at GDH Cole basically takes this and sort of says, ah, yes, but basically what we need to do is essentially we need to create it as national guilds, so labor organizations and that sort of thing, right?
And the next person in line becomes Leonard S. Wolf, kind of basically who scales it internationally, who says basically going to be the international organization, Space Essential to mediate kind of basically in these highly specialized fields.
Now, this essentially kind of was used as a template basically by Alfred Simmond, kind of basically for the League of Nations in 1919.
And if you notice, basically in 1919, kind of basically a number of organizations were also given birth to.
So you have the ILO, the International Labor Organization, and you have the International Research Council, IRC, and a number of other science organizations.
The ISE then became the ICSU in 1931, basically they stripped of government oversight.
And basically, fundamentally, the entire idea here, basically, with regards to the League of Nations, and that model was then carried forward to the United Nations, was that if you have two different nations basically right next to each other, like say Norway and Sweden, you need an international organization to mediate between the two, right?
So, for instance, basically, if you want to carry a letter kind of based on Sweden to Norway, they must have some sort of common standard.
And it's not just in terms of postal issues, but in any sort of issue, kind of basically needs to cooperate between those two.
So you take essentially you create highly specialized organizations which are transnational, and they will, in effect, siphon just a tiny little power away kind of bits from the sovereign nations.
And now you start spawning a lot of NGOs, basically, these effectively are contemporary NGOs, general consultative status NGOs, right?
They will just siphon just a little bit of specialized power kind of bits from all the sovereigns, right?
And basically, kind of the way they do this, right, is actually really clever and it's detailed in Leonard S. Wolf's 1916 book, International Government.
What he says they should do basically is essentially they should basically eliminate tariffs.
So basically, you can just send traded goods from one nation to the next nation without imposing any kind of tariff and through open border policies and eliminating any kind of protective protection, basically policies in terms of economics.
And the reason why this works so well, right, is because if you have said this before, Norway and Sweden, and in Sweden, they impose drastic taxes on a particular sort of specialization, some specialized field of employment, all those jobs are just immediately going to move to Norway.
And since there are no tariffs, basically all the goods produced goods are always going to be basically far more sort of cheaper, kind of produced Norway.
And consequently, kind of basically by eliminating kind of basic tariffs and allowing people just to walk from one nation to another, you force neighboring nations to run with you to very slowly harmonized economic policies.
And then you step forward to basically 1990 and you get Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs, Larry Salmers, Robert Rubin.
that entire dot, right?
What did they all promote?
They all promoted neoliberalism, which is basically kind of no tariffs, you know, open borders, no protection, yada, yada, yada.
It just aligns so well when you start looking at basically all these things.
That's so interesting because, of course, in my sort of libertarian, conservative, free market, Hayekian, Mises days, I would have thought, well, this is good.
Eliminating tariffs is obviously a good thing because it promotes free trade.
But it was just a Trojan horse, I now realize.
Well, I wouldn't say it's a Trojan horse because basically you can make Katabitsky valid arguments.
I'd rather say it has been webinars, right?
Because basically I think fundamentally, politically, we're probably quite aligned because I consider myself a moderate or light libertarian.
Basically, I do believe there should be some state.
I just believe any organization once it crosses a certain threshold gets embedded with corruption basically and consequently, that's probably the best model.
Anyway, but yes.
But what's also interesting is we then have in 1930, kind of I said, basically Julius Wolfe's sort of suggestion for the Bank for International Settlements.
And in 1944, we had the Bretton Woods organizations kind of based with the IMF and the World Bank.
The IMF itself, right, kind of basically specializes in fiscal policy, whereas basically the BIS is a forum for monetary policy setting, right?
But the fiscal policy basically advised basically at the IMF, right?
Every single time a state goes to the IMF begging for a bailout, right?
Basically, what is the advice given?
Open borders, free tariffs, basically no protection.
It is exactly straight down the middle kind of basically on the advice which was penned basically by Leonard S. Wolfe in 1916 in international government.
It is just so precise.
And yeah.
Was Leonard Wolfe the son of Julius Wolf?
No, no, no, no, no, they're not.
They're not related.
Kind of basically just wolves in sheep's clothes.
Well, I suppose that was the Fabian Society's motto, wasn't it?
Wolf in sheep's clothing.
Well, I guess so, but I don't think it was.
Just the guy whose name is Wolf.
I don't think it was that literal, but okay, that's an interesting point.
Basically, the more interesting organization, I actually think, is the Cambridge Apuzzles.
Oh, really?
Tell me.
Yeah.
Well, the thing is, essentially, no one speaks of him.
Katabispart Leonard S. Wolfe, Katabiska was a member of him.
And basically, kind of like, you know, the entire Balfour family, basically, they're all the individual members were members, kind of basically of the Cambridge Apostles, with one notable exception.
However, Katabiska, when you actually kind of start to dig through these early documents, you find that in some documents he's included in the later documents, he's been wiped.
So it's kind of like, okay, we have the Balfour Declaration.
Yeah, he was in some documents, that Balfour is actually kind of included as basically, you know, being part of Cambridge Apostles.
And the other documents, he's not recorded, basically.
