Okay. All right. No, no, hang on for Aamon. Tell us Aamon what time it is for you in Thailand?
It's 2am. Once again, thank you for asking Charles. Yes, it's 2am. An uncommon time for me to be
drinking coffee. Well, it's a great effort on your part. Stephen has done well to bend your arm to
get you to speak to us live. So thank you. My absolute pleasure. Yeah. All right. Okay,
Tom to send you some more. Alex, okay, Tom to send you some more stuff on that.
I just returned to Monaco today. I drove from Croatia. Yeah. And my time there was so
distracting that I was going to call you on Saturday. I forgot. Don't worry. We'll catch
up. Yes. Next weekend, I'm by myself. I'm by myself now for two weeks. So I'll be able to
fix my life a little bit. Yeah. Alex and Aamon, do you know, you remember the collapse of
Bearings Bank? And maybe you remember the rogue trader in inverted commas. And his name was
Nick Leeson. Yes, Nick Leeson. Sorry, I said Liam Neeson.
Yeah. That's a spoonerism.
I'm sorry. I'm tired. So Nick Leeson, what did they, were they singling him out for a reason?
Because he was the only one blamed for the collapse of Bearings Bank. Yes, yes, yes. Him,
alone. Yeah. Why though? Well, you know, I, it hasn't crossed my mind to question that until
you just brought it up. Well, exactly. Yes. Okay. So I thought at the time it was weird because he
was kind of low ranking. He was an incredible trader. And we were told, I don't know whether
it's true that, was it Hong Kong or was it Singapore, that after the Koba earthquake,
he single-handedly kept the Japanese yen up because his reputation was so
massive. This is the, what we were fed or what I was fed, that people just followed him and
did what he did. So he single-handedly kept the Japanese yen up for a week after the Koba earthquake.
Yes, Stephen, that's possible, but it's unlikely. And, you know, I, at the time when this happened,
I didn't know to question these things. Now that you mention it, it needs to be questioned. And
I'll just add that there are no incredible traders. Okay. That's a myth and that doesn't exist.
That's a unicorn. Well, there we are then. So that was a story sold to us. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Interesting. All right, everybody. Let's get this show on the road. By the way,
I think it was Barclays Bank, wasn't it? Not Bearing Bank? No, it was Bearing Bank.
Bearing Bank. 800 million was lost. Yeah. They blamed one guy, Nick Leeson.
That was a lot of money back then. Yeah, it was. Yeah. All right, Stephen, put your
put your video on so that we know that you're not in a black hole somewhere.
So everybody, welcome to Medical Doctors for COVID Ethics International. And today's discussion,
this group was founded by Dr. Stephen Frost. During the darkest days of the COVID scam responses
with a desire to pursue truth, ethics, justice, freedom and health. And I mentioned, I mentioned
earlier before the recording started, the Canadian priest, Arthur Paluski, who's facing
sentencing or pushing back against Canadian government overreach and facing 10 years in jail.
So we think of him. Stephen Frost has stood up against government and power over the years
and has been a whistleblower and activist. His medical specialty is radiology. I'm Charles
Covester, moderator of this group. I'm Australasia's passion provocateur. My jacket is red because red
is the color of passion. I practiced law for 20 years before changing career 30 years ago.
And over the last 12 years, I've helped parents and lawyers to strategize remedies for vaccine
damage and damage from bad medical advice. Last night, I was at dinner, another example of a 98
year old woman essentially killed by hospital in Melbourne because of appalling hospital treatment.
It's happening everywhere as many of us on this group know. I'm also the CEO of an industrial
hemp company. We comprise lots of professions, including doctors, lawyers, homeopaths, journalists,
scientists, filmmakers, professors, peacemakers and troublemakers, and with them all around the
world. Many of us thought the vaccines were okay. Now, many of us proudly say yes, we're passionate
anti-vaxxers and Judy Mikovits, who was on London Real over the weekend or on Friday
being interviewed by Brian Rose. If you watch that interview, it'll continue to inspire you to
never get jabbed. Judy Mikovits, I think Stephen has presented once or twice to us.
Twice, I think. I think twice. Twice, I think. If this is your first time here, welcome and feel free
to introduce yourself in the chat and where you're from. If you publish a newsletter or a podcast or
you have a radio or TV show or you've written a book, put the links into the chat so we can follow
you, promote you and find you. Most of us understand we're in the middle of World War III
and that there are various battle lines as part of this war. Most of us understand the development
of science and that the science is never settled. The meeting runs for two and a half hours
afterwards. For those with the time, Tom Rodman runs a video telegram meeting. Tom puts the links
into the chat if you're able to join. We will listen to Eamonn McKinney, our guest for as long
as Eamonn wishes to speak, and then we have Q&A and Stephen Frost, by a long established tradition,
ask the first questions. There's no censorship. It's a free speech environment with appropriate
moderating. Free speech is crucially important in our fight to preserve our human freedoms.
If you're offended by anything, be offended. We are genuinely not interested. We reject
the offense industry that requires nobody to say anything that may offend another.
We come with an attitude and perspective of love, not fear. Fear is the opposite of love. Fear
squashes you. Love, on the other hand, expands you. Governments around the world want you to be
fearful. This group is about helping you not to be fearful. If you have a solution or a product
or links or resources that will help people put the details into the chat, the meeting is recorded
and is uploaded onto the Rumble channel. And now welcome to Eamonn McKinney, our sinologist.
And thank you, Eamonn, for getting up at 2 a.m. in the morning. We're in Thailand. We thank you so
much for doing that and sharing your time, wisdom and insights. And thank you, Stephen Frost, again,
for creating this group and for organizing Eamonn and whoever got Eamonn to be with us.
Was that Alex Cramer, Stephen? Yeah, Alex suggested Eamonn and introduced you. Isn't that right, Eamonn?
You muted Eamonn.
Yes, Stephen, yeah, I think it was Alex who introduced us. Alex is a very good friend of mine.
He spoke to our group, I think, on three occasions already and everything he says, he thought.
Exactly. Alex knows everything. So thank you. Thank you, Alex. And so Eamonn, over to you and
would you like to share your screen or not?
Well, I haven't prepared anything, so I'll just speak if you don't mind.
Over to you. We're in your hands. We'll pay attention.
If you find yourself falling asleep, Eamonn, we can generate an argument to keep you awake.
Yeah, or if you see me slumping over the screen, I'll just say, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Alex mentioned that China seems to be a subject that a lot of people won't hear about.
And I spent a good part of my life living in China going back to 1976.
I was there for a couple of years. I was there for five years, from 1980 to 1985.
We've had a business there, but I've never been there.
I've never been to China. I've never been to the US.
I've never been to the US. I've never been to the US.
I've lived there for five years, from 1980 to 1985. We've had a business there ever since.
I don't envy people who have to speak on China. It's a very, very complicated subject.
If you haven't lived there, if you don't understand the culture,
if you haven't lived there and seen the transition, if you don't understand the
history and the influences, it's very difficult to comment on it.
When I was first in China, I was lucky enough to be introduced to the Puyichang
Ambassador, who was way back in the 70s, a wonderful man, David Wilson.
He said to me, if you're in China for a day, you could write a book. If you stayed a week
and you could manage a letter home, you'd be doing well. If you stayed any longer,
you couldn't put pen to paper. You absolutely wouldn't know where to start.
And it's a little bit like that. Now, China is a subject, let me just say this to you,
right now, approval of China. Basically, you can break most Westerners down into two parts,
those that hate China and those that have been there.
You'll get two entirely different versions of the place from both of those groups.
But before we start, firstly, I'm very honored to be invited to speak to your group. To my shame,
I had no knowledge of your existence until Alex pointed me to you. And I've looked at some of the
previous guests that you've had on, and I'm humbled to be in their presence when we say that.
