Interview Iain Davis: The Disillusioned Blogger

INTERVIEW IAIN DAVIS: THE DISILLUSIONED BLOGGER

FEBRUARY, 25TH 2024      AARON SMITH      SEASON 1      EPISODE 64

SHOW NOTES:

Today, we speak with Mr. Iain Davis, who is a researcher, journalist, book author, blogger, and autodidact of the highest caliber. I find Iain to be a thoughtful, engaging writer who shares my high regard for the importance of sifting and winnowing through the evidence. He presents his arguments with the explicit desire to inspire curiosity in his audience, so they will enter with him into the arena of ideas.

I believe you’ll enjoy this thought-provoking and hope-invoking conversation, in which we discuss Iain's views on geopolitical movements, CBDCs, the unjust treatment of UK journalist Richard D. Hall, and the globalists' strategic implementation of technocracy. See below for links to Iain Davis and Richard D. Hall!

You can always email me at subtlecain@protonmail.com

The subtlecain Podcast Telegram: https://t.me/ThesubtlecainPodcast

Substack: https://subtlecain.substack.com

IAIN DAVIS:

https://substack.com/@iaindavis
https://iaindavis.com

The subtlecain Spotlight: This episode we feature journalist Richard D. Hall. Please follow the links to learn more about his situation and how you can support him.

IAIN'S OFFGUARDIAN ARTICLE: https://off-guardian.org/2024/02/13/richard-d-hall-a-travesty-of-justice

Here's the link to his legal fund: https://www.richplanet.net/legal.php

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Welcome to the Sub-O'Cain Podcast. I'm your host, aaron Smith, broadcasting from the Aorta of America beautiful festival city, oshkosh, wisconsin, where we pump out reason and pierce through the propaganda. Here we go. Today is Sunday, february 25, 2024. This is Episode 64 of the Sub-O'Cain Podcast interview with Ian Davis. If you're new to the Sub-O'Cain Podcast, thank you for gracing us with your virtual presence. If you're a returning listener, thank you for your continued support. It is much appreciated. Today we speak to author, journalist, blogger and autodidactic researcher of the highest caliber, mr Ian Davis. Ian is a thoughtful, engaging writer who shares my value for sifting and winnowing through the evidence. Ian presents his arguments with the explicit desire to inspire curiosity and enter the arena of ideas. I believe you'll enjoy this thought-provoking and hope-invoking conversation. Let's get into it. Good afternoon, mr Ian Davis. Thank you for coming on the Sub-O'Cain Podcast. I sincerely appreciate it.

Speaker 2: 1:23

Oh, thank you very much, Aaron. It's very kind of you to invite me.

Speaker 1: 1:26

Well, ian, I've been following up on your work and for a while now I've been following you and always been impressed with a few things about you. Specifically, though, something that resonates with me, that I always talk about with the audience, is your Right on your About Me page, you say any media outlet or commentator that asks you to trust them is suggesting that you abandon critical thinking and simply believe whatever they tell you, and that you will never ask that of people and ask them to arrive at their own conclusions, and I sincerely appreciate that about you and the humility that is evident in your approach to sifting and winnowing through the evidence. So I was curious if you would share with the audience a little bit about your background and what was the seminal moment when you decided to pursue your writing and research and what most influenced you to focus on the subject matter that you focus on mainly technocrats, I'd say right.

Speaker 2: 2:37

Yeah, my background is in health and social care. I worked in health and social care various different, both in public and private settings and institutional and in the community, and I worked in that for about 30 years. One of the problems of working in that industry is the various periods of unemployment, and when I was made redundant again, I think Now I'm going to say that that was 2011 or something like that, I think or 2000, but maybe a bit later, 2012, I can't remember now but by that time I'd already been a union steward and a rep for a number of years in various different roles, and so I was always I suppose was and since a child I've always been quite politically but just interested in politics, and that extended to geopolitics and so forth. And then when I was at the unions, I used to do a bit of writing for Union Magazine and the Union Trade Magazine and I used to write a few articles and things like that. I started the blog. I'm going to say 2010-ish, I think. I started the blog and it purely was simply to highlight what I thought was important evidence that people generally weren't talking about, and one of the things I noticed is that when I spoke to people about that evidence. They'd either never heard of it or didn't know what I was talking about. So I thought it was quite important to just put that out there, if I could, and it was very much a hobby. Then, when I was made redundant, I thought about the possibility of trying to do it on a more full-time basis. I retrained as a journalist and so this is later yeah, this is 2016-2015, so I must have been made redundant around. Then I retrained as a journalist, did a vocational qualification and started working on it as full-time as possible.

Speaker 2: 4:49

I was very fortunate and I think the way that things work and this has become an increasingly difficult people to start getting the message out to others or start trying to share their messages, as you will know full well working in this space yourself is that it's getting increasingly difficult to share information, certainly through the kind of main route which is social media generally. Through social media, there's so much. I was fortunate, I suppose, in many respects, is that I was able to share information relatively freely in the early days. I mean, that's come to a grinding halt now, but in that time that drew me to the attention of people like bigger outlets like UK Column and the Off Guardian who started sharing my work, and that enabled me to garner a little bit more of an audience for the things that I write about my reason for writing about the things I do, and you quite right, I focus on technocracy quite a bit and something I call the global public-private partnership, which is hoping to establish a global technocracy, I would suggest.

Speaker 2: 6:08

Like most people, I suppose 9-11 made me question things, but not overtly. I wouldn't say that I was particularly questioning of official narratives beyond my broadly left-wing political views at the time. And then I think, when did I read it? I must have read.