But anyway, Katowiczki, so in 19...
So another prominent member of Katowiczki of the Cambridge Apostles was Keynes.
And Keynes, a general theory, kind of basically, I've gone through this basically a few times, but essentially, kind of like his book, A General Theory, basically was not as unique as everyone sort of claims, because basically what led to it was the Chatham House in 1931, 33 and 35.
They wrote three reports which effectively kind of laid the paved the road kind of bit for a general theory.
Basically, what I'm saying is basically a general theory is a logical extension of those three Chatham House reports.
But anyway, kind of it's in 1930.
Now, Victor Rothschild was a member of the Cambridge Apostle.
Sorry, he's drinks from order.
Victor Rothschild.
Right.
Yeah.
And basically in the 1970s, he was accused of being basically a spy.
for Soviet Russia, for Soviet Russia, right?
Now, obviously, you're never going to be able to answer kind of basically whether he was or he wasn't.
Obviously, they'd sort of say, oh, no, totally not, right?
Kalabis, but at the same point, I'm there.
A lot of dodginess basically when you start investigating.
So MI6, I think it was basically released at Dossier kind of basically a while back.
And it basically says that in the early 1930s, which is when Rothschild was a member, basically it just happened just by pure coincidence that practically every member had been a scientific socialist.
Two of the members kind of basically were also members of the Cambridge Five, kind of basically spies, basically later on, right?
And basically, kind of like Victor Rothschild's flat in London, Katabis was known as basically a bit of a hotspot kind of basically of essentially left-wing activity.
Like a lot of people, kind of prominent, sort of left-wing names, kind of basically commonly kind of in that flat.
And this has been reported basically in a number of books.
It's not me making it up.
I wrote an article about this.
Basically, kind of, and yeah, of course, here's Victor Rothschild.
And he was a prominent member of, I think it was counter-sabotage of the MI6, which is actually quite a good spot to be sitting in if you are a spy, if you think about it, because basically he obviously needs to full clarity kind of basically over the entire structure, because otherwise, kind of he cannot prevent anything.
He needs to understand how the system works in order to prevent it allegedly.
Now, that's not saying, of course, he was basically.
I haven't been able to drum up basically the conclusive evidence, but there's just a lot of dodginess here.
I don't see how you would find conclusive evidence because by nature, spying is opaque.
Well, I mean, it puts great effort into burying any documentation that might support the case that he was a spy.
Yeah, no, of course, kind of basically, but it just seems really, really strange, right?
Kind of basically the guy is part of Cambridge Apostles at a time basically where everyone is a scientific socialist, right?
And we know in the early 1930s, basically the UK British academia in the 1930s was overrun by communists, right?
So basically, in 1941, we had the science and world order events basically in London, right?
And a number of the participants there basically were saying that this is a promotional event for communism.
And in 1942, basically, there was a science and ethics event where effectively they're sort of sitting discussing kind of science and ethics.
Now, it's a correspondence event, kind of basically, which included, there was a very large overlap with the science and world order event from 1941.
By the way, I know this because basically I shall buy the book, kind of basically, kind of, I had a sent from India.
It was completely impossible to find online.
But anyway, 1942, and effectively kind of basically, it was detailing kind of how ethics should basically ethics should be sort of ethics and science, how they were correlated, right?
Now, one of the members basically on this panel was Miriam Rothschild.
Now, in 1948, Katabis, one of the founding members, kind of based on the IUUCN, basically, as it happens, was Miriam Rothschild.
And the IOUCN is a sincere organization which ultimately balls down to a planner plan and tree ethics.
It's all about being plans for Stuarts.
It's funny the nonsense that we're fed about these people.
So if we're talking about the same Miriam Rothschild, she's famous for being a kind of butterfly expert, isn't she?
Yeah, She wrote a few other books which are basically a bit more questionable, but anyway, yes.
But that was that was her kind of normie cover in the same way.
I remember, I'm pretty sure I remember reading the obituary of Victor Rothschild in The Telegraph.
And the impression you got was that he was a rather splendid fellow, that he was a good, he was a stride piano player and he was a boulevardier and he was very cosmopolitan.
And you're thinking the lies we tell ourselves about these, about the people who, in the same way, we tell us about the Bloomsbury set, that they were these frightfully clever, slightly bohemian types who should basically admire.
And meanwhile, these people are shafting us.
Well, I find that that is an interesting word you included there because basically I think cosmopolitan is more or less exactly kind of basically what he was.
Cosmopolitan, it's all about basically being rootless, ultimate person, kind of based, who lives by global ethics.
That's very true.
But I suppose, yes, indeed, the fact that I use that word to indicate a kind of something desirable is self-indicative of the brainwashing to which we've been subjected, that cosmopolitan is a kind of quality one should aspire to rather than abhor.
Yeah, because it's ultimately kind of basically not really about adhering to your traditions or anything like that.
It's about having a sort of common understanding of everyone.
It's utterly fake, basically.
It creates kind of basically sort of utterly rootless sort of clientele, ultimately.
Just to briefly define what scientific socialism is.
I think I can guess, but scientific socialism, what is it exactly?
