Details
Nothing to say, yet
Podcast
speechsmall room
Comment
Nothing to say, yet
Listen to Paul English Live 002 ⋅ 14 Sep 2023 by Paul English MP3 song. Paul English Live 002 ⋅ 14 Sep 2023 song from Paul English is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 01:58:55. This high-quality MP3 track has 128 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 31 Jan 2024. Stream and download Paul English Live 002 ⋅ 14 Sep 2023 by Paul English for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.
Comment
Loading comments...
The speaker greets the audience and talks about the previous week's show. They mention the different platforms they are streaming on and the technical difficulties they faced. They also received positive feedback from viewers. The speaker plans to talk about money-related topics in the show. They mention an MP named Michael Meacher and a parliamentary debate on money creation. The speaker believes that transforming the banking system is crucial. They discuss the lack of awareness and discussion of the issue among politicians. The speaker also mentions another MP named Austin Mitchell. They express their interest in studying the history of how the banking system evolved. They believe that although technology has changed, human nature remains the same. Hello, good evening, good afternoon, good morning, good middle of the night, that kind of order, it's Thursday, got the day right this week, 14th of September, 2023, welcome to the show. Well after all the fun and mayhem of last week, I'm expecting a little bit more this week, two hours of pressing buttons and flapping my gums. It's been a beautiful day here in jolly old merry old England, September is always the best month of the year, so one out of twelve is not too bad I guess, and this week I'm surrounded by screens and I think I need even more to keep my eyeballs in all those different chat rooms and possibly what might be going on. It's been a long day, I'm just getting lost in the music there, can't be doing that. Yeah, welcome back everybody. A lot of fun since last week, a lot of things to think about. I think the first one's always been a bit of a blast, the second one, it was really looming on me, or looming large in my mind I should say, that there were an awful lot more things to do and I've been trying to do an awful lot more things and hats off to all those people that do all this kind of stuff and have been doing it for years. I've had the luxury of really just having to rock up really a lot of the time and just talk, which is I think preferable, anybody that's done that kind of stuff, so getting in charge of all these different things. Just to do a bit of housecleaning again, we are streaming on the website paulenglishlive.com, we're also streaming on odyssey.com, we're also streaming on rumble.com, and rumble's the main place that I'll be keeping my eye on, that and odyssey, it's not a competition really, I just thought we'd try out both because, you know, why not increase your workload, it just makes it that much more fun, right? And we're also being live simulcast on speakfreeradio.com and we're here from 7 o'clock till just before 9 in the UK, that's 2pm east until 4 o'clock in the afternoon. So thanks for joining me, if you're here and if you're not, well, whatever, we'll get the recordings up, there was a lot of, I learnt an awful lot the other week, the odyssey stream unfortunately, I'll just do a bit of housecleaning first, the odyssey stream went down I think after about 57 minutes last week, and there was no way I could find out, I realised I need more screens to check these things, but even so, even if it went pear-shaped last week, there was very little I could have done to actually put it right, so we will see how these things go, if they keep falling over for whatever reason, I mean, odyssey runs I think on blockchain, so it can be a little bit snaggy at times, so if these things do sort of bog down for me for whatever reason, then we'll try and slim and trim things down accordingly, but yeah, so there was that, also I think on the player, the audio player on the website, we also lost signals for the last 15 or 20 minutes. So, if that happens again, if you are listening on odyssey or on the website, then please head on over to rumble, I guess, is probably the best place, and plug in there, and I'll be hopefully seeing what's going on there, to keep my eyeballs sort of peeled and looking at what's going on as they say, so that was the sort of, those were the technical fun bits from last week, also got lots of positive feedback from people, so if you wrote to me and said nice things, or even nasty, actually nobody wrote any nasty things at all, it's early days yet, I'm sure we'll get into that at some point in the future, but there were some great comments, and a lot of interest, and that was really good, and I thought basically in part today, what I would do is, for some part of the next two hours, we're going to carry on looking a little bit at the money stuff, some additional things, I also realised I didn't fully know exactly what I talked about last week, this is very, very bad, isn't it, I don't know what you would call it in proper production terms, a continuity expert, I realised afterwards that if I just keep talking and providing anecdotes, at some point like some middle aged duffer, I'm going to start repeating the same ones over and over again, much to everybody's chagrin, and that's not going to do it, it's going to be a bit tiresome to listen to all of that kind of stuff, so I need to take more notes afterwards, I couldn't bring myself to actually re-listen to the whole show last week, I don't know if you do these sort of things, but listening back to it is, it's very difficult, maybe I suppose if you listen to it on triple speed, it would be the best way to deal with it. Anyway, all that talk about money last week opened up a few more circuits in my head, I actually want to just start off with a comment really, sent in on Rumble from Tacky123, because it has a name in it, I'll just read it out, it says some nice things at the beginning, it's a very brief comment, you can see there anyway, the banking info can never be overdone, oh I don't know, no, you're absolutely right, it probably cannot be overdone, because it's so easy and delightful to forget it, because it's exhausting, it kind of bears down on what he wrote then, got me thinking about Meacher, M-E-E-C-H-E-R, and his parliamentary debate on money creation. Now, if you're outside the UK, even if you're inside the UK, I guess you might not know who Michael Meacher is or was, I assume he's still alive and kicking, I don't know, he was an MP about 20 years ago, 20 odd years ago, maybe for longer than that, and I think I may have mentioned last week that after all the fun I've had in court around about 2000, the next few years were spent really reading a lot and catching up with a lot of academic sort of stuff on banking, and during this period I was reading The Grip of Death by Michael Rowbotham, still a good book, The Grip of Death being literally a translation of mortgage, death gamble, basically, if you don't pay it back, we're going to kill you, that was the gist of it, and mortgages were frowned upon severely by the church and the law in England in the 13 and 14 and 1500s, I might have got my date slightly wrong, but 5, 6, 700 years ago, frowned upon so much that if you were found issuing one, you were liable to be hung, drawn and quartered, you remember that stuff, I mean I don't, you probably don't either, but we're aware of how savage it was, so they were quite heavy about mortgages and there's a very good sound reason for it because they run counter to Christian ethics, whatever you may think about those, I think they're pretty good and it's because of the lack of them in terms of their robust industrial application these days that we're in a lot of the trouble that we found ourselves in, but yeah, mortgages and Michael Rowbotham, anyway, because of reading that and connecting with certain people, and I'm sure I mentioned this last week, do you see how I have to keep notes, I'm going to have to start keeping notes, it's not in my instinct to keep notes, but I was going on to these meetings at Friends House, which is a big Quaker house there in London, probably mentioned that last week, Michael Meacher actually turned up to a few of these meetings, I know I didn't mention that last week, and this is when they were all talking about getting this parliamentary debate on money creation, I think it's called an early morning motion or something, I mean it sounds like going to the toilet, doesn't it really, but it was something like that, and I can't remember the exact technical description of it, but that's what they were doing, a lot of talk about that and a lot of focused minds on it actually at the time, so what that reminded me of, of course, and maybe many listeners are already aware of that, is that this debate is not known currently as a debate because it's not actively live or hasn't been, I mean the active debate I suppose on the interwebs obviously has been the great lurgy for the last three years or whatever, and the so-called vaccination response etc., etc., and rightfully so, because it's a stepping up in the game of psychological warfare that's being played upon us, but as I mentioned last week, for me personally, I still view the transformation of the bank as being the most important thing that we could do, and that if we fail to do it, the problems that we face in all other areas are going to persist, because that bank thing can feed anything it likes, and so there was another guy called Austin, not Austin Powers, Austin Mitchell, it's true, it wasn't Austin Powers, Austin Mitchell, another MP from Up North, where I come from, in fact he used to be a TV host, he was part of it too, and when these guys talked, you could see that there's a very small number of politicians understood the issue, and I mean very small, there's 600 and odd of these individuals, let's call them that today, and very, very few, if they are aware of it, certainly talk about it, and so I went off this week, I was doing a little bit of looking into, a little bit of looking into where this all kind of started up, you know, where could we put our finger on a particular timeline of how it happened, I think I mentioned in the first show that what I'm kind of interested in from a history point of view, and I tend to view history as news that's just passed by, if it's all just gone, it doesn't really matter how old it is, if the principle is absolutely valuable, and many of these principles are, because they're repeated over and over again, you know, I was talking with somebody the other day, and he was certainly making the remark that human nature just does not change, and that's in thousands of years of recorded history, it doesn't, obviously the form, the technology that we have to live with has changed massively, and so we're faced with different sorts of challenges in terms of how we stay conscious when we're being really at the receiving end of an onslaught of communication in comparison, well even to what it was like for me as a teenager in the 70s, we didn't get a telephone until I was 14 years of age, which is quite a thing, and my well-to-do friends, they all had telephones, but the really odd thing was that once it was fitted and put in, it being a relatively pricey item at the time, I wasn't allowed to make any phone calls on it anyway, which I thought was quite nice, and back then people would invite their neighbours round to look at the telephone, to look at the telephone, that was it, really, we don't want to use it, it's going to cost money, but you could speak to Aunt Nelly up in Scotland, well yes we could, but we'd rather, we'd prefer if Aunt Nelly called us, you know that kind of thing, so people were very tentative around the telephone, and little did I know that 10 years later I would be glued almost permanently as a biological extension of my body to a telephone receiver for a few years, so the telephone really took off in the UK, and so did BT's profits, if you remember BT, oh they're still going aren't they, so yeah, so, and I've got distracted down one of these little avenues where I don't know what I'm talking about again, but yeah the communication side of things of course has come on colossally