Speaker 2: 6:35

I think I read Bizarzinski's grand chessboard when I was probably in my 30s, mid-30s, so that's a good 20 years ago now, probably around the time of 9-11, actually and what struck me about that was that, you know, if you read that, what struck me most clearly was that there really are individuals and groups of people on this planet who consider things like nation states to be little more than squares on a game board and whole populations to be pawns to be pushed around in that game, that geopolitical, grand, strategic game that they are playing. And I found that, you know, coming from the horse's mouth, as anyone that's read that particular book will know, I just found that very shocking, really and truly startling. So that started me down the path of looking more information about where true power lies, both in my own country, the United Kingdom, and abroad and globally, and I think that over the years that developed into you know and then reading people like Patrick Wood that led me into writing on the subject matters that I currently write about.

Speaker 1: 8:13

That's quite a path and I would say, the idea of the redundancy. I can admire that there was a resilience within you that didn't just look at that as a put up your hands in the air and say, whatever, I'll just limp along in life, and it seems that that fueled your creativity and your ability to perceive things and recognize patterns and things like that. That, I think, is missing largely in a lot of the public right now and that, I think, is concerning that people, when they are confronted with the types of hardships that are, I would say, largely put upon us, when you're talking about the geopolitics or the economic environment that we're in, that resiliency is always impressive and is missing quite a bit. So I respect that A lot of the information that I've or interviews I've listened to you on and work that you've written. One of the things that strikes me is this article you, I think, just recently released I can't. It's refuting the canard of the oh yeah, sorry, the multi polarity versus unipolarity.

Speaker 2: 9:53

Yeah, no, the canard that I was refuting and that was in a sub stack article where I tend to reserve sub stack for being a bit more irreverent at times and a bit more freewheeling than I do on my blog. My blog is very much kind of pretty deep research stuff, whereas I more freely express my opinion through my sub stack. And one of the reasons that you know as one of the people that criticizes multi polarity which obviously you know for your listeners perhaps is the notion of a more fair system of global governance, a more multilateral system of global governance, where multilateralism obviously means shared decision making with more nation states involved.

Speaker 2: 10:47

So, on its, on its surface, if you accept the notion of global governance, which I don't, I think it's an appalling idea. But but if you do, then on its surface that seems to be preferential to what we might call the international rules based order, which stem from the union lap unipolar world order where, where the US was left as the only global superpower, really, after the collapse of the union, and you know so, you've got on a Western aligned kind of NATO aligned alliance of nation states. You've got the US, canada, australia, you know the five eyes, you've got New Zealand, you've got the EU and European nation states, all kind of a light broadly aligned with this NATO coalition, us led NATO coalition, who undoubtedly over the last few decades have been, you know, really, striding around the world with impunity, causing all kinds of mayhem, invading countries, bombing countries. I mean that that started in the 90s, really in Europe, with the willful destruction of Yugoslavia, for which there was no, no reason other than geopolitical and geo strategic gain in terms of wanting to vulcanize the region and break it up again. Again. We were looking at energy infrastructure, probably very much underpinning that, things that the cyan pipeline, you know, supplying, supplying oil and gas, and so there are things you know where, where you know global investors seek to capitalize on human suffering.

Speaker 2: 12:22

Often, I mean, that's, that's, that's the bottom line, and very much that was being pushed by, and undoubtedly by, what people called the international rules based order, which is no rules really at all. I mean there are any rules, might is right, is about as far as it goes, and so there's a world order. Therefore, on its face seems like a reasonable and hopeful some, some feel, obviously hopeful change for the better, that more nation states would be involved in decision making at the global governance level through the United Nations and this will somehow create a better world. If you look at the history of where the idea comes from, it comes largely from the people that many sort of researchers, such as G Edgar Griffin and people like that and Anthony C Sutton and those kind of people, would point towards in terms of being these kind of oligarch influences that are underpinning global investment strategies that that things like the international rules based order will set up to serve. So so they also envisaged you can go back to the Rhodes Milner group they envisaged what they called a three-pole world or a three I forgot what what quickly called it now, but a three-pole world, or three, three different poles on the world, which would be, you know, the US block, the European block and the kind of Soviet Eurasian block.

Speaker 2: 13:58

Then there was you know, later you've got people like the Rockefellers who published a thing called their Special Studies Report in the 19. It was called the Project for American Supremacy or the Project for American Foreign Policy I can't remember the name of the actual publication, but it stemmed from their Special Studies Report, in which they spoke about a regionalised world, so breaking it up into more manageable chunks. Instead of 193 nations all vying for making decisions at a global governance level, you break it up into blocks and each block sort of represents the nation states that are contained within it. They called that the regionalised world. We saw the same thing again in the World Economic Forums 2020, covid-19, the Great Reset publication, where Schwab and Malare were talking about, you know, the break, the managed breakdown of globalisation, which, if you think about the kind of the economic ideas of people like Schumpeter, it's this idea of creative destruction, of breaking things apart to remodel it in a more beneficial way. So they're talking about the same idea of regionalisation, and then we then get the emergence of the multi-polar world order, which really kind of took, I suppose, public shape, took hold of the public imaginations, probably with the joint statement of President Putin and Xi Jinping about three weeks before Russia entered the conflict in Ukraine and or officially entered the I'll say officially entered the conflict in Ukraine. And really what they were talking about there was this trying to sell this idea of multi-polarity.

Speaker 2: 15:51

So the critics and I am one of those critics argue that what we are seeing is nothing new. This is not a reinvention of global governance. It is the natural evolution of global governance if your intention is to establish what we might call global governance with teeth. So hitherto, you know, projects like the League of Nations and the United Nations have never really managed to overcome the internal difficulty of national sovereignty. So national, you know, nation states making decisions in their own interest is not something that the United Nations has ever been able to overrule to any great extent.

