All Episodes
Dec. 10, 2024 - The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters
01:31:41
The Podcast of the Lotus Eaters #1060
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hello and welcome to podcast of the Lotus Eaters episode 1006, no 1060.
It is the 10th of December 2024 and in a triumph of wisdom and experience over youthful exuberance you have me and Beau today.
You alright?
How you doing?
So this should be a popular episode with the ladies.
I think we're going to dazzle and entertain you.
Now, today we're going to be discussing the industrial censorship complex, the rollout of the digital IDs, it is finally here, yippee, and how it is your last opportunity to hang out with Syrian refugees before they all start flooding home, which will be, as I'm sure, happening soon.
Some announcements.
Right, you can buy a gift subscription on our website now, so this is especially useful because it is Christmas, and for those of you who have loved ones, you can upgrade your loved ones by giving them a subscription to this, which will make them more lovable, presumably.
So, excellent good news on that.
And with that, let's get into the censorship industrial complex bow.
Okay, I want to ask the question, as I have done before and no doubt shall do again.
What is the cost of liars?
Even liars by omission can be a disastrous cost.
I suppose it depends if you get caught.
Or if you control the entire media and educational landscape.
Yeah.
So there used to be a monopoly on that sort of thing by the corporate mainstream media, what we might now call the legacy media.
I'm embarrassed of the things I used to believe back when you only had one point of view given to you.
You can't really blame the vast majority of people.
I mean, especially if you go back to earlier in the 20th century, you just had the radio and it told you one narrative.
And unless you travelled to that place in the world to see it with your own eyeballs, you had no way of questioning it, really.
We just don't live in that world anymore.
And the powers that be are not happy with the fact that their monopoly is sliding out of their grip.
Because there are things in the world more valuable than money.
See the cogs working.
We're a venture capitalist.
Bear with me.
Oh yeah, family and all that sort of stuff.
Well, yeah, right.
Yeah, well life and time.
Yes.
But information, knowledge, knowledge is power.
Information, Gordon Greco said the most valuable commodity is information.
And so we are in a sort of an information war, aren't we?
A war for the truth.
The truth is more valuable than money, in my opinion.
I'd rather have my integrity than be extraordinarily rich.
Well, the truth is powerful for people like us who aren't really benefiting from the current system.
You can understand why the people who do benefit from the current system would be very interested in maintaining the narrative or the lie.
If your job was, like Mariana Spring, if your job was to pretend to be the arbiter of truth, pretend to verify what isn't and isn't true, and even if that led you to peddling misinformation or false information or even outright liars, as she did in the case of Carl Benjamin...
I hope I'm not ruining your segment here, but I don't know if you've put this in your links, but somebody did do a look at the percentage of lies on her show as opposed to the BBC in general, and she basically has more lies per episode than just the normal BBC, which is funny considering that she's supposed to be the truth teller.
Yeah, odd.
I was going to leave it right to the end to the cherry on top, but why not just say it now?
I mean, we know for a fact...
For a fact, she's lied about Carl.
On the very first episode, she said he went to Totnes in 2019 for his MEP campaign.
And she said that he then returned.
He didn't.
That he returned, like some sort of pied piper of Totnes, and converted half the town or whatever.
He radicalised them.
It's just not true.
I mean, if he could do that, we would send him there.
Right.
And apparently when he asked her about it on Twitter, she just blocked him.
And when he tried to go through the channels on the BBC to launch a complaint, they just said, no, it's true.
End of story.
Yeah, because a Green councillor told us.
But they're the arbiters of truth, are they?
They verify for you what is or isn't true or real.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
We live in a new age where it's up to individual people to source their own information and make value judgments for themselves about it.
That's a much more difficult thing.
It was passive before, right?
You turn on the radio or you turn on the telly box and you get told something and you accept it.
That's very, very passive.
That's easy.
Well, I'm afraid the information war is more complex than that now.
So, I'm interested in sort of the nature of truth and the nature of this conflict we're involved in.
I wrote an article back in, what's this first one?
2021. Yeah, with me.
Yeah, oh, there's one from 20...
Where's the...
Where's the map series?
Okay, so...
This first one...
In 2023, I wrote an article about Creepy Joe's war on truth, because it was quite obvious, wasn't it, that they just lied to us in all sorts of different ways.
In disgusting ways, really.
Perverting history, perverting just all sorts of stuff.
Here's an even older one from summer of 2021. We all know, we've all lived through it, right?
And I talk about in the past where there's been regimes, whether it be the dictatorship of Domitian or Nero or the Soviet era or under Mao, throughout the centuries there's been many many examples of regimes where you're either not allowed to know the truth, Or you're told a falsehood, and you probably even know it's not true.
A bit like in 1984, but you have to pretend it's true.
I think Zizek once gave a quite interesting example where he said, the idea that when a child knows that Santa isn't real anymore, spoiler alert, any children out there, Santa isn't real anymore, the parents know the kid knows, and yet both parties keep up the pretense that Santa is real.
The idea, like in the Soviet Union, you know the system doesn't work, you know the economy has collapsed or is collapsing, but yet the state insists you pretend it isn't.
They know you know it's broken, but they insist you keep up the pretext.
Everyone knows what's going on, and yet there's this edifice of liars.
I mean, I would give a modern example, but there are too many to pick from.
Right.
There are a lot, aren't there, in recent times, particularly.
Anyway, it now seems there is, well, there is now a censorship industrial complex.
A giant thing, very, very well funded, largely from America, but not exclusively from the United States.
Britain is among the other big players in this whole thing.
Lots and lots of money and lots and lots of infrastructure around Quote-unquote battling misinformation or disinformation, when in fact the irony is that they're the peddlers largely of misinformation or disinformation, just like BBC Verify.
Well, and when you say it's big, again, I don't want to...
I mean, this is such a big topic, and I think I can safely say this without jumping on whatever you might have coming next, but...
It really is a massive and industrial complex.
And Dr Parvini looked at this a while back where he tracked it back from basically the entire propaganda apparatus from World War II was basically taken and immediately deployed at home without skipping a beat.
And the funding that went into artists who promoted the right kind of message, I mean, it basically goes far further than you would have thought, and quite possibly it goes back significantly further than that as well.
It's just that, you know, that was where you picked up the trail from.
But it's a massive, I mean, hundreds of billions get thrown at promoting the right people to push the right messages and so on.
Well, I mean, state propaganda has been around for as long as there's been a state, right?
I mean, going back to ancient times, I suppose you could say.
But yeah, certainly in the post-war, World War II, that is.
I'll talk about all that in a moment.
But yeah, the biggest institutions are behind it, like the State Department and the Pentagon and the intelligence services and things.
And funded by the state in all sorts of ways.
So...
I mean, we're interested in this sort of thing.
We did a bit of content.
When was it?
In November last year.
Yeah, in November last year.
You and me had a conversation about the book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
That was a good episode, that.
I thought it was.
I thought it was an excellent conversation.
Anyone who hasn't subscribed, if you're watching this on YouTube, go to lotusseaters.com for as small as £5 a month.
You can see everything behind the paywall.
And there's a very interesting conversation there where we talk about this guy's book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
Largely talking about the 60s and 70s, isn't it?
And into the 80s.
About how the American empire, because let's call it what it is, it's obviously not the same as an old school 18th, 19th century British empire or a medieval or ancient empire.
No, in many ways it's smarter than that.
Well, they saw the way the British empire went, the American cities.
When they became the colossus of the world after World War II, straddled the world like a colossus, they realised that if they're going to be the dominant force, the hegemon of the world, and keep it for any amount of time, they can't do it the way the British Empire did it.
They can't do it the way the Mongols, the Romans did it.
It doesn't work.
You end up with something like the British Raj in India, and eventually they'll throw you off and throw you out.
So there's more than one way to skin a cat, though.
You can do it through money.
Debt.
You can do it through so-called soft power.
I don't particularly like that term, but most people know what's meant by it.
I mean, for the viewers, the very short version of the book is that, yes, the US empire will use its aircraft carriers and beach landings and all the rest of it to get its way if it really wants to.
But actually, most of the work is cleaned up a long time before that with the economic kitman.
Let us, America, or the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, let us loan you an insane amount of money.
You then spend that money with our companies.
We'll build infrastructure in your country.
And the net result of all of that is that we essentially control you.
And if you don't, we'll send in CIA kill teams.
And if that doesn't work, we'll send in the Marines and aircraft carriers.
Yeah.
That's the deal.
Yeah.
In a nutshell.
And I mean, when we say America, we don't mean, you know, the nice people who listen to this.
We're talking about, you know, a small handful of leads because this money never leaves America.