since that period, you know what I ought to do as well, I'm just reminding myself, oh there's a dog outside lending atmosphere to the recording, but if you can't hear it, you wouldn't know, right, okay, let me just have a look here because I'm trying to find out whether this is running, it says we're live, ah yeah we are, hang on just a minute, there we go, that's good, and so I thought I'd try and pay attention, thought I'd try and pay attention to this, I'm also live on Jitsi, oh look at that, free conference call on Global Voice Radio, so I'll just give you a shout out, thank you very much Paul, that was something else I didn't do right at the beginning with my technical trousers, so last week as a fun thing, a surprise actually because I wasn't able to look at everything as it was going on, a connection in the States called Paul, another one here, we're everywhere, there's obviously a surplus of Pauls, kindly picked up the signal and forwarded it on to a lot of people which was great, so thank you very much for doing that on a consistent basis, it's wonderful when people do those sorts of things, where was I, you might have to type into the thing if I get rambly, Michael Meacher I think, we were just talking about him, and let me have some chopped juice, that's better, clunk, yeah Michael Meacher and these other people were aware to some degree of this monetary creation issue and I thought I would look back to where I think is a good point for us as English people looking back to the problem, it is of course ancient in many ways, there's a book called the Babylonian Woe by, I forgot his first name, I think it's Astle, an Australian writer, it's been out at least 20 years, it's about the first records that we're aware of, I think, I mean they may be even older ones than that but they're of the application of usury and the amount of power that it brings to bear, and in fact I'm going to quote a little bit from an article about the origins of the Bank of England, hopefully I can remember because I've got it stuck up here on the screen, and so for us I think it's round about the time of Elizabeth I, probably even Henry VIII actually, her dad, you know dad, the guy that chopped people's heads off, but I think Henry's life is a life that was interfered with to a great degree, we all know he had a lot of difficulty supposedly bringing sons into the world, but I think what's not really fully known is that the Venetians, the people of Venice, and if you're in London and go to the financial district, I mean I haven't been there for ages, but there's Lombard Street, named after that region of Europe, and it's named after the people that came here and brought banking skills with them in the 1500s I think, maybe a little bit earlier than that, no I think probably the 1500s, and bank coming from the word bench, I think it's the Italian or the Latin name for the word bench, which is where we get the word bank, and it was the bench on which they did all the counting, particularly the usury charges that they were about to ask you for, you know that kind of stuff. So the Venetians, the black nobility of Venice, chose England for something, and what they chose England for, apart from other things, was as the base through which to split the Roman Catholic Church. Banking and religion, or organized religions, intertwine because of the disputatious nature of banking and who's going to be in charge and this, that, and the other, it's been a long drawn out fight, squabble, ruinous sort of thing, and as I understand it, I'm just going to go off on a little tangent here, as I understand it, the Pope, I can't remember which one, I'm not very good on all the Popes, although a few of them were Medicis and Borgias, and they weren't very good people, that's putting it mildly, anyway, the Pope, I don't know which one it was at the time, got a bit cross with the Venetians, because they were sending, they were basically levying taxes on any sort of commercial boat that floated past Venice, they'd send a man of war out, and charge him, just for going by, I guess, a bit like we English are about to endure if you've got a fridge that doesn't meet your energy compliance standards, I don't know if you've seen this recently, I don't know if I've even got time to go into all of that today, but yeah, we're all going to be locked up in fridge prison for having an unruly fridge, or whatever, I don't know, electric light prison, you know, your electric lights are completely out of order and you've got to go to prison, so the electric light police department will be on, and MPs dealt with that the other day, anyway, before I drift off onto another tangent, although that's a relevant one, the Pope got quite cross about this, because it was harming trade, and Venice was getting very fat financially on the proceeds of this, so he mustered an army, a pretty big one, this would be late 1400s I think, called the League of Cambrai, of which we, England and the Scots, these nations being Catholic at the time, were a part of, and there were, I think, English and Scots troops, and Spanish and German troops, probably French too, and they marched on Venice, and Venice, of course, is under water now, but back then, 600 years ago, 500 years ago, it was marshland, so it was before the water had fully risen, so it was very boggy, and they waited just outside of the marshland, and went in another doge, the head chap of Venice, and the gist of it was that they had to stop doing this, otherwise these 50,000 men are coming in, and you're not going to win, because these people are a bit cross, and the Pope's asked them to do it, and they're very loyal to the Pope, so they acquiesced, or they agreed to these terms, to stop doing the naughty things, or the commercially rapacious and advantageous things that they had been doing, and they did that, they said that in public, but in private, they immediately began to plot to split the church, the basic sort of communications they were having were, this cannot happen to our commercial enterprises again, we'll be at the mercy of being interfered with all the time, from this Pope fella, of course they were fully aware of it, I don't suppose they spoke like this, but it's just the way I'm telling it tonight, and we better split the Roman Catholic church into two, they said, we'll do that, that's what we'll do, so they were part of a funding programme to Martin Luther, in Germany, he got going, this is not to say that what Luther was writing is incorrect, but the Venetians were very keen to exacerbate any divisions and splits they could find, and they did this brilliantly, and they picked one country out of Europe to use as the base to split the church, and it was England, and they did it because of the protection of the water, if anything really kicked off, they thought that would probably give them some more time to defend, the channel at that time was a major defensive barrier, it's less so now with ballistic missiles and cruise missiles and all that kind of stuff, it's kind of redundant, you know, technology has nullified that, but obviously everybody's aware that really up until the beginning of the, well the middle of the 20th century actually, it was a serious defence wall for these islands, which is what made them so attractive to crooks throughout Europe and elsewhere for a long time, you know, so they picked England to do it, and they picked Henry VIII's court through which to do it, and I suspect strongly, you know, that there were many agents within Henry's court and physicians who were ensuring that he had a lot of trouble getting a son, that kind of stuff, you know, who's to say, well not me obviously, I'm not fully qualified on it, but one expects intrigue, and also this arrival of the Venetians in England explains why there is a British secret service, because the first people in the world to really design and build a secret service in terms of the way we understand it today, i.e. spies, were the Venetians, and I've never been to Venice, I would love to go because it's obviously, you know, a very beautiful looking place, full of horrible stories as well, if you've ever seen any of the documentaries or read things, you know, it's a severe place in terms of its history, but there are, I believe, rooms there with documents which are basically the recordings of these ambassadors and diplomats and their spy wing reporting on all the courts of Europe, because they were traders, they were merchant people, they were on boats, moving stuff around, it was important for them to know this stuff, if they were to continue to expand, and Venice became immensely wealthy and was, you know, the center of all this trade, as you probably well know. Anyway, Henry VIII was chosen, and although I suppose in English schools now they don't teach this very much, and I think I was taught it, but I wasn't paying attention at the time, honest, I really wasn't, I didn't like history very much when I was young, I don't know about you, because it just felt like a barrage of facts and dates. Everybody says that, but it's kind of true, and it requires a little bit more than that, I feel, to get any of us engaged in these things, you need a background story, and really these background stories have been made available to us, courtesy of this modern technology which we're using right now, and which is, for me personally, what I think this whole thing is about. The internet is not about shopping, I know it's become about that, not to me it isn't anyway, it's about being able to get your hands and your eyeballs and your ears onto information that hitherto you'd never seen. So these untold tales need to be told quite a bit, because they provide the background really to the modern world, why it is this way. Anyway, yeah, Henry had a lot of trouble, didn't he? And also we get the, what do they call it, the restoration? You know, where the Church of England arrives, and there's something also very darkly comic about an aspect of Henry. When Martin Luther started posting his bulletin board stuff up on that church in Wittgenstein, Henry got quite cross. He was a devout Catholic, in fact, I don't have any in front of me, but if you ever do a search for Venetian ambassadors reports on Henry VIII, something like that, you'll come up, you should come up with an absolute treasure trove of unbelievable little writings about Henry. These were from the ambassadors from Venice that were in his presence, and were here for years. I remember one from memory went something like, this is when Henry would be about 24 and before the riding accident or whatever, he said, he is the most strikingly handsome of all the princes or kings of Europe. He is a devout Catholic, taking mass three to five times a day. He fences brilliantly. To see him play tennis is a delight. That was that royal court tennis. You get such an insight, it's like a personal account. Oh yeah, it was my mate Henry. If they'd read this to me at school, I'd have been more fully engaged, I think, you know. And he loves riding horses all day, he said. He will set up teams and teams of horses at distances and go out riding for six and eight hours at a stretch, stopping throughout the riding to take mass, to pray. So this man, Henry, at this point is a devout Catholic, whatever that might mean. Because obviously the strictures of England at the time were such that everybody was involved in being loyal and obedient to the church. Not everybody, but you know, the bulk of people, and that was it. And when Martin Luther wrote all those horrible things about the Catholic Church, Henry wrote a letter in defense of Catholicism. And it went to the Pope. And the Pope read it and said, oh, this is quite good, this, I quite like this. And he liked it so much, he wrote back to Henry and he said, this is the most excellent, or whatever his words were, you know, this is an outstandingly good, one of the best, the best defense of the faith of the Catholic Church I've ever read. And for that I'm going to give you a title. And the title is Defender of the Faith, which Henry kept. Now, obviously under Henry, England splits with the Church of Rome. But he didn't let go of that title. Neither did any of the subsequent monarchs. In fact, I suppose the current king, Charles III, may also be called Defender of the Faith. Maybe he said, oh, I like that title. It's lovely that, particularly if you put it on a