Well, again, kind of basically a couple of definitions, but the one I like kind of is basically Alexander Bogdanov, who fundamentally he describes it's really telling, right, Katabis,
because the way Alexander Bogdanov kind of wants to sort of pervert science, not really pervert science, was essentially he didn't want to manipulate the results themselves because that's obvious and he didn't want to manipulate the direct calculations which led to the results.
He wanted to basically master the mechanisms, right?
So basically, you are effectively two links out, if you know what I mean, right?
You control the methods, they will produce the results and outcomes to data, right?
Katabisco for, you know.
And basically, kind of, the reason why science is fantastic from a perspective of socialism, right?
It's because basically in terms of religion, we can all disagree or we can agree, whatever, right?
But in terms of science, you cannot really question legit science, basically there is a certain thing like gravity, and consequently it's universal in its application, right?
So consequently, kind of basically by shifting your belief from religion to science, we all fundamentally, in kind of basic sense, are kind of, you know, trusting science like a religion and all having the same values.
Yes, yes.
So these various people who would have had no influence in their own lives, no direct influence, but were able to set up the system whereby they and people like them effected increasingly total control on society.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, basically, Bogdanov kind of basically has been one of my favorite sort of characters because basically, I mean, the stuff he's produced, you know, given that there was a hundred years ago, it's just incredible, basically.
It all sort of fundamentally sort of traces back to Marxism, basically.
He's just a slightly developed version.
Basically, Marx sort of believed in, Marx believed in essential violent revolution.
Basically, and Bokdenov couldn't think of anything worse.
He thought it was should be a very slow and gradual sort of sort of sort of conversion, kind of basically much like, yeah, exactly.
Kind of bitch, much like Edward Bernstein as well.
Basically, they fundamentally believed in it should be incredibly subversive and happened basically just a tiny little bit of time, basically, which exactly is like Fabian belief.
But I mean, the thing is, ultimately, basically all these sort of people fundamentally land basically with Marx.
And Lenin is another sort of interesting sort of point because one of the key sort of documents basically which he's written, kind of basically, I think is from a speech in April 1918 here.
He's talking about essentially kind of the road to sort of the road to communism goes through accounting and control.
And you think about basically what is accounting control?
Well, basically, it's surveillance and audits.
That's what it is.
And then sort of connect that basically to contemporary sort of society.
We've got surveillance everywhere, kind of basically, and the audits are tied right into kind of basic currency, basically, very soon.
So, yeah.
But of course, I mean, that's a little bit longer conversation because that fundamentally travels through basically kind of what I sort of declared was sort of six rails based by an X-Rails.
missed out on one of them basically when our original wrote that sort of articles kind of based by its management kind of is through the currency come you Programmable.
I got a sign saying your recording had stopped because an incoming call had that maybe.
No, I think you are still recording.
I hope.
Yeah, no, I got an incoming call, basically.
I'll just swip it, basically.
But yeah.
Is it showing recording on your screen or whatever?
I think it is basically.
Yeah, it says 30 seconds.
So what they kind of say has been cut off.
Yeah.
So that's a problem basically.
Yeah.
What we've really been talking about is on this chat is to solve what to a lot of people is a mystery, which is how they get away with doing stuff which none of us would ever vote for.
None of us want.
I think if you had to capture the despair people feel whether they're awake or they're not awake, it's this sense that all this stuff is happening that makes their life more complicated and less free.
And they can't understand why it's there's more and more of it each day.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, that's fundamentally everything's being gradually controlled, isn't it?
I mean, essentially under the Blair and Brown government, kind of basically we had continuous talk about the nanostate.
But I mean, this is basically fundamentally the nanostate on steroids, where effectively every aspect of society is measured kind of basically through surveillance, kind of basically ends normalized basically, kind of through sort of SDG indicators or HGI indicators.
And what these effectually kind of basically do is effectively they generate a value.
If that value is outside of a certain range, kind of basically then, you know, you can effectively basically have sort of penalties or whatever kind of basically imposed upon you, kind of basically being conditioned in order to go a certain way.
So, for instance, basically, if we look at COVID, You sort of asked, Catabase, what was COVID really about?
And obviously there are a number of answers to that, basically this idea not least.
But one of the things which were which was about was that it was realistically the first event where societies, whole societies, was guided by sheer numbers.
Right, because when the threshold of infection was like 80 cases per 100,000, then societies would be just be locked down because no doc, there was not document, there were no democratic debate about this.
They just locked down entire societies when it crossed 150 kind of basically started imposing quarantines.
It was essentially kind of governance, basically through indicators basically, which is effectively kind of stripping away kind of any kind of democratic ideal and placing it all in the hands of the experts which set these thresholds.
Now, does that, does that mean Catabase, since those values were correct?
Well, probably not, basically because they came through a black box model.
But what does that do then then?
Basically that means essentially kind of expert panels.
In effect, it kind of basically been transferred control and yeah, that's fundamentally kind of based what the Sdg indicators are about kind of.
Basically they establish kind of some sort of threshold where you can basically very rapidly basically establish kind of which countries are behaving very well and which countries are not behaving very well.