It basically goes straight from the central bank, well, the treasury where it's, you know, loaned to them by the central bank.
Straight to the big defence contractors.
It never leaves.
It's basically just recycling debt burden on some other country so that money goes straight to the lobbyists of the people who agreed to send the money in the first place.
And maybe a dam or two or an airfield or two gets built in Venezuela or wherever.
Most of which isn't particularly useful and most of which is built, I mean, all the roads are not built for the convenience of the locals.
They're built to make sure the resources can be extracted, sent to the nearest port and then shipped to the USA. Right, so that's a new way of doing empire, isn't it?
Yes.
You don't necessarily have, like, an actual Raj-type situation, but to all intents and purposes, you control...
In this, you're very happy for the local elites to get obscenely rich as well.
Yeah.
So you kind of do have the Raj.
They've got to have a piece.
Yeah.
But the ultimate thing of empire is you still get your tribute.
Right.
So, okay, that was just a bit of an aside.
What you talked about a moment ago, the idea that there's the intelligence services to deal with foreign affairs, the blowback has turned on America itself.
So the idea that during the Cold War you could use media outlets, the War of Words, in the Eastern Bloc, or countries close to the Eastern Bloc, or any other country that's up for grabs, Use media outlets and all sorts of other organs to manipulate public opinion and get what you want, ultimately.
Well what about if that was turned on America itself?
That the intelligence services manipulated media in order to manipulate public opinion for their own ends in America.
And Britain and France and Germany and Italy.
Given that they very explicitly say that this is what they do in order to advance US interests in other countries, if they develop that skill set, it does seem a bit of a stretch to believe that they would never use it at home in order to advance their interests there as well.
Right.
I know that's very illegal for them to do, but I can't believe they wouldn't do it.
Well, the CIA, for example, is foreign intelligence, isn't it?
It's not supposed to really do anything in the United States or act against US citizens, unless they say it's counter-espionage, in which case they do need to work within the United States.
They can do what they want, almost.
So in the 70s, in what, 1975 or something...
Senator Church had a committee looking into what the CIA was doing.
The Church Committee.
And he did uncover some bad things that they were doing.
I can imagine.
Manipulating all sorts of things.
And at the time, the CIA sort of said, okay, we'll stop doing that then.
Now they had Operation Mockingbird, most people will know that.
There's a Wikipedia page, you can read about Mockingbird, it's a matter of record.
This was their operations to use the mainstream media to manipulate public opinion.
In this article I wrote in summer of last year, I said that we're still living in the shadow of Mockingbird.
Because although the CIA said they would stop doing it, they obviously didn't stop doing it.
And with the advent of the internet and social media and things, they're just elbow deep in that, aren't they, as well, obviously.
One classic example is the Hunter Biden laptop.
Yeah.
So I'd actually like to read a bit from my article, if that's alright.
Yeah, go ahead.
I just said, remember that time when Joe Biden told the world that Hunter's laptop was a Russian plant, a foreign misinformation stratagem?
And as if to prove that assertion, he reminded us that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials had signed their name to an open letter confirming it as such.
Remember that?
Senior intelligence officials, including many of the most powerful and connected spooks the deep state could muster.
And they are sort of the most important ones, people that have led the CIA or their chiefs of staff and other people, names like James Clapper.
So I say, of course, we know the laptop was real.
Like Giuliani had it independently checked almost straight away.
Well, the other big clue, of course, is that Hunter Biden has just been pardoned for the crimes that were on that laptop, which 51 former intelligence agents told us was made up.
OK, well, why has he been pardoned for it, then?
One of the arguments they make is they say that, well, okay, the information on it might be real or something, but it was the story that the laptop from hell was peddled by Russian sources, Russian media sources.
Therefore, if you amplify that, you're then in collusion with the Russians in some way and you're a threat to democracy.
That is a very torturous logic.
Well, this is what we'll get into, the way that exact argument is being used now.
That if you question the mainstream media, if you question the legitimacy of the New York Times or something, then you're a threat to democracy.
So, yeah.
I say, for those old enough and savvy enough, it will come as no shock whatsoever that the intelligence services and the corporate mainstream media often work in concert against the public.
That a savage and vicious shadow government, in direct partnership with particular media outlets, in an effort to manipulate the perception of reality for nefarious reasons, is a revealed truth which has been with us since the 1970s.
And then I talk about Senator Church's committee on it.
And there were others.
There was the Pike Committee and the Rockefeller Commission.
All sorts of things.
They uncovered MKUltra, among other things, Operation Shamrock, and Operation Mockingbird.
And as I say here, as you mentioned, what AA has said, it goes back to the war.
Yeah, ever since the OSS and the Dulles years.
And there was a fairly famous, most people probably haven't heard of him, but if you know about the history of the CIA, fairly famous CIA operative, Frank Wisner, who talked about this sort of thing.
And he talked about the Great Wurlitzer.
A Wurlitzer is just a very old-fashioned word for a jukebox.
Ah, okay.
He talked about the Great Wurlitzer.
That they, the CIA, the intelligence services, the deep state, the blob, whatever you want to call it, they pick the tune.
Right.
They press the button on the jukebox and everyone else has to dance to that tune.
Right.
And they had a complete monopoly on it back then.
Not so much anymore.
I mean, they had a really good run.
Yeah, they had a good run, alright.
Yeah.
So now, is the Wurlitzer coming to a stop, or there's just more than one being played at the same time?
I mentioned that whether actually a CIA front or simply being manipulated and used at various points by the intelligence services, the New York Times, the New York Post, Washington Post, CBS, Time Magazine, Newsweek,
Alan Dulles used to be able to call up certain editors at Time Magazine or CBS or something and just say, I've got this narrative, I've got this story, get one of your guys, it can't come from me, it's all hush-hush, it doesn't come directly from the CIA, but get one of your guys to write this story with this angle and publish it, and they'll just be like, yes sir.
I suspect it's been formalised to the point where a whole bunch of journalists within these organisations have a sort of direct contact at the intelligence agencies.
And it's perhaps why whenever news breaks on a sort of geopolitical bent over the weekend...
Nowadays, you mean?
Yeah, nowadays.
Yeah, yeah.
Nothing stopped.
Yeah, when news breaks over the weekend...
The news anchors don't know what to do with it until Monday morning when their government three-letter agency contact comes back to their desk and gives them the line to take.
Well, we know for a fact there's a liaison between the FBI and Facebook, for example.
Yes.
Or when Elon's Twitter papers.
Yeah, the Twitter files, yeah.
Twitter files.
Yeah.
And there's that thing where you get all the different mainstream media outlets saying the exact same thing.
In fact, I say it here.
Ever wondered how it is possible for so many news outlets with completely different owners and editorial teams to wind up spewing the exact same message?
You know, like, the walls are closing in on Trump, closing in on Trump, the walls are closing in on Trump.
You get those compilations where they overlay like 50 of them at once saying the exact same thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
How is that possible?
How did so many of the mainstream media just all decide that, oh yeah, the Hunter laptop thing is real, and anyone questioning it is a Russian plant, and oh look, here's all these intelligence guys saying it, so it must be true.
Almost like there's a puppet master somewhere.
Well, there was a very interesting podcast.
I thought.
About a week ago.
Joe Rogan with Mike Benz.
Three hour one.
Very, very, very interesting.
One of the more interesting Joe Rogan podcasts I've seen in a long time.
And he used to work at the State Department and he said he wrote a few speeches for Trump.
I almost got him on Brokonomics because he was in London for a while but scheduling didn't allow it in the end.
I'd like to have a conversation with him.
Yeah, it'd be fascinating.
Yeah, absolutely.
He put a bit more meat on the bones because my article sort of stops talking about the old SSS stuff and Mockingbird and then just saying it's still happening today and then I sort of leave it there.
It wasn't a particularly long article but he puts a lot more meat on the bones of what's going on these days.
And it is sort of extremely worrying.
The idea that in the early days of the Ukraine stuff, 2014, that, yeah, they were just doing the same old thing, intelligence services, manipulating, trying to manipulate public perception in Ukraine, for Ukrainians.
But then when the Trump thing happened in 2016, it flipped over to, we use it internally in America to stop Trump.
Yes, he's got this great bit on the convoluted logic that they used in their own minds to justify it.
Even though it's blatantly illegal, it's blatantly against...
It's obvious that they should not be doing this.
They managed to twist it so that their definition of democracy basically became what they and their friends think.
Well, yeah, it's the idea that any threat to their institutions...
Well, their assets, whether that be the actual building at Langley or the Zelensky government, whatever it is, anything that's a threat to those things, then that's a threat to democracy.