Speaker 2: 16:41

So now we see things like the World Health Organisation obviously pushing forward with the International Health Regulation Reforms and its proposed quote unquote pandemic treaty, which is an attempt to genuinely overrule national sovereignty on a global level, and I think it's not coincidental that those two things, that that is emerging at the same time as we see the emergence of what people are calling the multi-polar world order, because the purpose of the multi-polar world order is to make the UN appear to be a more multilateral organisation, lend it further credibility and thus enable it to genuinely act as a global decision maker. And that means setting policies in nation states. Now, to a great extent, the United Nations already does that, but it does it through policy agenda rather than actually stipulating what policies are. The move? The move, the trajectory of where the multi-polar world order is taking us, is towards a situation where global governance will be set in firm policy, which is much closer to what we might call a global government.

Speaker 1: 17:56

Correct, yeah, and then in a technocratic approach at that, with all of the mechanisms put into place.

Speaker 1: 18:06

When you were talking there, I was just thinking about the fact that IMF and similar institutions central banking institutions, as of late, have been really focused on solving the interoperability problem with the CBDCs and that sovereignty being an issue, so trying to figure out well, how do we maintain these individual currencies while having this interoperability? And it seems that the foregone conclusion though they pretend to lament it is that we will have to eventually adopt a single currency in order to solve that problem and, in so, make that a programmable currency. I like the metaphor used, or the analogy used, of the conflicts that we see in between these different quote unquote sovereign nations, depending on how you interpret that, as the boxers are still in the ring fighting each other, there's still boxing going on, but that doesn't mean that they're protesting the federation of boxing. There's an overarching financial structure and power structure that oversees these conflicts and, to even drag it out further, making a lot of money on the books as well as far as betting between them and manipulating outcomes.

Speaker 2: 20:02

Yeah, I mean, if we look at for Ukraine, for example, I mean you know it's now been openly admitted, isn't it, that most of the investment that went into Ukraine was being directly, you know it was used to fuel the US armaments industry. Investors in that are the ultimate winners. So it's the, it's global investors that the, you know, trade and deal in stocks of these companies, these multinational companies you know companies like Raytheon they're the winners. They win when, when there's a war like there is in, you know, like there has been in Ukraine, a conflict in Ukraine, well, genuine war in Ukraine, you know, not so much in the Middle East, but that's more of a slaughter. But I mean, but there's a genuine war in Ukraine between opposing armies, then it's globalist investors that are the only winners in that. They're the only people that win out of that situation.

Speaker 2: 21:01

The public certainly don't. The people don't. The military doesn't. You know. The soldiers that fight and die in it certainly don't answer certain extent. You know, even, even you know, political establishments succeed or fail by by what happens in such conflicts.

Speaker 2: 21:19

But but, but, the persistent and continual winners are the globalist investors, the people that we might call oligarchs, who convert that wealth, exorbitant wealth that they've hoovered up, you know, often over generations, but often not often, you know there's new money that comes into it. I mean, we might think of someone like Jeff Bezos or someone like that. They convert that wealth into influence and authority, and one of the vehicles they can do that through is, for it is the United Nations. I mean, the United Nations was set up as a public private partnership. I think it was in 1998 who the Kofi Annan, who was then the General Secretary, spoke about what he called a quiet revolution that had taken place in the United Nations, and he said that the United Nations was no longer concerned just with the governments of the world, but also with the businesses of the world.

Speaker 2: 22:24

So, you know, when you see this amalgam between the political state and the corporate state, that's fascism, that is pretty, that's pretty much. You know that. You know that's a root definition of the fascismo, as in the. You know the, the Italian concept of fascism, there is nothing, there is nothing beyond the state, because all, all commerce and all business activity, and you know all Supply and demand, all services or public services, everything is encapsulated within One single unit, which is, you know, a partnership between the public and the private, which is the state. So that's that's that's very worrying. So I mean, if we then think about how this is happening on a global level, which it currently is, we're seeing this, this come to fruition through, for example for example, we were talking about the world world health organization earlier.

Speaker 1: 23:27

Mm-hmm.

Speaker 2: 23:27

Well, if we, we look at the, the, the power Afforded to people, private investors, private oligarchs, people like Bill Gates, that have got a controlling interest, financial, controlling in fat interest in the World Health Organization, so that that is the conversion of wealth To direct political power, not on the national level but on the global level, in this, in this example, but it more more common, you know, it more commonly occurs at the national level, where we see this, this, this marriage between Government policy and private capital. Government policy, you know, you can look at pretty much any government policy and it Invariably serves the interest of private capital. It doesn't serve the interests of us. If it does serve our interests, that's usually a coincidence rather than the purpose. You know it's, it's, it's, it doesn't serve. You know, they know that most, most of these decisions are, and policy decisions that are enforced upon us Quite obviously serve the interest of private capital.

Speaker 1: 24:43

Yeah, I see one of the one of the responses when, when people like yourself bring up the the advantage of, let's say, the war in Ukraine for Contractors, private partnerships with the government, I Often hear in response to that a Fate, a canard I would, I would imagine is that you don't care about the people or you're denying that there's real harm and suffering going on. And that's one of the things you also pointed out was that you're not denying that that real people are dying or there's actual struggle and hardship going on in the world. It's just pointing out the, I think, as you put it, compartmentalized hierarchical structure that's Over and above that, that is benefiting from it.

