Hello and welcome to the UK column.
Today I am joined by Matt Erett. Welcome back to the program.
Matt, it's been a little while since you've been on.
How are things going? Oh, hi, Mike.
It's, it's always a great pleasure to join you.
And yeah, keeping busy. The world's giving me a lot to
think about. So I'm, I'm, I'm having at the
very least an interesting time with, with our crisis.
I don't know if it's necessarily optimistic, but it's it's
interesting. Well, of course most people know
you live in Canada, and Canada clearly in the process of being
encircled at the moment as Trump aims to get hold of Greenland.
How seriously do you take these, this desire for Canada to become
the 51st state then? In the well, I, I try to think
like an oligarch, you know, I, I try to put myself in the shoes
of, of one of these Dungeons and Dragons game masters who are
trying to treat humanity like it's a board game.
And there are games within games.
And you know, when you take a step back and you recognize as,
as we've all worked to do, the deeper conspiratorial
undercurrents shaping many of the big developments throughout
history, we realize that there are the the most people we live
with think very short term, moment to moment, paycheck to
paycheck. Those who don't worry about such
things and and are incubated in a different cultural matrix than
your average person who goes to a Community College or whatever.
But if you're, if you're part of these upper upper echelon
families, you do tend to get trained to think long term, deep
past, deep future and act accordingly.
So not saying that that's good, I'm just saying that that's
that's what we're dealing with is a quality of thinking that
most average citizens are not used to dealing with.
So on the short term, I don't think that necessarily I would
expect to see Canada falling into becoming a 51st state.
But in the longer term, I do see that perhaps as the consequence
of, let's say a manufactured blowout of the transatlantic
system, which could and will, unless very drastic measures are
taking, which I don't see currently where and who is
pushing the type of necessary measures that I know would be
possible and necessary, I don't see it.
So what I would see as a consequence of the lack of
action, appropriate action, would be the breakdown of supply
chains, the blowout of a major financialized speculative bubble
in the the period ahead. What day, we don't know.
What time we don't know, but we're living in it right now
currently speaking, I do think that the ambition to create to
expand a jurisdictional control over Greenland over as much of
Canada as possible over much of you know, Mexico, Latin America
down to much of South America is part of a pro.
It's part of a plan. I think there is a blueprint to
get there. How what the the details will be
step by step getting there is is underdeveloped in my mind.
I, I'm, I'm, I have many hypothesis, but I don't think
that Carney's Carney is here for a reason.
I think he, it's been many years of planning to situate him and
to create the, the terrain that would be ripe to impose him as
the the replacement to a Justin Trudeau.
I had originally recorded a segment back in 2013 when I had
a podcast. They're going through the
origins of the bailing mechanism and Carney's specific role
working at the Bank of International Settlements with
Mario Draghi in, in formulating the bailing regime.
This is back in 2010 that he was doing this while he was governor
of the Bank of Canada. And I did a, a presentation
where I made a point that it was as though he was being situated
to be highly placed in political position.
The way that the media was portraying him as a great hero
in the, in the zeitgeist. The, the type of language was
something I'd never seen used for civil servants at any
regards. So I, I got the sense even then
that there was a, a, a preparation to impose him as a
much more competent, albeit dangerous high priest of
banking. I think that his job currently
is to play a very important role, very highly valued role to
his masters within the City of London and and broader imperial
structures. And, and I do think though that
there is that he was assisted whether Trump knows what he did
or not. I'm going to reserve judgment
for the moment, but I would say that he would not have become
the the Prime Minister of Canada had the decision had the
decision not been made to begin the language that Trump deployed
to make Canada the 51st state, which triggered A subconscious
fear factor embedded multi generationally across most
Canadians all over. Maybe not Alberta, but most
Canadians have a fear of America.
It's been baked in by design since the 19th century.
And and Trump or whoever wrote his speeches and and created
this plan invoked by design bats such that Pierre Polyevla, the
conservative, not to say he was a good person, but definitely
would have given people more to work with than than Carney.
He he failed to succeed where he all, all polls favored Polyevla
before the election. And then after the 51st state
comments began. Then everybody was induced to
rally around the big red comfort logo of the L, the Liberal Party
L and Carney, who was the, the, the embodiment, the archetype
who was going to be the, the great pick, you know, savior.
Just as he saved us in 2000 and eight, 2009 while he was running
the Bank of Canada, he saved us from the banking crisis.
And so he's going to do it again, and that's what happens.
So I do think that there's part of a a gaming out of planning
factor in a lot of this, which most people I know don't pay
attention to. OK, that, that's the reason I
asked that question in the 1st place, of course, was because of
his speech at Davos, which got all kinds of traction on social
media and all kinds of people thinking that this was the most
amazing thing that they'd ever heard.
And of course, what was what was he talking about?
He was talking about this idea of middle states.
Now you'll have to remind me who it was.
You sent me a video clip that you thought was a source for
that speech. And I sent you a video clip of
Bronwyn Maddox from the from Chatham House, which I thought
was was the source of the speech.
But nonetheless, what we seem to be seeing is amongst some, some
of these types at that level, clear agreement on, on a, a sort
of policy that that has been introduced at Davos by and Mark
Carney as the mouthpiece for it. This idea of, of the middle
states getting together to fight the two big beasts of the world,
which is now the United States and China, of course.
So, so I mean, what do you think, what do you think he was
expressing at Davos? And you know where?
Where do you think the policy has come from?
Yeah, the, the person I I was hypothesizing was was Jeffrey
Sachs, who bragged not that just a little bit after Carney's
speech at Davos, he bragged how proud he was of his former
student and how he knew that as he was teaching a younger Carney
that he had all of his great potential.
And now he's seen it manifest what a proud, proud mentor he
was. So, you know, there's that.
But I think that this this policy was largely formulated in
its current incarnation in the ascension of purely A Trudeau
and purely A Trudeau gave a 1969 speech describing the new
configuration of the middle power policy of Canada because
it is middle power. It's not it's not a strong
power, but it has influence. And he said the policy when he
was asked what is your policy objectives by a journalist, he
said to create counterweights. That's all he said very
ambiguous. But what that meant was whenever
the geopolitical Manichaean balance of the Cold War, which
was premised around this dichotomization of, you know,
capitalism is the are the the beings of light and freedom and
democracy. And then communism is the
authoritarian anti freedom darkness and everything had to
always be sort of balanced on this game board such that
whenever the the Geo geopolitical point of gravity
moves a little bit too much towards favoring, let's say an
advantage towards the communist authoritarian side.
