Paul English Live 007 ⋅ 19 Oct 2023

Paul English

0 followers

00:00-01:58:48

Nothing to say, yet

Podcastspeechclickingnarrationmonologuesigh

AI Mastering

MORE INFO

Listen to Paul English Live 007 ⋅ 19 Oct 2023 by Paul English MP3 song. Paul English Live 007 ⋅ 19 Oct 2023 song from Paul English is available on Audio.com. The duration of song is 01:58:48. This high-quality MP3 track has 96 kbps bitrate and was uploaded on 31 Jan 2024. Stream and download Paul English Live 007 ⋅ 19 Oct 2023 by Paul English for free on Audio.com – your ultimate destination for MP3 music.

TitlePaul English Live 007 ⋅ 19 Oct 2023

AuthorPaul English

CategoryPodcast

Duration01:58:48

FormatAUDIO/MPEG

Bitrate96 kbps

Size85.54MB

Uploaded31 Jan 2024

Featured in

Listen Next

Other Creators

Comment

Loading comments...

Transcription

The speaker begins by stating the date and time and welcomes the audience to the show. They mention that this is the seventh week of the show and that the episode number is 007. The speaker then talks about the weather and how it's getting colder. They briefly mention the events in the Middle East and express skepticism about the mainstream media's coverage. They discuss a recent bombing of a hospital and express their emotional response to it. The speaker then transitions to talking about an upcoming film about Napoleon and their excitement for it. They mention reading about the French Revolution and its relevance to current events. They also touch on other topics such as Ukraine and Hawaii. The speaker ends by discussing the release date of the Napoleon film. Hi there. It's, um, what is it? It's Thursday, isn't it? It's the 19th of October, 2023. It's just coming up, just gone, 8pm here in the UK. 3pm Eastern, 2pm Central, 1pm Mountain, midday Pacific. Welcome to this week's show. And you may have noticed that we're already at week number 7. And I think I said the other week I'd stop numbering them, and I think pretty soon I will. But this one I couldn't let go by. You'll have seen the number there. 007. And this week's show image has got a tenuous link to 007, which many of you may be aware of. And it's not even the major point of this show, but it's such a good feature I just couldn't resist using it. Look at that long gap there before I said anything. Technical trousers being adjusted, or what? Welcome back to the show. Yeah, 007. How about that? More on that in a little while. Just let the song play out all the way this week. Hi, welcome back. Yes, it's Thursday, the 19th of October. By these weeks are going quick, aren't they? And I don't know where you are in the world, but if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, I happen to be, the gloom and the darkness and the dark evenings are rolling in pretty quickly. I actually had to put long trousers on earlier this week, which is a bit of a shock. Normally I try to get through to November by wearing the short trousers. I thought it's important that you know these sorts of things. And I failed, actually. We had a bit of a cold snap a couple of days ago, and the old knees were telling me, hey, we've gone numb. So I thought it would probably be best to get a bit of heat into the old things, you know, and let them warm up. I hope you've all had a cracking week. Of course, the main story of last week, which I didn't really plough into in huge detail, simply because everybody else and their dog is going to, of course, is the events that are unfolding, as it were, out there in the Middle East. However, the main take that everybody came up with pretty quickly is turning out to be accurate, and it's just unfolding as we go, is it not? So does that event fall into the established pattern of false flags by way of deception we shall do war fold? I think it does. It falls into that fold. And, of course, there's been this appalling, I say appalling because, you know, I don't know what words to use. If we start using adjectives to describe these terrible events, we're going to run out of them pretty quickly, it seems to me. But this bombing of a hospital, which from the video footage I've seen, appears to be true. I've got so sort of circumspect about what I see digitally now that I sometimes think maybe it's best to just, you know, go home, have a cup of tea and suck on some rusks because it becomes almost impossible at times to work out exactly who's king of the liars today in the mainstream media. But it seems reasonably certain that what's occurred there is just an extension of this appalling event. I've used the word appalling twice now, so you see we're already getting a bit bored of it. But this ridiculous event, which, like we were saying last week and like many other pundits, as I said, there's nothing new here. No doubt if you're a thinker about these things, you'll have pretty much come to the same conclusions that it's not possible for that country, Israel, to be taken by surprise by anyone, let alone people that are right next to you with whom you've had a historical contretemps to use nice language, which, of course, doesn't justify it because it's a horrific situation there. Two million people, effectively, in a camp, unable to defend themselves and getting bombed. Now, of course, the mainstream Western media, and I know I'm really just repeating what you've all been consuming for the last few days, but the mainstream media, of course, are... Oh, I'm going to cough now. Watch. There we go. The mainstream media are just basically cranking out the same old sort of atrocity propaganda type of sign-up that they've done for all of these other things. And like I think I mentioned last week, you have to wait a few days, I feel, to let your brain recover. I don't care who you are, you've got to do it and just take a little bit of time out because we're all rapidly emotionally hijacked by these events. And the hospital bombing is... I'm hard-pressed to think of anything more foul than that within recent living memory, people in a hospital. There's something emotionally dreadful about it. I mean, if you've ever spent time in hospital, and I have, I did last year. I had all sorts of little wonderful dramas taking place. You associate it rightfully as a place of rest and peace and where you're going to be able to recover and be unmolested by the outside world because generally that's what most people in hospitals need to recover. So it's a sort of psychological attack as well. It's on the heart of things. I've seen a lot of stuff. I might have a few clips to play about it during this first half hour. I'm not intending to spend all the time on the current Middle East, although we will be looking at other things. Last week I didn't spend any time at all. Oh, I didn't spend any time at all last week talking about the French Revolution. I think I might be talking about it quite a bit today. Not by design, well obviously it's by design, but my day, I've been drawn into it. I think the thing that galvanized me again is that this film of Napoleon that's coming out, and I've got some interesting stuff to add in today which might be new to a lot of you. I only stumbled across it this afternoon because I'm sort of, I go where I feel where my whims, where my urges take me on the day prior to doing the show. And the Napoleon film coming out by Sir Ridley Scott, who by the way is going to be 86 just after the film premieres. 86, that's impressive. I mean, I'm assuming he's obviously got a very good crew around him to make this film. And I'm salivating at it. Isn't this sad? I'm like a little fanboy. I've also got one eye on being disappointed about some historical facts, but I don't want to be a sort of snotty creep about it. Because the trailers that I've seen so far indicate a film that's going to transport you literally to a different era. And under these terrible times and circumstances, refreshing the brain with stuff like that is no bad thing I feel. Although, yet again, there are salutary lessons to be learned from all of this period. Those of you that might have caught me over the past few weeks know that I've been plowing through. Actually, plowing is the wrong word. It's a delight. I've been going through the French Revolution by Nesta Webster. And if you're not familiar with the works of Nesta Webster, I would urge you to become that way. That would be very useful for you if you're interested in these things. She wrote on more than just the French Revolution. She wrote brilliantly, really, about the upheavals in the early part of the 20th century and the relations between England and Germany and the distortions thereof. All of these things leak in to the same space. And we've currently got the latest iteration of this ongoing spiritual warfare. We're waging war against spiritual wickedness in high places. Certainly, this current conflict has got that hallmark on it more strongly than anything else I can think of in recent memory. I suppose the last big event that had such an emotional and psychological effect was 9-11 some 23 years ago, although there have been plenty of things since. I mean, I realise today, I'm going to try and keep my thoughts here because I don't know about you, I start talking about things, about 50 things pour into my head. Hawaii, that's all been dropped, hasn't it? Down the memory hole, that. Ukraine will be coming back because it's interlinked, I think, with what's happening in Israel. Yeah, Hawaii