Speaker 2: 25:38

Yeah, I mean, one of the reasons I wrote that particular piece was about one of the one of the responses that is often kind of thrown at people that are criticizing what we perceive to be global power structures is that we are claiming that all governments are in it together. I mean, that's often thrown oh, you're just saying there's all in it together. So therefore, the war is fake, all conflicts are fake. You know that nothing's real, it's all, it's all a show and so so on. Yeah, but the conflicts are real. I mean that. But the point is that the global governance system that everyone agrees on, right, there are. There are certain pillars that we can go back to, the you know. Take the idea of technocracy. Yeah, there are technocratic pillars that we can identify that all nation states agree on. They're all pursuing some sort of digital monetary system, digital technology, central Bank, digital currency or some sort of digitized, tokenized coin that they'll sell to the public, which will be, as you rightly mentioned earlier, interoperable in one kind of global financials, new international monetary and financial system. Everyone agrees on that. I mean everyone, I mean the US, russia, china. They agree. There's no difference in this. Sustainable development goals. Everybody is pursuing sustainable development. Now there are differences in how they're doing it. I mean, the UK government has set its net zero target for 2050. China set its for 2060. The US has I don't even the US hasn't even firmly set a net zero target date yet, you know. So there are differences about how they're going to achieve sustainable development, but they're all on board with the idea.

Speaker 2: 27:29

Think biosecurity you know the the need for us all to have some sort of digital identity so that we can verify who we are for a variety of Goods and services, accessing services, be everything from the internet to banking, but also that that will be tied to our vaccine status so that we can be deemed safe. You know, all countries are on board with that. There is no dissent. So these are the pillars, we could say, of global technocracy. These are the things that will be used to control populations Through governments, through national governments, but they will use these things to control their own populations. And then, if we think about that, how that would operate, a global governance level, which would be setting the rules for these, for this system Then that that converts into into global governance controlling populations.

Speaker 2: 28:28

But within that, within that, there is clearly conflict, there is absolutely conflict. So what are we looking at? Are we? We're not looking at any challenge to the pillars of global technocracy, that is, a single global system that everyone seems to accept. Every nation state accepts that. So why the conflict? Well, if we think of the analogy of, for example, a global corporation, you, the board, the board of the global corporation are squabbling amongst themselves for advantage, but that doesn't you know. They're quite happy to stab each other in the back if necessary to you know, to gain advantage within the corporation. But every single one of them is on board with the profitability and the further development and progress of the corporation, because it's through the corporation that all their boats float. So so that's what we're looking at. We're looking. We're looking at conflicts between nation states that are squabbling for advantage and position Within one global governance system that they all agree on. Short break here. The subtle cane podcast operates on a modified value for value system.

Speaker 1: 29:48

You'll hear no ads on this show, and that's because I will not be beholden to the interests of anyone but you, my faithful producers. Instead of returning value to me, I want you to support the featured need, and I've been thinking about this and I don't really care for the sound of featured need Seems a little too much like I don't know alms for the poor to me, so instead I'm gonna start referring to it as the subtle cane spotlight. This episode, the subtle cane spotlight is fixed on one, richard D Hall, at the request of our guest Ian Davis. As always, I implore you to make your own decision about who or what to support. The subtle cane spotlight is a way to bring people and their needs to your attention. It's up to you to decide what to do with that information. Please consider returning any value that I may have provided you with my efforts here to Mr Richard D Hall. We have to be personally invested in the world within which we have agency. Let's get back to it. Yeah, even a even more of a microcosm of that I was thinking about as you were speaking there.

Speaker 1: 30:58

When you look at the mechanisms that are being put into place, the stated goals.

Speaker 1: 31:09

There's such a paternalism to that and it just made me think of, even within a family, the way each child is such a unique individual and a unique person, and there's always a lot of people.

Speaker 1: 31:27

There's always these fights that happen between the children and the parent goes in and, let's say with the oldest child, they respond only to a harsh screaming. You got to scream at them to get them to listen. Maybe you have a more timid child that you can be real gentle with and you get the same response. And then you have any variation of that. And when you have these overarching principles and mechanisms in place, these global, public, private partnerships there are going to have to be very unique, different approaches to each area, based on their culture, about how they see the world, like the Eastern cultures appear to me now, I don't know, but appear to me much more compliant to that paternalistic instinct, or much more compliant. It's a community mindset, the needs of the many over the needs of the few, whereas in the Western society, particularly in the United States, we need to at least have the illusion that we're in charge of the decisions that are made.

Speaker 2: 32:56

Yeah, I mean. So if you look at, for example, Chinese culture, that's based upon concepts like Dutong. So Dutong is the idea of following the great way. So following the path, the great way is the path towards a society of Dutong, where everybody shares everything equally, there's no ownership of anything, all resources are freely available to everybody. It's a kind of utopian ideal of what we might probably in the West might consider to be a kind of more socialist. It's not socialism, but that kind of idea of a shared future between all people. There's no particular private property or individualism isn't celebrated to any extent.

Speaker 2: 33:52

And it's very difficult for us sometimes to apply Western laws when we're trying to analyse places like China. They've got no ontological tradition. In China, we look at an object and we try to describe what it is. So we try to know what's it made of, how does it work, what is it, what can we describe it as? In China it's a totally different mindset. They see something and think, well, what does it imply, what does it mean? How does that affect my path, what does it do in terms of me? Me, how do I manoeuvre in light of this thing? Rather than what is this thing? Now, that's a very, very different mindset.