Then you tie that up basically into a conditional finance kind of base where, for instance say oh, I don't know, Cameroon will get some sort of third world development aid if they basically have a certain threshold of I don't know deaths before five years old or whatever kind of.
Basically, if they don't comply basically with this, then they will not get the trans next transfer payments.
And that's fundamentally how the World World BANK funding has operated since Mcnamara kind of basically kind of became, you know, director of Catabase in 1968.
And Mcnamara is a really interesting sort of person because he essentially he introduced um, he introduced Pbps.
What's the 19?
It's the um uh planning programming, budgeting system basically, which effective is input, output analysis.
Where you say Catabase, we have a certain set of conditions, we have a certain amount of kind of basically, if we feed it basically these this if, if we have a project, a program element, as they call it right kind of based third world development whatever, we will give it these materials and human resource and this amount of money and this is the output and basically can, then they can trace everything relative to that.
So if they do well, kind of basically since they get, the outputs basically will arrive exactly as as as they expected, and if they don't do well, kind of basically since it, then then you know, essentially they just want to get the next tranche of funding, kind of basically that's fundamentally how the World BANK, uh sort of projects operate after that um and that's then scaled basically through result based management, which is basically kind of what the um, what the uh, the United Nations basically, are very, very keen basically about, kind of where effectively you have a set of parameters, kind of basically through uh Kpis, uh key performance indicators,
which is effectively like kind of basically, you know, in a programming language, you have a number of um, you know values, kind of based sensor variables, kind of like um, which you can sort of uh judge based sensor outcomes through.
Now, why would you want this basically, of course, is the question?
It's it's pretty simple because if you can quantify absolutely everything in terms of basically pbps, program elements, which is basically a piece of software, Software kind of basically being run and out comes certain results.
If those results basically kind of come in, then you don't need to wait for that result to come in before you can schedule the next project.
So that means essentially kind of like once you have PVPS program element sort of structures, you can start making five-year plans because essentially you'll just immediately route the outputs of one program element into the inputs of the next.
And it fundamentally allows kind of basically for long-term planning.
And fundamentally, kind of, it's one of the key concepts which very few people basically are discussing.
But I've written a number of posts basically since about John F. Kennedy because I think there's a probability, a strong probability that he was waking up to the realization that systems analysis kind of basically was quite problematic since.
And he spoke about this in a number of speeches, basically, kind of, you know, especially after the Cuban missile crisis, where basically McNamara's sort of automated systems wanted him to basically start bombing Cuban sort of sites, which could have led to basically since kind of like nuclear sort of Armageddon, quite frankly, right?
Now, basically, at that point in time, Kennedy basically said, no, sort of human intuition, kind of like sort of overrules all.
And he started to speak up against this.
And at that point in time, basically, they're also starting to gear up for a national information center or somewhere like that.
And he basically kind of, you know, took a pretty sharp turn against kind of basically systems analysis, basically in general.
And one of the key people kind of basically in the CIA at the point in time was Robert Amory Jr., kind of basically was basically part of investigating PBPS already in 1961.
And following the Bayer Pigs disaster, right, kind of basically Kennedy basically cleaned house and that involved getting rid of Robert Amory Jr.
Now, he is quite pivotal in this regard because basically, he was the one basically sitting discussing introducing PBPS in with the CIA.
And soon after he had been booted, kind of basically kind of by sort of Kennedy, he officially retired.
You know how it is, basically, Kennedy, these people are given an option of retiring, right?
Kind of basically Arthur Schlesinger was the official historian, kind of basically, he was working with Amory Jr. kind of basically in order to produce something called the World Congress for Freedom and of Democracy, Freedom and Democracy, which was in effect basically an early attempt to shift in kind of basically in the developed nations, kind of basically sort of public-private partnerships, basically where essentially kind of the large foundations would have a significant influence.
This initiative ultimately failed, but basically Kedabat Schlesinger worked really, really hard to basically try to keep him basically still, Amory Jr., kind of still in his CIA occupation for obvious reasons.
Now, all of a sudden, kind of basically, and so basically, kind of Kennedy was opposed to all this increasing rollout of sort of systems analysis.
And before you know it, he's assassinated and they start undoing everything.
And in 1965, kind of basically kind of under LBJ, kind of basically LBJ basically introduces PPPS across all government agencies.
So yet another theory on why JFK had to die.
Yeah, but the thing is basically when you consider basically kind of the historical trajectory here, it's actually pretty strong, basically, because the very second kind of basically kind of where he's eliminated.
I mean, essentially, I've written a number of articles about this and I've drummed up a huge amount of CIA CIA documents kind of basically in this regard.
And soon after Amory was fired or let go, right, kind of based from CIA, Kennedy basically had him wiretapped and took a personal interest in the case himself, which is the sort of thing, okay, this is a little bit strange, right?
And you look into Amory himself, kind of basically, he was basically a hard lefty, basically kind of who was fundamentally sort of sort of, you know, one of those people who never speak bad about communist societies, kind of basically always finds a reason kind of to complain about like, you know, right-wing sort of or you know, libertarian sort of societies.
You know, a little bit like Jeffrey Sachs, right?