Then Canada would take a leap and give its support to some
policy measure of a Reagan or of a Thatcher or what have you to
balance it out. And then inversely, whenever the
the gravitational center of balance would move towards the
capital side, then Canada would throw, you know, it's love over
to Fidel Castro or to to the the Soviets in the 70s, which was
always the way purely Trudeau managed it.
And I think that that was part of a mathematical sort of
cybernetics mechanism of control, of influence to use
Canada as an asset within a broader terrain to advance the
agenda of those who control Canada.
And now people might say, well, who isn't?
Isn't it Canadians who control Canada?
Not at all. Canada is a monarchy.
It it's run by a Privy Council, a Privy Council Office,
governor, generals and entire unelected civil service, which
is an enshrined deep state structure which is baked in to
our constitution, so-called since the 19th century.
Most policy decisions don't come from Canada.
It comes from these groups and an array of think tanks that are
loyal to the roundtable movement.
Like we have the Canada International Council, which is
sort of the, the analog to the CFR, the Council on Foreign
Relations, which is a big policy making Bureau that we have the
Canada 2020 think tank, which was what created and installed
Justin Trudeau and, and shaped much of today's liberal program.
It brought in many of the behaviorists around Barack Obama
to play a big role in that as well in this 2008 to 2014
period. So, you know, we have this whole
subterranean mechanism that is loyal to systems of, of
transnational empire far removed from anything here in North
America, even though, you know, and, and So what does it want?
Well, it, it wants feudalism, it wants hegemony, It wants to get
rid of the nation state system, which has been a troubling
innovation over the past few centuries, which has resulted in
giving to the people a means of, of defending themselves from
empire itself. Right.
And so everything that I, I, I, I interpret the actions by those
who are it's devoted servants in political positions as tied to
that general great objective. Now, what are the greatest
threats to set objective today? I think China and the Russian
alliance together have provided A troubling disruptive influence
of certain civilizational forces that are not willing to
necessarily acquiesce to the depopulation reset agenda the
way it was formulated in over many decades.
And especially China which has managed to keep control over its
banking system. It it avoided a major color
revolution where many other nations failed.
It expelled George Soros many decades ago and has been able to
unleash a type of paradigm of long term anti 0 sum thinking,
which provides for large scale infrastructure to be built that
empowers nations who work with China, businesses and people who
also benefit by that infrastructure.
Despite the slanders that we might hear from a lot of the
three letter agency run media outlets that try to say
something otherwise, the facts do speak for themselves.
Trying to eliminate, you know, a massive amount of poverty, a
billion people pulled out of poverty in a in a relatively
short time. And it's made that offer to the
world, to the United States, to Europe, to many countries to
say, if you want to break out of the, the Titanic that you're on
shift gears and stop pushing war with us and instead work with us
on building projects that will benefit you and create a
foundation of trust building and other things.
So far we've been very hard headed.
And instead we've we've chosen to accelerate the, the economic
asymmetric and other kinds of war in and around China.
And I think Carney's current objective is to try to do his
part in loosening the China Russia alliance by trying to put
a new kind of language to repair, to repair the the broken
relationship that Canada and China have had over the past
decade. It's it's, it was completely
annihilated over especially since 2017 when China realized
what a dangerous beast Canada was and they cancelled their
Canada China free trade agreement, which was a decade
long plan, which they just cancelled by simply allowing
Justin Trudeau to land in Beijing.
Nobody was there to greet him and the same day he was forced
to get back on the train on the plane fly back in embarrassment
thinking that he was there as a he was supposed to arrive as a
as a hero finalizing this long-awaited trade deal.
A solid message was put forth saying that China is no longer
interested in the offers of of tapping into Canada's resources,
which are abundant and underdeveloped.
But that was the promise. If you work with us, we'll
create all sorts of advantages and you'll be able to access
resources that you need. But if you try to, I think
recognize at that time that if they allow that dependency, then
those taps could be turned off at the whimsy of those who would
otherwise wish to destroy them. And they chose to instead keep
their their destiny locked in with Russia instead, even if
they're going to be paying a little bit more than what was
being offered by Canada. And I think and you know, the
the Meng Wanzhou, Huawei scandal, the rest of the two
Michaels, all of these things were the consequence of these
battles. A lot of, you know, the the
Canadian government had come in forcing China to to disinvest
from its various mining interests in Canada.
So there was a very hostile battle and I think almost a
healthy battle that had occurred because of China's realization
of what Canada was. But I think now with the new
strategy, Carney is able to say to China and the Chinese elite,
look, you're being bullied, we're being bullied.
You have a hostile America on your backyard.
We have a hostile America. We're different now.
And Jeffrey Sachs has been sort of, for those who have noticed
for the past couple of years, he's been creating a an
intellectual terrain on the media circuits to try to
persuade the Chinese intelligentsia that there is
this, this, this healthier Carney, Carney like statecraft
waiting to come into being that wants to work with you, which is
more enlightened than the big bad, Batty Americans.
And to what degree that that persuasion has been working, I
don't know. But I think that that is what is
applied and what Carney is trying to do right now to to
basically provide to say, OK, look, we're, we're going to be
able to work with China. We're going to have a new
special relationship. And, and he's walking a fine
line because, you know, it's, it's a bit difficult with the,
with what the narrative has been baked, has been built up to do
in the US, which is, you know, the Trump's whole mandate, a lot
of his narrative has been around the idea that China is our
existential enemy that we have to mobilize our resources
against, even if that means sanctioning Canada.
So there's, there's certain, you know, consequences to narratives
that are, that don't mesh, that are creating these interesting
dramas. And I'm curious to see how that
unfolds. So obviously Carney in China,
what was it 2 weeks before he went to Davos, star Starmer in
China? We were recording this Starmer.
Starmer is still in China at the moment.