Speaker 2: 34:47

So if we look at things like the rollout of central bank digital currency, if we look at how they've rolled that out or tried to roll that out in a country like Nigeria where basically the government took a really authoritarian top down, right, we're getting rid of cash, we're getting rid of cash and you're going to use CBDC. Now that confrontational approach backfired very badly in Nigeria because the Nigerian people resisted that very strongly. But the Bank for International Settlement were involved in the development of that Nigerian CBDC, which is called the ENERA, were involved in that from day one and it was really. It was work between the Nigerian central bank and the Bank for International Settlement, which is the central bank of central banks, that enabled the ENERA to be developed so quickly. They really focused on it to try and get it rolled out. So they were, you know, for all that, unpleasant and this has gotten rather. I mean, when I looked at this, I thought this had a rather unpleasant whiff of neocolonialism about it as well. But they just, they just thought right, we'll just try it on the Nigerian population, which is 225 million people, by the way. They just, they just, they just stamped it on them to see what would happen and the reaction was visceral.

Speaker 2: 36:16

So when it came so when it comes to rolling it out in places like the UK or the US so the UK is rolling out its digital pound and it, in the Bank of England, went out of its way to say don't worry, we're not getting rid of cash, we'll never get rid of cash. This is simply about financial stability and international cross-border payments. You know, we're only looking at it theoretically. Meanwhile, other people in the Bank of England are speaking at places like Davos and saying that they're planning to pay everybody in it. You know so they're not. On the one hand, they're telling the, telling the, the, you know, the British public that it don't worry, there's nothing to worry about, it's not going to replace cash. And in other places around the world, the same bank, or officials from the same bank, are saying it's going to be, that's how you are going to get your salary, yeah, that's massive two weeks to flatten the curve.

Speaker 2: 37:15

Yeah, exactly. But then if we look at somewhere like the US where they're on legal moves from states in the US to stop CBDC and there is already, I would you know there seems to be a reasonable level of or a greater awareness of what CBDC portends in the US than the many other countries you know obviously not Nigeria who really understand what it means, but certainly you know, in the kind of Western, western world, the US, the US, I mean, there's been, you know, states ruling it.

Speaker 2: 37:50

You know that they're not going to, they're not going to accept it. So there's resistance. So what are they doing in the US? They're just, they're doing a bait and switch in the US. So the digital coin, these tokenized digital coins, these stable coins and variations of stable coins, if you look at what they're planning to do, for example, jp Morgan, for example, jp Morgan, jason Coe, for example, they've issued a coin which they're calling a deposit token. So this deposit token is just going to be issued by commercial. Things like that are just going to be issued by commercial banks. So they'll say you know, it's not CBDC really, you know, isn't really CBDC, it's just another form of stable coin, or crypto won't be a crypto, but stable coin.

Speaker 2: 38:46

Now it's going to be programmable, right? Which is which is the big, big threat of central bank digital currency. So, instead of it being programmed by Jerome Powell, it's going to be programmed by Jamie Diamond. So, so, so you know, I don't think that's a, I don't think that's a win-win situation for anybody, right? So, and all these people are in there in the global public private partnership together. It doesn't matter whether JP Morgan or Deutsche Bank or your central bank programs the money, and what they're going to do as well is these, these I think that these coins although they'll be, although they'll be issued by the central, by the commercial banks in countries like the US, lulling the public into believing they're not central bank digital currency I think they will settle internationally in central bank digital currency.

Speaker 2: 39:52

So clearance is going to be done in CBDC and that's why the bank for international settlements, as you mentioned earlier, have been obsessed with this idea of interoperability for cross-border payments, because what they want to do is create a single international monetary and financial system digital infrastructure, which means that if I trade oil in the yen, say you know, saudi oil futures in the yen to that, that will be instantly tradable in New York in the dollar, without, without, without there being any kind of you know, there would be an exchange mechanism, but that will be calculated by AI instantaneously and payments will be able. So, you know, if I'm a US investor and I want to get into that, into that market in Saudi Arabia and they're using the yen, then I can just simply do that straight away from the US without any kind of delay or cross-border payment delays or anything like that. No, clearing None of that. And that really taking that out of the loop, and I could just it doesn't matter what current you know effectively, it doesn't matter what currency I'm using, so so what that will, what that will do globally, I think I mean, the more I look at it, the more I think what we're moving to and I wrote about something that Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England and the Central Bank of Canada, spoke about, something called a synthetic hegemonic currency.

Speaker 2: 41:34

Now, and it's quite interesting because he was talking in 2019 and he said that the reason that the world needed this was to move, you know, move towards a multi polar world order. So this is a G7 banker talking about this in 2019. He's not a banker anymore Now, he's the UN's climate envoy for finance, you know, and you know, I mean Mark Carney is just everywhere, I mean. But the point is the synthetic hegemonic currency.

Speaker 2: 42:02

Really the idea is that it would be a network of interoperable currencies. It wouldn't just be one single CBDC or one single currency, but it would be an interoperable network. So interoperability means that the whole thing functions as one whole. Yeah, so what coin we use? Whatever coin we use say it's JP Morgan's deposit token Although you're buying and selling food or goods or services you're buying a haircut with your JP Morgan token that will instantaneously settle globally in one single, what they're calling the universal ledger. So that the Bank of International and International separate settlements is going to operate or is planning to operate the universal ledger which, regardless of what currency you're using, if interoperability works, as they hope it will will give someone like the Bank of International settlements oversight over all transactions on earth. All right, All right.

Speaker 2: 43:19

Right, so commercial banks will access these ledgers through contractual agreements. Right, so they'll be given licenses to access national ledgers and each national ledger will feed into the international ledger, the universal ledger. So this is a pretty totalitarian economic control system that they're trying to construct, and that's what we all need to resist.