And I applaud what you do. But to talk about China, I would assume that the common denominator
shared by most of the people on this group is that we don't believe the narrative. We don't
believe what the government says. We don't believe the mainstream media. Would that be a fair
assessment? We don't all agree on the same truths, but we can all see the same lie. I would assume
that's the case, yes. We don't trust government, no.
We don't trust the narrative. I mean, the narrative comes from more than just the government.
You know, the narrative comes from the system as a whole.
So here's a question. Has anybody living in the Western world
ever heard one complimentary positive word said about China? Ever?
Yes, Eamonn. I'm dealing with a guy who absolutely, an Australian guy who absolutely
raised how wonderful China is, and he's doing amazing cooking oil business. He's the only one.
He's got his hand up too. Okay, but he's not on ABC News now, is he? No.
No. All right. Okay. I've heard of some very good positive feedbacks. It's really to do with
Mongolia, where they are wanting to have cattle introduced into Mongolia. And lots of people are
saying very positive things about that. Yeah, well, thanks. That's a good point. I
wasn't actually aware of that. But what I want to try and do is to try and give you
a view on this from China's point of view. So to do that, you know, we've got to start asking ourselves,
where's all this hostility from China come from? I mean, you've all heard of China's century of shame.
The century of humiliation, which dates approximately from 1850 to 1950, when the
communists took power. There was a century of humiliation. That was a period of time when
China was weak under the Qing dynasty. And bear in mind China, for the previous count of several
years, has been the most advanced civilization in the world. The reason why the Opium Wars was
started was because the West was buying all manner of things from China, from technology,
the silks, the porcelains, the spices. And the West said absolutely nothing, but China wanted to buy
by any turn, and insisted on silver. Hence we had the Opium Wars, when the West decided that
they'd find something that China wanted, which was opium. Now, there was two Opium Wars. China
basically ended up being invaded and colonized by eight different foreign powers. During that
period of time, the Chinese retreated worse than slaves. Signs everywhere at the park in Shanghai.
No dogs, no Chinese. This was in China. What was humiliation? Humiliation was that the government
couldn't protect its people from these foreign powers.
Fathers couldn't protect their children from these foreign powers. That was the century
of humiliation. And they're not going to let it happen again. Now, what were these foreign powers?
Well, there was no strategic military interest in any of these empires to be in China. It was purely
the plunder of empire. You can see photographs in the early part of the 20th century with US Marines
guarding Rockefeller oil turbines. This was the century of shame.
The people that we're talking about, the Chinese identified in behind it, are the Western Imperial.
In fact, that's the Western Financial Empire. China's whole model
is built on protecting its people from the parasite class. Now, in the 1950s, the Communist
Party took power. The Ormeon Town, which was the oligarch Western friendly government,
did nothing to improve the lives of their people. They fled to Taiwan and the story continued.
In the 1900s now, the Qing Dynasty, the emperor was weak and was failing,
widely hated for his corruption among the Chinese people. And there was a Chinese
revolution coming, which happened in 1911. But what informed that? What informed what happened next?
Because the Chinese government were now saying that we need a new system of government. We need
a new way to run the country. The old imperial dynasty, that's a thing of the past. So they sent
their scholars all over the world to study different models. Now, one of those scholars,
Sun Yat-sen, or Sun Yat-sen as you would probably see him, he went to America and they liked the
republican ideal. They loved the Bill of Rights. They liked the constitution, mostly. There was a
lot they liked about the Lincolnian economic plan about using public funding to build things
like the Erie Canal. But what they saw was that their government also couldn't protect their own
people from the money power. They saw the incredible opulence in which the ruling classes,
the robber barons, etc. lived. And then they saw the squalor that people were living in the slums
of New York. But they saw that even in this republican system based on all these principles,
they still couldn't protect their people. And they were getting exactly the same thing
from the people that went to France and Britain to study their models when they went back. And they
said that they liked them about it, but it wouldn't work in China, your system of government. And
they said, well, why not? And they said, well, because four years is not going to be enough for
China. We've got a lost century to recover from. We've got a hundred year program. And that very
much is the thinking behind that. If you look at China's economic model, it's based on protecting
the people from that class. Now, if you look at the simple way of looking at economics,
is that you've always had two classes of people involved in economics through history.
You've had what they used to call the Rontier or the landlord class, and then you've got the
productive class. So the Rontier or the landlord class, they don't actually produce anything. They
live on the productivity of everybody else. So you've got that. Now, if you take the American
economy and you go back to 1970, about 80% of their GDP came from the productive sector,
manufacturing, agriculture, construction. Today, it's about 13%. But the parasite class that
produces nothing but lives on the productivity, they're sounding like a communist here, believe
me or not. This is how the Chinese look at it. That's what's eating all the Western economy.
The financial sector, again, the government is the biggest parasite, taking all your money and
produces nothing. The regulatory sector, which makes it incredibly expensive for companies just
to be in business, that makes it an unfair regulatory burden on smaller business and
favoring the multinationals. The medical industry, the insurance industry, all of that
is a parasite class, and it feeds on the product, on the productive class. Now in China, to restrain
the parasite class, they provide the public services. So they have public monopolies on
transportation, telecommunications, infrastructure, education, medical.
Now they provide the medical, but let me just say, none of these. They've got perfect private
hospitals in China with top surgeons, there's a lot of medical tourism there. But they've got public
hospitals, which anybody can go to for nothing. And then they've got a private sector if you want.
So the idea about doing that is about controlling the cost of living for the Chinese.
So that the essentials, if you like, the social Maslow's hierarchy of needs,
you know, etc. is all provided at cost. You know, or the sector is not there to lose money,
but profit is in its main tech. These are seen as the enablers of a healthy economy
and a healthy society. That's how it works. But the big thing is the public banking.
China doesn't have a Ross Charles Federal Bank. So its money is issued as public issuance,
not a debt based currency. And that is how their economy has managed to flourish.
And it enables them to do all these infrastructure projects.
China's model, because people kick around terms like socialism and communism,
they learned plenty from communism. They looked at the Soviet model. And what they realized was
the Marxist model is basically flawed in so many different ways. It's obsessed with the distribution
of wealth, completely missing the point that in order to distribute wealth, you have to first
create it. And the only thing that creates wealth is private enterprise. People do what they are
incentivized to do. So the Chinese economy is not a controlled, common economy. It's got a state
sector that enables the private sector. And that's where all the speed taking and growth in the
Chinese economy has come from. Now it's that mixed model, that mixed economic model that has
been proven to work. And that is why there are threats to the West. Because it's the complete
reverse of neoliberalism, which seeks to grow the economy from the top using some perverse,
trickle down logic. No, the Chinese model, the developmental model is about building the economy
from the ground up. Start with the poorest sectors of society, and then generates the wealth of
everybody. The real threat, what the West is working about in China, is not military. That's
complete nonsense. The fact is China is a bad example. Because all the countries that are now
falling in line under the brick and the Shanghai Corporation and the new currency and everything,
these economies are going to have to develop again. It's not going to be the neoliberal
privatized model that they're going to follow. They're going to follow the Chinese mixed economy
model. And this can work irregardless, irrespective of what kind of political economy,
what kind of political system you have. All it requires is stability. So that's the reason
why they're against the Chinese at the moment. They've always been against the Chinese.
When the communists threw out the capitalists and all their investment in 1950, even by the money
at those days, they lost billions and billions and billions. And what we know about the capitalist
classes, when they get shuttled, when they lose money, they have no sense of humour about it.
There's a thing called revenge capitalism. Look at Cuba. Bad examples have to be punished.
That's the animosity against China. That's where it comes from. It's historical. China's position
is not going to open up its capital market, bolting privatized, its state sector service,
public services. And that is a major threat. Because before this, there was really only one
gate in town. And God forbid you veered from it, you knew the consequences. This is the alternative.