has disappeared. Pretty fast, I haven't seen anything about that. And I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out that everything is memory holds so fast that we are kept in a sort of position of permanently being off balance. And you have to do a lot to remain on balance. And of course, one of the things that you can do a lot, which obviously if you're listening to this, I suspect you are doing, is connecting as best you can with other like-minded people of your similar tribe. It's very important that we do that because in many cases you will, of course, be rowing against the stream of general mass media opinion and you need as many allies as you can get because you can sometimes sort of lose your bearings. Speaking of which, and back to this Napoleon film and the French Revolution and all that kind of stuff. The second trailer for the film just came out earlier today. So, Napoleon Trailer 2, Ridley Scott, as I said, 86 years of age. The release date, both sides of the Atlantic, is November the 22nd, which is a Wednesday. And I am assuming you can write in Rumble and correct me. If you're on Rumble and you want to write in the chat, that's the one I tend to look at the most. Although I'm looking at both Rumble and Odyssey chats tonight. So, depending on where you are. But the situation with, what was I saying? What was I doing? Oh, there we go, sorry. It's just that there were no messages in the chat on Rumble, so no one's got their itching fingers, so I was getting a little bit distracted. But yeah, isn't that Thanksgiving the following Thursday? November the 23rd, is it? Is it the last or the last but one Thursday of the month? I mean, I'm assuming it won't be November the 30th. That would be a bit too near to Christmas. All those turkeys you must go through. It's always been a sort of a bit puzzling, I suppose, to many of us in England that you would plow through a turkey at the end of November for good reasons and then do the same again at the end of December also for similarly good reasons. Anyway, I could be wrong about that, but poor turkeys or good turkeys, yum. So yes, Napoleon. Look at me, hopping all over the shop. Napoleon, the second trailer is out. I urge you to go and have a look at it. It's for a guy of his years doing this. I mean, when did he do Gladiator? 23 years ago, something like that. Is it 2000, 2001? Which is just a fabulous film. This looks as though it's going to have the same sort of imprint on the mind. And no doubt with the digital enhancements for cinematography, we're going to get scenes of epicness I suspect that we've not seen before, certainly from some of the comments I've seen. It looks as though it's going to be that way. And maybe you've got the impression, sometimes I get the impression, that I just sit around waiting for films to come out. Well, there haven't been any, have there, for the last few years? Have there? Really, since the great COVID project began, I'm not aware of there being too many films. I've got to tell you, I'm kind of glad to see the end of the – I mean, you know, I probably haven't seen the end of them. But the superhero films were getting a little bit exhausting, were they not? The early ones, back in the early 2000s, were all pretty refreshing and fun and great and were very close, I think. They evoked very much the kind of mood of when those stories were first laid down, back in the 60s and the 70s, via comic books. I know, because I used to read them. And maybe you did too, although I'm really marking my age there, aren't I, with things – comic books, you know. But they were fascinating to me, particularly American comic books. Growing up in Yorkshire, you know, everything was bleak and grim. It's grim up north, you know. And this was this exotic world that came to me, courtesy of these full-color comics, which were a little bit more thrilling than the Dandy and the Beano at the time. Maybe you had a similar sort of feeling. Anyway, I'm kind of pleased to see the end of those, of those things, the superhero stuff, for a while, I guess. I mean, they were getting ridiculous with – everything was just a special effect, wasn't it? You know things are bad when you want the heroes dead after the first 20 minutes because they're so smug and smarmy and they've got all these one-liners. It became exhausting after a while. So, this historical epic is – it harks back, does it not, to a more – what should I say – cultured approach to filmmaking. I mean, films can go up their own orifice at times and lose the audience and be not much fun at all. But this one looks as though it's going to be amazing. It really does. So, anyway, it'd be fab, wouldn't it? Because if it's – on the 22nd, which is a Wednesday, if I happen to see it that day, I'll make the show the next day. Although, in America, you won't be listening because you'll be full of turkey, won't you? Or maybe not. Maybe you'll have eaten the turkey and it's three o'clock east and you're going, oh, it's time to forget about turkeys. We need to tune into something. You might be tuning into this. Anyway, if I do get to see it the day before, I will probably make up the bulk of the show the next day about that without being a spoiler. I mean, I'm not a film reviewist. I'm not going to spend two hours reviewing a film because sometimes I think when you do that or you hear people do that, the magic of the film sort of disappears. If you get a little bit too analytical about things, the ability for you to get lost in the story goes. Now, so, yeah, the French Revolution. And when I started talking about this a few weeks back, it was that I'd always had this feeling about it that is far more important than I had been able to give it credit for simply because I was not particularly knowledgeable about it. And you think, but Paul, there's all these terrible things going on right now. I know, there are. But that revolution is part of this line that I've mentioned here. I don't mean the line, that hideous prison that they're building in Saudi Arabia, 175 kilometers long, 500 meters high, 200 meters wide, that prison camp thing. I don't mean that line. I'm talking about the historical line, the line that we're on right now. And certainly for me, the idea to be able to look at parts of this historical line, really from, you can go back as far as you want, and I will go back very far at some points, not necessarily today. But in terms of the so-called modern world, from Henry VIII and his daughter, Elizabeth I, through to modern times is useful, of which the French Revolution is a key point. Which brings me really to that picture at the beginning. Let's get this out of the way. Should we get it out of the way? It's not really out of the way, actually. But, oh, I know what I haven't done yet. I haven't done any housecleaning here. You can tell I was fiddling with my technical trousers so much, I've forgotten to mention things. So, how silly of me. This is, you're listening to Paul English Live. We're going out on wbn324.com and wbn324.zil. I think if you're in the UK, you can't get the signal directly, but there are instructions on the site. And .zil is courtesy of Unstoppable Domains. And the Opera browser is rather useful for that. I use several browsers, don't know about you. But the Opera browser will pull up .zil domains pretty easy. So, if you're using Opera, even though it is now owned by the Chinese, and I don't know quite what that means, but probably a lot. I saw some headline the other day from, what was it? MI5 guys saying Chinese spying is absolutely astronomical or something. I think there's going to be some revelations about Chinese spying. But it's very convenient for them to blame the Chinese, isn't it? Or to use it as part of the story. Anyway, Opera is very good. So, here we are. We're on wbn324.com, wbn324.zil. We're also on Freefall Radio out of South Africa. So, that's the main speaker. We're also on Rumble. So, if you go to Rumble, and you can get the links to this at paulenglishlive.com. So, if you go to Rumble, you'll see it there. We're also on Odyssey, which is another video platform. You don't get to see me. I don't use a video, a webcam or anything like that. We're just using the platforms for now for chat. And to sort of try and build up the audience to the show. Slowly but surely, that kind of thing. We're also going out on Speakfree Radio, speakfreeradio.com. And we might be going out to something else. But I've forgotten because my brain is getting a bit soggy. So, there we go. But those are the main ones at the moment. So, wherever you're listening, welcome to the show. Now, where was I? Oh, yeah. I was talking about that picture for today's show. So, the hint is – let me just make sure I do this right. Because I tend to – there we go. Got to do this right, don't we? Let me just play you something. You'll never heard this before. Have you ever heard that before? Have you ever heard it before? Isn't it good? Probably, I suppose by now, maybe the most famous bit of film theme music ever. Because the franchise has been going – the franchise? The series has been going since what? 1962? Was it? Dr. Noah? 63? Through to where are we now? 2023. That's 60 years, although there hasn't been a film for a couple of years. And if you haven't seen the latest one, I better not tell you because there's a spoiler in it. There's a big event in that last one. I