I think the logic was something like that all of these organisations, these deep state organisations exist as a result of having been put there by previous democratic mandates.
So it's a well of democracy bound up in them, like carbon in a bloody oak tree or something, that means that it's more democratic than things like elections.
That was something like the logic.
Yeah, well, Mike Benz was saying that their rationale for it, their reasoning, their argument goes that democracy isn't really the will of the people at the ballot box, it's the institutions of the state.
Yes, that was it, yeah.
Obviously, that's nonsense, right?
But yeah, so news media, big science, universities, government itself, anything that threatens those things, that's a quote-unquote threat to democracy.
Populism itself.
You can't be allowed to vote for the wrong person.
You can't vote in favour of a Brexit or a Frexit.
You shouldn't be able to vote for Trump because he's a quote-unquote threat to democracy.
So anyway, can we play Samson?
If you teed it up to the timestamp bit I said, it looks like you have.
If we watch just two or three, four minutes of this, I think it's one of the most interesting bits.
Especially with your nose open.
No, that's fantastic.
So a few things as background.
Arizona State University, its current president, Michael Crow, is now and was, since the day it was born in 1999, the chairman of In-Q-Tel.
In-Q-Tel is the CIA's venture capital arm.
This is literally the CIA's proprietary investments in early-stage technology companies.
And the head of Arizona State University, its president, is the chairman of In-Q-Tel, and has been for 25 years.
Arizona State University has these very deep partnerships with John McCain, who is the senator from Arizona.
John McCain, who ran for president against Barack Obama in 2008, before he ran for president in 2008, for 25 years, he was the founder and the president of the IRI, the CIA wing of the Republican Party.
Again, the IRI is the GOP side of the National Endowment for Democracy.
That's effectively self-declared CIA cutout.
And in fact, Arizona State University has a John McCain Center on disinformation that works in tandem with this one.
But I just wanted to show that you'll see this is, technically it's Arizona State University, but you'll see that it is an intelligence program.
So if you just scroll up for a second, You'll see at the bottom, right, this is a program at Arizona State University that is an intelligence program.
Its job is to assist the intelligence community with this work.
And if you scroll down from here, you'll see the different branches.
And then click on the one, Narrative Disinformation and Strategic Influence.
Now, this program has a $1.6 million grant from the Pentagon to do censorship work.
It has $300,000 in grants from the State Department.
It's got another almost $500,000 worth of additional government grants from adjacent U.S. government diplomatic statecraft intelligence folks.
So this is a multi-million dollar grant.
A censorship center currently still up and running at Arizona State University, funded by us.
Now, if you click on why is disinformation dangerous, I want to show you something real quick because this language is everywhere.
This is stock standard language.
Why do we have this set up?
Disinformation sows confusion and distrust, diminishing people's faith and confidence in the institutions that are critical to a functioning, healthy democracy, such as government, news media, and science.
I'm going to pause right there.
The dirty tricks that this is laden with is what allows them to get away with this.
So, note that they are saying that they have set up this apparatus, and I can show you the different projects they're involved with on the censorship side, but the issue they're saying is not that something's wrong, but that the simple act of diminishing public faith and confidence in the news media Government and science is an attack on democracy.
This is the identical language that...
There you go.
It's a really, very interesting podcast.
Slightly interesting that he talks about everything from James Angleton to Burisma, but doesn't mention Israel once, but nonetheless.
It's very, very, very interesting.
Lots and lots of very, very interesting stuff there.
And, yeah, he talks a fair bit about...
The Atlantic Council.
There you go.
organisations like this, which most people haven't really heard of, but in fact pull all sorts of levers all over the world.
NED, another very, very important Oh, National Endowment for Democracy.
Yeah.
Very, very, very important.
Apparently they get more funding than the CIA, these people.
Really?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Silly amounts of money.
There you go.
Again, it's all a matter of record.
I'm not making any of this up.
It's all there.
All there in black and white.
In-Q-Tel.
Yeah, a match made in hell.
So, I mean, presumably they're one of the colour of revolutions.
Yeah, it's exactly the sort of thing they do, yeah, exactly.
And it's just been turned on to America.
And so now, we live in a world...
The irony of it, that misinformation and disinformation projects are the ones that are actually peddling the most pernicious and nefarious misinformation and disinformation and liars by omission and censorship and the whole nine yards.
Net result of it is we end up with something like BBC Verifier and Mariana Spring, obviously just a shill, telling us what is and isn't true, even though you immediately know from podcast one that they're lying.
Yes.
I've got no integrity whatsoever.
But she knows.
She's the arbiter of truth for you.
She knows what she is.
There you go.
She'll tell you what is or isn't real.
Okay.
So, hopefully that was interesting for people.
Whether Trump will be able to dismantle, because that was one of the things that Joe and Mike also talked about, whether Trump's going to, because hopefully, if Trump says, he's going to do what he says, try and dismantle a lot of this, or as much of this as possible.
Obviously, cut their funding is the first thing.
And try and dismantle this, because it's relatively, I mean, in one sense it's been around since forever, in another sense it's mainly been around since World War II, but in a big way, it's only been around since 2014, 2016. A lot of that most recent edifice of it isn't that old.
And maybe it is possible to sweep it away and go back to like a...
Because if you try and cut the funding for the CIA, I mean, there'll be all sorts of hoo-ha about that and people have an image of it because it's in the movies all the time.
But if you just cut the funding to the National Endowment for Democracy, who's going to want to die on that hill?
Or just like a breakup, the Atlantic...
Council.
Yeah, just say, oh, well, no, that's a subversive thing.
It's not in the interests of these United States to let that exist anymore.
That is an interesting point, because so much of the iceberg is below water at this point, that there's a lot of it you could go after without actually causing that much waves.
Well, Jimmy Carter just fired like a third of the CIA in one day once.
You know that?
Based.
Yeah.
So, and they didn't shoot him in the head in public in Texas, did they?
No, he didn't get re-elected though, but yeah.
Yeah, they still tried to undermine him at every possible turn.
Yeah.
There you go.
I think it is very, very interesting, the censorship industrial complex that we now live with, and whether it will be able to be confronted properly and ultimately defeated.
We shall see.
Time will tell.
Right, so let's talk about the rollout of the UK digital ID, which is now starting in Britain.
But before I do that, I think I might quickly just refer to my Bible.
I think I might go to Revelations 13, verses 16 and 17, which go,"...they forced everyone to receive the mark on the hand.
People, great or small, rich or poor, had to receive the mark." They could not buy or sell anything unless they had the mark.
The mark is the name of the beast and the number is his name.
Now, you have to remember that God was dictating this to John in the year 95 BC. So, everything that God said back then might not have gotten written down entirely accurately.
I'm sure God meant to say you will have a mark on your handheld device rather than your hand.
I imagine you were speaking from the King James translation, so it was also in the age of King James, the early 17th century, translated into English for us.
Yes.
From the word of God.
Maybe in the ancient Hebrew he does say you'll be forced to have a mark on your handheld device.
I'm not sure.
But yeah, so God, who's obviously quite a smart chap, has been warning us about this for over 2,000 years, and in the year of our Lord 2024, it has arrived.
So, this article from the Sunday Times...
Yes, so basically their excuse here is that digital ID is going to be rolled out for pubs and clubs.
Let me just pick out a few choice bits from the article.
Pubgoers will be able to use their smartphone to prove their age as part of plans introduced by the government for digital IDs.
Ministers are preparing the change of law for customers to buy alcohol in shops and bars as they embrace the technical revolution...
Moving the state to more online functionality.
People will be able to use this for everything from paying taxes to opening a bank account.
Alright.
Or being denied those things.
Well, yes.
I think the bank account part is particularly key for my story here.
Officials insist that digital verification will not be compulsory.
People will still have a choice.
Yes, for now, I'm sure we will.
Yes, for now.
Okay, so we've got that.
So the reason we need digital IDs is because otherwise people who are 17 might buy some alcohol.
And that's why they've spent all the billions of dollars, billions of pounds on putting together digital IDs.
Okay, so that's it.
Even though we already have a number of versions of non-digital ID, like a passport or a driver's license or whatever.
Well, you see, you're raising a different issue there, but it's alright, they've got extra excuses.
So let's look at what they have to say on this cheery cartoon illustrated video with music in the background from the government on why we need them.
It can be particularly difficult for people who don't have passports or driving licences or have incomplete credit histories.
So it's the job of digital government to join things up and make life easier for users.
Our vision is to remove unnecessary complexity by developing one inclusive and accessible way for people to log in to all government services online.
An easy way to prove their identity, just once, that also gives them control over who has access to their data and why.
So there you go.
Oh, it's for us.
It's in aid of us.
It's to make things easier.