Speaker 1: 43:50

Yeah Well, so a universal ledger, excuse me, which would mean that you had to have a universal means of regulation, which would mean that money is power, and so that would mean that, regardless of whatever lipstick they put on the pig, it's still going to be a functional loss of actual sovereignty. Regardless, we can call it the, whatever the, we could even call it the Patriot CBDC over here, and people would feel good about it. Functionally, we would be losing all sense of sovereignty in that our economic interactions would be regulated outside of the United States, just as one example. So we. That that's sovereignty gone. Regardless, the programmability has always been just terrifying to me in the sense that, well, I think, I think one of the things in the West, particularly in in the Americas, that that brought a light to that was that Canadian trucker situation where they shut people, people's money off for supporting the Canadian trucker demonstrations, and so I don't know if anything, if it succeeded in bringing awareness to the danger of programmability of our money like that, I think that that's a good thing.

Speaker 2: 45:34

Yeah, I mean sorry, carry on.

Speaker 1: 45:37

No, go ahead, Thank you.

Speaker 2: 45:38

I mean, I think the thing that struck me about the Canadian protest was obviously, obviously, so, firstly, what are you seeing? You're seeing a marriage, a partnership between the state and private financial institutions. So the state decrees that some or you know, we are led to believe that the state decrees that that something must happen and the financial institutions comply instantly by blocking, for example, protestors access to bank accounts or for the funds that they use for the protest. But the thing that really struck me about that that what something else that they did was stop the fundraising of ordinary Canadians.

Speaker 2: 46:31

Yeah so, so ordinary Canadians that wanted to contribute to things like GoFundMe pages, that that that you know, just to support what, something that they believed in. Perhaps you know the trucker's process. They were stopped from being able to do that. They literally couldn't make that donation because those, those GoFundMe pages and everything was shut down, right. So they had no, no way of supporting the trucker's protest financially. Now, in a in a programmable digital currency world, that ability to through things called smart contracts that will shut off or open, open up pathways for, for, for, using your money, a limitless, limitless it could be done on an individual basis, it could be done on a national basis. So, for example, you know people often talk about the. You know, let's take that, the Canadian truckers situation the state wouldn't need to pass any kind of policy announcement or legislation to enable that, that the shutdown. Or you or even use legislation, as it did in Canada, to take new legislation you know that had only been written a couple of years earlier, coincidentally, but to use legislation to shut down things like GoFundMe pages, they wouldn't need to do that because your money itself is programmable. So you would go to the GoFundMe page and, you know, donate your, your Bank of Canada digital coin to the GoFundMe page and the transaction itself wouldn't work. Right, you couldn't physically make that transaction and, more to the point, that would be done instantaneously, in real time. That this, this, this is, this is what this world, this financial and monetary system world they're trying to construct, port ends that, it that level of control. So you know, feasibly, you don't even need policy, you don't need, you don't need legislation. You literally I mean, when we talk about things and something we talk about in regards to agenda 2030 and 21, the 15 minute city, this idea that you can't go, you know the everything, you know the way it's sold. Is it be this some kind of beautiful place where everything's within a 15 minute bike ride or walk or whatever? But in reality, in a digital world, you wouldn't need walls to pen people in. You will just, you would just disable their money more than a 15 minute radius from their house. Yeah, so you see, they can't go anywhere else because their money won't work. So you don't even need to construct physical barriers. You can just make it impossible for people to operate outside of a 15 minute radius from their house. That is what digital, programmatic, programmable money. That's what it. That's where we're heading and we're heading there quickly, we're really heading there a rate of knots.

Speaker 2: 50:02

So you know, I think it people really need to resist this stuff and then and it's good to see that they are resisting it in places like the US and in Nigeria and other places around the world, and indeed in places like China, which, which you know, despite its, you know propensity or not propensity, but perhaps a cultural willingness to accept government or edicts that are that are more a more ready willingness to accept that the uptake of CBD city in China has been nothing special. I mean, it's, it's, it's been more, it's been more successful really with the kind of corporate investors and people like that than it is with the public. The public aren't the Chinese public aren't enthusiastic about it, fell from it.

Speaker 2: 50:52

So I think I think everybody, when they're confronted with it, with what it is and this kind of digital money, everyone is kind of naturally Hang on a minute is naturally suspicious about it because, unlike cash, you don't have any control over it. I mean, another way of looking at it is, if this proceeds as, as envisaged and as planned by people like the Bank for International Settlements, human beings will never have their own money. Ever again you won't have your own money. It won't be your money, it will belong to, I mean it. Technically speaking, that's already the case. But I mean but, but you won't. You won't have purchasing power, you won't have control over your own economic future.

Speaker 1: 51:43

And so that seems like a good place to switch up a little bit, because we've discussed how much power money in economic control of economics has. There's also the problem of information is power and information being controlled? And obviously we could go on for quite a while on that. But specifically I wanted to, at your request, focus on one instance where information is being suppressed and someone is being punished for their just desire to find truth and share observable facts, and that would be Mr Richard D Hall. You wrote the article Travesty of Justice about that recently. Do you want to give us some more background on this gentleman?