think they're casting about for a new James Bond. But the picture that I've put up, I didn't even have the good manners to actually source who painted it. But it's really rather a cracker. I was doing a search for John D. So the introduction to that music is the name's D, John D. And it's not a big part of the show. I just thought this being show 007, 007, I'd never get a chance to play that music appropriately ever again. That was it really. I'm never going to get a chance to play. Isn't that sad, really? Although I suppose we could do a show all about James Bond theme music if we wanted to. I don't know quite how that would go. But John D., just very briefly for you, D. was, well, you can look into him. There's a lot of good stuff about him. Even the Wikipedia entry is rather useful. He's a man that came from humble background of Welsh descent and became part of Elizabeth I's court. He was based in Mortlake. And he had an enormous private library. I do mean enormous. This is for the late 1500s. Over 20,000 volumes, I believe, I've seen written down in some places. Although many of those were lost after he had to spend about six years traveling around Europe. And when he came back, much of his books in his house was not in a good condition. But he was a philosopher. He studied the occult. He came from a Christian background. He was a man of many talents. And apparently he was also the man that first coined the phrase, the British Empire. The British Empire. You remember that thing? And so he was coining that phrase in the 1500s and was a great advisor to Elizabeth I. They would have been aware, of course, of the Americas at that point. Walter Raleigh was probably on his way back with the tobacco and the potatoes at any time now. But that painting shows some of the things that he was getting up to. Conjuring spells and doing things. They said he could talk to demons and all that kind of stuff. And maybe at some point down the line we'll do a show about him with regards to those particular skills of his. But why the 007 connection? Because he was an emissary, an ambassador of the court of Elizabeth I. And he spent a lot of time, as I was just saying, at six years at one point. But even prior to that, he spent a lot of time going around in the courts across Europe, acting as an emissary, as a communicator. And also it is suggested as a spy. And he signed the letters that he would send back to Elizabeth or her courtiers, whoever was in charge of all that kind of stuff, with a 007. Although it's not literally 007. What it was was two circles representing his two eyes seeing things, I guess. How quaint and good. And then it was the square root sign around the 00. So you know what a square root sign is? It's like an elongated seven in a way. The top bit is really elongated. So the story goes that at one point, well this is not a story, this is true. He then got a post up in Manchester at a cathedral or some seminary or whatever it was. Something to do with the church. Elizabeth appointed him up there. And Fleming, Ian Fleming, the author of the James Bond novels, was up there at some point or was inquiring into it. Came across this and thought 007 is a good name for my character, James Bond. So there you go. That's it. Might not be news to you. Some clever people in the Telegram group already worked it out very early. But I was not going to sort of get interactive on that one earlier in the day. I put the picture up there a few hours ago. But that's it. That's the connection. So the name is D, John D, the original 007 according to these records. It's probably still debatable I guess to some degree. But I quite like it. And D in and of himself is a fascinating character. He really is, what would you call him today, a polymath. He studied everything. Astronomy, seafaring skills, all this kind of stuff. So he was an advisor to the Navy. A man of many, many talents, formidable apparently. Studied 18 hours a day when he was at Cambridge or Oxford. He went up there when he was 16. Which gets you thinking, doesn't it? Because that's over 500 years ago. Is it? Well, maybe not over 500, but nearly 500 years ago. No, it is actually. And to think that we had a university system back then. I'm sure we weren't the only nation in Europe that had one. But these people were being developed and coming on in leaps and bounds with all this stuff. One other little aside here that's just worth mentioning. This is not the time of D, but it's a little bit later. D was also an alchemist. Which some of you will be aware is supposedly the transmuting of base metals into gold. But that's also an analogy or a metaphor for transmuting the base metal of human souls into refined golden souls, the improvement of man. I'm not going to talk about witches. Which is part of moving into that process which influences Freemasonry. They're always talking about this kind of stuff. And Freemasons, of course, end up being connected to the banking system and then so do alchemists. Because, you know, gold and all that kind of stuff. So, all of these things you can begin to see. I can anyway. Maybe I've gone out of my mind. What's left of it? A kind of connective thread between all of these different sort of skills and roots and groups down through these ages. So, sorry about that. I think I just got a ding. That was no good. I hope you didn't get the ding. I got a ding somewhere. Anyway, yes. So, alchemy and the Royal Society. Now, the Royal Society for Science was 1700. So, after D, I think. I'm rough on my dates here because I've not actually done any research on this for today. This is just a short little aside. But I just mentioned alchemists. The people that formed the Royal Society, there were 40 or 50 of them, something like that. A few dozen. The day before they formed the Royal Society for Scientists, all of them were alchemists. All of them. And we'll have to do part of a show on this. I don't want to spend two hours on this particular topic. But now that I've mentioned it and it's sprung up in my head, it's probably worth at least having a 10 or 15 or 20-minute review of this. They made a decision at the time because the modern world is a reflection very much of the scientific approach, so-called, right? They decided that the left-brained education, the bit that goes into hermetic philosophy and the consideration of life from a non-scientific point of view, metaphysics and the rest, would not be included. They intentionally, in their meetings, said, this is not for the masses. We don't want them to be privy to this sort of stuff. So science became this rigorous measurement system and it's very useful. I'm not knocking it, by the way. It's very, very useful. We put bridges up better and steam engines. Everything works better with a proper calculator and knowing how metals and materials work, et cetera, et cetera. And that's what science has enabled us to do. It's enabled us, of course, to get in charge of the material nature of life. But there is another aspect to it. And we know this because, as I said, the founders were all into that. They weren't distressed that they hadn't turned metal into gold, although you can actually do that. You can turn base metal into gold by using high quantities of electricity. You can do it if you want to. It's very expensive. It costs you more, I think, in the electricity or whatever it is to shift it. I've seen pictures of it taking place. Gosh, this is a wacky opening 30 minutes, isn't it? Isn't it a wacky opening 30 minutes? What was... So, yeah. Look at me, casting about for what I've got set up. Let me just... Right, there it is. Sorry, I have to talk to myself because, you know, it works. So that's D. There you go. That's D. We've covered D. Got through the first half hour. I didn't want to spend all evening about him. It's a cracking painting. Elizabeth I, obviously, the daughter of Henry VIII, and we've got all of these events around Henry, and it lays in all of the subsequent events that we're living through today. Last week, you see, I keep thinking about things that I hadn't planned to talk about, but something just jumped into my head as well, which was to do with Charles I in 1642. I think I'm remembering these dates correctly, which is rather worrying, isn't it? But I saw something about Charles I the other week, about these 50 days of Charles I, and we'll probably have to do something on that, or I would. I'll probably have to do something on Charles I because it is the... That so-called English Civil War and what happened there and Charles losing his head is kind of the opening shot in the entire drama, I would suggest. It's major. There was a program on here a couple of weeks back called 50 Days That Changed England, and it was about this period of confrontation between Charles I and John Pym. John Pym, P-Y-M, being a leading parliamentarian at the time, and it was about who was going to be master. It was the Humpty Dumpty principle, and it was a very revealing documentary because it showed how Charles played his cards very badly all the time, but there were other things going on. There were other things going on, and one part of it, Charles went to parliament to arrest Pym and other people. He didn't know what to do. He'd offered him a job. Pym had turned it down, Chancellor of the Exchequer, which was a big thing, and they were informed that Charles was coming to parliament, which