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