placemat when I go to a restaurant, I like that very much. Of course, I think we've got a lot of questions about him. That's Charles, I should say, being a defender of anything much. He certainly doesn't, I don't want to drift into this. I'm going to get distracted again. But he certainly doesn't do much to defend the English. He's a universalist and seems to think we're all going to come together and love one another. Whilst everybody's telling him that the process is very, very painful and wrong and muddle-headed and counters the laws of nature. But he doesn't seem to be too bothered about that, certainly from his public utterances. And that is a bit odd as well, isn't it, don't you think? Because about 20 or 30 years ago, Charles was ridiculed. I speak about him as if I know him, as if he's my mate. He's not. King Charles was ridiculed for the things he was championing at the time, which turned out, in retrospect, to be really pretty good. One of the things where I agree with him on, you probably think I'm an ardent royalist now, but actually I probably would be a monarchist over a democratist or a party political parliamentarianist or whatever words we want to use. Because I tend to operate on the basis that one idiot is much better than 600 and odd idiots, which is basically what we're cursed with at the moment. And, you know, people argue the other way, but I find that that view at the moment suits me. But Charles was championing good architecture. In fact, he's built a village over here to demonstrate this, his principles about good living. And it's a little bit twee in parts, but, you know, he could have done a lot worse with his time. And he also devoted a lot of time to organic farming. I remember seeing him doing something maybe 15, 20 years ago where they were with farmers. They made a program about it. This is before all the current, you know, social engineered psychological warfare nonsense about CO2 and this other, you know, nonsense that they're coming out with. And they were saying quite clear that with organized, you know, rotation of crops and using traditional farming techniques, i.e. cow dung, right? The stuff that naturally works. They were producing just as much food per acre as the agrochemical driven business, farming business. And so what's wrong with that? What's happened to him? I'm not going to speculate too much today, but quite a few things have happened with him. And he's obviously, I would say, probably been got to. Who knows? It's difficult to say. We're never really going to be pretty with these things, are we, I suppose? Never going to be on the Privy Council either because being an oik, we don't get invited to those sorts of things. And I wouldn't be able to go anyway, even if I did get the invite. But, yeah, he used to say things. He was derided by that in the press, like as being old-fashioned and fuddy-duddy. But, in fact, those ideas, which he no longer, as far as I'm aware, talks about, it's as if he's not supposed to talk about those things because they run counter to the current story that they're peddling. That's all you can really call it. It's just a story that they're peddling. These were great ideas. Organic farming is the way forward. And currently, I guess, you know, with the onslaught that we're facing from all these different areas, the farmer is going to become very, very important to all of us. I mean, he currently is. But we need to get, I suspect, direct relationships with farmers and farming groups. And I'd like to get somebody on to talk about this because it's an area I'm absolutely backward on, really. There's never been much reason throughout my life to pay too much attention to farming. Even though I used to live next to farms when I was young for sort of 20 years of my life, the air always had a pungent and refreshing odor to it at certain times of the year, courtesy of this, that, and the other. And I think it's going to become more and more important if we are able to create these connections with farms and farmers because, you know, as a step off from that as well, most of the, this is my take on it, all of these weird, this buildup in these diseases, like the mental diseases, Parkinson's, dementia, all of that, all of that kind of stuff, it's got to be a result of something penetrating the food chain. It has to be. The food chain has been mangled up to some degree. If you look at what goes in it, all these agrochemicals, is it any surprise? And apart from which nature has given us, and the farmers over here for hundreds of years knew, that the rotation of crops and the leaving fields fallow every seven years works. This is a replenishable, wonderful resource, yet when you listen to the news, it's as if we have to interfere with everything to make it better, but no one's going to admit that this interference has made it worse. So getting back to the natural way seems to me a natural response, but of course, as you're probably well aware, the communication space has been thoroughly hijacked by these people who've got this worldview that we're all supposed to go along with because, you know, they know better, don't they? Anyway, back to Henry VIII. He liked food, didn't he? He did. That great film with Charles Laughton, yum yum. How many chickens did he get through? I don't know, quite a few. Anyway, there's Henry, there's these reports from that Venetian ambassador about really what a fantastic guy he was. And he gets this award, you know, Defender of the Faith, which, as I said, they've kept right through to this day, which is, what do you say, is it comical? Is it cheeky? We're not giving that back, you know. And yet you could say that from the time of Henry up until maybe it's still going on, a clash between what we would call the British Empire. I don't think such a thing existed, but we're going to use that phrase right now. That is, I don't subscribe to the idea there was an empire by or for the benefit of the British. This comes back to the point I was trying to make as well last week, which is it's the lack of ownership or a stake in the bank that's the problem that we've got, because we don't own it. And it's the same with the British Empire. Most British didn't own it. They didn't own it at all. They were used by it in a different capacity to the people in other parts of the world that were used up by it. And anyway, big tale. There was an empire of the City of London, though. And this taps right into this route going back to Henry and to the church and to this split and all this kind of stuff. So, you probably know the tale well. Henry gets cross about things, starts chopping his wife's heads off and stuff because the Pope won't give him a divorce. And so, right, we're going to create a new religion and we'll have our own thing. And that was that. And as William Cobbett called it, if you don't know William Cobbett, Cobbett's really worth looking up. A writer who wrote a couple of hundred years ago, I've got to keep my mind in check here, it's going all over the shop. Cobbett didn't call it the Reformation. He wrote a book about it which is really worth reading. I read about a third of it and I've got a bookmark in it on my bookshelf and I need to go back. Do you do that? I do that. And he said, did Cobbett, that the better word for the Reformation is the devastation. And he's right. When you look at what happened to England, to the English people at the time, just put aside whatever thoughts you may have about organized religions. The fact is, I suspect that if you and I had been born and lived in those days, we too obviously would have been caught up in this hellish thing. It was hell. Basically, people who were friends one week, because of this arrival of the Church of England and the dismissal of the Catholic Church, in terms of what people who were going to remain Catholics could do, meant that they started to kill one another. People who had been friends were now killing one another. Human nature doesn't change when people are pressured. And we need to bear that in mind with our current situation, I think. Maybe, I think so. I think it might be useful to bear that one in mind. That when the pressure comes on, people behave in all sorts of ways, or ways that almost exacerbate the problem. But the devastation is true. Cobbett talks about what England was like before it, before all the churches lost all their lead, and before they lost all their trinkets and stuff. Now, I'm not into all these trinkets and things anyway. I think there's a problem with that. It's a distraction. It's part of the hocus-pocus of things. This is me. You might disagree, right? But I don't go for it. I think it's a problem. I think it's the sort of doctrines of the Church, and the high Church and these things took over. It became like a massive theatre production. And you could see the appeal. I mean, if you and I had been alive 500 years ago, we would have probably been doing what? Washing cows? Picking turnips? Something like 80-90% of all the people in England worked on the land. Had to. Otherwise, no food. So that's a pretty strong motivator. Of course, you're working for the Lord. You are working for the Lord and paying rent to Him for working on the land that He owns that you don't own. Because, you know, like that poem from Kipling last week, the Norman guy, it was a packet of land that he got from William for when they chinned the Saxons at Hastings. Massive effect, that event. Actually, much more than we think. So, everybody's working on the land, but the extension of the Church and the way it works is quite a thing, according to Cobbett. I mean, it's the only source I've read, but he was writing, what, 230 years ago? Something like that. And what he said was that if you got ill and you were in England, anywhere in England, we're talking the 1500s, right? You were never more than, I think it's three miles, three or four miles from a hospice, anywhere in England. It's quite a thing, that, isn't it? Now, what were these hospices, these places of recovery? They were abbeys and nunneries and priories and churches, all of those things. There was an entire network across the land in the parishes of this support system that looked after the poor and did so. Now, there'll be other accounts that'll tell us how bad it is, and it was bad in parts. I mean, earlier than that, in the 1300s, you've got Watt Tyler and the Peasants' Revolt for completely rightful reasons. But this network, according to Cobbett, existed and the children of the poor would be taught to read and write on Saturday mornings. The monks would do that. Of course, monks were great, very good at beer. Maybe the monks are responsible for most of the problems of Britain because Britain has been a beer-driven tribe. The British have been a beer-driven tribe for a long time. And what passes for beer now in the pubs, of course, is these lager-type things. And I'm not a big beer drinker, so I'm not. But beer has been a major part of England and all that kind of stuff. I mean, basically, everybody drank it. They didn't drink water. They drank ale, actually, which was about half a percent alcohol. I'm talking little boys and girls. We're talking everyone. They all drank it. And the reason they drank it is, of course, the water was boiled before they made the beer. And you wouldn't die from drinking it, whereas if you went to the river, there's a very good chance you would. There was all sorts of effluents of that type going in, plus things from sort of tanneries and things that leather people were using and barrel makers and stuff. It wasn't good. So you could get ill pretty quickly. A fascinating period, really, when there's about two and a half, three million people in England compared to, what, 70 million now. It's not a big place here. But, yeah, Cobbett talks about this. And, of course, all that went. Henry... See, I didn't think I was going to talk about this tonight. I don't know what I'm going to talk about, actually. In fact, I'm going to stop in a minute and play a song because it's important to do something like that. But Henry got a lot of people on his side, a lot of the barons or the lords or whatever it was, and they were a bit sort of circumspect about doing it because it was a big deal back then to come out of the Catholic Church. We can look at it now, I guess, from a distance and go, why? Well, because everybody else was doing it. Well, why is that