broke all the rules, so they legged it. They jumped in boats and went down to Thames and went over to the east side of London, and whilst they were there, they managed to, according to this report that I was reading anyway, they managed to persuade 10,000, let me just check my pages here, 18, I just got to come back to page 18 with something for a little bit later in the show. They managed to persuade 10,000 apprentices and the rest to become their militia to protect them. I just want to read you something from a document I just realized on the British Revolution before we hop on over to the French one. Now, where was it? Oh, no, that's the prologue. I don't want to read that. Just bear with me a second if you can. I'm trying to bear with me. How about this? Okay, let me just read you a couple of paragraphs from this document. This document is called The Nameless War by Captain Archibald Mall Ramsey. It's not very long, it's about 106 pages on PDF. If you're not familiar with it, do a search and get hold of a copy. It really should be published and reprinted. It's brilliant. It came out about 1952. Ramsey's an amazing figure. It was locked up for the duration of World War II. Part one, the British Revolution. I'm just going to read the first two or three paragraphs. Very brief. It was fated that England should be the first of a series of revolutions which is not yet finished. With these cryptic words, writes Ramsey, Isaac Disraeli, father of Benjamin, Earl of Beaconsfield, commenced his two-volume life of Charles I, published in 1851. A work of astonishing detail and insight, much information for which he states, was obtained from the records of one Melchior de Salom, French envoy in England during that period. The scenes open with distant glimpses of the British Kingdom based upon Christianity and its own ancient traditions. These sanctions binding monarchy, church, state, nobles and the people in one solemn bond on the one hand, on the other hand, the ominous rumblings of Calvinism. Calvinism, by the way, said that usury was okay. All comes back to the money every single time. Calvin, who came to Geneva from France where his name was spelt Cohen, possibly a French effort to spell Cohen, organized great numbers of revolutionary orators, not a few of whom were inflicted upon England and Scotland. Thus was laid the groundwork for revolution under a cloak of religious fervour. Now, what Ramsey talks about a little bit later on is that insurgents were produced and would turn up like crowds during this period against Charles and that they were probably paid for. In fact, I've just found the little section here and I'll just read this because this is exactly the same in the French Revolution and we've got to watch how it's going to go now because people are divided and then they're wound up and all that kind of stuff. He says, at this time, they suddenly began to appear from the city armed mobs of operatives, the medieval equivalent for workers, no doubt. Let me quote Disraeli, they were said to amount to 10,000. It's quite a lot, isn't it? I don't know what the population of London was at the time but it wasn't above a million. They were said to amount to 10,000 with warlike weapons. It was a militia for insurgency at all seasons and might be depended upon for any work of destruction at the cheapest rate. As these sallied forth with daggers and bludgeons from the city, the inference is obvious that this train of explosion must have been long laid. It must indeed, and we must recollect here that at this time Stafford was still unexecuted and civil war in the minds of none but of those behind the scenes who evidently had long since resolved upon and planned it. These armed mobs of workers intimidated all and sundry including both houses of parliament and the palace at critical moments, exactly on the model employed later by the sacred bands and the Marseillais in the French Revolution. So the blueprint for wrecking things can be found here in England and as I was saying when Pym had to escape from Charles I, he went to the east and where there were 10,000, that number again formed a militia to support him. Whether Pym was paid off, I don't know but certainly in that documentary they wouldn't have said so even if they had known because it was, you see the thing about the historical stuff is it's not that they're not telling the truth, it's that they're not telling the whole truth and there are bits missing that are so critically important to understanding how we have become into the position that we're now in. This position where we are manipulated, where central banks hold this power which is hidden. Oh, it's only a bank. Yeah, right. It's only a bank. If it's only a bank, why can't we have it? That's my very simple layman's pitch on this. They learnt the blueprint of how to do this. They were printing pamphlets in London at the time, thousands of them. This thing happened again with the French Revolution which of course is in 1789 to 1794 or 5. There were three revolutions in the French Revolution, not just one, there were three. Anyway, I thought I would just mention that and I now want to mention, I want to mention, I want to play something. Let me just play this. Did I want to play something? I did. Let me just play. I want to play this little jingle. Here we go. Oh, that's interesting. It's not playing, is it? Oh, I know why it's not playing. Hang on just a minute. You know, one day I'm going to get a third arm and then I'll be able to press all the right buttons. If you've got any spare arms going, let me know. This is a little thing for WBN. Here we go. Attention all listeners. Are you seeking uninterrupted access to WBN 324 talk radio despite incoming censorship hurdles? Well, it's a breeze. Just grab and download Opera Browser, then type in WBN324.ZIL and stay tuned for unfiltered discussions around the clock. That's WBN324.ZIL. The views, opinions, and content of the show hosts and their guests appearing on the World Broadcasting Network are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of its owners, partners, and other hosts or this network. Thank you for listening to WBN324 talk radio. Yeah, there we go, .ZIL. I mentioned it a bit earlier, but Opera Browser is what you need. It's a great way to get a hold of it and to, you know, connect into the stream that way. We're doing things slightly different tonight, which is why my screens look a little bit different, but I'm not going to bang on about that anymore. Well, I might do, which is a bit pathetic, isn't it? But there you go. French Revolution. So, the blueprint for it was laid with the English Civil War. It wasn't English, okay? It's not English. And the French Revolution is not French. It absolutely is not. This is what Ramsey says. You know, I probably should do a whole show about Ramsey's document, but I have to do a series of shows because at 106 pages, it's quite a thing. This is what he writes at the beginning. This is chapter, so part one's about the British Revolution, and I'm not going to go beyond the French, but he covers the others after this. This is what he says at the beginning of this. The French Revolution of 1789 was the most startling event in the history of Europe since the fall of Rome. A new phenomenon then appeared before the world. Never before had a mob, apparently, organized successful revolution against all other classes in the state, under high-sounding but quite nonsensical slogans, and with methods bearing not a trace of the principles enshrined in those slogans. Never before had any one section of any nation conquered all other sections, and still less, swept away every feature of the national life and tradition, from king, religion, nobles, clergy, constitution, flag, calendar, and place names, to coinage. Such a phenomenon, he writes, merits the closest attention, especially in view of the fact that it has been followed by identical outbreaks in many countries. The methodology used was employed here. It was employed in the U.S. Civil War with certain variations, so-called Civil War. It was employed in the Russian, so-called Russian Revolution, and it was employed in agitating and bringing about World War I and World War II, that huge colossal 30-year hell with a big gap in the middle where different methods were used. This is the line I keep talking about. We're running up and down this line. So, Henry VIII and Elizabeth I are the sort of prequel to it all. It lays the stage for getting the Reformation going, which, as I said before, Cobbett over here called it the devastation, which it was. This is not to say that Catholicism and Protestantism are not in error. They are in error from my point of view, but we'll cover that in another point. The fact is that they were the existent things at the time, so shattering them created all this hell, which was necessary, and this is what brought it about. Now, I've been reading Webster's book, Nesta Webster, and as I mentioned earlier, and I don't know why I'm so taken with this today. You know, I shouldn't have seen that Napoleon thing. It kind of really got into me, and so I'm almost like doing more of a deep dive in it today, and I have some pages I just wanted to read out, little bits. Yes, that's a good page, isn't it? So, one of the things that I'd noticed, or I'd mentioned before, but it's worth repeating again, is the volatility of the crowd. You