Speaker 2: 52:39

Yeah, richard D Hall is an independent investigative journalist and researcher and independent filmmaker documentary filmmaker in the UK, and he has done a lot of work on the Manchester Arena bombing that occurred in May 2017, where it was said that 22 people were killed. It was an Islamist terrorist who was the alleged culprit a guy called Salman Abadi, or he was the culprit a guy called Salman Abadi and this calls you know. This was obviously a massive terror attack in the on UK soil. Richard D Hall has investigated that terror attack more thoroughly than any other journalist in the UK and in the world. He is scrupulously and diligently reported on and investigated as much evidence as he possibly could related to that terror attack. He has, in my view, adequately demonstrated that what we are told about Manchester certainly isn't true and the high likelihood that it was some sort of false flag event. Now, now for that. He is currently facing prosecution in the High Court of Justice in the UK in a civil action that was brought against him by two of the claimants, who are two of the purported victims of the Manchester Arena attack. But more than that. So he is facing this, so this could see him bankrupted and could see the removal of all of his work and all of his years of research from the internet book burning, in other words physically stopping him. He's written a book. He's written a fantastically researched book called Manchester, the Night of the Bang, in which he gives all this evidence, where he reports much of this evidence to the public. Subsequent to that, he's uncovered a tremendous amount of evidence that wasn't discussed in the ultimate public inquiry, the Saunders Inquiry into the bombing. And not only is he being attacked in the courts, that is, it seems, pretty evident.

Speaker 2: 55:06

And again he's presented the evidence which shows that the British Broadcasting Corporation, the BBC, were highly likely to have been instrumental in that prosecution, whether they encouraged the claimants to make the claim or supported them in some way. Who knows? The BBC told Hall about the prosecution. He didn't hear it from the courts or from the claimants' legal team, he heard it from the BBC. They told him the BBC have shut down his market stall. He's got a small market stall in near where he lives. They shut that down. They got the local council to shut down. They've had his YouTube videos. It was the BBC, evidently, that contacted YouTube to get his videos removed.

Speaker 2: 55:54

The BBC have written and one person in particular, a woman called Marianna Spring who is supposedly the world's first, or the BBC's first, official disinformation and social media correspondent. They hounded Hall. They approached Hall on several occasions asking him if he wanted to do an interview. He said no, but they door stopped him anyway. They then accused Hall of doing the same thing to people that he was investigating with regard to the Manchester Arena bombing, which he never did.

Speaker 2: 56:27

Then you've got the entire British media establishment publishing quite disgusting character assassinations of this guy. Saying that he's Britain's sickest man was one headline. That he is a troll. He's not even human, he's a troll. They rounded on him. The entire British establishment has rounded on him and it's to shut down his evidence. Now he went to court, the claimants applied to the court to have all of his evidence struck out, so there is no opportunity for him to mount any kind of meaningful defense or present his evidence to the court, and the judge ruled in their favor, so he can't even defend himself properly. So this is what this is what is happening to this, this guy, but to his credit, he just carries on. He carries on fighting. So hopefully there'll be some links in the show notes, which I urge everybody to look at his work and also he's got a Fundraiser, which, because he's intending to appeal this now, this is one one guy Standing up, literally standing up to the entire British establishment on.

Speaker 1: 57:53

Yeah, one of the things that really struck me and I and I hope I don't get this wrong, but the what was used to Strike his defense from the record, was it actually said because it was unlikely to be successful. So let's just not hear it at all. Is that the general gist?

Speaker 2: 58:16

Oh, yeah, they were, because they were applying for something called a summary judgment. Right? So a summary judgment, I mean, which is a legitimate legitimate thing to do in a case, is where you argue that that the claimants argue that the Defendants evidence is so outrageous and so outlandish, preposterous, fanciful which words that the judge used in their summation that it's just ridiculous. It stands no reasonable prospect of success because it's preposterous.

Speaker 2: 58:54

Now you know that that is that is, you know, perhaps plausible if you were claiming that the Queen was a lizard or something like that. I mean, that's that's, you know, that's that's. That's reasonable in those circumstances. But he's not. He's shown Evidence which is perfectly admissible in a British court. Documentary evidence, video footage, you know, audio recordings of police, police recordings of what they were discussing on the night. Documentary evidence, physical evidence, you know he's not. It's not Making up some sort of nutty story and trying to sell it in the courts Right, see, he is presenting solid evidence which cast significant doubt and question on the claimants claim now. So the court has just ruled that inadmissible in its entirety.

Speaker 2: 59:54

Yeah just said no, you can't present it now. The point is and he's quite right there in a civil action like this the judge doesn't have to Prove anything beyond all reasonable doubt. The judge only has to decide on the balance of probabilities. So the judge has accepted on the balance of probability that the claimants claim is substantiated. At this stage the court the trial hasn't finished yet, but the claimants claim is substantiated. Now Hall has shown that on the balance of probability, given all the evidence he can present, the claimants claim is not substantiated. The claimants can't demonstrate that they're that their claim is well-founded. That's his argument.

Speaker 1: 1:00:42

But that doesn't matter because the court of struck a whole lot of it out and I think you rightly point to the fact that this is even if somebody isn't particularly or specifically Familiar with mr Hall's work as a journalist, as as just someone who's actually seeking truth and wants to Know what is, rather than what they're being told. This should alarm everybody, and these are the kind of people that we do need to get behind, because If it can happen to him, it's just setting more and more precedent and, yeah, making it it normalized.

Speaker 2: 1:01:30

Yeah, I mean, I certainly it's a threat to journalism, because, because, basically, what it means is if, if there's another similar situation where where a journalist is strongly questioning an official government narrative, potentially all the government needs to do is present someone who has been, you know, harmed in some way, whether that means that their mental health has been armed because they feel so Mortally offended by the mere accusation that they're not telling the truth, that this set, this sets a legal precedent which means that the anyone that questions as official state narrative, especially journalists, could face bankruptcy and you know the the as a result. So you know, if you dare question the official narrative, we will, you know, not only when we're not allowing you to present your evidence to the court Will bankrupt you. Yeah, you know so this is.

