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