can read horror stories, you know, if you like. You can read them, and they can be scary, I suppose, if you're going for that sort of thing, but I have to tell you, this stuff genuinely scares me. I don't know if scare is the right word. It might be, because you can feel it around us at the moment, with the correct triggers being put in place if we don't watch it. Maybe they've hit upon some new way of controlling the crowds, but back in those days, they used this. Now, what was occurring was that in October of 1789, you remember it well, I'm sure, the crowd had been egged backwards and forwards over several weeks and days. The Bastille has been stormed, but it wasn't really a genuine storming, as I mentioned before. And then they'd gone quiet again, then they loved the king, then they hated the king, then they thought the king was going to give them bread, then they were told he was taking all the bread away. And Louis XVI, if you read Webster's book, you're going to like the man. You're going to like Marie Antoinette as well. You're not going to think she's bad, I doubt it. What's happened here, I just want to read you this little bit, it's quite touching really, just kind of change of pace. On October the 6th, they stormed Versailles, with the intention of killing the king and Marie Antoinette. And they were this mob, which was full of aliens and people that were not really French, and men dressed as women. See, they even had it back then. Now these were tough men that had been dressed up as women, to make out that the women were arguing for this stuff. Due to the heroism, which is extraordinary, of the king's guard and grenadiers, two of whom literally had their heads taken off and stuck on bikes. Nice, eh? This is what happened then. The king and the queen were not killed that night. It's quite an amazing thing. This is a bit that happened on the morning, just after this sort of attack, regarding Marie Antoinette. As she stood there, on the balcony, in the pale light of the October morning, her hair disordered, a little yellow-striped wrapper hastily thrown over her night attire, her face, of which the dazzling tense had once defied the painter's art, now changed to a stricken pallor. Marie Antoinette had never seen so much a queen. Folding her hands on her breast, she raised her eyes above the angry sea of pikes and muskets, filling the courtyards of the chateau, and stretching right away across the Place des Hommes to the Avenue de Versailles, and looked to heaven, quote, like a victim offering herself up to death. And at this sight a hush fell over the tumultuous crowd, a breathless and tremendous silence, during which the queen's life hung in the balance. But amongst all that vast multitude only one man was found, ready to carry out the design of the conspirators. This brigand raised his gun to his shoulder, took aim at the queen, but, according to Ferriere, dared not pull the trigger. According to Weber, the weapon was angrily dashed from his hand by his companions. The next moment the silence was broken by a wild outburst of applause. Cries of Vive la Reine resounded on every side. Lafayette—Americans will know of Lafayette, as he trained your troops to beat British troops in the War of Independence— Lafayette, coming forward into the balcony, raised the queen's hand to his lips and kissed it. The storm of acclamation redoubled. The situation was saved. From our perspective, I guess, here, some 230 years after these events, moments like that seem almost surreal. That, with a few gestures, with someone kissing someone's hand, with someone standing in the moonlight and doing these things, that a crowd could be turned. But what is apparent throughout all of this is that this swinging of the mood of the crowd is volatile, crazy, and therefore uncontrolled, apart from the conspirators that were controlling it. Now, the antagonist in the piece is somebody called the Duke d'Orléans. And from Webster's account, you simply get the idea, so far— maybe she goes into this a little bit later in the book, so I don't want to— we're about 200 pages in at this stage, out of a 500-page book. She creates the impression that he just had lots of money. And he did, apparently. Or did he? Because I want to mention something here. Now, where is this? Do you know how I keep on bringing everything back to money? Here we go. I think I found it. I need one of those little markers on this stuff, because there's so much interesting material to go through. So my apologies for just mucking around on my screen here. I'm going back to Archibald Ramsey now. He says, The main discovery that such an examination will reveal of the French Revolution is this fact. The revolution was not the work of Frenchmen to improve France. It was the work of aliens, whose object was to destroy everything which had been France. This conclusion is borne out by the references to foreigners in high places in the revolutionary councils, not only by Sir Walter Scott, but by Robespierre himself. We have the names of several of them, and it is clear that they are not British or Germans or Italians. With this knowledge in our possession, we shall find we possess a master key to the intricate happenings of the French Revolution. I don't know whether Webster covers this. The somewhat confused picture of characters and events moving across the screen, which our history books have shown us, will suddenly become a concerted and connected human drama, which they do. Revolution is a blow struck at a paralytic, he writes. So, however, it must be obvious that immense organisation and vast resources are required. Now, I'm just trying to find this little bit, because this is useful. It's amazing indeed that people should suppose that mobs, or the people, that's us lot, by the way, everyone, ever have or ever could undertake such a complicated and costly operation. No mistake, moreover, could be more dangerous, for it will result in total inability to recognise the true significance of events or the source and focus of a revolutionary movement. The secrecy to it is essential. Its outward signs are, here we go, debt, loss of publicity control, and the existence of alien-influenced secret organisations in the doomed state. Debt, particularly international debt, is the first and over-mastering grip. Through it, men in high places are suborned, and alien powers and influences are introduced into the body politic. When the debt grip has been firmly established, control of every form of publicity and political activity soon follows, together with a full grip on industrialists. Hello? Recognising what we live under right now? I'm sure you do. I'm sure you do. Nothing has changed. In fact, it's matured, for they have much better PR systems now to keep us distracted in all sorts of wonderful, entertaining ways. The stage for the revolutionary bro is then set. The grip of the right hand of finance established the paralysis, while it is the revolutionary left that holds the dagger and deals the fatal blow. Moral corruption facilitates the whole process. And then I came across this. This was only this afternoon, today. Very interesting, leading on to other books, because it connects into Napoleon. By 1780, financial paralysis was making its appearance in France. The world's big financiers were firmly established. They possessed so large a share of the world's gold and silver stocks that they had most of Europe in their debt, certainly France. So writes McNair Wilson, in his Life of Napoleon, and continues, and this is important. A change of a fundamental kind had taken place in the economic structure of Europe, whereby the old basis had ceased to be wealth and had become debt. In the old Europe, wealth had been measured in lands, crops, herds, and minerals. But a new standard had now been introduced, namely, a form of money to which the title credit had been given. The debts of the French kingdom, though substantial, were by no means insurmountable, except in terms of gold. And had the king's advisers decided to issue money on the security of the lands and real wealth of France, the position could have been fairly easily righted. As it was, the situation was firmly gripped by one financier after another, who either could not or would not—both, I would suggest—could not, because they would have had some kind of metaphorical dagger at their throats, too, with the system imposed by the international usurers. Under such weakness or villainy, the bonds of usury could only grow heavier and more terrible, for debts were in terms of gold or silver, neither of which France produced. I could probably read this out forever, but I don't know whether this is really sensible for the next hour or not. But I'm fascinated by this. I'm sharing my fascination with you. Because the French Revolution is the first one where the power centres—because this was organised in London. A lot of this was organised from London, because London and England had already fallen. It fell when Charles I went down the toilet, and it fell further when the Bank of England was ensconced in this nation in 1694, which is not a bank of the English, which I strongly object to. We're going to have a bank, you and I, Englishmen, and Scotsmen, and Welshmen, and Irishmen, if you want to be invited. We need to own it, as I keep banging on about. We need to have a transparent, obvious thing. The fact that we