Can China Can China stand up to being propagandized by two such
illustrious world leaders? Shannon's got some pretty smart,
smart people running the show and I, I would, I would like to
think that they've got a pretty good handle on the duplicity of
these groveling schmucks. Who are I, I really do think Now
does that mean everybody in decision making positions is
that wise? I mean, I don't I wouldn't say
that either. You know that people like stacks
have have been working very, very slowly and and patiently
building up followers. You know, he he brags how he
lectures regularly in Beijing universities and he's been doing
that training Beijing technocrats and or not Beijing,
but Chinese technocrats and people who are in influential
positions to adopt his way of thinking.
Now keep in mind, this is the guy who, despite what he says
now in denial of what he did, he did oversee for the IMF the
complete rape of Russia under perestroika.
And I don't believe for a second that he was simply misguided and
thought, you know, he meant well, but you know, bad things
happened by accident. I don't believe that in any way.
I think that he was very self aware and got exactly what he
wanted and has been trying to rebrand his disastrous policy.
But he he was, he's the guy himself is a, is a religiously
devoted Keynesian cyberneticist. He's given lectures at the
London School of Economics on the importance of everybody to
pay fealty to the doctrines of of John Maynard Keynes as well
as the the the doctrines of Lord Bertrand Russell, the the
godfather of cybernetics, which he's also a believer in as far
as the language of of power projection and control of
systems. Just just for people that don't
know, just just explain what you mean by cybernetics.
Yeah, that was a a certain computing.
It was a it was a language of control developed after World
War 2 by Norbert Wiener and advanced also by by John von
Neumann. Wiener was a disciple of Lord
Bertrand Russell in Cambridge in when Russell was still
publishing his famous Principia Mathematicas, which professed to
try to basically control all knowledge of the world in a
radically in a radical positivist manner rooted in
certain limited axioms and postulates That he said if you
just get enough data plugged into your basically a computer
formula, you would be able to with those limited axioms, be
able to linearly extrapolate into the future and past all
possible knowledge, becoming effectively omniscient, Kind of
like having an Oracle, an Oracle that gives us access to all
knowledge that could ever be and ever would be and ever was with
his formula. But he said it wasn't practical,
it was too theoretical. And he challenged his disciples,
of which Norbert Wiener was among the brightest, to find
practical ways of applying this to manage human systems, which
is always the idea or create a lens through which we can we
could analyze the new science. The new scientists could analyze
and interpret all systems of reality, biologic, ecologic,
astrologic, human, sociologic, you name it.
And so that became. Do you think do you think modern
AI systems are being built on this model?
It's entirely built on this model, yes.
So Norbert Wiener and, and his work on the human use for human
beings and, and his actual literal book Cybernetics, which
was funded by eugenics bankrolling Josiah Macy
foundation operations, which is what gave rise to the, the Macy
cybernetics conferences that again, we're funding eugenics in
Nazi Germany and Canada and the US throughout the the 20s and
30s. That's for the 30s, that's what
was funding cybernetics. And in his books, he's very
clear that machines will well, first he he starts with a
fallacy that the human mind is a form of machine that uses
essentially computer like feedback loops to a central
mechanism that that simply interpret plugs in data into
patterns. Where those patterns come from,
or what gives meaning to those patterns in his mind is
metaphysical absurdity. Don't think too much about that
because that gets us into the into the realm we're not
supposed to go as as slaves. But from there he says based on
that, that fallacy, which he says is true, that we can know
that these primitive binary computing machines that were
being developed by John Nash and others, you know, in in the
World War, World War 2 that he was a part of would eventually
become, as he says, self thinking could become self
reproducing. And such that this approach to
automation he said would eventually would inevitably
deterministically render more and more human beings irrelevant
in time. So he did completely create the
foundations, yes, of the current AI cult that does believe that
human beings are these ultimately inferior useless
eaters that have to be made redundant and exterminated by
some imaginary future singularity moment, which was,
you know, colored by people like Julian Huxley and and Puerto de
Chalde in the 1950s. They added some detail to this
Omega Point or whatever you want to call it, that that gave rise
to the language that was refined by people like Ray Kurzweil and
others around this, you know, future imaginary moment where
machines become self thinking and we become Skynet and we all
we all get to die or yeah. Yeah.
So but China seems to be taking a slightly different approach to
to AI and they don't seem to be quite so or at least they seem
to be putting more controls on the direction of travel that
that they're heading in with that particular technology.
I mean, have you got any thoughts on on on that?
Yeah. And I'd love to get your
thoughts on that as well. But I've noticed as well, from
my, my standpoint, what I've observed, I've been impressed by
China's completely different approach to educating their
people about the nature of AI and the responsibilities that
the people have towards their own minds in dealing with
something like as disruptive as AI.
And so China's like, you know, you can go to CGTN there and see
many documentaries, many presentations where they're
encouraging the, the reading of original texts to develop the,
the philosophical qualities of wisdom within the minds of young
people who will then be able to see where are the limitations of
the AI and where are its usefulness.
So they're they're much more considerate in providing that
understanding. Where is in the West, there is
no such consideration. There's only brainwashing that's
being messaged out to convince us that there is only one
approach to AI, which is to wait for it to render you extinct
while you're going maybe drugs and video games to to distract
yourself while you're getting UB universal basic income waiting
to Peter out. You know, as a as an obsolete
machine that couldn't afford to merge with Neurolink.
Now in China, it's a different approach.
They've also got, because of their national paradigm, which
or their civilizational paradigm, which is very much
generate or driven by uninformed, a much greater
informed set of lived experiences of the deep past
than what we have. We've been much more cut off of
the positive experiences of the Western society that's been
erased from our collective memory.
China has greater access to it. So things that happened 2000
years are having a much more deeper and important impact in
shaping their current strategies, especially around
things like the revived Silk Road of the Han dynasty, which
has become the foundation philosophically of their of
their current foreign and internal policy of building a
community of of common principle.
As John Quincy Adams had had formulated this in the 1820s and
30s, a community of principle would be the only foundation
around which a non Hobbesian structure of humankind could
work. Where we realize that our
self-interest is not in weakening our neighbor, but in
in helping our neighbor, even if they're different from us,
become better. And in doing so, our our
security, our power of having Better Business partners, of
having more trustworthy neighbors will all improve.