important? Well, look at what we live in today. Look at herd mentality. I guess if you listen to this, you don't have it or you think you're excluded from it, and so do I. But I know that in my past it's got me. I know that in my past I've done things where I wasn't fully awake and they were bad things to do. You know, whenever you see a crowd doing something, it's either generally too late, and it's certainly obviously or often quite a mindless thing that has occurred. Sometimes we have to come together, of course. We have to come together right now, but that's with switched-on people, hopefully, whatever I might mean by that, but people that are keen to get switched on. So, yeah, Henry's decision to create the Church of England shifted the entire tone of England in a way that I guess most of us, even I don't fully know. I've just read a few things on these things, and I haven't had time over the last few years to even do any more, nor have I wanted to, because if I had, I would have done so. But it laid the foundation, really, for what we see today, for this sort of mercantilist mentality. And these barons and lords said, yeah, we'll come with you, but we want some stuff. And Henry thought he wouldn't have to give them any stuff. He thought, oh, well, they're just saying this, but when we've actually got it all set up, they won't want this stuff, they won't want this land, and they won't want all this lead and all this other stuff, but they wanted all of it, and they were quite heavy about it. And he lost power in that way, and it also created a moneyed class in England, which became the base for things that happened after that. Now, if I can keep my brain in check, we might carry on with that one about the East India Company afterwards, which was formed in 1600. How about that? This is all to do with a source of banking, with a great dispute. And then we'll wrap up, and then we're going to move on to some other things, I think, towards the second hour. Now, I did have a song lined up, didn't I? I've been trying to do this. Oh, yeah, that was something else I was going to mention. Last week on the show, I ran... I'm a bit sick, you see, with these things, and I'm just expecting to get it kind of wrong, because I've never used music before. How innocent is that? I haven't, honestly. And obviously, I've listened to a lot in my life, but not in a show or anything like that. And there was a track that we played last week. Somebody wrote to me and said they hated it, and other people said they quite liked it. And, you know, what can you do? What am I supposed to say about that? But it is by an artist that I know, and what I did was I thought, well, try it on. I'll upload it to YouTube. Now, there is a YouTube account for this show that's not used for live streaming for reasons which should be obvious to anybody, really, but they've got a line there. I don't know where it is, but I suspect at some point, you know, as I keep drinking more and more whiskey, I'm going to step over it. What's the point of mucking about with all that kind of stuff? But I managed to get the promo for the show up at YouTube, and then I put this show up. I loaded it up a couple of days afterwards. And after it had gone through, it says, oh, there's a copyright warning on this. I thought, oh, that will be that music track in there. So I came back about half an hour later or whatever it was, and they said, yeah, there is a copyright on this track, but the artist approves its playing, or the copyright holder, I should say, approves for it to be played. You're fine. And I thought, that's quite interesting. To me, it was. Might be quite dull to you, but I was quite interested in that because I thought, well, there are a lot of these channels out there that play music all the time. It's obviously got past the YouTube or the copyright holder's permission. I suspect, and I'm working on the basis, that if they are official music labels or official band channels, any music that is in there is completely off limits. And I'm not really too worried about that because most of the stuff that passes as being the popular stuff is things that I don't really like anyway, frankly. So the more obscure things, and I'm going to be looking for more and more of these things to illustrate the show out as we go, because two hours, we need a little break, don't we, every now and again. They seem to stack up quite well. So there's a source there, and if you're doing this sort of thing, let me know. And if you want to submit songs in that you want me to play at some point in the future, not today, but then I guess join the Telegram group, right, which the link to it is on the webpage. And also, if you think there's something better than Telegram, let me know. Telegram is a horse that we are riding for a certain period of time. It'll be shot out underneath us at some point. It's an amazing bit of kit, I think. It's ridiculously fast, which means that there's a massive infrastructure behind it. And therefore, who's got the ability to do all that? Apart from which the guy that set it up, wasn't he once part of the WEF's young leaders? I think he was. So it's not as if we can keep bouncing into a place where they're totally protected. Nah, you can't do that. But it is a matter of buying time. We can make things difficult. We need to keep buying time so we can keep communicating. My take on it for, you know, what it's worth. Okay, I think I'll play a song. This is, let's take a quick break. This is about four and a half minutes long. And I might even tell you what it is afterwards. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Let's just, I'm going to wrap up this bit about the history bit for now. We got through to Henry, the Reformation, and we could do whole shows about these things and maybe at some point we'll jump back and look at them if it's deemed to be a good thing to do. And, you know, there's certain periods of history that are worth looking at. This is not always going to be a thing where we just plow through history all the time. But this one's relevant to our current situation. That's the reason why I'm mentioning it because there were laws passed and things occurred in the 1600s that affect us to this day. So here's just a little bit on an article from, this is just a standard article, and I'm only going to read a couple of chapters here about it. Let me just, about the East India Company. One of the biggest, most dominant corporations in history operated long before the emergence of tech giants like Apple or Google or Amazon. The English East India Company was incorporated by royal charter on December 31, 1600, good days to remember, and went on to act as a part trade organization, part nation state, and reap vast profits from overseas trade with India, China, Persia, Persia, what a lovely word, and Indonesia for more than two centuries. Its business flooded England with affordable tea, slurp, cotton textiles and spices, and richly rewarded its London investors with returns as high as 30%. So this is serious stuff, 1600. It ran through to the late 1800s, so it's 260 odd years, and I'm just going to jump down a little bit here. Just when the East India Company's grip on trade weakened in the late 18th century, it found a new calling as an empire builder. At one point, this mega-corporation commanded a private army of 260,000 soldiers, twice the size of the standing British army at the time. That's serious, right? That kind of manpower, the article says, was more than enough to scare off the remaining competition, conquer territory, and coerce Indian rulers into one-sided contracts that granted the company lucrative taxation powers. Without the East India Company, there would be no imperial British Raj in India in the 19th and 20th centuries, and the wild success of the world's first multinational corporation helped shape the modern global economy for better or worse, which it did. Now I mention this because the, and that's as much, I'm not going to go through the whole article, it's great, and maybe I'll put the link in if you want to read it, although if you just do a search, you'll come up with a lot on it. But that, as far as we know, is the world's first international corporation. I mean, maybe the Dutch East India Company was a few years after that, and so this thing with England and Holland at the time, both being seafaring nations, is kind of the reason why the emphasis moved here, because it came from Venice, who were a seafaring people. Well, they certainly used their boats to rob people of taxes. They moved their system to England, they break down the court of Henry, they get Henry to get cross, and all this kind of stuff, you know. We get a split with the church, and suddenly we've got a base for developing commercial enterprises, outside of the purview of the restrictions of the Catholic Church. This is all part of it, it's all plotted out, all of these things. Now at this stage, in the early 1600s, the British government is still just in charge of its own money supply. There were restrictions on moving gold and silver out of the country, rightfully so, because you needed it in the country, and commercial enterprising people would take that money outside, and it wouldn't come back. And this is when only gold and silver were usable, maybe some coppers and other things as well. I'm going to go into this in more detail, actually, in subsequent weeks, but we won't use it to take over the whole two hours, but we will cover it. It's very important, because one of the points I was mentioning last week, you may remember, is that the bank, this is for the Bank of England, and also for the Federal Reserve of America, these are private clubs, they're institutions, but they're private. And that should strike everybody as being odd, wrong-headed, and worrying. And the track record of private banks is horrific, because they are behind every single war we've fought for the last two or three hundred years, every one. Without the role of the bank, or the banks, in these scenarios, these conflicts, this letting of much of the blood of our European people, could never have taken place. And it has to be said that the greed comes from many different races. There are incumbents here, as well as internationalists. The bankers from Venice were of the black nobility. They came and were made up of Magyars and Khazarians, and this is a matter of completely known record. This is why we end up with Lombardy Street, and all these other things, these odd things about London, this ridiculous level of power for a small island, what is the nature of that power? It's the power to control trade. Everybody knew it was the ultimate power. So in the early 1600s, there's a thing that you see, when you mint coins, there's a thing called seniorage. And that is, the king gets paid simply for having his head on the coin. It's a good deal, that, isn't it? I've often thought, I want my head, if you paid me, you know, to stick my head on a coin, you probably wouldn't mind that too, right? It'd be quite nice, wouldn't it? We get stuck in and have our heads all over these coins and everything, and get paid for it. It was important. It was an important fee. This is how it worked. And it wasn't nasty as such, I mean, I don't mean it was massively inflationary. It probably paid for lots of chickens, I suppose, and things like this, you know, and the banquets and stuff, because there was a lot of profligacy with the spending of the royal households and this, that and the other, but that existed. And everybody was agreed that this privilege, as it were, or this power to coin the coin of the realm, to mint it, to mint the coin of the realm, is to be vested in the state, whatever shape the state may take. And I've only just started reading this the other day, but there was a court case in 1604 You probably remember it well. And I've forgotten the name of the litigants in it, but it's become known as the case of the mixed monies. I got hold of a paper the other day, about 40 pages long, but I didn't have time to plough through it in time for this, to give you a summary for today. But it's a pivotal case, because the outcome of it was that in unequivocal terms, the judgment was that this power absolutely resides in the state, and that private interests cannot be part of it. I've just digested it, as I understood it, up to my reading. Maybe I'll change that a little bit next