don't is the reason why the history of the past three hundred years has been the way it is. Warfare and lies everywhere. These manipulators of gold and silver who had succeeded in turning upside down the finances of Europe and replacing real wealth by millions upon millions of usurious loans. Who were these potentates? Well, I'll tell you. You may have heard of a book called Occult Theocracy by Lady Queenborough. Another—I don't know if she was a contemporary of Nesta Webster, but we've got these two fine ladies writing this stuff. I think it is also the early 1900s. Lady Queenborough gives us certain outstanding names, taking her facts from L'Antisemitism by the Jew Bernard Lazar, published in 1894. In London, she gives the names of Benjamin Goldsmith and his brother Abraham Goldsmith, Moses Mocatta, their partner, and his nephew, Sir Moses Montefiore, as being directly concerned in financing the French Revolution, along with Daniel Itzig of Berlin and his son-in-law David Friedlander, and Hertz Surfbeer of Alsace. Here's this from the Protocols of Zion. The gold standard has been the ruin of states which adopted it, for it has not been able to satisfy the demands for money, the more so as we have removed gold from circulation as far as possible. And again, loans hang like a sword of Damocles over the heads of rulers, who come begging with outstretched palm. Now, there are many people that suggest that gold is the route to our salvation, and with honourable, decent people in charge of it, yes. I would say with honourable, decent people in charge of any system of commercial measurement, i.e. money, to service the exchanges, we could use feathers, if we were in a massive, high-trust society. Gold, of course, historically and in the past, acted as the trust. People trusted gold, and therefore it served a useful purpose. You have to remember, of course, that human history is littered with wars, all of them over possessing this stuff, all of them. And this is also, now we got a bit from Sir Walter Scott. Okay, let me have a look here. Ramsey writes this. No words could describe more accurately what was overtaking France. Sir Walter Scott in his Life of Napoleon, Volume 1. Scott's Life of Napoleon is in five volumes and is enormous. It's absolutely enormous. I keep on thinking I ought to try and read it, but I might sort of pass out, I think, in the process. But let me read you this bit from it. Thus describes the situation. This is Scott. These financiers, used the government as bankrupt prodigals, are treated by usurious moneylenders, who, feeding their extravagance with the one hand, with the other, wring out of their ruined fortunes the most unreasonable recompenses for their advances. By a long succession of these ruinous loans and the various rights granted to guarantee them, the whole finances of France were brought to total confusion. Total confusion. Now, let's try and translate that over to today, where we're at today. What's occurring with prices? What is occurring with our finance system? Is it any use to actually read the so-called financial press? I don't think it is. But then, I'm an idiot. I'm a layman. I can't wade through that stuff, because I sense, my instincts are telling me, that it's just part of this game that's not worth playing. The whole of the financial reporting industry is ridiculous, because, in my view, I think it's ridiculous. Of course, it serves a need at this level of the game, but the actual base game is completely corrupted. Who gets the rights to be a usurer? Well, it's moved beyond that now. Now, it's all about leverage and control, and the ability to subdue and subvert people, to corrupt them. It's like this thing about politics. We can change things through politics. Can you? Under certain circumstances, it might be possible. It might be. I shouldn't close any door in my mind. Neither should you, I guess. And if someone comes along who's able to do it, great. But, but, but, but, but. The bank is in control of the entire arena globally. This ring of power, to not really paraphrase Tolkien, but it really is a ring of power, the ring of central banks around the earth, apart from those countries that we mentioned before, who have sought to fight back, and successfully did for very short periods of time, like Libya recently, like Germany in the 1930s and 40s, early 40s. But in both cases, were demolished as nations. This tells you where the power really lies. It really lies with this control of usury, this control of bank systems, this control of transaction systems, which basically subvert all our laws. You and I could have the best law book in the world, but we've handed over control of the bank to people who are not too fussed about those laws. We're done for. We really are done for. And I want to just hop off that. Where are we now? We're just on top of the hour. Okay. I do have a tune. I'm going to come back to this, because I'm in the mood, and we're doing it. So there we go. Here's the halftime musical break. I think it's the halftime musical break. It is. This is something rather groovy. It's an instrumental. I keep playing these things. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. Here we go. That's paulenglishlive.com forward slash call. That's paulenglishlive.com forward slash call in your browser. Helps if you've got a headset but we won't be strict about that and we'll pull you into the calls. There's a few people waiting. They can hear me anyway through there but I just wanted to cover something else before we open that up and move it into a sort of conversational mode. Now one of the things that was just mentioned there was this book about the life of Napoleon from McNair Wilson and I only stumbled across this this afternoon by going through these things and again I want to read you a bit from this. This is not conclusive for me but it set me off with regards to reviewing what Napoleon was really up to and because you see we've got that first level of history that we get. That's true as I've said before but there's a second level and there's probably a tertiary level of understanding that we've got to get down to that because we find down there that we've got this commonality running through. This is the preface to his book. I don't need to read all of it but there's something very interesting. It was written by the way in 1936 by McNair Wilson and let me just read you this. In fact it references another book which I've been trying to buy today and I need to get it read before that film comes out, before Napoleon comes out. Here we go. Let me just beef that up because I need some bigger letters to read. Three years ago, he writes, so 1933, the world learned that all its knowledge about Napoleon was incomplete because the central motive of his career had, during more than a hundred years, remained unsuspected. This discovery followed the publication of the Memoirs of Calencourt, his ambassador in Russia. Its full implications have not yet by any means been understood and that book, Memoirs of Calencourt, is available. You can pick it up. I'm looking for an old hardback copy and they cost too much but I'm going to get one. This present is the first biography of Napoleon, he writes, in which the central motive of his life, as declared by himself, is given place. It is the first study, therefore, in which the struggle which involved the whole world between 1800 and 1815 is presented as the emperor of the French himself saw it. That is no virtue of mine. I have been so fortunate as to learn truth unknown or at least only partially known to earlier writers, and this is how it goes. But I ask my reader to credit me with this, namely that I have spent many years in studying not only financial method, but the influence of monetary policy upon historical event. That study has convinced me that history cannot properly be understood without such knowledge. This is 1000 million trillion percent true. If you don't know anything about banking, you don't know anything about history, you don't know much. You know about the surface events, you know about the clashes, you know about the great battles. They are very important to know about these things. But what causes them? What is the wellspring from which all this conflict arises? Why, it is the bank. The most astonishing fact of present-day life is the abysmal ignorance about money of men and women otherwise fully instructed and informed. The most astonishing fact of present-day life is the abysmal ignorance about money of men and women otherwise fully instructed and informed. In fact, however, instruction must now be acquired by all who hope to play a part in human affairs, because during the last four years the system against which Napoleon fought has received its death blow, and is being replaced slowly by the system which he tried to introduce into France and Europe. During a recent address to the Committee on Monetary Reform at the House of Commons, I quoted from the Times, the Economist and the Financial News, to show that, get this, in the year 1936 in Britain, domestic trade in England has reached a peak of expansion never before known, but on the same showing there has been virtually no increase in loans from banks. This can only mean, as I pointed out, that the system of debt money has ceased to function. The reason is that the President of the United States, Mr Roosevelt, has adopted Napoleon's