You see, Bo, what happens is the elites, they wake up every morning just drenched in a cold sweat, worried that our lives are slightly inconvenient because we might have to enter a password twice if we're going to different websites.
And they're desperately concerned about that and they want to make our lives so much more convenient that they've gone to the trouble of creating digital IDs so that we don't have to be inconvenienced.
Thank you, Sir Tony.
Yes.
And also to make sure 17-year-olds don't buy a beer.
So anyway, that's the excuse.
I'm sure that's the...
Oh no, actually, look, we've got another excuse here.
This is why Tony Blair used to think we needed them.
...to remove unnecessary barriers, not essential safeguards.
That is much more easily protected.
So you can deal with a lot of the privacy and surveillance issues that worry people.
But it's a natural evolution of the way that we're going to use technology in any event to transact daily life.
And this COVID crisis gives an additional reason for doing that.
Because, look, I could be wrong about this, but when I look at, for example, how you restart some businesses, how you restart international travel, I think people's disease status...
For example, have they been tested?
What is the result of that test?
Have they had the disease?
Do they have the disease?
I think unless you're able to record some of this data in a way that people can use, it's going to be difficult to go back to anything like a near normal in things like transport.
Dirty, lying son of a bitch.
Filth.
What filth?
Well, you don't accept that argument.
The third reason that we need digital IDs is so that you can prove that you haven't got a disease that is so asymptomatic that you wouldn't know if you didn't have...
How on earth would the world go round?
How did it work before we had things like digital IDs and things?
How did anything ever work?
I've wrote an article about this before.
Blair used this line of argument all the time that, look, it's just going to happen.
It is inevitable.
This is the future.
We cannot question that.
That is unquestionable.
So let's just do it.
Let's just go with it.
He always uses that argument.
Yes.
Always.
Yes.
The Millennium Dome is going to be built, so just get behind it.
We are going to have to slaughter all our cattle, so let's just do it.
You are going to be locked in your homes until you accept my ID. Because, of course, he's wanted ID for a very long time.
Do you remember back in 2000 he tried to get the ID cards?
And back then it was directed because people were like, well, what's the point?
I mean, why?
Are you prepared to arrest old ladies who go to the shops and forget their ID card?
No.
Well, it's just going to be a pointless duplication of what we've already got then.
So what's the point?
So it was a very rare L for Tony Blair.
Well, there's not many things he didn't get pushed through because he's such a schoolful politician, but he got basically everything apart from ID, and that one loss has haunted him all these years.
So during COVID, the logic was whatever I tried to explain, something like you wouldn't know if you've got this illness because it's asymptomatic, so the only way that you can know is if you've got a digital ID or something like that.
Anyway, he's changed his tune now.
He's now saying that the reason you need digital IDs is because you can deport illegal immigrants with them.
Yeah, that's the logic.
Because apparently nobody has ever deported anyone in the past before we had digital IDs.
Doesn't help them stopping them from coming in in the first place, though.
Well, and presumably it wouldn't help us then immediately putting them on a bus and taking them to a four-star hotel.
But for some reason, if there's a digital ID in place, then we'd be able to deport them, whereas now we can't.
It's just nonsense, isn't it?
Yes.
It's just obvious nonsense.
But the thing is, right...
People are going to fall for that line of logic.
Because what he does is he crafts his argument to whatever the issue of the day is.
And he has noticed that people are a little bit miffed about the millions and millions of immigrations being rammed down our throat.
And there are people who will hear that and go with it.
In fact, I put a tweet up about that news that they're finally beginning the rollout of the digital IDs.
And the first comment back was somebody who said to me, how did he put it?
He said, yeah, this is long overdue and necessary.
ID cards mean we can start deporting illegal aliens.
I mean, yeah.
But my point is, there are people who will swallow this.
Anyway, so that's a couple, well, what are we up to now?
Three excuses?
No, that was four excuses from the UK as to why we need them.
Let's look at what the excuses are in Australia.
Next video, please.
Australians are happy to tap and go.
Now the government wants them to tap and show.
What we want to do is make life easier, allow your credentials to be at your fingertips and keep your personal information safer.
A digital ID called text linked to my gun.
Oh yeah?
It'll make life easier, mate.
Oh, it'll make you safer.
Passports, driver's licences, birth certificates for companies to store and too often lose to hackers.
The Optus incident, one of the first in a large scale, showed why we have to do things differently.
The information will be heavily encrypted so no sensitive data is shared or stored.
Using a QR code and a simple tap to verify ID for hotel bookings, hiring cars, signing up for phones and more.
Right, okay, so you can hire a car and book a hotel room more conveniently, and also because your data will be safe because they're going to heavily encrypt it and no one will have access to it, with the exception of the entirety of government who are holding all of that data.
With the exception of the people that do have access to it?
Yes, which is like the government.
Which are the people that I'm most worried about?
It's so obvious what's going on though, right?
It's not that we're particularly cynical or conspiracy theorists or anything.
It's obvious that it's to do with power.
Well, I've got some more excuses.
Let's just play this in the background.
For those who are watching, if you're listening, this is the European version of why.
And they wheel out a whole bunch of excuses using people of dubious European ancestry to make their point.
It's easier.
It's for you.
It's in aid of you.
You'll be able to do things online easier.
But they've got some nice graphics and a big EU flag.
So, you know, apparently that's the next selection of reasons as to why we obviously need them.
The thing you've got to bear in mind with digital IDs is they are massively centralised.
The government gets to decide what is or isn't truth, and of course they can make changes to that at any time they wish with just a click of a button.
If they decide that you're no longer a British citizen as you're flying back from the airport, they could make that change.
If they want to make any other change, we've decided now that you don't own that house anymore.
Well, look how the CCP used their power.
Yes.
It's like, we're going to decide basically what your credit rating is based on your actual day-to-day, almost minute-to-minute behaviour, and then you may or may not be able to get a mortgage or something on the back of that.
Well, I mean, they will give total control.
I mean, you know, they're saying it's optional.
Of course, it won't be for very long.
Before long, it'll be required to vote or, you know, access the internet and all of those things.
But I thought, let's dig a little bit deeper into who is requiring this.
Now, best I can tell, it all kind of stems from the UN. So the UN have these, what do they call them?
Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGCs, that they want every country to hit by, can you guess when?
2030!
2030, there's a whole bunch of things that every country in the world, because of course everyone's a member of the UN... The World Economic Forum.
They are 100% behind this as well.
And as Klaus Schwab says, that they will require individuals to be able to assert their identity in order to participate in the economy.
Oh, but the World Economic Forum is just a collection of like-minded businessmen.
Why are you being so paranoid, Dan?
They're allowed to get together and talk about things.
They haven't got any real power.
Well...
It's not just them, you see.
I mean, I picked them, most people have heard of them, but there's plenty more organisations as well.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is all over this as well.
Goodens that they are.
And actually, what I really want to focus on are the ones that I mentioned next, because I'm pretty sure this is where it's really all coming from.
International Monetary Fund, the IMF... The Bank for International Settlements, BIS. Yeah, I know all about them.
And the Financial Actions Task Force, or FATF. Now, a lot of people think that Klaus Schwab is at the top of the globalist order.
Klaus Schwab is not at the top of the globalist order.
I mean, he's up there.
You know, he's a high-ranking captain.
The people that are listening to him and know him.
Yes.
But I'm telling you, the final bosses of globalism are the ones that I've just mentioned.
It's the IMF, it's the BIS, and it's FATF. Those are the real top dogs of the whole globalist regime.
Can I just say something super quick about the Bank of International Settlement?
Yeah, go ahead.
A lot of people will have heard of the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank, but even people that know a bit about that usually haven't heard of BIS. It's in Switzerland, isn't it?
Sounds right, yeah.
And they are, if anything, above the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, if anything.
They're the big boss.
Yeah, they are the final bus, sort of.
In fact, let's hear from the head of the BIS himself as to what their motivation might be.
Well, for those of you who were Danger Mouse fans back in the day, I apologise if this gives you Baron Silas flashbacks, but here we go.
Let's hear from this guy.
Oh my God.
For example, in cash, we don't know, for example, who is using a $100 bill today.
We don't know who is using a 1,000 peso bill today.
A key difference with the CBDC is that central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability.
And also, we will have the technology to enforce that.
Ah, there you go.
Absolute control and the ability to enforce it.
There you go!
There it is!
Yeah.
Right?
That's what we're talking about here.
Absolute control.
Not the ability for a 17-year-old not to buy a beer or helping strengthen our borders.
No, so the money men will have, quote, absolute control and the ability to enforce it.
That's what it is.
And I've thrown in a couple of links there.