week, or in subsequent weeks, when I've gone through the whole thing. This alarmed the mercantile class. This alarmed the sorts of people that were shareholders and stockholders in the East India Company. This alarmed those people, and they set about with a vengeance to undermine it, and they were successful. We'll go through how they were successful at doing this, but this lies at the very root of the problem. I mean, let's put it into sort of different terms, and maybe I mentioned this last week, is why I've got to go over my notes. Anyway, at least I think I'm a bit clear-headed about what I'm actually talking about today, so it's going to be easier to remember. Last week, it was a bit like, oh, just press this button, you know, that kind of stuff. If we were to go to a place and set it up and run commercial activities, you and I and everybody involved in it would have to own the bank. If we don't do that, we might as well not bother, because someone else is going to come in and own it over your head, and then basically you are enslaved by it. We are all, to a greater or lesser degree, enslaved by this system, by the fact that the private interests won out, that these powerful families, many of whom I guess, maybe there were people who went with Henry and received all this land, and took all the lead off the roofs, or profited from the melting down of this, that, and the other. There's a lot of that going on, right? I don't know how much wealth there was, but there's more than what a peasant had, and this gave them inordinate power, and it became vested, as it were, in the private banking situation. An interesting thing for the Americans is that Alexander Hamilton, a reprobate if ever there was one, he had exactly the same idea. I did read a document which said that he had this idea unknowingly. I think we'll have to examine that, and if we get calls going into this show, I'm sure some of you want to call in and correct that statement, but let me, I'll get to the quote first, but Hamilton was part of the great banking fight in the States, doing exactly the same thing. You can't trust the government to do this, they're reckless. You can trust us, we're not reckless, no, no, they're not reckless, oh boy. So this fight has laid the blueprint down for the system that we now live under, which is the private issuing of money. It's issued by private hands, now, like I mentioned last week, I think, you can find documents that will tell you, no, no, the Bank of England's owned by the British government, this is, it's all meaningless stuff. And we're going to look at the dynamics about how they retain it, well, the principles of how people are controlled, I think we need to be aware of that to some degree, because we're facing a situation where we are in a position where they want to control us ever more, you may have noticed, right, a lot of people have, it's a good thing to notice, it's very important that we do notice these things. And all these systems, these advanced systems, supposedly, these technologically amazing systems that are coming down, are here to control us. And at the back of every sort of one of these things, there is this continual argument or this pitch, which goes like this, the economy needs to be made more efficient. By doing this, everything will be safer, and the economy will be more efficient, and we're going to be able to deal with things better, and it's going to make us, the implication is we're all going to be better off from this. All of those sentences I've just said are 100% bullshit. It's a nonsense, it's complete blather, the lot of it. We don't need, in my view, an efficient economy, we don't need an inefficient one, whatever that might mean, but what we do need is a banking system that we own as the starting point, and you put skilled people in charge of it, and they don't earn a fortune for running it. Once we've got to that situation, and we have, of course, it's developed out of that private ownership of the bank, of them, in due course, commanding the seniorage fees, and further than that, I mean, when the Bank of England came along in 1694, they could extend credit until their eyes popped out, and they did, it took them a few years to go mad, they issued like three million quid more than existed, there's a lot of money back then, right? There's a lot of money now, actually, isn't it, I suppose, I could buy, hmm, I could buy one of Elon Musk's electric cars for that in a few years' time, I suppose. This private control is mad, it's a madness, now, of course, it's evolved, it's not just literally them and the government, these people appointed by the people, no, the whole thing has intertwined, has morphed, and effectively, you've got like this double act taking place, I would suggest, or maybe it's a triple act, maybe there are even more roles that I've not accounted for, but you get the idea, it's a deceitful communications pitch that's taking place, why, why, oh why, do they bang on about the economy, I don't know how old you are, I'm in my early 60s, it's still a surprise to me, but my entire life, I have intimately cast my eye and ears upon newscasts on the television set, or heard them on the radio, or seen them on the front pages of newspapers, nothing has ever changed, ever, and it cannot change, it's just one drama after another, I mean, what was the big one in 2008, long-term capital management, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, right, and people spend their entire lives wrapped up in all these market moves, in my view, my view, complete waste of time, it's like looking at a mechanical device that's designed to break all the time, not looking at that bit, just looking at why it's not producing output as much as it used to do, a little bit of natural thinking is needed, but I guess we've been pulling away from that for now 300 years, that we're kind of born into this condition, where obviously, you're not going to know this when you're young, you're certainly not going to know it from school, because they don't teach it, and that's because the teachers don't know that it's worth teaching either, and by that, I mean, right the way through the school boards and up to the university level and everything, as far as I'm aware, the last time I looked into degree courses in economics, they spend about a day or something teaching central banking, something like that, so, you know, and it isn't interesting, I mean, it does sound a bit dull, and yet, and yet, here we are, still enduring this nonsense, and this theatre, this drama that's put out front by the communicators, by the great communicators of all the, of the news cycle, you know, gaslighting us non-stop, I mean, they've just had a field day with the COVID thing, apparently it's coming back now, because they've decided we've had a break, so we'll bring it back, or we'll bring a new version back, it's going to explode next time, you know, that with AIDS, apparently, it's just going to bang, explode, so there's something horrible for us all to get scared about, and is it not really kind of, in one way, an advanced, souped-up protection racket thing, isn't that what it is? I think it is, you know, the protection racket basically is, if you pay us the money, nothing bad will happen to you, and you say, well, nothing bad's been happening to me anyway, why should I pay you any money? Well, with people like us around, we've found that bad things usually start happening to people like you. Oh, say you, as the penny drops. Isn't government kind of like that? Isn't it, to some degree? I like quotes, do you like quotes? I do. I'm going to read you one that you will all know, actually, you might not, so don't feel embarrassed if you don't. This is by a man, a French gentleman, in fact, I've got two. I'll read the long one first, and then we'll do the other one, maybe later on, maybe not, I don't know. I looked about to pronounce his name, actually, on YouTube, you can sometimes do these things, and they have sort of pronunciation channels, because sometimes I go, hmm, am I saying that word right? I have said words wrongly when I was young, still do now from time to time, and it's quite irritating, isn't it? Pierre Joseph Proudhon, I think I got that kind of right. I wasn't very good at French at school, I got 6% in the exam, and failed miserably. Actually, that's not true, I failed joyously, my intention was to fail appallingly at French, because that's what we were like up north in the 70s, we didn't really care too much for that sort of thing. I think maybe the situation is so bad, I was thinking the other day, basically so good, if you look at it from a different perspective, you may even see an alliance, as it were, between the English and the French, and the Germans. I think we need one, I think we absolutely need one. We've been set at each other's throats on and off for hundreds of years, it's not turned out good. Let me read you this quote. To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorised, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolised, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed, then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and, to crown it all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, and dishonoured. That is government. That is its justice. That is its morality. And, doesn't that sound like a description of the conditions that we are living under today? What is all this techno crap that they're doing? We don't need any of it. We don't need any of it. None of it is needed. Not one little bit of it. We don't need any of these things. Governments being full of midwits, and people that were obviously easily led. They've been placed there for that reason. They're easily led for all sorts of reasons. Not least, I suspect, that they're controllable through all sorts of sordid and foul methods. You would be foolish to think otherwise. History is littered with this sort of thing. This is the best that they can do. And, here's the next problem that we face. We can't talk with them. We can't talk with them, can we? It's not possible to talk with them, or to them, or any of these sorts of things. We can't talk with them. They're very good at doing the pretense of listening, and all that kind of stuff. You may have heard that quote before. I think I've had it for donkey's years. Most people would have. It's very famous, isn't it? There's another one, though, that I like, also, from a Frenchman. Obviously, it's French night tonight. Maybe some French fries afterwards. He wrote a book called The Law, and several others. This is great. This is from Frederic Bastiat. B-A-S-T-I-A-T. I don't know if the T is hard or not. I didn't say it hard. Bastiat. Who knows? This is brief. Much shorter than the other one. But, this is also a good insight. When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time, they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it, and a moral code that glorifies it. I think we could add to that a media system that keeps it in the limelight, glorifies it, as he said, and nullifies any other silly ideas that may come along to undermine it. This is an entrenched system now. It's entrenched. It's entrenched in the sons of daughters who were born to the people that have been in this system and in this line for centuries, if not longer than that. So, the idea of knocking on their door and going, hey, look, I know you own all this money and everything, you've got trillions, and you've been running things for ages, but it's really pretty bad, and what do you say we all have a change, eh? It wouldn't be so bad for you. We'd probably get better food and everything. We'd change farming, and we could fly around and do things, and everybody could go home and live in their own countries, because that's really a bit silly, what's been happening the last, certainly since the end of World War II. The Europeans are quite cross about it really, and the Americans too now, and it's not really helping anybody out. What do you say, eh? Why don't we shut down the United Nations? I mean, it's really daft, isn't it? You know, it doesn't work, and the European Union's a bit of a joke. In fact, nearly, it turns out that all these organisations in the world that I think you've been putting money into, they're all, well, they're not very good, are they? What do you say? Well, I don't know what they would say. Would it matter? They