He always finds a reason to criticize the United States or Western states, but he never criticizes China.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We should talk before we go about what's happening in Ukraine and Gaza, which you seem to be suggesting are the kind of the paradigm for these new control zones that they want to set up where we're nailed down every transaction.
Is that what's going on in Ukraine and Gaza?
That's my take of the situation, yeah, basically.
Because so basically, I haven't really spoken about it.
You know, we all know about basically CPCs and digital ID and all that sort of stuff, kind of based, but what few people realize is essentially 1989, kind of basically the financial action task force came to be.
And if you read their founding documents, kind of basically they're already immediately kind of speaking about environmentalism.
It's just like, why the hell would they be speaking about a task force basically relating to financial crime, kind of basically in international capacity?
Why would they speak about environmentalism at this point in time?
It's kind of like the sort of entire sort of history is complete bollocks, right?
Basically, can I get, I mean, sorry, I know this is slightly off topic, but let me just quickly go through it.
Basically, can I get 1987, we had the Montreal Protocol, which allowed...
Okay.
Yeah, so in 1987, we saw the Montreal Protocol, right?
Kind of basically which sort of established sort of a framework, kind of basically where sort of the atmospheric sort of emissions or any kind of pollutant basically could be quantified and swapped, effectively.
So because Fegli said, basically, if you're not going to use all your emission permits, then you can send them over, transfer them to another sort of nation, basically, kind of state that can use it.
And then in 1988, we saw the IPCC basically came to be, which offers a model space these scenarios.
And then in 1989, we saw the FATF, the Financial Task Force, which investigates serious sort of crimes, blah, blah, strangely include environmentalism in its early mandate.
And then in 1990, basically we saw the IPCC Working Group 3 discuss carbon trading.
In 1991, kind of basically we saw the Global Environment Facility come to be, which effectively sort of backstops kind of the UNFCCC and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
And obviously, both of those basically created in 1992 at the Earth Summit.
But in 1992, we also had UNCTAD's two reports combating global warming, which in effect outlines how in the future basically air and water and other sort of ecosystem services effectively will be traded to commodities, basically.
They're very difficult to find, to get a hold of kind of those reports, kind of basically, but search for combating global warming on my substack.
But yeah, basically, it's just incredible because if you consider basically all these events, you basically kind of have the entire sort of structure kind of gradually being assembled.
Basically, from sort of tokens that could be swapped to traded to monetized, while at the same point in time, basically you have the financial sort of task force investigating this, which obviously requires surveillance.
And you have the financial total capacity through the Global Environment Facility, which is effectively the World Conservation Bank, basically, which was proposed in 1986 originally, but in 87 kind of basically was proposed basically at the fourth World Wilderness Conference Congress, sorry, kind of basically kind of where both David Rockefeller and Evelyn D. Rosshield were present.
Anyway, anyway, kind of basically kind of now, this entire sort of structure kind of basically kind of, so I said earlier, kind of basically I gathered that there was something not quite right, kind of we know basically this ID, CBDCs, that sort of thing, kind of basically started to pull apart basis of this and to sort of speculate where else, what else kind of basically would be part of this and kind of basically what I could find documents, that sort of thing.
And I came down to effectively six rails, right, basically what I called them.
And basically, the first thing was accreditation, which is effectively, you know, effectively a permit slip, right?
Kind of basically if you're allowed to trade, basically, so to speak, kind of basically, and then you have digital ID, basically, which is about you specifically, kind of basically you have data, which is data, which is about surveillance.
And you have finance, which is effectively the sort of actuator, kind of basically kind of in the sort of circle of economy.
And you have procurement, which is about basically center supply chain sort of being forced into alignment kind of basically because large organizations, you know, all those large organizations basically kind of which are working with the United Nations, basically regards to public-private partnerships, basically since they have to be compliant to a certain extent, basically, but so do the suppliers they rely on.
So effectively, it creates kind of basically this ripple effect through the supply chain, kind of basically that everyone has to get in line.
And when you consider all those sort of six rails, basically, I wrote an entire series called Beyond the Law.
You really only need to read Beyond the Law, the summary, which is effectively a quick version, basically kind of the six rails.
What you effectively end up basically with is, again, adaptive management, basically, because effectively, kind of basically you have the accreditation and the ID, where ID basically is about you personally, and the accreditation is about basically who you're allowed to trade with.
And that fundamentally is the system, basically, kind of the general systems theory model.
And then you have effectively kind of based the data and the audit, basically, which relates to the input-output analysis, basically the sort of information which is continuously going through these models.
And then you have frankly the actuator and you have the procurement, which is basically the forced sort of alignment, kind of basically in the finance actuator, kind of basically, which only pays out if you're in full compliance.
So effectively, kind of basically those three things, again, are general systems theory, input-output analysis, and cybernetics.
And the three together kind of combine to make adaptive management, which is effectively, as I say, being right now basically being integrated kind of basically into the Bank for International Settlements Project Rosalind through conditional payment.
And it fundamentally kind of works basically through, you know, I said, basically, kind of gets a three-party sort of approach where since I want to sell something to you, kind of basically go buy something from you, kind of basically, you know, by third party will basically approve the process, the transaction.