Damn them.
If you just start looking at the IMF, FATF, and BIS, they've got dozens of blog posts because they know that nobody reads them.
Nobody pays attention to them.
Well, apart from people like me, but nobody pays attention to them.
And they just openly say that we want a central bank digital currency.
The reason we want it is because it will give us absolute control over the money, but we can't have it until there are digital IDs.
Hmm.
So they lean on the people beneath them, the WEFs and the UNs and all the rest of it, and say, we need digital IDs rolled out.
I don't care how you get it done.
I don't care what excuse you have to give.
You get digital IDs done, and then we can start rolling out our central bank digital currencies, and that will give us absolute control.
They come out and they just say it all the time.
They get their shill whores to do it, like Tony Blair.
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah, and it's all about basically maintaining the status quo of the current financial system because they can see it's all slipping away from them.
So, I mean, the voluntary adoption of these things has been awful.
McKinsey's did a study because, I mean, it's been rolled out in a whole bunch of countries, these digital IDs, like Kenya and a whole bunch of other ones.
I think there's been about 10 of them now.
About 4% to 10% of the people, when offered these digital IDs, take them.
So it's going to be like smart meters all over again.
You know, a few people will have them, just because of the novelty of it, and the rest of them you'll have to cajole and eventually start threatening until they adopt it.
We'll come round to your house.
Yes.
We'll put you under house arrest until you do it.
Yes, quite.
Quite.
Now...
People who think that I'm being a little bit overblown about the whole this will lead to a social credit system and total control.
I'd just like to point out that not only does China have a social credit system today, but we've actually already had one in this country.
We had it very briefly and we had it very half-heartedly.
But do you remember at the end of COVID, Boris Johnson was like, OK, now you need a digital thing to be able to go to a nightclub.
And they tried to roll it out with nightclubs because they thought that will give them the least pushback.
And there was almighty pushback then.
And it was just a bit half-hearted and they never kind of, they just kind of backed off.
A vaccine passport.
A vaccine passport, yeah.
They made the changes that, you know, you had to use it to get into a nightclub.
And that was going to be their starting point.
And if there wasn't the pushback at the time, of course it would have been nightclubs today.
And then it would have been, you know, then it would have been the pub.
The train.
Well, that's the thing, there was one Christmas, I was travelling back and forth between Wiltshire and Essex, and there was one Christmas where they were saying, Boris came on TV saying, you're not going to be able to get on a train without it.
And I am not vaccinated, I haven't ever been vaccinated, so I obviously don't have a vaccine passport, proving that I've been vaccinated.
And I was like, oh...
How am I going to travel to Wiltshire and back?
And so I started to sort of change things around, started to make plans in case that happened.
And then, literally one day, they just said, oh, we're not doing that anymore.
Yeah, they backed off.
I think in France, maybe in Germany as well, but I think in France they did it.
In Canada they did it.
You couldn't get on a train without a vaccine.
In Canada they did it, yeah.
They shut down basically your ability to travel if you didn't have a vaccine passport.
So we've already had this.
It's simply a question of coming back.
And once you've got a digital ID, it's very easy for them to start toggling, adding flags and toggling them on and off.
Like flag.
Do you want to do, yeah.
Vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Ability to purchase train tickets or not.
You know, ability to do this.
Ability to go here and do that and that kind of stuff.
And especially if you can combine it with the CBDC, you don't even need to worry about people protesting.
Because, OK, oh, there's going to be a big protest in London.
Okay, right, what we're going to do is we're going to check the digital IDs of everybody who doesn't live in London and we're going to turn off the ability to buy a train ticket or parking if they drive in.
Or they've got a digital file on you saying you're the type of person likely to cause a disturbance.
We think you're the type of person likely to cause a disturbance.
Yeah.
Therefore, your money is switched off for a day or whatever, or forever, or whatever.
Yeah.
Or we think from everything we look at, your digital footprint, we can see everything you click on.
We're GCHQ. We're the NSA. We can see everything you click on.
And we don't like you.
So we're just going to turn the volume down on your whole life.
We're just going to make you silent and dark.
And eventually probably not even able to vote.
We just won't count your vote or whatever.
Another comment that I got from somebody who is a sensible chap, I don't think he'd thought this through as much.
He was saying, well, I'm not that worried about digital IDs at Central Bank Digital Currencies when I start to get worried.
The reason I think that's wrong is, no, we have to push back here.
We have to reject this emphatically now.
The reason is I don't think they're going to allow a proper big financial crisis to the next one until they have central bank digital currencies because that will be the moment where they can roll them out because they're not just going to go, oh, here's a central bank digital currency and you have to use this because it gives us absolute control.
It will be introduced as something like, step one, it will be, if you're a business, you have to pay your taxes in this.
So all the businesses will just go along and do it, and they won't bother the individual citizen at that point.
And then, conveniently, there'll be a nice big financial crisis, and they'll come along and say, oh, would you like a stimulus payment?
Yeah, we're going to print a whole load of money.
We're going to give most of it to ourselves, of course, but we're going to give some of it to you.
So here's a few grand, but we need to make sure that it's secure and convenient and the data's safe and all that kind of stuff.
It's for your safety and convenience.
So you can only access this if you sign up for a central bank digital currency account.
And how many people are not going to then go, oh yeah, I'm not going to get my two, five, ten grand, whatever it is.
Everybody's going to sign up for a central bank digital currency then.
And then we're going to come out the other side and it's going to be like, oh look, everybody's already got a CBDC wallet tied to their digital ID. Oh yeah, we're just going to phase out cash now and traditional bank accounts.
And then they've got us.
End of freedom at that point.
There's not a damn thing we can do at that point.
And it's coming, and people are not alarmed enough about how bad this is going to get for them.
Well, they've still got I Am A Celebrity, haven't they?
They've still got football.
Oh, the masses will go for it.
They've still got very, very expensive beer.
Yeah.
The master's will go for it.
The only other thing I would say is I do actually think there is a case for having a form of digital ID in this digital world, but it cannot be a government-issued one.
I don't even want it to be a big tech-issued one.
Now, I wanted to very briefly mention people and go away and look into this if they want to, but there are things called zero-knowledge proofs, which is basically a blockchain alternative to a digital ID. Essentially, you can hash information to the blockchain and it can then be verified as true and you can basically verify whether a statement is true or not without revealing the underlying data.
So the way to think about this is at the moment, let's say you're trying to get into a nightclub and you're a 19-year-old girl.
You need to show the bounce of your driving license with your address on it in order to get in or not.
With a zero-knowledge proof, you'll be the one adding information to the hashes.
You might want to get some of them verified by an official source, like, you know, I own this house and therefore the land registry adds their digital signature to it.
But you can basically have your pot of knowledge and then the bouncer can just ask, were you born on or before a certain date?
And it will be able to give a verified or not.
Zero knowledge proofs are the way to go and it gives all of the benefits that they claim that they are doing a digital ID for but it gives them none of the control.
It gives us total control.
So zero knowledge proofs are the way to go.
We don't need digital IDs and actually they need digital IDs because they want to enslave us and they will if they can get away with it if we don't push back now and reject this shit.
Look at that.
B.I.S. Chief.
What a disgusting slob.
You remember Baron Silas?
Yeah, of course.
It's him, isn't it?
Yeah.
He does look like him, yeah.
Yeah.
Control.
What a toad.
Yeah, they mean to enslave us.
100%.
Absolutely.
100%.
Yeah.
Alright.
Do you want to read some of the...
Oh, have we got comments?
Oh, yeah.
Oh, look at that.
Right, OK. Remember the Time magazine article a few years ago when they talked about having fortified the 2020 election?
Yes.
Well, indeed.
Yeah, quite.
Oh, I should have said that was Dragon Lady Chris.
Peter J. Harvey says, so if the government wants to use smartphones for digital IDs, will they also be providing said smartphones to the people that don't want or have one?
Yeah, presumably not.
Inexio says, Yes, quite.
Binary server, good chap.
Yeah, quite.
Oh, and then the binary surfer again says, Dan is correct.
They are trying everything to avoid another economic crash.
Zero knowledge proofs.
They are very promising but likely to get compromised by intelligence services within days.
I suppose it depends on the strength of the network, really, doesn't it?
But I think it's worth exploring, anyway.
Right.
Syrians.
Okay, so we know there's been a regime collapse in Syria, and a new group have come in, haven't they?
Don't worry about too much who they are and what they really think and believe.
Don't worry about that.
Are they all for pride and...
Sending women to school and being nice to Christians.
It doesn't matter.
Just a sad bad and he's gone.
So that's good.
That's all that really matters.
However, we do know that a load of jihadis went over there to fight.