Which is a truthful thing that again, we used to have more
access to it in saner times in the West, but we've, we've lost
it. China, which does have a revival
of that. They have national goals that
define the behavior of their economy of their, of their
governing class. So they have things like, if you
look at recently, they built one of the, I think the third
largest dam in the world, hydroelectric dam.
We haven't built any hydroelectric dams in the West
in probably 50 years is since the 70s.
China's built I think 7 of the 11th biggest dams over the past
30 years, Seoul, China. And some are really big now.
This one that I was telling you about, the third biggest in the
world. It's massive.
It's going to improve the quality of life of so many
people, provide abundant electricity, flood controls, you
name it. Fresh water access and all sorts
of good things are happening. But almost no human beings were
involved. It was entirely organized by
automation of a highly organized AI managed system of, of, of
machines working. And you had very, you had some,
but very, very, very little human input, but that was
machines at the service of the needs of humankind.
Because it is very dangerous. You don't want to necessarily
put people if you don't have to through that type of hostile
environment working on dams. It's very dangerous.
Again, very arduous. That in my mind is a very good
use of AI. But if we don't have, if we
don't have a society that has any big visions, big missions
that define our, our next generations, better living
standards, which we don't have, then AI will increasingly just
be used to pacify, entertain, distracting and control.
As I think our, our static society that's been floating on
too many years of consumerism as a drug have allowed ourselves to
sort of we, we lost that idea of, of John F Kennedy's think
about the next generation, think about the next 5 generations,
which China still has very strong access to it to the
degree that you do. I think all of those dual use
technologies, as AI is one of them, include the atom and
atomic power being another one would be typically used to
service that future goal. If you don't have that, then
these things will be used typically for more destructive
events. Let's just just, this might be a
little bit diversionary, but let's just talk a little bit
about, about the Western, the Western view of AI.
And the way I'm saying this, I'd be interested in your in whether
you think I'm even close to the mark here.
But how it seems to me is that that we during 2021-2022, during
the lockdown period, we demonstrated to people what life
would be like sitting in front of their sofas, sitting on their
sofas in front of the television, watching Netflix all
day. We paid them to be at home by
putting them on furlough schemes and so on.
And that, you know, this issue of Ubi, because you mentioned it
a second ago, has been doing the rounds for for many years and
they've been a number of pilot schemes.
And of course, the question in most people's minds was, well,
where does the money come from to pay for the universal basic
income that that is going to be handed out for free to people
while they sit and watch Netflix?
And of course, the answer to that is clear now it's going to
come from AI and robotics doing the productive work, the the,
the financial, the money generating part of the work
which which humans used to do, but humans will no longer be
doing. And therefore it's no problem
just to hand them a bung to, to sit in front of the television.
But of course that, that, that life, that vision of, of what
society is going to be like in the future seems to be one that
that, you know, the, the, the billionaire class, the AI
billionaire class gets very excited about.
But, and maybe maybe some people that, that are finding that the
jobs that they are forced to do in the West are not that
appealing. Maybe that idea appeals to them
as well. But of course, what it, what it
absolutely does is put the, put the top on, put the, the, the,
the icing on the cake of the, the sort of panopticon idea
that, that, that our, the British home secretary is so
keen to implement at the moment. It's, it's, it is the, the final
level of control. Because of course, if you don't
behave yourself in the right way, then your universal basic
income is taken away and there's no real economy of any kind for
you to take part in which would allow you to even eat.
Um, so, so this, this, uh, for, as I see this developing over
the next, I mean, actually, I think it's going to develop
very, very quickly now. Uh, it's a pretty dark looking
future for people if, if we don't, if we don't recognize
what is actually going on and, and consider how we might, you
know, skirt around this vision that clearly Musk and others
have. So, So what do you think?
I mean, am I far off the mark with that that assessment?
No, no, you, I don't think you're far off the mark at all.
Unfortunately, I think that's much much of what is desired.
You know, I started today's chat by just encouraging people to
take a step back and to think sometimes as you would one of
these sociopathic oligarch types who see themselves God like game
masters. And I think that when you do
that, there's a lot we can, we can work with as far as things
that people think. Oh, but what happened in the
1930s is so disconnected in time from what we're living in today.
There's nothing I can, I just mentioned that China's
experiences from 2000 years ago are having a direct influence in
shaping their strategies in shaping the, the Belton Rd.
initiative, the new Silk Road today for a good way.
That's like a healthy version of learning from the past and how
the past affects the future, which I mean, again, we're
shaping the future in the present.
But inversely as well, bad toxic ideas.
You know, we mentioned feudalism is always the ambition or the
restoration of some form or a variation of.
Feudalism is one of the constants amongst all
oligarchically managed societies that believe that human beings
are simply another variation of, of wildlife to be found.
You know, if we don't differentiate the qualitative
transcendental nature of the human, you know, the, the human
versus, let's say the wolf or the, the cow.
If we don't make that differentiation because there's
similarities DNA wise. And, and you know, we all poop
and breathe and eat food and have sex.
And so we're all the same if, if we if we just and there then the
consequence of how we choose to organize that type of
bestialized society will involve some form of alpha wolves
controlling the beta wolves and Omega wolves as subspecies, as
feudal Lords do thinking of themselves as hereditarily
superior masters to inferior born slave families.
And so whatever the spin might be, it'll always be the same
kind of effect. Keeping slaves dumb, pacified,
distracted, maybe in a state of terror if possible, if not, at
least placate them by giving them an overabundance of
stimulation that's hedonistic, that disrupts their ability to
think about well, what freedom is or what's being lost.
So that sort of thing is always in today's world.
It's just applying a bit. It's adding to the ancient
formula with a bit more technology, you know, it's
coloring. But in the 1930s, as you
mentioned, Elon Musk, his father or his grandfather, Joshua
Haldeman, I think was part of something which is having a, it
didn't disappear, let's say that after World War 2 and that thing
that Joshua Haldeman, Elon Musk's grandfather was involved
with was Technocracy Incorporated.
And anybody looking at the the maps of the Technocracy
Incorporated, which was an organization set up in 1932 to
solve the Great Depression by this guy, Howard Scott.
And the idea of this was to simply say, let's get rid of the
elected class. Let's get rid of the capitalism.
It's just corrupt by it, by its nature.