This is the way this has been the ample about how a development economy should work. And it's been
taken up everywhere, in Africa, in Latin America, in other parts of Asia. And it's an unstoppable
force now. So I'll stop talking now. That's more than enough. And I'll be happy to answer
any questions that anybody has. I hope that made sense.
Amon, Amon, it did. And I'll just make the observation that, that for many people here,
for whom English is a second language, with your, with your Scottish accent, it was a great,
it was a great challenge for some of them. So they, they might have to go back and re-listen
to the recording. But you gave a wonderful overview. And I wrote down this distinction
between the landlord class and the productive class. And the, and the, what was it, the parasite
class and the- The productive class. The productive class. The landlord class.
It's the productive, the productive. Yeah, that's exactly it. And you, you, you see it.
That's not a Scottish accent, Charles. Is it, Amon?
No, it's not a Scottish. No, it's not a Scottish accent, Charles, no.
What accent is it, Amon?
It was, I suppose. Yeah, well, it was originally, I suppose, a London accent. But
it's been, I've troubled so much. I don't know what it is today. I'll try and speak a little
bit more clearly. My apologies to those of you out there who didn't catch it all.
Well, it was excellent. And, and Amon, one question, because Stephen goes first.
The, the, I saw a wonderful presentation. I've been wondering for a long time whether it's
accurate, that it's a very sophisticated model of how the leadership of, of Chinese government
is selected. It's not, you know, I had this idea that it was nepotism and linkages, but I read this,
I saw this other amazing presentation that, that it, to become a leader in China, you need
extraordinary experience before you get into that leadership category.
Yeah, well, the people that are in, well, that's absolutely right. It's very much a meritocracy.
I mean, I don't have to bandy the words around like tyrants. Well, no, it is very much a party
system. It is very much a meritocracy. I mean, the people that rise to central government level,
through the, usually through the local government, they are the best of the best. So,
this is a long tradition in China with this civil service. They're always attracted the
best and the brightest minds. And these were the Mandarin, that's where the word comes from,
who went to the provinces and, you know, installed administrative system. So they have a very, very
long history of having an effective civil service, but it's absolutely a meritocracy.
It's, if you like, to a certain extent, it's very much a technocracy. I know that's become a
dirty word in the West and an excellent fellow, Patrick Wood, who's done amazing work on that.
The EU, of course, is a classic case of a technocracy, as in fact,
of most of the UN agencies. But if you look at the political system that we have in the West
and the clouds that it throws up, I'm beginning to have second thoughts about it. I mean, in terms of,
in principle, a technocracy is you have the best and brightest people in the field being in charge
of government policy on it. Well, that's not a bad idea. In fact, the problem is who picks them
and who do they answer to? So, you know, people, for example, the people in America, press gang,
Robert Kennedy, to be the head of the Department of Health, they might actually see some changes.
So, but I'm digressing. So, yes, it's very much a meritocracy there.
People don't understand how the political system works and there's no democracy. Well,
I think you have to backtrack here. And why is the West, why the worst people in the world,
think about why they're always bleating on about democracy? Well, the reason is very simple. There's
no case in history where there was ever a democracy that didn't turn into an oligarchy
in 25 minutes. And oligarchs are easy to control. And if you look at the policy of China and
absolutely Russia defending their people against oligarchs, it's absolutely a very strong part of
their, you know, their doctrine. So when we're looking at,
I've kind of lost my train of thought there. It is very, very much a meritocracy. The people
that are running the country in China know what they're doing. So, Eamon, would you say that
the UK and the US for that matter are oligarchies? Because I have heard that word applied to the
United Kingdom. Well, oligarchies have been the cancer in human society since the days of Babylon.
So, yeah, of course, absolutely. I mean, England would be the classic case of that, you know,
with the city of London. I mean, it's essentially been that. And I mean, it has to be understood.
And I was referring when I was talking to Alex earlier about one of my good friends from
our group here and the talk that he did. And he stitched together like some amazing things. And
the point he made was that, you know, if you go back to 1900, he essentially had eight empires
of the world. The Virgin in Japanese Empire, which was the ageing, you had the Ottoman Empire,
which was on its last leaves. Today, he does one left. Now, if you go back prior to World War I,
you had some very powerful monarchies. You had the Russians, you had the Austro-Hungarians,
you had the Germans, and a version of it in France. World War I left us with one.
And that was the one that was owned by the city of London and has been since the days of the
Glorious Revolution in 1694. Okay, so it's always been an oligarchy. If you look at
how the whole system works, it controls everything now. There's no justice system
that isn't being penetrated by the Mason and the police and, you know, God knows we've seen that.
It's successful. There's no case in history where a democracy does not turn into an oligarchy.
What you end up with is what's actually called a synecone. Synecone means there's two forms of
government. There's the one that they put in front of you that you're supposed to believe,
and then there's the real one behind it. And that has been the case throughout history.
The reason why the bankers wanted to see the end of the other monarchies
because monarchies were the only people that stood up to the oligarchy and the financial system.
And you can find that at the roots of the English Civil War.
All right, when they come to the round heads on the road over Cromwell,
they were funded by the Dutch bankers. And part of the deal was when you win the war,
well, next time you capture Charles, his head comes off, he doesn't go back on the ground.
And also you will agree to apply the foundation of an independent city-state in the City of London
that answers to nobody. And that's been the case ever since. So you can find that everywhere.
Mm-hmm. I mean, the way they penetrated America,
they always intend on getting the American bank. Now, then Ross Charles could never operate in
America because they've been behind the two failed banks, first two failed banks in the United States.
The founding fathers in America were very well aware who they are, so they had connections.
And the revolutionary spirit in America made it very, very difficult. So what they do in the mid-1800s
is they begin to create a nobby garfield class who can destroy what was their democracy. So
therefore, if you look at all the people that became the robber barons, such as the Rockefellers,
the Harriman's in railway, the Vatna Belt and shipping, Parnay, E.D. and still,
they created these giant monopolies in the super billionaires, just like they're doing today with
their new constructs like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg and some of these other clouds.
These oligarchs actually corrupted the system before in February's earth in 1913. That's how
they work. That's how they penetrate through instigators. That's how they took Russia down
financially in 1990. The economy was completely destroyed and they funded oligarchs who presumably
were making $25 a week the months before. Now all of a sudden they're spending $500M
to buy Russian assets worth a billion. Putin controlled the oligarchs there and she has been
very careful to make sure it doesn't happen. I mean, you may recall there was a case a few years
ago about Jack Ma and Jack Ma was supposed to be the founder, the genius, the Chinese Bill Gates
behind Alibaba. In fact, he's a complete front man for the Jiang family out of Shanghai.
The Jiang family were a very old, powerful Chinese family that survived several generations. They
provided a couple of mares in Shanghai. Jiang Zemin was the premier of China in early 2000.
They're the real owners of that Alibaba empire. Xi's family, for example,
they own another empire called the Wanda Empire. There are different factions in China.
But Jack Ma, who's a front man for the Jiang family, and that's the Shanghai faction, Xi's
family with the Beijing family, so he comes out and criticizing the Chinese banking system.
He was told to go away, keep his mouth shut and enjoy his millions.
Because that's how it started. They've been very careful in China, also ensuring that the
tech giants that they have in China are not going that way either.
I'm digressing terribly. I don't know.
Hey, can I ask you a few questions?
Of course.
So can you explain? I don't know whether it's true, but we were told that Shanghai
first, I think, and Beijing had terrible lockdowns. Also, that Shanghai's port was,
I don't know what, I can't remember how this was achieved, but they had a thousand ships waiting
to discharge their cargoes at one stage. I don't know if you heard this where you are.
Well, no, I mean, absolutely.
First of all, is that true? Also, why? So allegedly, China was, or purportedly,
China was pursuing a no-Covid policy, you know, so they were having these lockdowns because of that.
But, you know, they were portrayed as brutal lockdowns. They'd got all these,
I saw children in those hazmat suits, is it? So was that propaganda from the West?