Yes.
On both sides, actually.
And we don't want them back.
So a lot of countries have sort of stopped their asylum applications, frozen their borders to returning Syrian jihadis.
Well, we've actually stopped an immigrant for once.
So, oh, it is possible to police your borders to some extent.
Oh!
Oh, when they do want to do that, they can.
That's remarkable.
So Finland, Finland announces its freeze on all Syrian asylum applications, because you don't want any of those pro-Assad jihadis coming back.
Don't worry about the plethora of other stripes of jihadi from all over the world, but pro-Assad ones can't have those in Finland.
Or in Switzerland.
Switzerland's done the same.
What a terrible image.
Look at that beautiful Swiss town.
And a bunch of...
Syrians.
God knows who.
God knows who.
Austria.
Austria have decided that they've had enough of these types of people flooding their country.
Can you imagine the mason who had just spent 30 years working on that monument behind him, and then he steps back and looks at it and thinks, this is good.
If you could show him this photo and say, yeah, a thousand years later, this is what this area is going to look like.
Just Syrians everywhere.
They're gassed, wouldn't they?
Syrians.
Italy.
It's funny how they all act in unison.
I often think on the international stage, it is a bit like in a playground where one kid does something or says something.
Yeah.
None of the others have got, basically, have got the balls to go to do it.
But one kid does it first.
And then everyone realises, oh, he's done it, and got away with it, or whatever, so we'll all do it now.
It's funny how just about every story we cover these days, we either mention explicitly in the story, or people point it out in the comments, oh yeah, they're doing this everywhere else as well.
Every story.
It's almost like there's some sort of undisclosed, covert, one-world government.
Yeah, it's funny, that.
It's almost like they're acting in unison as if they were one government.
How curious.
Almost as if that.
Germany.
The Germans also suspending all asylum from Syria.
The bad jihadists coming back from Syria, not the good ones.
Sweden, Norway and Denmark all falling in line.
So they can control their borders a bit, at least to some extent, when they want to.
Britain.
Starmer got the memo.
Battle-hardened Islamic State fighters from the UK could be freed from prison.
Okay, so the people who supported the dentist, you know, it's very important that they're not allowed into the country.
But the beheaders, the, you know, Islamic beheaders, we've got to let them out of jail now.
It makes sense, just, you know, not to a rational mind, but...
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
Oh, Lammy, apparently went on TV, I didn't actually see this, but went on TV saying, no, no, no, we're not suspended any asylum applications, and then the Home Office just said, no, we are.
We are, though.
So he didn't get the memo, or he didn't read the memo.
Quick aside, did you see the Tucker interview that he did with Sergei Lavrov?
No, I didn't, no.
Not recently, in the last few days or something.
I had a number of people sort of pointed out to me, and I just sent a picture of David Lammy back and said, yeah, the Russians have got Sergei Lavrov, but we've got David Lammy.
Checkmate, Russia.
Yeah.
We've got the towering intellect of David Lammy.
He knows how things work.
He knows how the world works.
So let's have him at the forum.
So a lot of the countries in Western Europe have decided that returning jihadis from Syria are beyond the pale.
Right.
Because they supported the dentist.
So that's interesting to say.
Yeah, if they supported the dentist.
Oh no wait, he was an eye doctor, wasn't he?
I think he was an eye doctor.
I knew he was one of the obscure medical fields, but I couldn't remember.
He's an eye doctor then.
What's that, an optologist or something?
What is the proper word for an eye doctor?
I can't remember.
Yeah.
I think it's an optologist.
Could be wrong.
So, also, other news coming out of Syria that I think is interesting is that Israel have dipped their oar in.
They're getting involved.
Right.
Well, it is in their region.
So, over the past few days, the Israeli military has launched extensive airstrikes across Syria targeting military sites, air defences and naval assets.
Right.
Sounds like a full-blown thing to me.
Reports confirm that the Israeli Defence Force, the IDF, have struck over 250 locations, severely impacting Syrian military infrastructure, including the destruction of key air bases and the Syrian Navy's missile fleet in strategic locations like Minnet al-Badir, I don't know where that is, and some other place I can't pronounce, The strikes come in the context of ongoing regional tensions with Israel aiming to prevent the proliferation of advanced weaponry and to potential threats.
In other words, blow up his proper good military assets so the new blokes, the new rebels, don't get it.
I mean, it's handy that they had a list of targets ready to go, just in case there was a moment of instability.
Do you think we've got a list of French military targets, just in case, you know, if the government were to fall, and if Macron were to be deposed, do you think we've got a list ready where we could just, like, launch the fighters now, take out the French bases?
British military, like Horse Guards Parade.
It's got a map somewhere.
We need to take out their naval base at Toulon or something.
I don't know.
I mean, I don't know, maybe.
But if you were looking at this strictly from a pragmatic Israeli point of view, it does make sense.
I mean, on some level, I don't blame them at all, really, because we know Assyria has got at least some chemical weapons, right?
Yeah.
So it might be best to blow those up so that the new chaps don't get their dirty mitts on them.
Maybe that is for the best.
But it's also extremely, maybe not extremely, but it's also fairly cynical from the Israelis.
They're like, well, this is a long-term strategic enemy.
Yes.
We can just blow up their navy and air force right now, so let's go ahead and do it.
Yes.
Shouldn't laugh, really.
Well, as with most things Israeli...
The thing that bothers me about it the most is that we don't do it.
I mean, they have got the most robust ethno-nationalist set-up that you could ever hope for.
Their border is policed, I mean, apart from on certain days, their border is policed with barbed wire and machine guns.
And I just think, well, yeah, why can't we have that?
They stand up for themselves.
Yeah.
So sometimes...
It won't be ordered around by the State Department.
Sometimes robust ethno-nationalism is a good thing, and in all other cases it's a bad thing, apparently.
Yeah.
Yeah, Scottish nationalism is fine.
Welsh nationalism is fine.
Irish nationalism...
Not American or English, though.
Yes.
Yeah, something wrong with that.
Kind of that.
No.
Israeli forces have conducted extensive military operations across Syria following the fall of President Bashar al-Assad.
The operations involved Israeli troops moving close to Damascus.
There were some reports that there was even tank divisions, but other reports saying that's not true.
Airstrikes targeting numerous Syrian military installations and the destruction of a significant portion of Syria's air force capabilities.
International reactions have varied.
With some countries condemning the incursion as a land grab, while others urge the situation to be temporary.
So there you go, and a fair bit of the news, I mentioned it, the BBC, saying that they've, saying that Israel are doing this.
The Telegraph, you know, the chemical weapons.
Well look, Israel want to create some sort of buffer zone.
That they'll get maybe like the Kurds or some other faction to control the region between Israel and Syria so there's some sort of buffer zone.
Well they figure out exactly...
Extending two miles in each direction from their borders.
Yes, I don't know.
Yeah, just while we figure out exactly what this new regime are all about, you know, really what they're going to do and what they're like.
Well, at a wild guess...
At a wild guess, they're going to start slaughtering Christians.
Oh, no doubt.
I say that's a wild guess because whenever the collective West does anything anywhere, the result is always Christians get slaughtered.
Every time.
If I was slightly more suspicious, I might start to ask why Christians always getting slaughtered is the accidental outcome of all of these interventions.
I don't really know anything about the new guy and his regime, but I don't hold out any real hope that he's going to be good in any sense, other than for his particular brand of Islamism.
Yeah, I mean, I remember the days when ISIS was bad.
Yeah, Sky News.
Yeah, saying it's a land grab.
Yeah, probably, yeah.
The Times of Israel, gloating over it.
Their generals huddled in their masses, just like witches at black masses.
Yeah, the war pigs.
So, yeah, so that's something that's happening.
We're stopping a particular type, one particular small type of Syrian jihadi from coming to Western Europe, but in all other senses.
Of course, there will be some sort of exodus of the losers.
And, well, as it stands, they'll just get on a dinghy.
their way to Calais, get on a dinghy, and their IDs, they'll just drop into the channel.
Well, if they put out the word we're no longer accepting Syrians, it's, oh, I'd just toss my Syrian passport then.
Well, have they got a Tony Blair digital ID?
That will stop all of this.
That will definitely stop all of that.
Yes.
So, another thing to mention in this segment, I think, is a bit of a two-part segment, really.
They're sort of tangentially connected.
But in Britain, it looks like we're going to pass laws banning first cousin marriage.
Well, that wasn't already a thing.
Right, that was one of the things.
But mind you.
I always thought it was already illegal.
Well, it's the sort of thing that you don't need to tell English people not to marry their cousins.
Don't marry your own sister or your mum.
Yes.