And let's create a Society of of engineers from the top managing
a regional techniques with the North American technique being
part of their study guide. That was sort of the Bible of
the of the Technocracy Incorporated movement, which
again Elon Musk's grandfather LED in Canada.
He was the the regional director of Canada for that that
movement. It was quite influential.
They had 500,500 thousand members in in California alone.
It was quite big and been getting popular with the despair
people were were feeling and suffering from the Great
Depression. And part of what they wanted was
essentially a program of Ubi energy credits that would be
premised around the notion that you could calculate all
consumable goods and the energy associated with all consumable
goods and how many people there are consuming those goods, which
will be subdivided mathematically to provide
credits for the course of the lifespans of those people.
Now, what determines the lifespans of those people?
And you know that that's up for question because this
organization was also full of eugenicists who promoted the
idea that human beings were just, were just a form of
machine. And like machines that can get
rusting obsolete, so too can humans that you should put in
the, in the dumpster when they're too old.
So in But all that to say they, they sold themselves as a
pacifist, you know, the absolutely pacifist
organization, yet at the same time not so genuine because if
you're, if your borders are going to expand to Greenland,
Canada, Mexico, all of most of Latin America, Venezuela,
Panama, Nicaragua would have most of Colombia, if that, if
that's really what you see, your jurisdiction, those countries
are probably not going to just lay down and do it peacefully.
So your pacifist, you know, things are probably a lie.
That being said, they didn't have the computing power
available in those days to properly take the data or use
calculate the type of data they wanted to.
And so it kind of was left in a in a too ambiguous realm and
couldn't quite get the type of hole that Joshua Haldeman and
others wanted. By the way, the guy who who
actually shake this was a fellow by the name of Thorstein the
Blen, who was a. Well, I actually, I was sorry
you'll go on with that in a second, but but I was just going
to ask, are there, are there parallels to the shape of things
to come actually? Yes, yes.
And you know, this is where it gets very interesting because in
HG Wells even said it doesn't matter if we move through
socialism or through capitalism, we can get to world government
in either direction. And HG Wells was a leading
Fabian Society, Fabian Society thinkers, as people know of big
eugenicists and was also somebody who was sort of a
partner, an intellectual partner, dance partners in so
many ways with both Julian Huxley as well as Bertrand
Russell. They all kind of danced together
to play the game of or the he was actually the innovator of of
board games. Actually, HG Wells founded a
small wars that was the name of his his first board game in like
19 O 7. And he would basically train.
He saw this as a great way to train the young to become
potential recruits to a managerial class like he was.
Because he wasn't from a high family, he wasn't highborn, but
he knew that he had certain creative powers that were
lacking in many of those overlords that he was devoted to
serving. And and was very frustrated by
the rigidity of the old hereditary classes and was
trying to get them to loosen up a little bit and open up and
realize that they need to find ways of making the creative
process available to young people in a way that also in
awoke a sense of wolf like Hobbesian 0 sum feelings in in
young people who, by playing these games that became things
like risk and Monopoly and those the small the wars games would
would create a a a psychological framework out of which you could
more easily recruit talent that will be useful for managing the
the type of thing he lays out in his, you know, world brain and
open conspiracy programs and other things like that.
So I think additionally, what you said about the, the the the
things to come story is, is, is important because yeah, he's
talking about a Soviet of engineers, right?
That's what what invoked that, that association in your mind.
And that's a big part of of his story is that this this world
left to human devices alone naturally turns into a a plague
ridden, war ridden hellscape of dystopia.
You know, I think he actually innovates the first zombies that
that's become popular later on. He convinced that The Walking
plague or whatever and the only people to save the day are these
Masonic engineers the the the wings of the world that emerge
out of the skies to save the the the the the war ridden,
sovereign nation state ridden world by imposing a higher order
from above. Which is exactly how
Thorstenberg Blinn was thinking when he called for a mass strike
of the engineers in his program for the the Technical Alliance.
That was a a branch of the John Dewey's New School set up in
1919 as a Fabian Society outlet in in the United in New York.
This is this generally was staffed by a lot of figures who
went on to create the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
In that same 1921 period, Walter Littman played a big role in in
New School as an outgrowth of Columbia and Thorsten Verblen.
Again, he was the the, the master mentor of so many of
these, these young disciples like Howard Scott, who and he
also worked with the workers of the world's unite to create data
sets that involves psychological profiles as well of the workers
to see what do they, what do they want?
What are they stimulated by? What are they afraid of?
What are the corruptions. So there were, it wasn't just
simply energy credit for energy data that they were accumulating
or agricultural data, though they were doing that.
They were also looking at psychological profiles for their
idea of managing human resources.
So this is what again, Jock Yuan Musk's grandfather innovates in
and advances for the Canadian outlet of this agency and and
he's arrested for being on the wrong side of World War 2
because he's clearly fascist. They're clearly promoting, you
know, something which is insurrectionary to our entire
way of life And and he has to go on.
But I, but I think that as you said, this Ubi thing, it would
only work if you completely render the current system
defunct through a controlled demolition, as we've, as we've,
we're witnessing right now. And out of that, maybe a new
mathematize type of, of digital credit could be created that
might be associated with the amount of measurable energy and
behavior in the system that people can be allocated certain
numbers and that can be reduced if they behave badly or maybe
rewarded if they do things, you know, that are that please the
elites, they might get more bonuses or whatever.
But yeah, the the very, very dangerous idea that didn't
disappear after World War 2. And I mean, what you've just
described in the, in the last couple of sentences, there was,
was, I suppose, something that we could call social credit.
But of course, there's where we could talk about Ubi.
And there's another economic policy that does the rounds,
which is also called social credit by strange coincidence,
but was designed by a guy called Douglas.
I mean, I see a lot of people pushing pushing that idea as a
potential solution to our economic woes, but but to me it
just looks like Ubi and other guys.
It is. It absolutely is.
And I've seen the same thing. It's very, there's a big
discussion around social credit in Canada because Canada is one
of the few places where it actually gained political power
in the 1930s and 40s and 50s. Actually, in British Columbia it
was the dominant political party from 1952 until 1991, except for
three years in Alberta as well for many decades.
And there's still a certain romanticization of what this is
as as as a theater, as a as a philosophy, as a system.