would just fob us off a little bit, I guess, and deal with us accordingly, you know, and I like to posit naive, stupid communications like that to keep myself perky. If nothing else, the chances of it coming off are slim, and it's quite depressing, really, as a thought, isn't it? You think, well, why can't we just talk it through, you know, like gentlemen? Couldn't we just talk it through? I say, you know, my family's suffering pretty bad here. I see that there's an abundance of things in the world, but you create this kind of financial system that makes it very difficult for people at times, and that's kind of, you know, the problem as well, isn't it, that there's this residue of control or controllery within these people that they are not going to be able to shake off. I have no idea, therefore, where we go with that. We have to, of course, find a way of bringing them up short or getting them to stop behaving so badly. The idea that there are elites is unavoidable. There are elites in everything. There are elite athletes, apparently. No, there are, obviously. There are elite mathematicians. You went to school and there was someone, or maybe more than one person in your class who just seemed astonishingly good at numbers for no reason that anybody could make out. I had a couple of those people when I went to school. They went on to Oxford and places like that. Sort of silly, you know, 100% in all the math exams and were doing advanced math years before anybody else was. All Greek to me at the time. Could have been in study Greek, I guess, although it would have been useful later on. So there are elites in all of these things. The problem is when they get hostile, and it seems as though in this arena they always do, don't they? They seem to end up going a little bit hostile on us. So that was that. What was I going to say next? I can't remember. You know what? I need to line up a few more songs. I do need to line up a few more songs, but I actually lined up some tracks and things for a change of pace and that kind of stuff. Oh, I'm looking at the wrong thing here, actually. I just about pressed the wrong button and blew up the universe. That wouldn't be very good, would it? Now, where did I put this? Let's have a change. Even I have run out of interest in bank topics for tonight. We'll pick up maybe from the Macanel, we'll pick up round about the early 1600s with this mixed monies thing next week, and we'll just run this thread for a few weeks and then it will be replaced by something else. But for now I think it's pretty good because it will bring us all the way up to the CBDC nonsense. And along the way we need to find out what are we going to do about it? Because no one else is coming to save our bottoms, I can tell you that. No one. No one's going to be doing that. Now, where did I put that? Ah, that was this. And I've got it. Yes. Marshall McLuhan. Somebody sent me a clip of Marshall McLuhan the other day which was excellent. And I found the full thing here. It's about six and a half minutes. I don't know whether to pay that or the brief one. We'll play the short one. You ready? Let's do the short one. This is a two minute clip from a one minute 40 and I just want you to hear this. This is from an interview he did in 1977. If you're not familiar with who he is, Marshall McLuhan was a Canadian intellectual who came up with some incredibly marvellous insights into the way that media works, the way that we are processed by media. And he talks about it briefly here in this little clip. Listen to this. The investigations now of the CIA and the FBI and even our own, God forbid, RCMP. Is this, has this anything to do with the electronic age? Well, yes, because we now have the means to keep everybody under surveillance. No matter what part of the world they're in, we can put them under surveillance. This has become one of the main occupations of mankind, just watching other people and keeping a record of their goings on. And invading privacy. Invading privacy, in fact, just ignoring it. It's, it's, everybody has become porous. They go, they go, the light and the messages go right through us. As, by the way, at this moment, right, we are on the air and we, on the air, we do not have any physical body. When you're on the telephone or on radio or on TV, you don't have a physical body. You're just an image on the air. When you don't have a physical body, you're a discarnate being. You have a very different relation to the world around you. And this, I think, has been one of the big effects of the electric age. It has deprived people, really, of their private identity. So that's what this is doing to me? Yes. Everybody tends to merge his identity with other people at the speed of light. It's called being mass man. By the way, one of the big marks of the loss of identity is nostalgia. And so revivals are on all hands in every, in every phase of life today. Revivals of clothing, of dances, of music, of shows, of everything. We live by the revival. It tells us who we are or where. How about that? So, as one incorporeal being to others, hi, here we are being mass man. It's an excellent thought-provoking little bit. And the longer interview, or the longer clip that I have, and now that I've played the short one, I think I should have played the long one, actually. And I might do that in a few minutes' time, depending on... No, maybe I won't. I'll do that next week. The idea that we have no physical body, well, what does that lead us to? And nostalgia. It's true. I've noticed in myself that I am nostalgic for things. I never was, but I am. But I think that that's also part of our current situation, our current circumstances with what's taking place, because we see a change that's literally from the top, that they are seeking to enforce upon us. And it's a change that none of us wanted. We didn't seek to run with it in any way, shape, or form. And this change is being driven at us by these people at the top. And, therefore, I have found myself thinking back to earlier times. And I would imagine anybody that's been alive in the 20th century, you remember that? Will have had similar thoughts. Life was not... We didn't think of life as being uniquely amazingly better than anything else before, but it had certain structures to it. What we're looking at here is all of that being demolished for what purpose? For the economy? So that a small bunch of people can run things better? And the entire political class, it seems to me, there's not a peep out of them. Of any substance. Not a word. Nothing. So, we have no voice in making our objections heard. There isn't one. Except here, in places like this, you know, that are taking place. And what's that thing about nostalgia? Nostalgia, it ain't what it used to be. And it isn't, actually. It's better. I didn't used to be nostalgic in that sense. And I don't know whether nostalgia is really what I'm talking about. One looks back at all the things. I mean, I don't know if you've seen these... Some of these computer enhanced films on YouTube, and elsewhere, where they will take very old footage and get it up to 60 frames per second, colorize it, readjust the focus, bring everything into a high degree of clarity. Even add tracks to it, like street sounds and everything. It's quite remarkable, in a way. There was that film that came out a few years ago, by Peter Jackson, the guy that made Lord of the Rings. They Shall Never Grow Old. And if you haven't seen that, I would strongly recommend it. It's World War I footage, put together in a way that is literally... It's as if somebody went down to the trenches with an iPhone, or whatever your preferred brand is, and started shooting footage down there, and just sent it back to you this morning. It's quite a thing. They've also got voice actors in that particular film to reflect the accents of the particular regiments. The first one of which that came on the screen was the Yorkshire Regiment. Right over there, lad. Sorry, I'm sure that's lost on a lot of people. But they brought them on, and they're all talking in these particular accents as they're digging things out. It's quite amazing to see that footage where people are moving at real speed, actual normal speed, in crystal, really sharpened up images, colorized a lot. Remarkable. That's 100 years ago. That's just 100 years ago. And Europe and the European people have been in trouble ever since. In fact, before that too. I mark it down to this period that we're just talking about a little bit earlier in terms of modern history. From Henry to this day, there were other things that had taken place, but they'd unfolded over a long period of time. But when the ground was laid for the advent of these banks, the private control of banks, you had an escalation in warfare. I think there's some horrific fact about Britain. I don't know what it is now, but since that date, for the last 350 years, there's only been about four or five years in which personnel from this nation have not been out there firing bullets at someone or having bullets fired at them. In other words, we've been at war somewhere or another in some capacity or other. And even now, with this thing that's going on in the Ukraine and with Russia, you get these reports. Are they true? I don't know. But you get these reports of British involvement in this stuff. Why? You know, I often think about the World War II scenario, of course, still looms large over us. It really does. And going back to McLuhan and talking about the media and how fortunate we are, I suppose, in one way, to be able to see all these things that hitherto we didn't even know existed, let alone what the specific documents were. The whole, the certain fields of thought I didn't even, I wasn't conscious of that you could even think this way or that there would be documents that would back it up. And it's understandable why these things weren't published and put out to the public, a lot of them. But if we were to go back, say, to the 1930s again, and you and I were alive back then, we would have been as stupefied and as easily misdirected as huge numbers of Europeans were to end up blowing each other to bits. Again, just within, what, 20 years of the end of the previous one. And the hand of the mercantilist plunderers is in it. The hand of the mercantilist plunderers is in it. There's no doubt about that. But that is the driving force of the whole thing. It's okay if a few million people get blown to bits as long as we can retain control of markets and that we can control the currency because long term, that's where all the power is going to accrue to us. And you know, you may recall the axis of evil over the past few years, whatever it's been, Iran, Iraq, and this country, and Libya was part of it, and Syria is currently on there, isn't it? Still hanging out with Assad. And the defining characteristic of those countries is that they all had their own central bank. It wasn't part of the global Rothschild setup. It's more than just the Rothschild, but it certainly wasn't part of that. And so there were the axis of evil. And to a great degree, I would suggest, and I touched on it last week as well, that the German situation during that period, that was a key part of it. Once you've got a nation running an economy for the people, if you're a central banker, if you're a plunderer, you've got a big problem. It's a massive problem. It only takes a few other countries to see how marvelously happy their people are going to become, right? And you aren't going to get any customers left behind. So this is why the spy agencies and all that bedevilment stuff and all the intrigue and all the other things has come about. And we still, therefore, live in the shadow of all of these historical events. Human nature is the same. People have got stuff. They don't want to let go of it. They're small in number, but the amount of stuff they've got is colossal. They've learned how to control it and use it and to use other agencies to nullify any attempts to take it from them. Because I think, as well, in their own minds, one of the key things that they're after is that someone's going to be in charge and it's going to be us. That's it. It's going to be us. Okay. And speaking of the manipulation of power and the free speech and all these sorts of things, I want to talk. We've got about 25 minutes to go. So... Andrew Torber. Have you heard of Andrew Torber? I hope you