system of debtless money, and has compelled the world to adopt it also, a remarkable fulfilment of a prophecy made by the Emperor at St Helena. Obviously Roosevelt took the Americans off the gold standard in 1933, or everybody's gold got bought up for far, far less than it was worth, so something was going on. Also, it's worth pointing out that Roosevelt hated Hitler's guts, because Hitler sorted out the economy of Germany in three years flat, and Roosevelt couldn't do it ever. The lingering aftermath of the contrived and bogusly created Wall Street crash, a totally unorganized event, they never got out of it, probably for political reasons, to induct Americans into a more communistic sort of world view, because Roosevelt was a commie. Then he goes on to say, I've nearly finished this, but it's such an interesting thought provoking thing, he says, I wish to take this opportunity of thanking the large body of friends upon blah blah blah, and he lists all these wonderful people that he knows, which is great. I've got a few quotes here from Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations, if you're not aware of that book, you are now, Christopher Hollis, The Two Nations, which is about the money nation and the one that you live in, all right, very good book, I've got a copy of that somewhere, in fact I was reading it the other day, blah blah blah, my debt also to Mr. Arthur Kitson and to Professor Soddy remains and will always remain, so I'm mentioning these names here because in England, what with Major Douglas in the late, just after World War I, through that period, the 1920s and the 1930s, there were a lot of bright people understood that there was something absolutely foul and ruinous and destructive about the construction of the central banking system. We mentioned the Bradbury Pound before, did we not, that basically got this country out of the poo during World War I and once they got everything moving again, they banned it so that they could introduce interest-bearing debt money again, we don't have to have that type of money, but they imposed it upon us, okay, Arthur Kitson was a monetary reformer, wrote some great stuff, Professor Soddy is Frederick Soddy, who I mentioned before, the guy that ended up splitting the atom with Rutherford for fun, they used to do things like that for fun back then, let's go split some atoms, shall we, let's do that, and they got some Nobel Prizes and they wrote an incredibly complex and labyrinthine intellectual book on banking, but he came to the same conclusions. Is there anything else worth reading here? Yes, I'm going to read this bit, there's only one last paragraph, let's just see what he says. And I have a debt also to the subject of this biography, Mr. Napoleon. I have learned and am still learning from the great teacher whose lessons to Europe and the world, discounted so often and so long, have never at any time been forgotten. Napoleon is part of Europe's inheritance. He is part of her spirit. In him, England and Germany, and the lands of the Danubian Basin, as well as France and Italy and Spain, have a share, the importance of which is becoming clearer as the years pass. Indeed, the closer Europe comes to her authentic civilization, the nearer she approaches to this universal mind. I always get worried when I see things like universal, but let's just let that go. It is the same in the case of America. Napoleon taught that without a king there can be no people, but only parties and factions, each of them the creature of money. Is that not worth reading again? You might not agree with it, but that kicks a few brain cells into action, doesn't it? Napoleon taught that without a king there can be no people, but only parties and factions, each of them the creature of money. Is that not what we live under? Is that not what we live under? His leadership has come down through the century of greed and pauperism to be the sanction of other leaderships by which salvation is now being accomplished. He did not fight in vain, nor was his fall without hope. Now, maybe that's a good framing thought to take into the cinema if you go and see Napoleon in a month's time, okay? I just wanted to read that. I've left so many threads unanswered here, I've just been going through, I apologize for that. But I've read it out, this is the way I operate when I read, I don't know how you do. I end up reading a footnote, I have to go off and get another book and I forgot what I was doing in the previous one. Do you do that? Or is it just me? I don't know. So I end up with about five or six books open on my desk going, oh, this means that, and that means that. But my bumbling method is just mine, it might not be yours, my bumbling method. Anyway, here ends this sort of formal part of the thing. I've kind of overrun by about 15, 16 minutes, but I wanted to cover that. So I'll just go back over the documents I've been reading from. That was The Life of Napoleon by McNair Wilson. I've also been saying a few things, actually there is one point I'm going to just mention here, one last one before we go to the studio. The Duke d'Orléans, in Webster's account you will find correctly that the Duke d'Orléans is the pivot point around which this entire conspiracy to overthrow France revolves. He's a wretched figure, more wretched than I could suspect. I can't find the quote here, I'll find it for next week, I'm going to read it out. This is in Ramsey's book. He was said to be worth a lot of money, but this is not true. This is not true. He was at one point, he was a reckless and profligate gambler, liked to be seen at the races all the time, wore the finest clothes. He's repellent in practically every regard, he really is. If you read Webster's account you won't like him, you'll go, I don't want to go for a drink with that guy. Not that you can now, but you wouldn't want to, even if you could. And yet, although I can't find this thing, he was massively in debt. Somebody bailed him out. Well, well, well. Surprised? I would imagine not. And from that leverage they had on him, he was used at this pivot point to overthrow France, which at the time was the wealthiest nation and the most powerful nation in Europe, on the land. We had a lot of boats, of course, kicking around, actually we didn't have as many boats in 1790 as we got during the 1800s, but we had a few, and we were very concerned about France. Oh, there's so many bits I was going to include today, but this topic is so huge, actually, and I find it so fascinating. I hope you do. Anyway, you either do or you don't. I don't know. But there we go. Right. So there we go. He was corrupted. There you go, and that's why, that's how it always works. So let me have a look in the studio. Okay, so we've got a couple of people. We've got Paul back. I'm going to add Paul in a second. We've got Paul. Hi, welcome back, Paul. And we've got Wandering Star, whose devices are not connected. Wandering Star, your devices, that almost sounds a bit surgical, that, doesn't it? It sounds a bit worrying. Maybe it's a medical complaint. No, I don't mean that. So if you want to get your devices connected, you'll be able to join in, but let me add Paul in first. Here we go. Yes, Paul. Hi. Hi, Paul. Hi. Welcome to the show. Have we spoken before? I think we have. Yeah, I do believe. If you don't recognize my icon by now, if you don't recognize my emoji by now, I don't know. Yeah. Boy, you've really opened a ton of, you know, tons of cans of worms in the first half of the show. I know. I know. It's just a bit too much, really. I've got about 16 tabs here in front of me, Paul. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. Hi. No? Yes? No. No. Okay. I'm just looking at some comments here. Of Wandering Stars, getting ready, I just wanted to say that Silver as well is an interesting one and it's got a long history as being associated with the death of vampires and some people are saying that the price of silver has been artificially really kept far lower than it really should be and I don't know but it would be interesting to see if there's any truth to that. I think it's likely to be true. I think it's the same with the gold price and of course when I was looking at gold people would say, oh the price of gold is going up but what they're also saying is, oh the value of the US dollar or the pound or the euro is going down in relation to gold. So it's a difficult thing to get your brain around is pricing as well when you start really looking at it in these ways, this is where this kind of black magic with money sort of happens. There's kind of confusion in the head. I think there is anyway and we just have to operate with it at the level that we can comprehend it but the gold price has always been manipulated but the price of an ounce of gold is one ounce of gold. I mean one of the things I was intrigued about was that obviously if you've got an ounce of gold in Japan and I've got an ounce of gold in Britain, they're actually perfectly interchangeable. We've got the same thing in our hand. It's a global currency system and in fact although I do not of course subscribe to the political theory of globalism or the execution of it which is what we're having to endure right now, what we were looking at back then was to try and mobilize gold coins. So I actually did some research on how many sovereigns there were. Now a sovereign is just over a fifth