You're not allowed to marry your own mum or your first cousin.
Yeah, yeah, no one's going to.
You're not mad.
Nobody was doing this for centuries.
So what's changed, Beau?
Yeah.
Oh, nothing.
It's just a problem now.
Just English people, British people, just marrying their first cousins a lot now.
What are those numbers you've got there then?
Oh, no, that's right.
People that are actually foreign fifth columnists are doing it, aren't they?
People from foreign cultures, which are definitely equal to ours, because all cultures are equal.
So hang on, is that saying that in Pakistan, 65% of marriages are between first cousins?
Yep.
What?
65%?
According to Josh Firm.
Do you know that big Josh Firm off Lotus Eaters?
I've heard of him.
You know Lotus Eaters?
He's alright.
Good lad, I think.
I'll follow him.
He's saying, according to his stats, yeah, 65% in Pakistan.
Seriously?
No wonder they're so absolutely batshit.
It's madness.
How long has that been going on for?
Since, what, the 7th, 8th century or whatever, I suppose?
It's in Islam, isn't it?
It's that the Prophet Muhammad, blessed be upon his name, married his first cousin, right?
I would expect them to start looking at Jim Henderson puppets after about three generations.
If this has been going on for a while, that is worrying.
Yeah, it's mad.
In the West it's less than 1%.
Yeah, it's really, really rare.
It's a freakish thing.
It'll get you on Jeremy Kyle or something.
It's that rare, right?
It just doesn't really happen.
No.
Although in The Godfather Part 3 they fall in love with each other, don't they?
Anyway, you don't marry and have children with your first cousin.
It's absolutely...
Crazy.
I mean, it cuts down on the amount of Christmas presents from grandparents, for a start.
Yeah, it's safe on that, yeah.
Half as many.
So yeah, if it's more than, like, a fraction of 1%, then it's a terrible, terrible problem.
If it's 65%, that's mad.
In Saudi Arabia, 50%.
Afghanistan, 40%.
In Iran, 30%.
Egypt and Turkey, 20%.
Even Turkey.
I always thought that people from these areas of the world were so disagreeable because it was sandy and hot and that was just bothersome.
But I'm starting to think there may be another reason.
Turns out they're just inbred.
In rural areas of Pakistan, it's up to 80%.
So you're the freak if you don't marry your first cousin.
Yeah, yeah.
You've only got one first cousin and she's already married.
It's like, oh no, I'm going to have to go to a second cousin now.
Yeah.
Well, there's an idea.
It is ancient, truly ancient.
The idea that your family or your clan, you might want to use the word tribe, but certainly your clan or your family, is that there's wealth and money or prestige or something within that.
And you dilute it and water it down if you marry outside of it.
There's wealth in rural Pakistan, is there?
Not exactly, but a degree of it.
Who's going to inherit these three goats and a curved sword?
It's all relative, though, isn't it?
It's all relative.
Right.
So, yeah, they're not wealthy compared to somebody who's upper middle class living in the Bay Area or in Mayfair, but it's all relative, isn't it?
Yeah, the idea that to dilute the family or the clan is bad.
And we've got a carte blanche from the imam that you can marry your first cousin.
So you do.
I mean, this is making the boomers look good because at least they just squander all of their wealth.
And, you know, the older they get, it's like we've got to ram in more saga cruises until it's all gone.
Because that way there's no incentive to marry your first cousin because there is nothing coming down from the grandparents.
Yeah.
Yeah.
But all cultures are equal.
All cultures are equal.
Come on, let's not be bigoted.
Right.
Big Josh Fermoff of Lotus Eater says, In 2002, a study revealed that while Pakistani babies make up 4% of UK births, so it's much more now, they account for 30% of birth defects.
In 2013, a larger study found that 37% of babies with birth defects were from Pakistani first cousin marriages.
37 times higher than the national average.
Yes, because it is unnatural.
Yeah, it's mad.
It's honestly mad.
I mean, they're all on benefits, so why do they...
You can stop doing the cousin marriage thing now.
You can stop doing that.
You're still going to get your benefits anyway.
Yeah, yeah.
Right.
But once again, just to make it perfectly clear, all cultures are equal.
It's not possible to have a value judgement about different cultures.
That would be beyond the pale.
That would be gross and perverse.
Right.
Not birth defects in lots and lots and lots of babies.
That's not the problem.
Okay.
Big Josh Firm off of That Lotus Eaters says, despite making up 0.05% of the UK population, Albanians make up 1.6% of all prisoners.
32 times overrepresented.
It's an interesting statistic, isn't it?
It's almost like...
All cultures are equal.
They are the largest foreign prison population at 14% now.
The average prisoner costs the UK taxpayer over 51 grand.
I imagine that's a year, is it?
As of March 2023, prisoners who agreed to deportation had their jail terms reduced and received a payment of £1,500.
Oh, I mean, why not?
Yeah.
Why not?
It's not a type of modern dangeld.
It's definitely not that.
No, no, no, no.
In 2022, they, Albanians, were 28% of the illegal immigrants with 27% of the asylum applications being granted.
So...
Right.
So...
It's not that there's anything wrong with...
Albanian culture or anything.
Well, because all cultures are equal.
I mean, the Stillman case for this is it could just be Baal-based Albanians saying to all of their criminals, we're going to do this unless you go off to Britain and do your crime there.
And they're like, yeah, right then.
Well, to be absolutely honest and fair and reasonable, that is what's happened, isn't it?
Yeah.
Albania and loads of other countries and not just Britain.
It's happening in America as well.
These other countries offload the worst elements of their society anywhere else.
Would you like to get out of prison 10 years earlier?
The requirement is that you and your family move to Britain or America or something.
Or just not here.
Yeah.
Just not here.
Go away.
See if you can get to Calais or the Rio Grande.
I mean, to be fair, right?
Then it's up to you to get in.
And once you're in, it's fine.
Well, you're not our problem anymore.
To be fair, if I was running this place, I'd do exactly the same thing.
Really?
Yeah.
I think it's scummy.
I'll just lock up my own.
Well, I know, but not 51 grand a year.
Oh, sorry.
I guess I missed your point.
What were you saying?
Well, I would just get rid of them somehow.
I mean, there are other methods that we can only talk about in the context of Minecraft.
Oh, I thought you were saying...
But you can also just get them to go somewhere else.
All right.
I thought you were saying if you were the leader of Albania, you'd do the same thing.
Oh, no, if I was the leader of Britain.
All right.
Okay, sorry.
I see.
I'll be like, yeah, you guys can, you know, one way or another...
Yeah, no, I'd put them on planes.
Yeah.
Just send them back.
Yes.
I'd put them on a plane.
Apart from the really bad ones, you'd use helicopters.
Alright, well, so there's a couple of tidbits for you.
I guess that's it.
You might have some of those comment things.
I've got some comments.
The Rumble thing.
What's this?
The Engaged Few says, Imagine an entire region of the planet filled with people with Habsburg jawlines, brittle bones and random instances of full-blown insanity.
What could possibly go wrong?
Yeah.
Dragon Lady Chris says, You'd think even Muslims would have learned a lesson about inbreeding from the Habsburgs.
Yeah.
Again, it's a story as old as time.
The Engage for You again says, War Pigs is one of my favourite Sabbath songs.
Me too!
In fact, it is my favourite Sabbath song.
But I really prefer the original lyrics when the song was titled Walpurgis.
I don't know if that's true or a joke.
I've never heard of that before.
Didn't know that one.
But War Pigs by Black Sabbath is a wicked song.
Anyone out there doesn't know it?
I will look it up.
You don't know it?
Nope.
Oh.
You probably would have heard it.
Quite a famous one.
Anyway, the binary surfer says, Bo, you bigot!
They're not just all equal, they're all beautiful.
Quite true.
Exactly beautiful to exactly the same extent.
Also, is Josh bitter because the Cornish are losing their crown as king of the UK's cousin shaggers?
Well, no, that crown belongs to people from Norfolk.
We all know that.
No more Monopoly on webbed feet.
It's funny, in Britain, anyone who's a foreign or American might not know that we take the mickey out of farmers from Norfolk and people from the deep west country like Devon or Cornwall for being inbred.
Also Scotch, Welsh and Irish.
Oh yeah, of course.
Obviously.
Yes.
I mean, we're very diverse in our humour.
And the real, real reality is that we're not at all, right?
Yeah, no, we actually get on.
We don't, yeah.
Alright, so what, some video comments?
Yes, let's.
Enjoyed your segment on the fall of the French government as it's going currently.
Though I would point out that the French government factions, the big three, are the collaborators, the cowards, and the capitulators.
Yeah.
France should change its motto from liberty, equality and brotherhood to cowardice, collaboration and capitulation.