have. You've heard of him now if you haven't before. Andrew Torber is the man that heads up GAB, G-A-B dot com. And GAB is a social networking space, but for people who are, I suppose, in the main, many switched on and are counter-globalism. Let's put it that way in simple terms. You get a lot of intelligent stuff there. You get rancid stuff there, just like you do everywhere else. You get people being very foul-mouthed at times. It's that kind of a space. But the reason why I mention it is that it truly is, I think, as far as I'm aware, the free speech place on the internet at the moment. Now, many people are warned off. They go, oh, you don't want to go over there. It's full of Nazis. Is it? I suppose it is. I suppose if you run counter to globalism, it's only a matter of moments before people that are pushing that line call you a Nazi. Oh, and a fascist. You might as well have both. Oh, and a supremacist. You can have that too, if you like. In fact, you can have all the labels because they're going to be dropped on you. And I'm talking about people who are just normal people. If you're a normal person, if you consider yourself to be a normal person, you know, a run-of-the-mill, jolly good citizen or whatever you want to call yourself, done your best all your life, and you say, you know what? This globalism thing is not really for me. I quite like my country the way it is. I don't see why we should do that. Well, you've just become a Nazi. I know you don't think you've just become a Nazi. And many people who are well-educated don't want to be called that. I understand that. They don't want to incur the wrath of that name. Name-calling apparently is pretty bad. Well, if you go to Gab, if you say, I've been to Gab, you're a Nazi. That's it. It's over. It's finished. One has to, we all have to learn to become a little bit more robust in dealing with things. But there's been an event that's been happening recently, and Torba wrote about this on September the 2nd, 2023. So how many days ago is that? Not too many days ago. It concerns the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, and Elon Musk, and X, which is the new name for what was called Twitter. And Torba goes into the mechanics of control. And it's, if you haven't seen this, I'll put the link somewhere, probably in Telegram after this. It's quite wonderful. I'm not going to go through all of it, because I think it's the sort of thing that you should read oneself. But the key bits are, let me just, it does a preamble. He says, over the past few days, a grassroots campaign popped up on X, i.e. Twitter, calling for the platform to ban the ADL, the Anti-Defamation League. The campaign united around the hashtag, ban the ADL, and has been trending on the platform for days with hundreds of thousands of posts. Musk has let this run, of course. This campaign comes after the CEO of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, made a post gloating, these are Torba's words, okay, I'm reading Torba's article, made a post gloating about his organization's sheer power to control the platform that Elon Musk purchased for tens of billions of dollars last year. Although the ban the ADL campaign effectively highlighted the significant influence the ADL holds in regulating the flow of information online, it is essential to delve into the reasons why Elon Musk cannot remove the ADL from the platform or hinder their effective management of his company, even if he were inclined to do so, right? And so Torba goes on, and Torba writes, in fact, he covers it in this thing. First, he says, we have to understand a bit of the context for how a platform like X actually works and is able to exist on the internet along with the inside baseball of how the ADL flexes its power to control massive corporations without owning a single share. I guess that's an Americanism, inside baseball, inside mouse, we would say, yeah, got it, right? X, Torba writes, is built on the rails of multiple third-party services, including but not limited to the Google Cloud infrastructure, among others. X has had a partnership with Google Cloud since 2018, and Bloomberg reports that this collaboration has incurred annual expenses ranging from $200 to $300 million a year for the company. It's quite a bit of money, isn't it? What's that? A million dollars a day, just about. Jonathan Greenblatt has openly bragged about the ADL's partnership with Google, YouTube, Facebook, and X going so far as to change the algorithms of these companies to meet their demands. And I mentioned earlier on that YouTube, you have to watch it with YouTube. It's a nullified space in many ways. But this is still a moving, it's a moving space. We have to try and stay nimble. Torba goes on, he says, with one phone call to Google, the ADL can cripple X. If Google pulls the plug on the cloud hosting deal, massive, massive, sorry, on the cloud hosting deal, will deal massive parts of X's critical infrastructure will be down for a long time. Possibly the entire platform would be taken offline with one click. We saw this happen in 2020 with Parler. I don't know if you remember that few years ago, it came up when Amazon AWS pulled the plug and the platform was taken offline. They were never able to fully recover and recently shut the platform down completely after it sold out to a third party. Going after the cloud hosting providers is just the start of their ability to utterly destroy X. Next come the App Store bans. With that same phone call to Google, the ADL could easily highlight the hundreds of thousands of anti-Semitic posts on the platform and point the ban, the ADL posts as their point to them as their prime example. They likely have multiple studies going on behind the scenes to do that just right now. So the article goes on and I'll post it in, in Telegram, if you've not seen it, or is there worth some little bits here at the end? How about this? I'll just write about his experience with Gab. He says, how do I know this? Because I lived it and survived it by the grace of God. The ADL has been attacking Gab and me for many years. Their smear campaigns against us successfully lobbied dozens of third party services to de-platform us, cripple our infrastructure. Despite all of their efforts, this didn't stop us. We were able to rebuild our own servers, payment processing, and so much more in order to keep Gab online. It took many years and it wasn't easy, but we are still standing. The ADL has come after me personally, he writes. They paid Google to promote their smear articles about me at the top of their search results. They lobbied the Department of Justice to investigate me after January the 6th, even though I wasn't even in attendance at the event. None of this stopped me. At the end he says, Elon has a choice. He can continue to allow this organization, this disgusting organization, writes Talbot, to run his company by proxy without his approval or he can fight back, take a stand like Gab has, and face the consequences head on. He can continue to have his CEO take groveling phone calls and enforce the ADL's strategy of freedom of speech, but not freedom of reach, or he can tell them to pound sand. If he can't run his own business without permission from them, without some ghoulish vampire at the ADL, there's no sense in running a business at all. For me, he says, it was an easy decision. Now I think this illustrates exactly what we're facing here, even in a space like this, with this sort of situation of being able to communicate and not being able to communicate. How do we do it? Maybe I said it last week, if you're anxious about saying something, if you live in a country, I do, I live in a country where I'm told I have freedom of speech, but I'm anxious about certain things. What's that all about? If that's allowed to run for several years, you become used to it. Then you start to self-censor. You're doing it unknowingly. You'll start to shut yourself down. The ability for you to inquire into politically incorrect areas, you'll shut it down in yourself, and you'll get miserable. You'll become demoralized. That is, you will have a reduced hope and optimism for the future because you're involved in going along with being mentally bullied, which is what this is all about. Now I'm a free speech absolutist because although at times when people run off at the mouth, and people may say it about me too, and good luck to them, when certain people run off at the mouth, it can be appalling. People can say things that are astonishingly foul and disgusting and wretched and all this, that, and the other. My view would be that if you unleashed all that, you would have a period of that kind of stuff. You would. You get it anyway, right? You're going to have that. But in due course, it would calm down. That's my expectation. Maybe I'm a little naive. Maybe people just go and go and go, but it's that thing about clearing the air. Somebody doesn't want us to clear the air. We've even touched upon some of these points today, or this show has. I'm not alone in this. People are talking about these things all the time. There are things hitherto hidden history which need to be made better known, and they give you a clearer perspective on why things are the way they are. The limitation of free speech is, well, it's always happened. What was that thing that Stalin said? Where's my lunch? Well, he said that a lot, so I don't know what else he said. Who did I kill yesterday? He probably said that quite a bit too, didn't he? But one of the things he said was, ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don't let people have guns. Why do you think we'd let them have ideas and thinking? And it's true. Thought, which is what we're involved with, is this sort of, you know, we're trying to set the parameters for what we're going to do, what we're going to think about, how we're going to push things forward. And if you're cut off at source with this stuff, if you're cut off at the knees with it, we're not going to develop, we're going to stultify. There's some amazing things that are being done. There are amazing solutions to these terrible problems. But the main problem we've got is that there's a group of multiple groups, linked groups, that are stopping this happening. Because from their point of view, it would be bad. From our point of view, the vast mass of people on the planet or the plane, I don't mind which, these things would be a tremendous benefit to us. So most of the solutions have been found, haven't they? They have. There are definitely, like for example, there are energy devices that would sort the energy problem out. That's not a problem. We have this nonsense situation where everybody's supposed to get electric cars, yet they can't produce enough electricity. And of course, it's nothing to do with that. That's just a cover story, again. What it is, is that they'd be able to turn your electric car on and off. Why would they want to do that? Haven't we got enough to do? I know, I'm just... No, no, we want to control everything. Why? You know, I've said about Klaus Schwab, the man with the impossibly large philtrum, and also the disgust... I mean, his accent is revolting, isn't it? I'm not picky about these things, but he sounds like a pig at the bottom of a bucket throwing up. It's disgusting. And he's obviously, I suspect, been groomed to speak in that overly ridiculously accented way. Absolutely mad. He's like a comic book figure. Maybe he is a comic book figure. Oh, he reminds me of one. Who was the guy that used to fight against Captain Marvel in the comic books in the 1940s? The Shazam guy. He had a bald head. Doctor something or other. That's him. That's him. But anyway, Schwab, he's always banging on about the great reset. We'll have a great reset. But that's not what he needs, is it? I realized what he needed some months ago. What we should do, we need to all chip in, write to him, send him a check, and say, Klaus, you and your pals at the WAF, you've got a lot of space there in the building. It looks lovely. Why don't you take this money, don't do the great reset, do the great train set. It'll be great. You can run trains all day and you can move these little figures around and, you know, it's just like controlling the world, but you won't be irritating 99.99% of the people of the earth who basically think you're a prat, right? And I don't know. So I've often referred to it as the great