Two things. Firstly, look, I'm involved in business between China and the West. So yeah,
I mean, there was absolutely congestion at the ports and there was a lot of reason for that.
There was a lot of loaded ships that were in Shanghai that didn't leave because the port of
Los Angeles was essentially had thousands of ships because they had strikes and God knows what else.
So there was supply chain congestion everywhere.
Right. Disrupted supply, yeah, okay.
Yeah, so I mean, that was a consequence of it. No, the lockdowns there were hard and they went on
too long. I mean, it was kind of difficult to understand that. But the only thing that makes
sense to me for what seemed like an overreaction was, you've got to bear in mind, China has been,
you know, the subject of biological attacks twice. Once by the Japanese at Unit 639 in
Manchuria where they were experimenting, murdered hundreds of thousands of Chinese with all kinds
of blades. And then during the Korean War, biological weapons were dropped by the Americans.
They do know, and this is a fact that I've been assured by several people, they are working on
gene specific biological weapons. And they came out earlier in the Ukraine War, that's what they've
been experimenting on there with some of these things. So, you know, not being an apologist for
China with this. And I know you guys have covered COVID far more in depth than I'm qualified to do.
But I will tell you, when you see something like this happening, you always have to ask yourself,
very bono, who benefits? Nobody suffered with this more than China. China's whole business
model is based on all its trading partners being prosperous. Okay. This, you know, China was not
behind this, you know, Tony Fauci, I know David Martin, God bless him, the work that him and
a lot of other incredible people have done to explain it.
So, what I'm trying to say is, if it's a meritocracy, why did China go along with the false
narrative, which was so obvious to me and to many others? Well, okay, the majority didn't go along
with it. But I don't understand why they'd end up with this. They went further. They could end up
with a zero COVID policy. Well, it's just nonsense. Yeah. Most of the Chinese people agree to you,
because the Chinese people had enough of it, they actually abandon it. I can't answer that. That
still confounds me. But you guys, I'm sure, are here talking about all these different things,
because of COVID. I'm sure that's what instigated all this. Now, you cannot understand COVID unless
you understand where COVID fits in the bigger picture. Yeah. If you look at it, one step in...
So, actually, understanding the medical, the purported medical reason for the last three
and a half years was essential to destroying the narrative, the false narrative about other things
too, including China, it looks like. Yeah, well, yeah. I mean,
but if you remember, two days into the lockdowns, all the leaders of the Western
Wales were parroting the same thing, opportunity to build back better. Correct. So, we're 48 hours
into a lockdown, and they've all given up on the economy already. I mean, yeah. It was clearly a
planned global coup d'etat. Right. So, look, there's a lot of questions I can't answer to you
about China, but they created their own vaccines, they weren't mRNA, maybe they work, I really don't
know. The whole thing to me is, from a technical point of view, I think that's a discussion with
more qualified people, you know, I imagine you've heard it. Can I ask you about,
what's the importance of the middle class in society? So, what I've heard is that it's
important, the middle class, I never understood this, but recently I've come to understand,
but maybe I'm wrong, that the middle class is important because it's... So, in a, you know,
most countries in the world, like in Africa in particular, but even in South America,
you've got the oppressed and you've got the oppressors with a rather small middle class,
and in Africa, probably in some countries, at least no middle class. So, and the alleged
importance of that is that you have relatively disinterested middle class, who are neither,
they neither want to be oppressors nor be oppressed. So, allegedly that's a reason for
middle class, and I just wondered what you understand by the word middle class or words
middle class or that term. Are you talking about in the West? Yeah, so the alleged importance of
the middle class is that it's a check on the elites, if you like, the oppressors.
Yeah, and then... Okay, yeah. Sorry. Well, if you, if you... Firstly, if you, we take America,
for example, there's a very strong case that the middle class in America arose by accident.
It wasn't intended. If you look at the end of World War II, the whole world was completely
flattened, and the only place they had in the industry was America, which was untouched,
and it had all this huge wartime industry that has now been turned over to productive use.
They were flooding the world with dollars under the Marshall Plan so that all foreign companies
could buy American goods. There was really nowhere else to buy them. So, the demand for labor
outstripped the supply, and that was essentially the first time between, say, 1945 and 1917,
where the working man had any negotiating power to get a fair deal. Prior to the war,
they had the 1930s, and the 1920s were a few people made out. So, the middle class, in any
real sense, was created then. So, between that, take a guy, he'd worked on the production line
in Detroit. His household debt was virtually nil. He didn't have any credit cards. His wife didn't
work. His kids went to school. His wife had a car. He had a pension. He had medical, and he probably
had a little cabin up by the lake. In the 1970s, and this coincides a little with the
the,
so you saw a transformation. You're breaking up a little bit. I don't know. Oh, I beg your pardon.
So, what you saw then was that was actually the beginning of American's deindustrialization,
where you saw the growth of the financial sector and the demise of the productive sector.
So, but if you understand the big agenda towards a totalitarian government, it is very much Marxism.
This takes us in a different area, but I mean, if you listen to Klaus Schwab,
you'll have nothing, you'll know nothing, you'll be happy, and all this other, doesn't that sound
exactly like communism? Now, I know that sounds counterintuitive. I mean, why would the Ross
Charles New Yorker fellows want communism? So, we've got to stop thinking about it like that.
It's a model for totalitarian control to make sure that you have nothing and I have everything. Now,
this is a whole area. It's kind of taken us in, but what you're seeing now is this cultural
Marxist agenda. That was first introduced to America in the 1950s. Now, the cultural
Marxists were the fainthearted school and Marxism in many ways, you've got to understand, as Alex
talks about the parasite of the financial sector and how it moves and it devours a host and it
moves on. To a certain extent, Marxism was like that. It devoured the Russian host
and then it turned its eyes on the West. Now, you can talk for hours on the fainthearted school,
but these were cultural Marxists. They teach critical theory. If you want to understand all
this LBTG nonsense that's going on, you have to understand the Frankfurt School.
Most people look at this insanity and it's like, well, this is the house growth of good intentions
going crazy. No, it's not. It is a cultural Marxist agenda. In the 1850s, there was revolutions
tried by the Marxists all over Europe and they failed. The reason why they failed, the conclusion
they came to was, well, the people in the West are not going to lower their standards of living.
They're not going to go in for communism because they're too comfortable, which was true. The way
they were going to do it was to attack it through culture and that is what we're seeing now. Now,
cultural Marxism, don't joke because it's essentially the operating system of the EU.
If you look at the policies of Justin Trudeau, if you look at any of these European countries
and to an extent America, these are the policies that are following. Now, the cultural Marxism is
shift.
autographs
Genderism
to save the climate. That was set in the 1970s. The culmination of it that we're trying to sell
now is Agenda 2030 and that's their final push for the New World Order. But it isn't going to work
unless everybody...
Sorry, Eamon, you're breaking up, unfortunately.
And now you've gone. Oh no, you're there. Sorry, you're muted though. You're muted, Eamon.
So the cultural Marxism is essential, okay, to buy this climate bullshit. And the only people
buying it are these like these desks with Greta and the greens and everything like that.
Now that's been pushed through. The cultural Marxism agenda, they had programs like the
Long March through the institutions, how they were going to penetrate government education.
That's where we are today, okay. And you'll see the same thing in America, you know.