But sure enough, you're right when you do look at a major Ch
Douglas, who was himself a disciple of a, of a certain
cultist by the name of Alfred Richard Oraj, who was a, a high
level Theosophist, who was a Luciferian who ran a new, a
magazine actually called New Age.
He was a fading society member for a number of years.
And he's the one who actually coined, he gave the term to
Douglas social credit to define Douglas's system because Douglas
was publishing in his New Age magazine from 191919201921.
And I mean the, the mechanical view of economics published by
Douglas. He was still trying to find a
name for this, this ephemeral thing, and it was
underdeveloped. It was like an underdefined
idea, but in general form. And this is where Oraj says, I
got the word, it's social credit.
And so he gave it that label. Oraj, by the way, was also the
disciple and personal assistant to Gurgyev, another famous
occultist who people studying espionage, occult espionage and
black magic would have encountered Gurgyev's name.
Well, sorry, I don't, I don't want to interrupt your train of
thought too much, but I'd just like to go a little bit deeper
into, into Gergiev because of course, more, if anybody is
aware of him at all, it's because he produced a book
that's, that's got a quite a famous title BLC Bobby Tales to
his grandson, which if anybody's seen it is, I don't know how
anybody actually reads it, but that's that's a whole other
issue. But, but I mean, what, what,
what was his relationship to intelligence and and those kinds
of these kinds of operations? OK, for that, that's such a big
one. Let's put that as a focus for
the time because I this is an important idea of the social
credit thing. I don't want to and we don't
have a limited amount of time ahead of us here.
So basically what Douglas did is he serving this network around
Araj. So Araj breaks away from the
Fabians. This is you need to, people need
to know this. If they want to understand
social credit in 1919 that emerged in 1920, they need to
know what happened in 1912. Why do Araj break with the
Fabians? Because he didn't break by
himself. He there was a controlled sort
of diffurcation or or splitting off.
That's what these occult agencies always seem to do is
they break off in these little disputes like a hydro with many
heads to create these controlled dialectics.
They always create not in ones but in twos.
So they create a left hand and a right hand controlled dialectic
and then they get people to get gravitationally pulled into the
debate of do you want Fabian socialism, top downstate run
controls that completely don't care about really human free
will and personal agencies so much like that's all sacrificial
to the greater collective concepts.
Or do you want some form of bottom up spin on proto
libertarianism where only the individual matters and not
really the collective? That's an absurd, ephemeral
idea, but it's all about the individual.
Now, in the case of of Oraja's network that Douglas was a part
of, what they did after he split from Fabian, Fabianism is he
started promoting something called guilt socialism, the idea
of devolving power to local communes.
And in Douglas's writings and his many speeches, he makes the
point that not only should in an in an abstract sense, power be
devolved from the nation state, which he doesn't even believe
should exist, is he says nation states actually don't play,
should not be tolerated because they're outlets of corruption in
control. We should devolve power as well
as in we should. He he says that and I've got a
big quote from him describing how industrial civilization
itself is a corrupt aberration and that we should go back to
energy intensive forms of artisanry.
So, you know, you could see clearly the, the, the fault or
the, the thoughts of people like John Ruskin and William Morris,
who are sort of the the founders of this Guild, socialist, pre
Raphaelites romanticization of medievalism, pre pre nation
state medievalism, pre Renaissance medievalism, which
is influencing orage it's influencing Ruskin and Morris
are everywhere here. So they're creating this idea
that, OK, if we just had these beautiful little utopian
communes without advanced technology, then we would all
have liberty and freedom and, and we would have progress and
abundance. And naturally, you know, again,
it gets very, very, it's like magical thinking that people
will just organize and self organize systems and then
progress will happen. Corruption will disappear and
we'll have this future. That's great.
But planning is bad in any any type of role of a nation
planning something for the future, as China is doing now
with the Bri or as the US had done under JFK or FDR or
whatever, or Lincoln, that's bad.
That should be eliminated. And so, yeah, he was marketing
his stuff actually, just like he, like Kings, was actually
propping them up. So John Maynard Kings, another
Fabian who is all about top down planning, was actually propping
up Douglas by setting him in his general theory.
Both Kings and Douglas were writing letters to the Nazi high
command to Hitler directly, which is all available.
Both Kings and Douglas marketing their systems to the Nazis,
making the point that the Nazi type of governing governing
system is ideal for each one. Now the problem is the irony is
that each one appears to be opposing.
One seems to all be about bottom up emergent self organization.
The other one's all about top down national planning.
But they're working together. It's a controlled dialectic and
they're they both correctly identify that their systems and
and it actually wasn't a letter by kings, by the way.
It was his preface in his German edition of the 1936 general
theory. For those who might want to say
he never wrote a letter. He wrote the general theory, the
preface. And he says it's it's in
Hitler's Germany that you'd find the best application for my
system under it doesn't work under under democracy.
So, you know, you got this thing in the fact that Joshua Haldeman
is moving from Technocracy Inc, which he's running for until
he's arrested in 1940 and it's made illegal because now we're
in World War 2. He immediately goes on to become
the head of the Social Credit Party of Canada or of
Saskatchewan. Sorry.
And he does that from 1943 up until 1949, he's running for
office and he's pushing social credit, which you would think is
the opposite of what he was pushing with Technocracy in Core
earlier when he was working for three years as the head of the
Fabian Society of Canada, which is what he did from 1933 until
1936 is Joshua Haldeman was the head and founder of the Fabian
Society of Saskatchewan, which meant he was directly receiving
orders or at least working with five Rd. scholars who were the
founders of the Fabian Society, many of whom were pushing
eugenics anyway. And the replacement of
capitalism and democracy by a a managerial class of elites.
That's what the Fabian Society wants and always wanted.
And their Canadian branch became known as the Cooperative
Commonwealth Federation. That would that became known as
the NDP today the the Orange Party, which is the middle
party. And it merged in the in the 60s
with the Liberals. So they pretty much became one
thing, and I mean, I say merge, they still exist, but pretty
much all of the purely Trudeau was an NDP technocrat and he
basically went with all of his fellow NDP technocrats and
became Liberals to gain political power.
So I'm saying that, you know, they didn't merge officially,
but they merged in essence. And that's what Joshua Haldeman.