I learned the other day that apparently the French flag has blue and red in it.
Yeah, of course, the tricula.
Sorry, I don't get the joke.
You think about it.
Blue and red?
I don't get it.
Yeah, it has blue and red in it.
You'll get there.
Okay, sorry.
Next video.
Sorry.
Right over my head.
Whatever that is.
Dan has been based before the word even came to be.
His expertise in finance led to realizing many truths about human behavior and money scams governments inflict on us.
Dan's Brokonomic series was an instant hit.
He puts on a lax facade, but you realize how frightfully smart he is when he casually calculates how to colonize Venus.
For fun.
Dan hides his true power level.
Ask him what he thinks about modern women.
Quite based.
Dan goes in the D-tier.
Yeah, what?
What?
I thought he was teeing you up for SRA. Bloody tea tea!
That was all going so well.
Oh, I was like...
I have no idea, sir.
No idea.
Basic based?
Well, whoever that is, ban him.
That's ruined your day.
I'm gutted.
Basic based?
I'm gutted.
I'm not S-tier.
But yeah, I mean, I assumed he was teeing you up there to put you in A. That's what I felt like where that was going.
God.
I'll tell you, before you're allowed to make one of these tier lists, you ought to come and listen to the conversations that we have in the office, the stuff that we can't even bloody put on camera.
But don't report them to Special Branch.
Basic based.
I didn't know this was happening, and I want to see my one now, what he said about me.
I guess he did that a few days ago.
He must have done, you're already on the list.
Yeah, I need to check that out.
He must have missed it.
So I've been seeing a few posts on my timeline basically bemoaning the fact that people, implicitly right-wingers, are worshipping villains and this trend needs to stop, when the fact is, it's like this is mostly a trend that's being pushed by the left wing.
It's like Disney, for example, with their Cruella and Maleficent films.
And let's not even forget that Disney, all the way back when, had their Pirates of their Pet Caribbean franchise, which is trying to whitewash the pirates as good guys.
Even though a lot of figures in those movies were actually slave traders.
Yeah, no, it's a classic leftist subversion, perversion.
Make the bad, evil, disgusting, weird thing the thing you're supposed to be cheering for.
You know, Satanism over the light of Christ, for example.
Anything.
Drugs over not drugs.
Right, it's just...
Yeah.
They're freaks.
This question is for Dan.
I'm a fairly risk-averse guy, and I like to see steady growth over a long number of years.
And I'm eyeing the SPY ETF Trust for the S&P 500 Index Fund.
Is there any downside to investing in something like this?
I know you're not going to give me financial advice.
Wink, wink.
Okay, no need for the disclaimer.
I appreciate your help, but it's had a 25% year-over-year increase in the last four years.
Seems like a safe bet.
Is there something I'm missing?
Thank you very much.
Yeah, I'm not a fan of index funds in general.
I'll tell you what I'll do.
The next Brokernomics I'm filming is I'm going through a whole bunch of subscriber questions that have accumulated under the videos I want to get to.
So since you're a good chap and a gold tier, I will put this question to the top and it will be covered in the Brokernomics where I can give it more time because we've only got a couple of minutes left.
Can I say something on that?
Yeah, go on then.
I'm not a successful venture capitalist as our Dan is, but I did work in asset management and investment banking and commodities trading for the best part of 20 years.
I would say at least buy the dip.
Like, it's all-time higher.
As a general rule, it's not a great time to buy when some think that it's all-time higher.
I mean, it looks like the trend will continue upwards, I would have thought, but at least buy a dip.
I mean, yeah.
Never buy at an all-time high.
This is not the point in the cycle that I'm doing my buying anyway.
Right, right.
It was two years, 18 months ago, I was doing my buying, and this is the time I'm just holding and waiting.
And then next, in about six to 12 months, will be when I do my selling.
Yeah.
But yeah, that's a fair point.
I have been enjoying the videos of What If Althist, albeit his takes rely on the flawed American mapping of left versus right.
In one video he describes how we will have to deal with mental health as a threat akin to the Black Death.
Just like our predecessors having to fumble their way to learning about hygiene and germ theory, so too we will have to struggle to understand how our mental health is built up.
I'm profoundly unsettled by adverts for mental health services and the associated days of awareness, which strike me as analogous to the old snake oil remedy salesman of the Wild West.
Always solid comments there.
Right, should we do the written ones then?
Alright.
Right, bloody basic based.
Right.
Alex Ogle says, the difference, Bo, is that back when we were fewer media outlets, there was much closer scrutiny and extra care was taken with the output.
Yeah, everything seems rushed and half-arsed these days.
But it could just be the lower quality of the people presenting.
I don't know.
Carl's Gallen Tub of Newlin Oil says, Oh, I see.
Omar Ward says, A country that can't trust its citizens with the truth is afraid of what they might do if they find out.
On the other hand, it's kind of funny to think Gamergate might have been a CIA psyop.
Yeah, lots of things are, actually.
Hang on, let's do one more from this.
Sophie Liv says, Gotta hand it to the Nazis.
They were at least honest enough to just straight up call it the Ministry of Propaganda.
Yes.
Yeah, we call our BBC verifiers.
Just, yes.
A bit weak, isn't it?
Economic Zone 17 says, horrifying that the Dystopian Express card, the ID card, is back on the agenda again.
I mean, it never really went away.
I mean, the white paper has been sat there for about two years now.
Blair never stopped banging the drum.
Yeah.
Never.
It was just a question of, you know, picking their moment to push it out.
Carl's Gullantub of Newlin Oil says, I'm calling it now.
The UK government will market this as a way of making it easier to curb illegal migration.
Oh yeah, they're doing that already.
Mr. Reward says, I'm less concerned about who they decide are no longer citizens as much as I am they will suddenly decide who are.
Yeah, of course.
I gave the example they can take away uses, but they can also add it.
Yeah.
You get someone like Boris Johnson just go, oh, everyone that's Polish is just now British.
Click, done.
Well, I don't think it would work with the Polish because they're on the verge of going back because I think Polish GDP per head is going to be surpassing ours before long.
Well, let's say Somali then.
Yeah, that would work perfectly.
It doesn't matter if you're even here yet.
It's already done for you.
If you can physically get here, it's already...
That's a good point.
You get a global ID card of some sort and they can just go around ticking all the Somalis or just do the mark all thing.
Well, they'll decide you're a dissident, because you did or said something they didn't like.
You did a Facebook post, or you turned up at a protest even though you didn't actually do anything.
They decide that you're a dissident, and they either just come round and put you in the back of a paddy wagon, or that's probably un-PC, you can't say anything, Put you back in the back of a police car.
Or they just say, no more bank account for you.
You're not allowed to shop anymore.
They could do anything they want.
And they could probably do that Twitter thing.
They did the shadow banning where they didn't have a good reason to go after you.
They just didn't like you.
So they did all these background things that you didn't be aware of.
So once you've got this kind of set up, they could just activate the shadow irritation thing, and every payment is declined three times before it finally goes through.
Absolutely.
All sorts of stuff.
That was something I was meant to say during the segment, but then we moved on to talk about something else.
Yeah, they'll do shadow stuff on your digital life.
And you don't even know that they've done anything.
But yeah, it's just now near impossible or impossible...
All sorts of avenues are just closed to you, and you didn't even know.
Yeah.
Jerome van Kalkaren says, in the Netherlands, we can't have any online interaction with the government without our digital ID for years.
We get less and less paper information and everything's going online.
Oh, dear.
And Sophie Liv says, Denmark already had digital ID for 10 years.
Yeah.
Literally since the 1st of June 2010, we had our digital IDs originally called EasyID and now my ID since 2021. Can't make any purchase on the internet or into my web bank or anything without using the ID. Denmark and Finland were the test rats for this.
Yeah, and also the Czech Republic.
They've had a version of that for years as well.
Hmm.
Annie E. Moss says, Dan, it would be nice to think you could create digital ID without the government being involved, but if one was created, the government would take it over in a bait-and-switch move.
Well, they wouldn't be able to if it was blockchain-based, but that's why I like that.
that and finally uh should we do a couple of the no syrian ones uh furious dan says funny how a sad uh the one syrian refugee who is actually a doctor doesn't end up in the eu yeah that's good point actually yeah um george app says funny how the eu leaders freeze asylum out Yeah, again, bloody good point.
And Ewan Baker says, something happens in the 90s and then cousin marriage went up.
Yes, indeed.
Something.
Something or other.
Yes.
We can't quite, we don't really know what, do we?
Yes.
Something happened.
Yes, quite.
Okay, so with that, I think we'd better wrap up.
Export Selection