They will call themselves lefties if anything, but okay, they're cultural Marxists and they
don't even understand it. So I would encourage everybody, if you want to understand this,
to go and study the Frankfurt School. It's one of the most evil things and it's messing up
generations of kids who are going to need to be deprogrammed. But not just that, Simon. So
it's cultural Marxism which has one of its techniques to destroy the families, wouldn't
you say? Well, no, that's exactly the point. The point about Marxism, cultural or otherwise,
is it's about the critical theory. It's about destroying everything, literally bringing
everything back to near zero. So if you look at this cultural Marxist agenda, I hesitate to
call them the lefties because that's actually a contradiction in terms of everything is critical,
critical race theory, critical sexism theory, critical, everything is critical. They're not
actually for anything. It's designed to produce generations of unhappy, miserable kids who can't
see any future. And tell me that is what we're seeing. The gender, this fourier and this
trans thing, this is all part of it. If you look at the history of the Frankfurt School and their
involvement in Berlin in the days leading up to World War I, they were pushing sexual degeneracy,
paedophilia and everything. One of Hitler's things was about decency and German values and
everything like that. So they didn't have any future and they left in the early days of Hitler.
Most of the German people had still strong Christian values. They were very much associated.
So when you see these photographs of the book written in Germany,
it was pornography. Sorry, can you say that again, Eamon? We lost few of them.
That's what that was about. Yes, I'm not sure how far back you want me to go, but when you look at
these images of book burning in Germany, one of the German people were burning was pornography.
Interesting. Now you've frozen, Eamon.
You'll come back. No, he's gone now. Yeah, he's been well. Yeah, we will wait. We will. This is,
everybody, this is the meditation moment. John Bodwin, no going to sleep.
Oh, Eamon's here. I'm going to get attacked for talking for too long. And it's you talking,
so can I just ask you? So it seems to me that the cultural Marxism which you talk about is
it's not exactly a Trojan horse, but it's a means by which they push through Trojan horses, correct?
So it kind of weakens the individual. It creates confusion. Oh, you've gone now completely.
No, he's here. No, you're still there.
You're muted, Eamon. Sorry, you're muted. I'm sorry, I seem to be dropping in and out here.
I'm not sure where. I'm going to turn my camera off. Yes, I might help. Okay. Sorry. So you can
hear me, but you can't see me, right? Correct. But at least we can hear you. Okay, jolly good.
So I was wondering whether the cultural Marxism which you speak of is a technique
rather than a Trojan horse to push through the Trojan horses. So in this case, the COVID nonsense,
the Russia war and the climate change nonsense. Is that right?
Is that right? So I mean, what the final push, and this has basically been their plan since the
70s, to use climate as the push for the new world order. Now, we can talk about new world order now
and people don't think you're crazy. I mean, they've been to the, you can go back 100 years
and see H.G. Wells and the round table talking about that. So a lot of people have been aware
for a long time, but nobody really knew what it was going to look like. Well, it's the UN,
that's always been the case. Not the security council, but you look at all these different
UN bodies. Now the World Health Organization is probably the best example that we could speak
about here. Look who's funding it, look who's writing the policies. Okay. Now that goes across
so many UN agencies, a couple of sorts of things, food, aid, medical, education. These are the Trojan
horses. These are the do-gooders, okay, who don't know what they're doing, who are carrying out
these plans. The new world order is never going to be some big castle on the mountain with Klaus
Robb. This is what it looks like. Agenda 2030 is their final push. They're all in. There's no plan
B. Agenda 2030 has 17 ESG goals, all driven by this climate emergency. How many of these ESG goals
do you think actually mention the climate? One, try and reduce CO2. The rest of them are of our
institute in cultural Marxism and getting all these countries to surrender their sovereignty
on a number of different things to government agents. Gender politics, privatizing and
industrializing. None of it's got a damn thing to do with climate, which nobody believes.
Now, you could trace this back. It's very clear where you look at who's behind all this. Every
country in the world understands it. It isn't going to work. It isn't going to work because
you can see the tide of history is turning now. The arrogance that they had when they came up with
this plan, they didn't see the internet, they didn't see the awakening, they didn't see the
growth of China and Russia as real obstacles. They didn't see any of this, and yet they're pushing
through on that. Everybody understands what it's about. Nobody's going to go along with it. The
only countries that are going to go along with it, which is destitute, are the Western world.
They will go along with this absurdity to a point, but nobody else in the world is going to go along
with it. It's absolutely doomed to fail. There isn't even a case for it unless you can get China,
India, Russia to go along with it, and it's not happening. It's not happening.
Absolutely. So, shall we have some questions from the audience? Where are you, Eamon? I can't see
you now. I've got my camera. Absolutely. So, Charles? Yes, I'm here. Okay, Eamon, we've got you
loud and clear. All right, let's go to other questions. Janet, you first, then Marvin.
Hi, thank you. It's just a brief question. A lot has been said about surveillance in China
and the alleged social credit system, and I'm just wondering what are actually the facts about these
on the ground? My apologies. I'm just back with you now. You're dropping in and out. I'm sorry.
Did you hear the question, Eamon? I'm afraid I didn't. If I could ask Janet to repeat it.
Thank you. A lot has been said about surveillance in China and the alleged social credit system,
and I'm wondering what are actually the facts on the ground regarding these? Okay, well, everything
that you've heard, Janet, about the social credit system is pretty much nonsense. You know, China's
it's a very, well, it's very technically advanced in as much, I mean, the last time I was in China,
you couldn't spend a dollar, use a credit card. Everything is payment by QR codes, which everybody
finds convenient. So, no, I mean, I'll tell you the truth. The last time I was in China was just
before COVID. And I had some clients over from America and they hadn't been to China before.
One of the guys said, my sister's a cop. If we saw a cop, I think I'd get a photograph of her.
So I said, sure. We traveled all over China. We were there 10 days. We never saw a cop.
So it's a very well ordered society. It's one of the safest countries in the world. It was in a
street in China where somebody wouldn't be safe to walk down. But Janet, I'll tell you, a very
good friend of mine, Matt Errett, who's known to the group, will be back on in a couple of weeks.
And he's done some excellent work on that to disprove it. But I will tell you, please don't
believe anything that you hear about what they're telling you what's going on in China. That's
not true. Damon, you said something then. So I know you're in Thailand. So you're saying things
that my MP said to me, I think it was my MP said to me recently in a letter, the first letter for
about two years, about central bank digital currencies. And he was telling me how convenient
it would be for everyone. I think I'm quoting the letter correctly or the sense of it anyway.
And I said to my son, well, I think that's for me to decide whether it's convenient for me
not to be told that it's convenient for everyone. So I think it so you probably don't hear this,
you see. So in Thailand, but so what I'm trying to say is this, what really is scary for me,
I've met a few Chinese people in Sweden and in the UK, and they do seem to be kind of, they don't.
So a little bit different. Now, it could be cultural, you know, a lot of respect and all that,
you know, but too much respect, I would say. And maybe, you know, the meritocracy,
which governs China, they kind of, it's really top down, you know, and there's massive respect
for the meritocracy. So now I'm just wondering, so I don't understand. It does seem to be the case
that they use these same arguments, you know, that are always convenient for everyone, therefore,
will instituted for everybody. Is that true or not? Because we don't like being told what to do
on this group, you see. I apologize. I've just come back in, Stephen. What were you asked? Could
you ask me that again? I'm so sorry. Yeah. Could you make that question one sentence, please?
Yeah. So, um, oh, it's pity you missed it. How much have you heard of it, Eamon? Have we got to say
the whole lot again? The question was about like the digital currency, I believe. Yeah. So what
worries me when I hear you answering, Janet, you said it's convenient for everybody. We pay for
everything by QR codes. Well, sorry, I don't like QR codes because I think it's a tool of totalitarianism.
I'm just asking you about this now. I'm not falling out with you. Um, well, first and foremost,
for disclosure, I'm a guy that doesn't own a cell phone. I don't have a phone. I don't use any social
media. So you can see where I'm coming from with this. The Chinese who use the digital currency
don't think it's a means of government control. They think it's convenient. That's the point.
Isn't it a means of government control in China? Well, yeah, I mean, it's one of them. Yes. But
look, can I back this conversation now? Everybody seems to be so terrified of China. Um,
no, we're not terrified of China. We don't want totalitarianism.
Well, look, they don't have totalitarianism in China. Chinese people can go where they want.