So he has these three phases in his Canadian political career,
all of which seem different in different ways, but they're
actually identically driven by the same agenda of of maximizing
the illusion of personal liberty from the bottom up perspective,
but maximizing the reality of top down controls by a world
governing class. Which is why also I'll just say
this beef. Even globalist eugenicist like
Bertrand Russell also is a self professed anarcho syndicalist
who says that that's the best form of organizing society at
the same time as he's proposing and fighting for one world
government under a managerial class.
As is Elon Musk, who actually wrote a tweet two years ago
saying anarcho symbolism for the win as at the same time in the
same day that he was calling for a Martian technique.
So you've got the same language, the same naming protocols as
well by Elon and company who are all transhumanists.
They think in the same terms as those I was just referring to as
far as human beings being machines to be merged with other
machines. If they want to stay relevant
because we're inferior biological machines.
They, they promote the idea of drugs and video games to
distract the useless eaters will be made irrelevant.
And you know, Peter Thiel, Elon, who were incubated in South
Africa where, where Joshua Haldeman went in 1949 when he
got too exasperated by the lack of, of acceptance of his
doctrines. He went to the freest place on
in the world and began promoting.
He became essentially a promoter and a publisher of
conspiratorial anti Jewish narratives of, you know,
republishing the Protocols of Zion, which is what Douglas
Major. Douglas was also promoting with
ARAJ as well as the Canadian Social Credit Party, which was
the only party to impose eugenics as well and support
eugenics and sterilization of the unfit, especially natives.
But across the board in Canada in the 1940s, fifties onward,
they were also promoting, They were the own political party,
promoting and publishing the Protocols of Zion that are
provable forgeries cooked up by the Theosophists themselves, you
know, decades earlier. And that's what Elon Musk's
grandfather is also citing and promoting in South Africa, which
is he's arriving at the beginning of apartheid, which I
mean, I don't have to, I hope I don't have to say anything to
the audience about why that was a bad idea.
But that's where Elon and Peter Feel are incubated and are grown
out of this sort of like Nazi utopian environments of
districts and, you know, identity cards that give people
mobility rights or don't in South Africa.
That was what was done under a very, very, I, I would say that
there's probably a lot of unreconstructed Nazi controllers
who are probably active managing that shit show that inspired
Elon's grandfather and father and and probably himself to a
certain degree, I would say. Yes, wow.
Where do we go from there? So so.
I could say, I mean, I could say more, but I, I, I think like,
but here's the thing, right? Like a lot of people, they,
they, they want to believe so badly that they want to believe
so badly that Elon is this great genius that I mean, Tesla, you
know, you can even say, say a word about that too, right?
Like the fact that Tesla was also in New York in five star
hotels in the 1920s. Tesla's also on record calling
for a global system run by eugenicists and, and, and he
he's on record in interviews with Hitler's principal
Lieutenant in America, George Sylvester Berake, in 1933.
But but this can't be right because being Tesla, Tesla is
held up by by freedom advocates as, as being the man who's who's
fantastic inventions would have changed the world.
And he's, he's suppressed by the by the globalists, right?
It's a magic tricks people are getting do play a magic trick.
But yeah, no, it's actually a you know, it's a big part of my
book on Rosicrucian golem here. But.
And I tell a lot of the story about the interfacing of Tesla
and these technocrats and eugenicists as as part of a Big
Magic trick that is transgenerational in its
effects. The idea was not to necessarily
act upon the world that they were acting on, but to create a
narrative foundation that would obscure the source of real
discoveries that were attributed.
Misattributed to a Tesla as a cardboard synthetic sort of self
identified human atom ton. He didn't believe he had a soul.
He didn't believe that souls existed.
He believed that he was a machine that had been endowed by
special clairvoyant powers to see see things from the beyond.
So he had a a sort of mystical self identity that made him
perfectly pliable. And because he was very much
full of himself too, As was people like Isaac Newton and
other Rosicrucian affiliated pseudo scientists were marketed
to the world as being the great sources of the discoveries that
were actually made by real. The real engineers and
scientists who were being creative, but whose ideas had to
be stolen and repackaged and attributed to somebody right.
In this case, it was Tesla. For most of his ideas, you could
find them actually sourced by other other greater minds than
he. But he had handlers.
He had managers. I mentioned here, George
Sylvester V Rake is as the guy who went to jail because he was
Hitler's top Lieutenant in America, working to spread Nazi
propaganda all across the United States with senators in Congress
that he was that were on his payroll.
And this is the guy who Tesla practically lived with and wrote
poems, weird, weird poems in homage to the greatness of the
Rake. The Rake is one of the first
people, if you read his writings in 1933, like exposing the
Federal Reserve, he sounds like Alex Jones.
He sounds like a type of Eustis Mullins conspiratorial Expo like
narratives that we here tend to encounter.
But the reason why is Eustis Mullins was the disciple of the
Rake. The Rake himself was a disciple
of of Crowley. They were doing black magic
rituals in Long Island together openly and there's books that
have been written about their association.
So you got 1° of separation between Aleister Crowley, a
British agent, a British secret agent 666 in America organizing
to pull the USA into World War One.
He's still at it in World War 2, building up a whole network of a
cult black magicians pushing fascism, which is also at the
heart of fascism in in Nazi Germany is a a black magician
class of Thula society, new template freaks trying to invoke
demons and usher in an age of Horus or an age of whatever Odin
for 1000 year millennial height. So you got these same networks
everywhere overlapping each other and you've got these
things like the blue shirts of Adrian Arkon working with the
social credit party, the so credit party.
Sorry, I'm just spewing out stuff here.
But anyway, the social credit party, they are the green
shirts. They actually have Braves and
they have a whole, you know, fascist inspired uniform system
called the green shirts. They're working with the Adrian
Arkon blue shirts. They're sometimes at battle with
the black shirts of Oswald Mosley, but they're they're all
kind of like the the the the Technocracy Inc or the grey
shirts. They actually, well.
Well, but but look, the grandson of Oswald mostly is currently
head of Palantir UK. So again, we've got the
connections back into the technocracy once again.
So these, these people never stray far from the, you know,
they're never too far away, are they?
They're never too far away. They like keeping this in the
family. And I, I think you mentioned to
me the other day that you got the MI 6 director as well, whose
grandfather had some peculiar relationships in, in Ukraine in
the, in the World War Two period too, right?