And if I don't have sufficient amount of carbon credits or water rights or anything else, I haven't behaved kind of basically my social credit score is too low, then it can be rejected, based in center.
And all this is absolutely being integrated, kind of basically said, fairly early on, kind of basically I'm finding BIS reports, which are, which is speaking about this.
It couldn't be more explicit.
Well, it could be, but I mean, obviously, this is in banker language, kind of basically, but it's there.
It is definitely there.
Now, when you apply these six rails, kind of basically you find them in Ukraine, basically.
It's essentially exactly kind of basically kind of the same sort of layout.
So in Ukraine, basically, kind of you have basically the EU are dictating what gets certified, right?
Kind of basically kind of, and you have the financial strings, via IMF and World BANK kind of basically, which effectively tie every, every single fine, everything which financed Ukraine is basically tied to conditions, basically kind of.
You have digital id, basically Ukraine's Dia, basically digital id system is essentially the most you know advanced in the world kind of.
Basically you've got mandatory auditing basically regards to basically every single transaction through the World BANK or EU, blah blah, and you also have data sharing requirements basically, where effectively all the surveillance data must come back, come back home.
And you've got a procurement protocol where basically Prosoro kind of gives the Ukraine sort of mandatory online procurement procurement system which basically dictates that kind of basically, if money, kind of um from the UM, EU in terms of the um, you know, you know, build Ukraine back better basically, which I mean unbelievably.
There's a paper, paper called this um, basically kind of all the sort of like smaller suppliers leading into the large suppliers also must be compliant, based upon this entire system and, as said, basically this entire sort of framework ultimately leads to basically a system basically kind of where the where every single um, every single financial transaction is conditional upon compliance, basically kind of like.
And, as said, basically that's what Project Rosaland implies at the individual transaction level.
But this obviously operates basically at substantially a higher granularity, basically at the nation state.
But the point is basically kind of this, this, it's the same system being embedded everywhere throughout.
Right now, if you look at Basic Center Gaza, basically what's actually happening down there, and and you listen to kind of basically what they're actually speaking about, it's it's earlier stage yes, but basically center again, we're talking about basically an international, uh sort of transitional authority kind of basically with, you know unbelievably, Tony Blair is potentially had right kind of basically, and the only real sort of difference.
I mean, I wrote a, i've wrote an article kind of going into detail, basically called the 20 point plan for for Gaza, kind of basically where i've dug out kind of basically a number of documents kind of from, you know, the World BANK, etc.
Kind of basically showing kind of basically that the same same six rails kind of basically affect kind of it's the same rails once again, but just in an earlier stage of development.
One of the major differences between the two of them basically is in Ukraine the ultimate authority is the EU, but in Gaza it's effectively kind of basically Central United Nations basically which are rolling this out and all the initiatives basically kind of which would work to support this.
They're all in operation kind of.
Basically it's just a question of essentially kind of rolling out.
Now what's interesting is essentially kind of like they're rolling this out under an alleged emergency basically.
I mean, obviously it is emergency.
I'm not trying to sort of say it's not kind of based for a lot of for for those people in Palestine who are obviously suffering as a result of this um but um, if you look at basically what the United Nations are also are to kind of basically they're right now basically planning a UN Emergency UM platform and the?
U. Emergency platform basically, if you've read the reports basically say that this relates to complex scenarios.
Right, kind of basically, what they're basically telling you kind of this relates to basically kind of um, you know black box modeling, so basically a black box model kind of basically will predict, you know, 10 trillion deaths tomorrow, kind of.
Basically, unless we do these heinous measures, kind of basically they'll introduce, kind of basically this future governance system or whatever kind of basically, unless you comply and you know, Bob's your uncle the entire world will be essentially at the control Basically, of central banks and the organizations which set the standards.
People should be judged by.
But what's also interesting is essentially kind of ecocide is one of those sort of things, kind of basically which even the UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, Collegium International sort of member and all, basically kind of.
But basically, kind of what this in effect says is that basically eco-cycle should be basically elevated to become a security council status.
And other people basically right now trying to eliminate the veto, basically, at the Security Council, right?
Because right now, basically, UK, the greater powers, kind of basically have got vetoes at the Security Council.
They're trying to overturn this.
What they don't in effect mean, basically, if all this sort of stuff goes through, Karabiski is a sincere black box, basically would predict some sort of bullshit, kind of basically about 10 trillion deaths unless we do blah, blah, blah.
And the Secretary General Kalabiski would say basically everyone should lock down, basically for this reason, that it would be escalated to Security Council sort of status.
Any nation which disagrees would then basically be met with force, basically kind of it's in, they would have a right under responsibility to protect one of those other bullshit programs, right?
Ecocide is justification for kind of basically since they kind of do force protection as well.
If you don't lock down, basically, because of the alleged new virus, then basically UN peacekeeping forces will come rolling and tanks will come rolling into your country and shut it down for you.
And I mean, all these initiatives kind of basically since I'm motion at the same point in time.
It's just so incredibly Orwellian.
Basically, no one is speaking about it.
I think we should wrap it up.
Otherwise we're going to have too much more of this, um, this, uh, into, uh, whatever it is.