They can leave the country. They can buy a house. In fact, house ownership there is
in the high eighties. Okay. They've got complete freedom. Now, if you look at people in the West,
okay, I will, I will make the point that people in China have got more freedom than people in
the West. That's a long argument. I don't want to get into it with you. Okay. Well, that's absolutely
a fact. Right. So none of their freedoms are represented, but we will never know what kind
of an open and free society China would have been had it not been under relentless assault from the
West for the last 70 years around all its borders and it's carrying on today. So, but the main thing
what it is, there's China, everything about China has a uniqueness to it. It's all always got
Chinese characteristics and specific to Chinese culture, Chinese society, things that you might
find offensive or perfectly normal to the Chinese. And there's lots of things that we take for
granted that they don't like. Okay. So highly functional society. And there was not one thing
that China was doing to try and influence people outside its borders. So if we agree with the
concept of national sovereignty and don't even fear what, you know, now there's where I live here
on Thailand, there's an enormous community of expats. All of us agree. We don't talk about the
Thai government. We're guests in this country. It's none of our business. We're great. We're
grateful for their hospitality. We all pretty much feel like that. We shouldn't be interfering in
other people's countries. So what is happening in China, that's up to them. What we need a
focus on is what's China's role in the world? How does it behave in the world? That's the key issue.
When they start talking about problems in China, it strikes you from that.
So, but, Eamon, we're not worried about China.
Steven, we're going to have to stack your hands up. Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Go ahead, please.
Very quickly, Eamon, we're not worrying about what the Chinese are imposing on us.
No, no, I do understand that.
Yeah, okay. Well, they're trying to say it's a Chinese model. It isn't. Now, they do things
in China, okay, but they're not necessarily doing them for the same reasons. So the CBDC and the
payment systems in China, they're not doing them for the same reason that they're trying to implement
in the West. That's the first thing to understand. These payment systems, and again, look, I'm not
advocating for them. I don't use them. Like I said, I don't have a phone. But in terms of moving the
economy along, where it's peer to peer, where even in a taxi, you put your two phones together,
and all of a sudden he's paid, it's in his bank account. It's not checks and three days banking
and the bank taking a piece of the transaction. That makes a lot of sense. Logically, if you're
not worried about the surveillance and control that goes with it, makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, we're not worried about that, Eamon, after the last three and a half years. That's just
the point. Anyway.
Mike, come on. We're going to Marvin. Marvin, over to you.
Hey, Eamon, I went to China 15 years ago. I was in Beijing for three weeks, and I found this myth
of the Chinese devaluing women and girls to be completely exploded. They seemed to run the culture.
Could you talk about that in a little?
Yeah, well, anybody that says that has never met a Chinese woman.
Yeah, well, even Chairman Mao said women hold up the sky. I mean,
women occupy top posts in all corporations and every walk of government. It's one of the more
egalitarian places you'll ever see in that regard. But if anybody thinks that Chinese women are these
like shrinking violets, they've never met any. So, yeah, it's a good observation, Marvin. But I
guarantee you, like I said at the beginning, there's two kinds of people, those that hate China
and those that have been there. So.
Just to briefly interject, just to say that certainly in the area where I live in West Wales,
the there's a big Chinese community in relation to the university. And I must say, they all seem
very obedient in terms of persistent mask wearing, even when they were out, you know, on a day out on
a fishing boat in the middle of the sea, they're still wearing their masks. So there seems to just
seem to be an element of kind of obedience amongst the Chinese, which, you know, maybe is a little bit
assaultive of what you were suggesting. I wouldn't disagree with that, Janet. I mean,
if you understand how their culture works and the sort of Confucian model, that is, that is, I mean,
it's not that there isn't a rebellious spirit, but you really have to understand Confucianism.
But I have to tell you, this obsession with masks was consistent throughout Asia, because Asians,
you know, in big cities, you know, they're used to wearing masks, you know, for reasons
unassociated to COVID. So yeah, I mean, the Chinese are the Chinese, but, you know,
I'm trying to explain really why there's so much animosity towards them. And, you know,
whenever you think about the Chinese, they are not the problem, you know, in the world today.
And so they have questions.
No, Lou, hang on, hang on. No, Marvin, you're done. Lou, put your hand up.
Marvin, excellent, excellent point, who is actually in charge. And people thought Julius
Caesar was in charge, but clearly 2000 years ago, it was his wife who was in charge. So there you are.
Jack?
Yeah, Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach.
Okay, I'm at bat here. Yeah, I have, I want to change the subject a bit to something broader,
which is this monumental shift that's taking place right now on the planet,
which is led by China and partially by Russia, the represented in the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization and the BRICS, which are planning to join together.
They'll be meeting in Johannesburg next month. And in that context, and I think this is a response
to the threat of the Western controlled New World Order. You see, there is a New World Order
taking place, but it's on quite a different basis. And I just listened last night to an interesting
interview by a Lebanese podcaster of a couple of Africans talking about the Belt and Road
Initiative in Africa. And I wanted to get your comments about the Belt and Road Initiative, but
what they were describing was something that is completely different than the Western model of
exploitation in Africa. And one of the interviewees pointed out that the West has had 400 years
to improve conditions in Africa. They've had 400 years to get the job done. And they've done
nothing but exploit African resources and African labor. And I would carry that right up through
the Clinton and Obama administrations in this country, which have done horrible things.
Obama destroyed the most highly developed country in Africa, which was Libya, had
universal healthcare, universal government paid higher education, no homelessness, etc.
And a gold bank currency that Gaddafi was planning to expand to a pan-African currency.
And of course, he had to be murdered and his whole country had to be destroyed. And that's the way
we in the West operate. And these two people from Africa were describing this totally different
model that China is using, which is a very respectful model and a very reciprocal model.
They go in and they say, okay, well, you have a lot of resources in this continent that we
would like to have. And so we have a lot of technological capacity and it's tit for tat.
We will trade you the things you need for the things that we need. And they experience it as
a very respectful and reciprocal kind of development. So they're building airports,
they're building public structures, they're providing all these things, highways,
etc. that Africa needs. And the Africans in turn are assisting them in providing us
the raw materials that we need, the minerals and oil, especially all the mineral resources for our
microelectronics industries. And there's an attitude there, which I see is basically
a communist kind of ethic. Let's all work together. Let's make sure that everybody benefits
and nobody is exploiting anybody else. And that's what their experience of the Belt and Road Initiative
in Africa is. So anyway, I wonder if you could comment on that whole development.
What was the first one again? Jack, I have to say,
I agree absolutely with everything that you've just said. That's pretty much it.
It is a completely and totally different attitude. It's a completely different approach.
When you say to people in the West that the Chinese approach is on mutual benefit and a
win-win situation, it's generally regarded with a certain amount of scepticism.
It seems like a Canadian concept that somebody isn't exploiting somebody else. But
I'll tell you a story. I mean, what brought me to Asia as a young man in the first place was
martial arts. That was my obsession at the time. It was my excuse for being in China the first time.
So I knew about the Art of War, which is a 26-year-old book written by Sun Tzu,
we call it, Leo. It's 36 principles for conflict. I never heard it mentioned in China. In fact,
I never really paid any attention to it until 79 when I was at business school for a year in Chicago.
It was everywhere. Required reading on every MBA course. The Art of War, the Art of War with
business, the Art of War with marketing. I never really paid much attention to it. Then I was back
there in 80 to 85 and I began to realize that it is actually there. Subsequently, I think,
because my pair was the project management for foreign companies in China. Every one of them
was based on a win-win principle. It couldn't work any other way.
So this dog-eat-dog zero-sum game, the pie is only so big, it's almost like the Wall Street
Trader mentality where every winner's got a loser.
We've lost you, Eamonn.
Oh, you're back again.
I'm back again. I apologize for keep dropping out. But there was this mentality that every business
deal has got a winner and a loser. Well, real business deals where you need cooperation between
two parties can only work if both sides are getting what they want out of it. That's win-win.