train set. We don't need any. We do need a reset, by the way, but it ain't the one that they're pushing. It's the one that I'm touching upon here. I'm not saying I know. I don't. I don't know all these things, but I know this. And these things, these things are key. So the great reset would be it. Our great reset is to reset the finance system so that we have just money, money that has got justice to it. Not usually. We don't need any of it. We don't need any usury at all. I was talking, you know, last week I was talking about that scheme in Virgil. I won't go over it again. You should look it up if you ever get some time. It's so rinky-dink and interesting. What time is it, by the way? Okay, about 12 minutes. And how about this for a very small change that could be made to the banking system like that that would filter through? This is so easy to do. It'll never get done. It's so easy. When people make a loan, let's say it's $1,000, they're going to pay the $1,000 back plus interest. And let's say, just to keep the figures simple, it's going to be 10% over a year. They're going to borrow $1,000. They've got to pay back $1,100. Now the way it works at the moment is, actually it probably don't work like this anymore because it's all electronic, but, you know, I can't keep up. But the mechanics of it have been, and as far as I know, still go something like this. You go in, they look at you, they go, yeah, you're great. We think you can pay the capital back that we're going to give you, the principal of the loan, and we think you're going to be able to pay the interest back. And you say, how much am I going to pay back? They say, well, we're going to give you $1,000. You're going to pay back $1,100 over the year. Oh, all right, yeah. I think I can do that. It's just under $100 a month. Yeah, it is, or 100 pounds a month, you know. So you agree to it and off you go. So the bank create the 1,000, put it in your account, away you go. You earn 1,100 and you pay them back and everybody's happy. And that's the way it works. But there's a problem with it. The problem with it is, is that the bank does not create the 100 pound in interest that it wants back off you. It's a very subtle little thing, very small thing when you think about it. This is why we need, and there are people better qualified than me, to look at these mechanics and then we need to be able to communicate it to the man in the pub, that's me because I sometimes go in the pub, so that we can understand this in simple, quick terms. Because they don't create the interest, it puts pressure on the existing economy for this guy, you, to go and find that extra $100. Let's suppose there's 10 of you, there's 10 of you and you all borrow, no 100, borrow $100,000 or something. And everybody pays it back apart from 4 or 5 guys. Why? Because the money didn't exist for them to get. It didn't, do you see what I'm saying? It didn't exist. If the bank only creates the principle of the loan and not the interest that it wants back of you, we've got a problem. The money literally does not exist in the economy for willing good people to earn it and pay it back. They'd earn it back if they could, but it's not there. That's by design. It's designed that way, intentionally. Because what happens is the 2 or 3 guys out of the 1000 that borrow the money or whatever it is, they can't pick up their farm or their house or they, this is great, this has been going on for hundreds of years. Here's how you change it. It's so simple. When you go and borrow the $1000 and you want $1100 back, the bank creates $1100. What's the difference? Massive. So it gives you the $1000, the banker trousers the other $100 on the day of the loan being issued. That $100 that you have to, now he goes and spends it and gives it to his staff or whatever, they go down the shop and they spend it on sandwiches and this, that and the other. The money's now there. What's going to happen? If this won't happen overnight, is it starts to take the pressure out of the system. Because more people can meet their obligations to pay the loan back. The problem then for the bank is that when you pay the loan back, the money disappears off of their books. That's why they don't want you to pay the loans back. Yeah, they actually don't want you to pay them back. If everybody paid all their loans off, the bank would go bust. Yeah. Because the money, when the loan is paid off, they write off the amount that they created off of the books. Is this bonkers or what? But what it does is it changes your relationship with what you think you're spending, whether it's money or credit or currency or this, that and the other. Those of you that may have caught them, I think I mentioned it last week, Datum Line with Bruce McCarthy. If you've ever caught those, Bruce knew everything, I would suggest. He's no longer with us. But about 10 years or so ago, this whole series of, I mean, it's about two or three years, it might be even that long, I think. It's about 160 shows, I think. So it's about three years, isn't it? With a few gaps in between for holidays and things. Outrageous. It's exhaustive. It's very intense stuff in each hour. And he goes through it in minute detail. It's as good a grounding as you're ever likely to find. And we've got people today in the world still pushing for this. In fact, I was looking to try and get some clips of him for this week. There's a banker in England, I think of German descent, who's actually done interviews at a good level. I saw him about three or four years talking about this issue, about the government issuing the money. I'm just coming all the way back to where we started with this thing, about the government issuing the money. And they have to issue the money. They have to issue it to stop the private banks issuing it. That's the whole thing. And he, Richard something or other, Richard Werner, I can't remember. He made a speech in the European Union about it as well. So it's been a debate that's been going on for a long time. He's the guy that I've currently seen talking about it. As I said earlier on, Michael Robotham talked about it 20 years ago with a grip of death. I think he's still around. There are people talking about these aspects of it. And the argument is you can't let government do it because it can't be trusted. Well, I would agree with you when you look at the state of government today. But we're looking at governments that have been rotted out for 300 years by doing deals with private banks. The whole culture of government is a joke. That's why millions of men have been marched into wars. Because the government have ordered it to be so. And yet you find that driving the back end of that are the interests of the bankers. And just like I mentioned with what had happened in Austria with the Vogel, they just go to the government and say, if you don't do this, we'll crash your currency on the world markets because we've got the power to do it. Just like Torba was talking about Musk being vulnerable because he hasn't got his own internet backbone. I'm sure he's got a backbone as well, although he's an ambivalent figure, isn't he? At the best of times, I don't quite know what's going on there. Great looking rockets. Still, there you go. What are they sending up there? Stuff to make things even worse? I don't know. So great looking rockets. But he's not his own man. He's not his own man. And of course, it brings up a question of whether any of us are. And to some degree, none of us ever can be. It's not a bad thing. This is the reason why we've got laws, isn't it? Supposedly, to regulate and govern our behavior between one another. And we are suffering from a surfeit, let's put it mildly, of legislation masquerading as law. It's not law. It's just stuff made up by the government of the day to deal with one messed up crisis after another, which they caused, and which we always pay for. Have you noticed that? We always pay for it. At least they like to have it that way. That's the way that we're going to pay for it as well. Where are we on time? A few minutes to go. I'll tell you what, this second one has been much more difficult than the first one. I hope it hasn't shown, but I suspect at times it has. And I did a lot more planning for this one, which is even more worrying, isn't it? But yeah, quite a few things. Now there was another quote actually. I love a good quote, apart from which it gives me time for my brain to refresh upon a couple of things. Where had I put this one? Oh yes, I think it was. Let's just have a look here. Oh, well, while we're on economic stuff, here's a little letter. How about this? In 1965, this guy has written this recently. It's titled Mission Impossible. In 1965 I was a fireman earning £7,000 a year and I bought a house for £3,500 with a mortgage of three times my salary. Today, that very ordinary property is valued at £650,000. So a buyer would need a £50,000 deposit and an income of £200,000 a year pro rata. This shows how utterly impossible the situation is for young people. Yes, it is. That is, it is impossible for a young people for us to build families. It's impossible under these situations for us to build families. So when people talk about the declining birth rate of white Western Christian people, this is the prime cause of it. Here's this quote I found from G.K. Chesterton. Everything he says has got a pearl in it. Brilliant guy. A hundred years ago. And I haven't read this in ages so I hope it's relevant. It cannot be too often repeated that what destroyed the family in the modern world was capitalism. No doubt it might have been communism if communism had ever had a chance outside that semi-Mongolian wilderness where it actually flourishes. Of course it doesn't even do that really. But so far as we are concerned, what has broken up households and encouraged divorces and treated the old domestic virtues with more and more open contempt is the epoch and power of capitalism. It is capitalism that has forced a moral feud and a commercial competition between the sexes, that has destroyed the influence of the parent in favor of the influence of the employer, that has driven men from their homes to look for jobs, that has forced them to live near their factories or their firms instead of near their families, and above all that has encouraged for commercial reasons a parade of publicity and garish novelty which is in its nature the death of all that was called dignity and modesty by our mothers and fathers. Tell me that he's wrong. People bang on about capitalism as if it's saved the world. It has for some. May I mention this last week, Chesterton's definition of a capitalist is spot on. Somebody who lives off of their holdings. None of us are capitalists. It's another ism. It's an ism that has been lost. Another ism. A hundred years ago, maybe I mentioned this last week, I'm going to have to check my notes on that because you're going to all turn up and go, bloody hell, he's just going over the same old thing again and again. I suppose it's because I feel it's so important. But a working guy could just look after his wife and family a hundred years ago. He could be just a laborer on a farm. It's okay. You don't see newspaper reports about that. Now what have we got? This thing, this entire incremental destruction of the economic base is of course by design. It's absolutely by design. The acquisition of more money by a small group of people, even those skilled entrepreneurs and highly competent people amongst us who can play that game well, will come to nothing. It's all going to come to nothing. You know what? I took the sensible route of setting myself up to end properly this week. I didn't do it last week. Yeah, so thanks very much for being with me this week. Slowly getting there. Let me just turn that down a little. Too loud. And it was the Henry VIII episode, or part of it, and a bit of a history lesson this week. And as I said, we will get people on, and I will take phone calls. I had a phone call system set up even last week, and I've had one today, but there's still a few things not quite right with it. So listen, thanks very much for being with me for these past two hours or so, and we'll get the podcast up at some point next week. So many other background things to do. Go well, and look forward to being with you again here this time next week. God bless.
There are no comments yet.
Be the first! Share your thoughts.