Absolutely, absolutely. So we never have to go too far.
Look, look, you said you, you were just viewing stuff out
there. But actually this stuff is
really important to understand because because we are in a in a
world where we have these types of networks apparently at each
other's throats on steroids. And you know, how are we to just
to conclude this for today, because this this conversation
needs to continue. But how, how, how, how do people
decipher or get a picture of, of modern events, of current events
and, and the, the types of people that are, you know,
appearing to be at each other's throats when in fact they're
working ultimately to the same agenda.
How? How are people supposed to
interpret what they're saying in front of them?
I mean, I mean, I think if they're watching this show,
they're already in a, in a pretty good place as far as
progress to wrap their minds around things that they've been
told are unthinkable. No, we, we have to go to the the
places that were being told are forbidden in this realm.
So that's a good start. I, I think that what I've, what
I've tried to do with my wife Cynthia is make a lot of these
seemingly complex, but actually not super complex ideas as
intelligible as possible through our books that we've published
the, you know, we've done the The Clash of the two Americas
book series. It's 4 volumes, The Untold
History of Canada. I, I wrote that over the course
of a decade. That's 4 volumes of
reconstructions of Canadian history.
They're all short too. They're not too long.
And you know, our science and shackled books are Revenge of
the mystery books, mystery cults, Cynthia's books on the
Black Sun. Any one of these could be a good
entry point to begin. I I would not to toot my own
horn. I I just think that that's why
we did them. So you're you're asking?
You're you're welcome to toot your own horn.
I mean this is you know, this all helps.
I, I just, yeah, I feel sometimes it's, it's maybe a bit
presumptuous of me, but but I, you know, I, we also do a lot of
documentaries and I, I think the thing to focus on is where did
the oligarchy fail? Because the way a lot of the
conspiratorial research is framed that is available and has
become very popular, especially in the post COVID age, is to map
out all of the all of the ways the oligarchy has gained power,
enjoyed forever. Power has been evil doing evil.
But there's very little focus on the times and moments in history
where they've failed to succeed what they want to do.
And I think that that for me has been one of the most important
attitudes that I, I adopted early on is to obsessively try
to focus on like discover where are those moments where the
oligarchy tried to do something and we're prevented, we're
blocked, we're, we're flanked by, by human beings thinking
like human beings on a much higher creative.
And I, I think a level of natural law that's in, in tune
with God's law. I mentioned that the, the
Chinese flank of the Han dynasty's invocation or not
invocation, their, their creation of the new of the Silk
Road of 2000 years ago was one of these fantastic ways of
breaking free of its system of controls by a high priesthood
that wants to keep people fighting and divided in and in
ignorance. That was a great way of doing
it. And it lasted for a while, but
it was sabotaged eventually. There's different moments in
history where I've tried to sort of 0 in and shed light on where
did the the Crusades, which were supposed to have begun 200 years
earlier than they did? How were they?
How? How did greater greater minds,
more dignified minds like those allies of Charlemagne and Al
Quinn, who are part of the Carolingian world, work with
their Muslim counterparts to create alliances and to create
sharing of information with Jewish networks and Chinese
networks as well. From the Tang dynasty, who were
all able to collaborate to work together to create an idea that
our self-interest and our destiny is much more in harmony
than than at discord. And it's all tied to creating,
you know, Renaissance movements. And so these things that gave
rise to the American Revolution, the best of what Lincoln did,
the the best of what we saw in the in, in why, why did Hitler
lose World War 2 when all of these bankers were funding him
and all of these occultists were backing his movement?
Why did that not succeed when it was supposed to?
Why did they abort that? So these types of that way of
thinking I think is just more valuable than simply mapping out
the evil alone. But it gives your people the
strength to see, well, where are the weak kinks in this very
intimidating looking armor of this parasitical ancient evil?
So there are weaknesses. There are there are insecurities
that it has that I think are being acted upon in an authentic
manner. By, you know, many, many of
those leading policy right now in China especially, but many of
its allies are doing things that might be flawed.
It's not the same. We didn't even talk about how
the social credit is different from that social credit, which
maybe that could be a future. Chat we yeah, we need to do that
too. Yeah, absolutely.
Yeah. But all I have to say, it's like
this is the sort of thing that I think would empower people to
understand, like what are the, the, the practicable options
available, even if they are unlikely.
Because we've wasted time, decades have been wasted in
letting ourselves mentally and morally and physically entropy
as as human, Western human civilization.
We do that to ourselves. We allow that at least.
I mean, you can say the oligarchy did it to us, but we
allowed it as well. It happened with our consent.
So, you know, it's more difficult than it would have
been maybe when, you know, Bobby Kennedy was alive 60 years ago.
But it's still practicable. We see that China has given us
something to work with as far as a way of thinking about global
self-interest and avoiding avoiding wars and what have you.
But we have to just, I think, get over our prejudices, be be
more courageous in terms of thinking about what, what, what
type of, of thoughts were capable of lifting like a gym.
You know, we, we tend to want to stick with the easy thoughts
that are, that are lighter, but those are actually useless and,
and you know, in, in the long run going to kill us.
And I think we have to just allow ourselves to, to, to press
on the unknown a little bit more with more confidence in
ourselves that we, that we understand that we can make the
discoveries by leaning into the unknown and, and, and building
on discovery after discovery to have real knowledge instead of
something we've memorized from a persuasive influencer that we're
listening to that gives us things we write down.
But it's not really a power of changing things.
It's power more of just knowing how screwed we are, which is
often what, what often, you know, we see in the in the echo
chambers of the Internet these days too, you know?
So that's my words of words of wisdom, as I, as I hope they
are. OK, well, Matt, let's, let's
leave it there because that's a great place to, to end for
today. We've clearly got 22 programmes
more to do at the very least the the social credit versus social
credit conversation and also Gurdjieff because, because
Gurdjieff, I think I'd I'd like to just to know a lot more
about. And so we'll, we'll do that in
the not too distant future. So look, thank you very much for
joining us today and we'll keep you posted on, on any responses.
There'll be information about how to find Matt's work in the
show notes, of course, to do support if possible.
And thanks everyone for watching.
We'll be see you next time. Bye bye.