So you hear a lot of things levied against China. It's a form of imperialism. What are they up to?
It's a debt trap. None of these things are true. These are genuine. That's why their approach and
the Russian approach to these countries in the global south had so much appeal.
And what you said about Africa, it goes much further than that. I mean, the African Union
are very much attached to both Russia and China because of the way that they deal with them.
They don't talk down to them. You'll hear them say this. The African Union and Africa itself
has been plundered for 200 years. South America longer, Asia longer.
This is the tale of imperialism. This is what everybody is... The Belt and Road and the initiative
that we're seeing now, the Shanghai cooperation, in essence, it's anti-imperialism. They're all
rebelling against the same thing. The Chinese model is very much about
development. The Belt and Road Initiative is about development. The model of financing they're using
is completely different. And that's their crime because the financial private sector is being
cut out of it largely. That's very similar to the Islamic model of...
Sounds like this...
Model is very different. They won't allow usury, but they have a model whereby you become an investor.
So their thing is they're investing in a project and that's where they see a profit.
The Medici's did exactly the same thing in Florence. That's the way they got around the usury laws
400 odd years ago. It's a different model of finance. It's public financing.
When you use public financing you can do anything. Is everybody still with me here?
Yeah, we can hear you, Eamon.
The thing that struck me when you were describing...
Yeah, we can hear you.
Can you hear us?
The thing that struck me when you were talking about the lack of police, the lack of surveillance
that everybody, the Westerners project into what they see, is really the same kind of contract
between government and citizens, where citizens actually trust their government
and the government trusts them and they don't really need surveillance and policing.
You're muted, Eamon. I think you dropped off.
Sorry, I keep dropping it in.
Maybe if you drop your video, Eamon. If you drop your video you might stay on longer.
Okay, how's that? I'm sorry, Jack, I missed a part of what you were saying.
I think what I was adding to this, that the same spirit of cooperation and reciprocity
exists between the government and the people in China. So the government trusts the people
to do the right thing and the people don't have to fear the government.
In other words, they don't need surveillance, they don't need external control, they don't
need so much policing.
Well, that's going to be a different situation in every country, but listen, you touched.
Give me two minutes to explain something about their financial system and their approach.
It's not like the Islamic system. The Islamic system is worded differently in as much that
where they actually make or classify it as an investment. The Medici's did the same thing,
in Florence in the 1600s to get around their usury laws. How it works today, if you've got
public bank, so basically you've got two ways to finance something. If you use the private sector
or you can use public banking, that means that the government is actually producing the money
for public use. That's the principle of public banking is public banking is there to serve the
economy. In the West, the economy is there to serve the banking. Now that's the first
thing you have to understand. So how does it work? So I'm going to give you an example.
So you've got, I'm going back about 20 years here. You've got Shanghai,
you know, on one side of the Yangtze Delta and on the other side, you've got the province of Nantong,
Nantong city population of about 9 million. They're supplied by an estuary of about 15 miles.
So if you wanted to drive, I'm sorry, I could probably explain this better with a map, but
if you wanted to go drive from Nantong to Shanghai, about 45 kilometers as the crow flies,
you had to drive seven hours up the estuary and back down again. It was a nightmare.
So the Chinese build a bridge. It was the longest bridge of its kind in the world, a toll bridge.
Now, how did they do it? Well, they issued a public bond jointly assumed by the cities of
Suzhou and Nantong. Suzhou is like an out of line city of Shanghai. So the bonds issued on maybe
50 year bond. Low interest rate. It's paid back from the tolls which are collected on both sides
by Nantong and Suzhou respectively, and that goes to pay the bond. Now, over a period of time,
20 years, that will easily pay for itself. If this was supposed to be private capital,
they wouldn't do it, which is why no infrastructure gets built in the West.
Because they get paid eventually, but the return is too low and the time frame is too long.
Public capital doesn't look at it like that because what public capital says,
see private capital can only evaluate the project on the basis of one return investment,
which is the tolls. But no, the government doesn't. The government looks at it like this and it says,
okay, there's 400,000 cars a day user, one and a half people in each car, that's 600,000 people
a day. 600,000 times six hours saved. There's millions of hours a day
that could be put to some productive use. The previously was spent sitting in a car,
wasting time, causing congestion and pumping out pollution. The GDP on both sides of the bridge
have escalated tremendously and it's improved people's lives. That's what infrastructure does.
You invest to raise the economy and this is the important part. People talk about capitalism as
the big evil. The way we've come to understand it, yes, but there's different kinds of capitalism.
There's the kind of financial capitalism that we see in the West, it's all about debt.
And then there's productive capitalism where you're actually investing in the productive sector.
That's the financial model. And yes, China is magnificent now at building infrastructure in
terms of cost, time, efficiency. It's not just trains, it's hydroelectric dams, it's power,
it's airports, it's schools, it's industrial development, training programs.
And this is available to every country in the world. Now, the economic model can apply everywhere,
but how it works is different country by country, depending on their situation, strengths and
weaknesses. The Belt and Road Initiative is completely different in every country.
That's the appeal of it. It's a different economic paradigm and it works and that's why it's the
enemy. Now, people say, what are China up to? You know what I mean? Blah, blah, blah. Well,
they got a very simple model. They invest in development because all these countries have
got natural resources. They can't get the market. And also the China would like to see them be a
nice prosperous country because there are going to be markets for their goods. Their model is
based on prosperity, not wealth extraction, which as you pointed out, is the empire model.
So yes, Jack, it's a complicated subject. There's countless books, papers, talks about it.
I've witnessed it from its inception. So it's a good thing. It's bringing people together.
It's helping countries that are deprived of capital, a real opportunity to turn their
economies and societies around. And it's a real alternative to the existing neoliberal model,
which as you said, is about wealth extraction, not development.
Very good. Thank you, Eamonn. Excellent. Thank you, Jack, for the question. Jim.
Thank you very much. Hey, great presentation on China and you seem to be a very big fan of
China and I appreciate that. There seem to be a lot of good things that are underestimated from
China. What are the commonalities or can you draw some parallels? What is the best thing that China
can offer in terms of their banking systems you were talking about, if you could expand upon that?
And then also the city of London and its ties to China, starting with symbolism and the two
dragons versus the dragon in China and the imperial family calling them the real sons of the dragon
versus anything else you have on the imperial family and the city of London in China. Thanks.
You're an Eagles fan.
Absolutely. Yeah.
Well, my heart's always been with Washington ever since I won 100 bucks when they beat Miami
40 years ago. Okay. When you talk about China, I've spent a good part of the last 40 years
explaining China to the West and trust me, I'm not suggesting by any means that the place is perfect,
but I was there in 1976. I in fact got there the day Chairman Mao died. Have you just seen the
country at that time? It was at the end of the cultural revolution. It was in turmoil.
Everybody had a tale of woe. The GDP of China at the time was lower than Nigeria.
I've seen China raise 1 billion people, absolute grueling, humiliating, soul destroying poverty
to a better way of life. I've seen this sort of desperate hopelessness in people's eyes where
they know that this is it. They've got no realistic prospect for a better life. So
China today is completely different. I mean, I encourage you just go on YouTube and look at
China infrastructure projects, look at their technology, look how far they've come because
the government invested in all the right things, invested in education, in science and technology.
And in so many of these cases, I mean, they've just leapfrogged generations of progress.