I'm too exhausted.
So, look, cut to the chase.
It astounds me that, I mean, I've been to Ukraine.
I haven't been to rural Ukraine, but I know most of it is rural.
I've been apart from the Industrial East.
And it almost beggars belief that this control mechanism could be imposed on a country where I imagine people are still mostly paying in cash.
And I mean, how does it work?
How do they make it work in a country like Ukraine?
Or Gaza, for that matter.
That's very simple.
I mean, Gaza is a perfect example.
People are desperate.
So they'll sign any agreement.
Right.
It's just so disgustingly evil if you think about it.
But that's fundamentally it, isn't it?
Here comes.
I mean, you should, how come no one has questioned that Anderson Cooper of CNN is now talking about like Trump doing a good job in Gaza?
How come no one is questioning that?
That man has been continuously on his case for literally everything.
So, you know, basically, Trump earlier on, kind of basically sent a Mexican meal or whatever in Cinco de Mayo, Cinco de Mayo, kind of since Anderson Cooper was against it.
Like, you know, basically saying there was cultural appropriation or something like that right now.
And now he's actually praising him regards to the Gaza deal.
It's like, if anything, should make people realize that something are not quite right here.
It's stuff like that.
Yeah.
This is the area you don't go into, but you know Anderson Cooper is satanic bloodlines.
Oh, yeah.
Well, he's kind of, I wasn't, I wasn't, well, it wasn't really basically specific, kind of basically zooming in on him.
But I just mean, I mean, if these people are pro, you know it's got to be bad.
So you're, I mean, you share my skepticism of Trump, that he's like, he's not a peacemaker.
He's a he's an enforcer of the new world order.
Yeah, well, basically, kind of the conclusion I came to, right, kind of basically was the 2020 election was actually quite telling, right?
Because basically you had Biden on one side.
And Biden is loosely affiliated basically with liberation theology, basically, kind of which is about social justice.
Whereas basically, kind of Trump basically is aligned basically with Prosperity Gospel and Paula White, which is literally about money.
The new world order, so to speak, that's trying to push through is social justice through the unit of account.
So it doesn't really matter who you vote for, kind of basically, they're eventually going to meet up in the middle anyway.
Yeah.
It's an in-dimensional normal in space, kind of basically, kind of, which is negative, kind of basically, you know, with a dot product of minus one, so to speak.
So do you think that the real purpose of the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, the really big picture is basically to create these little sections of the world, the sort of experimental trial runs, if you like, for this total control system.
Yes, because all the components basically are pretty much active in the EU as well.
Basically, there are two elements which we're waiting for, kind of basically EU, basically EU is essentially the first large region, kind of basically, which you're going to introduce this in my book, right?
What we're waiting for is essentially digital ID, kind of become law basically throughout the EU, you know, the entire region, kind of basically now comes in 2026.
And the other one, kind of basically, which hardly anyone is speaking about, kind of basically, is the carbon adjustment mechanism, kind of basically the CBAM, hang on, basically, let me see.
Yeah, the carbon border adjustment mechanism, right?
And what is the carbon border adjustment mechanism?
Well, it's effective a system where every single item basically that's traded at the border will have kind of basically an associated cost.
So that means how much carbon dioxide was allegedly emitted during the development or the creation of whatever basically is being sold, right?
Now, once they have it at the border, right, it's a trivial exercise.
Just a few dollar line signatures based by EU members, right?
Kind of basically to move that kind of basically to become every single point of purchase, right?
So that means every single item kind of basically that you will buy or sell will effectively kind of basically have an associated cost based regards to carbon dioxide.
And well, at the same point in time, basically, kind of as a posted, basically most recent source substack, we have a conditional sort of payment basically being introduced with regards to basically from through Project Rosalind, which is very much real, kind of basically.
And well, you look at that, kind of basically, while that's being developed, we have kind of basically the entire sort of logic and rationale and system being developed, which will allow them to trace kind of basically carbon dioxide for every single item which is being traded.
I don't know, basically the obvious sort of pushback is like, oh, it's just for a few sort of items.
Yeah, sure.
Kind of basically right now it's for 70 items.
But they're already talking about basically including another 300 or somehow that, right?
Once that 370 kind of basically different objects basically kind of being tracked in terms of carbon dioxide, kind of basic sense, do you really think they're going to stop there?
Or do you think basically they're going to sort of effectively include every single object in the entire solar supply chain, right?
Especially Especially considering sandwiches basically kind of now supposedly come with labels saying how much carbon dioxide basically kind of was not sorry sandwiches basically in British supermarkets now supposedly come with labels reminding you of your sort of carbon allowance.
I mean it's basically the end.
The end station here is Carbon Communism basically kind of right, where we all get kind of basically a quantity basically of carbon dioxide right um, or a layout basically sent a certain level of carbon emissions right, and if basically we overrun, then we either have a sort of um transaction sort of blocked or we will be told we have to compensate by buying more carbon dioxide, kind of basically carbon dioxide emits, you know sort of permits sorry, but um, which in effect basically will make sort of traded goods more expensive if you don't have those sort of um carbon um emissions.
permits right.