of an ounce and under a quarter of an ounce of gold. It's 0.2037 or something and there are about 900,000 sovereigns or whatever it is. All these sovereigns exist and then you've got gazillions of Krugerrands which is the South African gold coin. You've got lots of US eagles and you can get a chart. Now those things could be mobilized. What I mean by mobilized is if you had – now with smartphones, we could do it easy, right? You could have a pricing mechanism because price is where it's at psychologically when you look at what a price is. It's very interesting. You could have an exchange chart in real time where I could go and buy a car for gold if the company said, yeah, we take gold. I've got 16 ounces. Will that get me stuff? Well, yeah, 16 ounces is whatever it is, you know, it's 24,000 pounds or something. Yeah, you can buy that one. I know I'm being doolally but the idea of coinage and moving it around, something that we all used to do in notes, unmonitored is interesting. There's an organization, I don't know Paul if you're familiar with it because it's your neck of the woods in the States. There is a website called goldback.com and what they're doing technically is very, very interesting. They have found a method, a way of spraying gold one atom thick. They can spray it, actual gold one atom thick and they put it in between two or more sheets of urethane, very thin urethane or some kind of and create gold notes. They're really rather marvelous actually. This means that you literally can spend, yes, small denominations of gold on a day-to-day basis and they are looking to develop it across the States and the world and I think for a franchise, it's about 100,000 quid and for a franchise, you get 100,000 quids worth of goldbacks but it means we could get them printed with the British goldback if we wanted to use British or the English one or the Scottish one or whatever people want. So you need to get one for Texas. I think they're in Wyoming or Utah, I can't remember but their video on their technology, you just get thinking. They've done some really interesting work and of course they say, these transactions that you make are outside of the purview of the government because what we're talking about here all the time is it's the government that's the problem. They govern badly, they don't understand money and they're never going to understand it because the people that control the money don't want the politicians fully understanding money because they make it more difficult to control. They just get paid off, talk rubbish and everything stays stuck or basically gets worse. So silver and gold, I mean sterling, the word sterling, we have pound sterling comes from I think it's the word stirrer which means star or silver, it's an old Anglo-Saxon word and that's where we get sterling from and a pound used to be worth a pound in weight of silver, one pound in weight. So this, people have said, well there's not enough gold to go around but that's nonsense. You could run the whole world on one ounce of gold, you just say, well that ounce is worth 500 trillion trillion dollars and you've got a microscopic stake in it and there's the gold for the whole planet and then there is these other stories as well about gold, having other qualities. I mean it's a fantastic conductor of electricity, tremendous heat reflector and it doesn't rot in the earth's atmosphere although there is one acid that you can put in it that will kill it off but that was the reason why it's so durable over what we, as far as we're concerned, multiple lifetimes. So it lends itself well, it's stipulated to some degree biblically to use honest weights and measures and there's that word again, honest, you know, honest. Okay, the World Bank has given us debt instruments that represent a value and the Bible says that lawful money is gold and silver and what's interesting is that the whole debt slave system that they've created, I believe, hinges on the money. If you're using their currency, that indicates your slavery to them but you can buy things with lawful money and there's some interesting caveats to that as well. If you buy like a piece of property or an automobile and the deal you make with the seller is purchased for so many dollars in lawful money and other valuable consideration, you're not using debt notes to buy that so it actually belongs to you so there's lots of interesting things to like get your head around and... Well, there's been, I mean, monetarily wise, there's been a lot of things have happened over the last 20, 25 years over the internet that have shown all sorts of really interesting and creative ideas and the ones that would actually work are the ones that have been shut down. There was a thing about 20 years ago called e-gold. It was digital gold. The idea was that you have an account online, the gold was stored somewhere for you or part of the storage process and then you could make transactions and people would buy things off of one another in e-gold and move it around and the feds in your neck of the woods didn't like it very much so it got shut down. There was e-gold. There was another one called sea gold which was also gold. People then looked at silver and these are the... So people have continually been looking for ways to bring it about. The problem I guess that we have is that for it to... The more hands that money is transacted through, the more powerful that money is. It's to do with the number of users. If you're in a small community, there's only eight of you and you're all using community money eight or whatever you want to call it, that's the strength of that particular exchange medium is based on how much work and goods and stuff you eight guys and gals can do. But if it's 800 million, it's a different kind of fish and so we get back to this thing about money being a creature of the law which it is. If we operate on the basis that we have laws operating in our society to regulate how we behave which I think we kind of agree on the idea of that although there's less and less evidence that that's taking place these days. They seem to be sort of drifting into oblivion and you've got this attack on the concept of justice by victims of crime being abused and the perpetrators being let off and that's an intentional policy. I mean there have been documents written about that to get people to get a skewed view of whether justice is taking place and it's all part of undermining the entire operations of how we'd live and behave. So I mean getting to an honest monetary situation is obviously indispensable. This is required if we're going to carry on using money which sounds an odd thing to say but all these are the technological developments that have taken place have changed the nature of our life. I think we need to take it into account. I don't mean the fact that we're just communicating it instantaneously over huge distances in this way which of course is really rather marvellous. What I mean is that if we'd have been alive at the time of Napoleon 200 years ago, I'd have been roped into the British Army probably and got shot up somewhere or something like that. What did we have back then? We had horses and carts, there you go, horses and carts we had. We had rifles. I don't know if they had self-loading or repeating rifles, I don't know how they all worked. I don't know my military history on that stuff. Things were technologically a little bit limited, weren't they? They were a bit limited with all of these things. So that's really part of the whole thing and that's just been part of the problems with what we've done here is that technical limitation. It meant a way of life. It meant that we would do things in a particular way, that farming was very, very important as it still is to this day. But we've been able to produce so much stuff that the sorts of problems governments had to solve, they've been put out of work. We don't really need them but we're compelled to be using them. They'll get creative and they'll invent problems so they can fix them. Don't worry about that at all. Reagan said it, the most terrifying words ever spoken is, hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Yeah, it's true, they are the most terrifying words. Hey, you know what? These two hours have flown by, we're at the end of it. Let me just throttle that down a little bit but that's the outro music telling me that it's time to go and do something else after this show. Thanks everyone for being here for the evening. It's very top heavy with written and spoken stuff. Thanks for joining me Paul again in the studio and Wandering Star even though you said nothing but I read some of your messages in private, didn't read them out. You got to thinking about Napoleon today, jolly good. You need to come on and speak next time if you want to do that and to you, Pale, as well. Thanks for coming back and speaking again. I'll be here next week probably with a bit more variety. Today just went pretty sort of central on that kind of stuff but we will be coming back. I will be coming back to the French Revolution of Napoleon over the next few weeks just because we've got this film coming up so it just gives me a little frame, we don't have to but that's the kind of thing so that's it. Cool, alright. Once again thanks everyone and we'll be back next week at 8pm UK time, 3pm US Eastern time. See you then. Have a good week.