Speaker 2: 1:02:28

This is incredibly dangerous, and one of one of the important things that Richard D Hall's pointed out Is that the there was a survey carried out Not long ago you know, sure, I think it was a few years ago. You know, sure, I think it was a few years ago after the Manchester arena bombing. We're something like 28% of the UK adult population questioned it. Another that one in seven, around 14%, didn't believe that people were actually died, actually died or injured at the arena. They didn't believe it. So that's seven million. That's equivalent to seven million British citizens who essentially agree with Hall.

Speaker 2: 1:03:11

Now, potentially, if any of them because we've also got things like the online harms legislation being part, which is already passed and is now being applied In Europe. We've got the digital services act in the US. You're now talking about a US online harms act. You know, potentially that means that if one of those seven million people in the UK published and they're calling it publishing, publishes published, for example, richard D Hall's work If they publish that, they too, could be subject to these restrictions and these laws. They might find themselves in court facing bankruptcy as a result Not just journalists, citizens.

Speaker 2: 1:03:59

You know, so, so, so we really really need to support him in Appealing this and hopefully winning the case, because if he loses, it's not gonna be good for anyone well, it seems like the UK or one UK instance of Something very similar that happened to Alex Jones not long ago here.

Speaker 1: 1:04:20

Yeah, yeah, a financial attack Based on things that he said. I'll be honest at this point. You know this is my little contribution to the effort this podcast and you know my unintentionally exclusive audience. I Find that I Wake up some days and I wonder if I'm gonna find myself in a situation where I'm redundant Because of the information I share and I'm willing to talk to and the people I'm willing to talk to someday in the near future where Just the conversation that we're having could reflect, you know, like, cause me serious damage and in my personal life and but you know, I Choose not to live in a way that that is Enough to.

Speaker 1: 1:05:19

I don't want that fear, or I don't. I don't want fear to dissuade me from pursuing truth and and I respect that so much when I see that as well and I see that in your work, mr Davis, you are very honest guy. I mean I just I Really suggest people go to Ian Davis comm and Follow you on sub stack and support your work. I Will have links in the show notes to your various sites. I will have. Um thanks as well to mr Richard D halls plight as the featured need for this episode. Is there anything that you would like to share, or Any last thoughts? Or or you want to share what your what's on your plate now Before we end up.

Speaker 2: 1:06:16

Yeah, sure, I'll just point out that it's Ian Davis. You'll see the link in the show notes. But it's my name spell I. I am Davis comm, which is not the usual Well, not the most common spelling of Ian.

Speaker 2: 1:06:29

Yeah, I mean, what I would just like to say is that when we talk about this stuff you talking about the kind of things like, you know, global financial Authority and economic power, you know usurping the sovereignty of nation states and then we think about how we are going to resist that. They all sounds. It all sounds very blackpilt, doesn't it? It all sounds absolutely hopeless. But one thing I would encourage people to take a lot of encouragement from so much of what they do and we're seeing that currently in Richard D halls case it's about controlling us. It's about controlling our in this case, access to information.

Speaker 2: 1:07:11

So the question is why? Why do they spend so much time and effort and money Trying to control us? Or the point that the? The obvious answer and the clear answer is that because they are scared of us. They're frightened of us Because, in reality, we have all the power.

Speaker 2: 1:07:38

They have none. Their entire Globalist structures are a facade. They're based upon our belief in their authority. So we allow them to tell us what to do. Now, the moment that we, in significant numbers, stop doing that and ignore them and no longer allow them to tell us what to do, it is over it. That's finished.

Speaker 2: 1:08:10

They've lost because they cannot control 8 billion people. The only way they can do it is through trickery, propaganda, coercion and force. And if it comes down to force, if push, you know, so be it. And regrettably, and let's hope it never does. But if they've pushed does come to shove, they cannot defeat 7.8 billion people. They lose, they always lose. So their whole Game is a charade. And once we understand that they have no power, they have no authority, we have it all and then we can start. You know, the best solution that we can do and we only need to take individual responsibility for ourselves and to be as independent as possible and work collectively together in our local communities To provide for ourselves, our families and the people that we care about. If we start doing that on a global scale, there's nothing they can do about it. Nothing they can do about it. So that's I think that's my message really is we've got every reason to be hopeful, but it does require significant numbers of us To be aware of what's going on.

Speaker 1: 1:09:31

And a personal investment, not just a passive. You have to be engaged and in your own, and I love that and I think the the idea of Acting within the world within which you have agency, actual agency and, yeah, within which you can act. It is is so important and I thank you for that. I want to thank you again for your time, mr Ian Davis, and I really appreciated you coming on and I hope very much that you will be willing to come back and Discuss things again with us.

Speaker 2: 1:10:08

That's my pleasure. Thank you very much for inviting me. I really enjoyed it, mate.

Speaker 1: 1:10:11

All right, appreciate you, and that's what I love about this work. You get to meet such passionate, intelligent people who are taking a stand for what they believe in Ian, not only as a firm grip on the subject matter he writes about, he's also very kind and personable. He chooses to see the hope amidst the maelstrom of competing narratives and agendas and reminds us that we have a choice, that the proverbial fat lady hasn't yet taken the stage. Our ability to avoid the technocrats ambitions hinges on our ability to recognize them for what they are in the first place. Take courage, my friends. Courage is not the lack of fear. It is the ability to move forward despite it and support journalists like Ian Davis and Richard D Hall. Remember that information is power. In light of that, in our conversation, it only makes sense to end with these words from Orwell's 1984 who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past. For all you listening, you are valued, you are loved and you are worthy. God bless and good night by my black.