And now, once you're at that stage kind of basically, then then you know, just look at the system basically that you have that's effective, a social credit system, so extraordinary that is, that is so depressing.
Just briefly, we've heard about the kind of disaster capitalism um, scenarios in well, not disaster capitalism, but you know what I mean sort of uh, exploiting tragedy and grief in order to impose this, this system.
Yeah it, what's the deal with all these kind of libertarian sort of mini-states that are being set up?
Are they?
Are they, are they a a a different version of this, this new control system?
I haven't really looked into that basically, I must admit.
I mean i'm i've primarily been looking at, kind of basically since what's taking place in the western world, because it's it's in the western world I live.
I'm consequently um, you know, you're obviously concerned about basically what's happening.
What can we do?
What can we do?
Is there any hope?
Yes, there is hope, basically.
I mean it's since they're accelerating so many things basically, and the the, the primary thing I will say kind of guess is awareness um because um, you know, all this stuff has been done without anyone realizing it.
I mean basically kind of like look, as i'm really not joking, kind of read, read my most recent sort of substack essays kind of.
You know, conditional payment is literally being discussed by the BANK OF Israel and the IMF in their own papers.
We have the Bis Project Rosaland, basically with an api layer, discussing basically the third-party looks on payments.
It's, I mean, all this infrastructure is real.
Then we have Cbam coming into effect kind of basically in january of 2026, which will effectively, kind of basically for the first tranche of like 70 products basically kind of contain kind of basically carbon pricing, kind of basically for each individual item and therefore obviously obviously, we'd be brought into every other, every other category, kind of basically of imports, and once you're at every category of imports it'll be brought back to the end consumer for every single object.
They don't want you to know this, basically because they're doing it super slowly, super quietly, without anyone basically realizing.
If you knew what they're up to, kind of basically, you'd obviously object in the first place.
You should really kind of basically try to impose kind of basically sort of um, you know, basically some sort of response from politicians should be with the local politicians, because you know all the national politicians and i'm not i'm not advocating violence, that is definitely not what i'm saying.
But you know, kind of basically local politicians Just refuse to answer questions these days.
They don't even want to answer questions about 15-minute studies and stuff like that.
Why do you think that is?
That's because they're in on it.
They're clearly in on it.
And there's basically since there's a, I think it's called the UK 100 initiative, which is about basically explaining this to counselors and stuff like that, right?
I mean, obviously, kind of basically, you know, like these people kind of basically have all signed, you know, I don't know what they've signed, kind of basically, you know, everyone's lives away, kind of basically believe in that, do everyone a favor, basically.
But if they genuinely believe kind of basically doing people a favor, how come they're not discussing it basically those people who vote for them?
They're not doing that basically because they know damn well it's not in their interest.
Yeah, they're doing it anyway, kind of basically probably because they're a bunch of Marxists in sheep's clothing, you know.
Well, on that sort of note of semi-optimism, tell us where we can find your stuff.
Oh, it's escapekey.substack.com.
Basically, kind of used to be on Twitter, but long gone now because it's obviously not free speech.
Get real.
But yeah, I'm on Telegram as well.
But my primary sort of platform is escapekey.substack.com.
And yeah, I mean, I said basically, kind of the article on CBAM really do read that because basically this is their own documents.
It's not, it's and then the next the next article, kind of basically, which I'm sitting, drumming up material for right now, kind of I'm going through BIS's own documents, basically since showing kind of that they're discussing this.
It's not conspiracy theory.
It's what they're doing.
And yeah, I mean, the other sort of thing I said earlier, I don't know if it cut off kind of basically, but like the UN emergency platform really do take note because that's the final ultimate button for the transition to spaceship Earth, so to speak.
It's basically once they can call an emergency globally on basis of a black box bullshit prediction, you know, and basically buy ecocide and overturn veto rights, basically, you know, use military force to enforce basically this and make sure every single nation, you know, basically locks down their citizens for absolutely no reason whatsoever, except for the black box basically predicting this.
We really are past, you know, the point of no return, really.
So basically, the UN emergency platform, basically, people should really read up on that because that's the sort of global trigger, so to speak.
Right.
Okay.
Thank you.
I do heartily recommend Escape Keys column.
It's just got, it really does go into the detail.
And thank you very much for appearing on the podcast, Mr. Mysterious.
Yeah, well, thank you very much.
If you've enjoyed the show, if you enjoyed the show, of course you have, please do consider becoming a paid subscriber.
I mean, I love, I love and share it with your friends.
Tell your friends about me.
Spread the word.
I'm a good thing, I think.
Apart from those of you who think I'm because of my schooling and my university education and how I made my career in the early days, you think I'm suspicious.
But I think most of you know I'm a good egg.
So put your money where your mouth is, ideally.
Support me on Substack.
Buy me a coffee.
Support my sponsors.
Come to my live events like the Christmas event with Dick coming up.
How could you miss that?
It's on November the 28th.
Tickets selling fast.
Yeah, I mean, they are going to sell out and you're going to be gutted if you can't make it.
So yeah, come to that.
They're fun.
Thank you again, Escape Key, and see you all next week.