So yeah, I mean, you know, look, I'm the, you know, I'm an Irishman, so I'm a born anarchist. I don't
believe in government or what to do, but you have to absolutely acknowledge the achievement
of the Chinese government. And the people in China, I mean, this is not understood. They're
like somehow they're impressed and they don't have any democracy. Their system, very few people have
got any critiques about the central government because they're all aware of what the central
government has done. Now, they've all got a healthy cynicism of the government. They don't
believe the media or anything like that. It's like a running joke. The Chinese are not communist,
believe me. On a local level, they've got democracy. The town I was living in for a while,
about 9 million in central Shandong, there was plans to build a factory. It turns out it was a
chemical factory. It was near a school, near a residential area. Thousands of people came out
and, you know, protested outside the local government building. There were TV crews there
listening to them. They were being interviewed, you know, it was on TV. Central government got
involved, looked at it. You're right, they closed the factory, no factory. So, you know, on a local
level, you'll see a lot of people protesting and it works in China. It doesn't seem to work in the
West, but it works in China. So, do I have affection for the place? Yeah, I have to say in all my years
in China, everybody was really nice to me. You know, they're lovely people and like I said,
if anybody's ever been to China, they would feel differently about it.
In terms of... The second part of Tim's question. Yeah, the second part of Tim's question is about
the banking system. The public banking system, China didn't create it. It's been used elsewhere,
always successfully. There's a public banking system in the Bank of North Dakota, which works
very, very well apparently. So, China didn't invent that, but public banking, okay, involves cutting
out the hegemon for his piece of the action and that always causes a problem.
The other form of private central banking where you're creating debt-based money is always going
to create an oligarchy and it's always going to create the rich-poor divide. The public banking
gives the ability to create a fairer society and see development from the bottom up as opposed to
the top down. Was there another part of that question? Yes, the city of London and their ties to...
Well, the city of London has always been... Yeah, it's always been the adversary of China.
Let me put it like that. When the Chinese Civil War was coming to a conclusion, the communists
were leaving, the communists were winning. The Kuomintang fled to Taiwan and they also took the
entirety of China's gold reserves. Those gold reserves were there for a couple of years and
then the Americans said to the Taiwanese, well, we don't know about that, you know, the Chinese
might invade, you better leave your gold with us. So, Chinese gold went to Taiwan and then went and
ended up in America. And the Taiwanese have been trying to get it back ever since.
So, the Bank of England and China are opponents, they are enemies. The Bank of England is the head
of the snake for the financial system. And look, Charles said earlier, we're at war. Yes, we are.
We are in the final battle. There was a British historian, 19th century historian, Lord Acton,
and he said, as it's been coming throughout mankind, it will come down to the final battle,
which is the bankers versus the people. That is what we are seeing now.
What I mean by that is Russia and China have seen the devil. That is the Western financial system
and what they're about. They're not having them. Iran isn't having them. So, whatever you think of
Russia, whatever you think of China, let me sum it up like this. They are protecting their people
from the financial system, from the bankers. They've been the enemy of mankind since
going back to the days of Babylon. So, if we have any freedoms left in the West in 10 years,
you can thank the Chinese and the Russians because they're standing up to the New World Order and
everybody else in all those other countries outside the West knows that. When they speak
with Russia and China, they're treated with dignity, they're treated as equals, and I'll talk down to
it. That's very much the sort of thing that you're hearing from the Africans. They're treated with
respect. So, the City of London is the head of the snake, simple as that. People talk about
military industrial complex. The military industrial complex is part of the banker industrial complex.
The war profiteers have always been the bankers. Go back to the American Civil War, JP Morgan,
who was a front for the Ross-Giles, sold weapons to the North. The great DuPont fortune was founded,
Irene DuPont, more or less had the monopoly of supplying gunpowder to the North. They prospered
through the First World War, the Second World War. If you look at pre-World War I, Europe,
the two biggest arms manufacturers in Britain were Maxim Gorky and Vickers, both owned by the Ross-Giles.
They profited enormously from both wars. Now, today, if you look at the military industrial
complex, it's a web of cross-investments and hedge funds and whatever. That's the bankers.
So, the military industrial complex from 1945 to at least March last year shunned every possibility
for peace. And that's where we are today. So, there's one part of the world that's about building
things and creating and elevating and the other part of the world which just wants to blow everything
up. Everybody can pretty much say that now. Can I ask a follow-on question? Yes, Jim, go.
That was excellent. Thank you very much. Can you relate the City of London to MI6
and this bi-network of Six Eyes, the Crown Colonies?
Yes, well, the Crown is kind of a deliberate obfuscation. It's trying to associate it with
the royalty. Well, the royalty is just the avatar of the front. The Crown corporations
are the instruments of control. When you had the British Empire ostensibly split up and become the
Commonwealth, all the institutions of control were still there. The banking system, the red-winged
was still there. The banking system, the round tables. So, the control never actually left.
What it did is give the British Empire more votes in the United Nations. So, the Crown,
the Crown Corporation of the City of London, for example, that owns the United States of America
Inc. in 1871. When you hear America's not a country, it's a business. That is literally true.
It was always a business.
I mean, you could talk about the Crown forever. I don't know what to say about that.
Now, that's good. That's very good, Jim.
Okay.
Yep. Okay. Thank you, Jim. Very good. Great questions. Amy Smith is next.
Hello. Can you hear me on this?
Yep. Yes, ma'am.
Okay. Is it too loud? Well, I have a new microphone.
That's good.
So, I'm just wondering if you've ever looked at the work of E. Michael Jones, talks about
these cultural Marxism operations, as well as the imposition of communism.
One of his books is called The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. It's about the...
No, I'm actually a big fan of him. I mean, he's one of those courageous people. When you talk about
Jewish revolution and the New World Order, you make yourself an easy target for slurs. We've all been
there. No, I'm a big fan of his. He's also done some excellent work on Babylonian money magic,
which is what we're talking about here now. So, yeah, there's a lot of very, very good
people that are actually addressing and speaking about this now. But the motivators between the
New World Order are Jewish. The people behind the Frankfurt School, they're Jewish. If you want to
understand about this immigration situation and the dilution of Europe, you need to understand
the Calergy Plan. So, this New World Order that they're trying to create, or they're a great reset,
it's been in the works for a long time. There was a lot to it, the Cultural Marxism, the Calergy Plan,
and essentially it's a very small group of people, not exclusively Jewish, but
who have a hatred for the white Christian race, who they see as the main opposition, so they're
standing up. There's a very good case that World War I, World War II, it served a purpose with
the Calergy Plan, some of the finest young Europeans. It's a subject that needs to be spoken
about because it's absolutely a fact. And I mean, this same group of people have been equally
horrific to their own Jewish people. When they found Israel and you had these Sephardic Jews,
who were very religious, they came over. The Israeli government then didn't want these
particular kind of Jews, so it took all the children away to the weekend and sterilized them.
So, it's a destructive group, and it doesn't care it's destructive about. And again, if you follow
that through and you study the Cultural Marxism, it's about the destruction of Western society,
Western values, Western family, and replacing it with something else. Now,
as I said, the final push is this Agenda 2030. But Agenda 2030, I think when they first lay down
the 1970s, there ain't some horrifically arrogant assumptions that are no longer valid. They don't
control the rest of the world. And Cultural Marxism has only really taken hold in the Western
societies that are not homogeneous. Now, it's got no traction in Russia or Eastern Europe,
Eastern Europe, they've seen it and are having it. It's not going anywhere in China, Iran,
because these are civilizations with their own value system, their own way of figuring things out.
And that's why it's going to fail, because the only people that are actually falling for this
nonsense are the people in the West who are being conditioned in all this virtue signaling.
So yeah, that's a very good question. Thank you.
Well, can I just tack on a tiny, tiny press forward that this idea that the West is monolithic,
which we often say talk like that just because it's convenient or whatever. But the whole idea of
the West being targeted, like you say, with the Cultural Marxism, that there's been different
kinds of Western colonialism, it's not all one thing of a piece. And that maybe the white pill
is that we could embrace and return to the wisdom of Catholicism, you're Irish, right?
And strengthen ourselves for the spiritual battle by reuniting under Christ's church to
stand up to this demonic force that's been making war on children, on families, on sexuality, on
just even the very gender of a person as if that could be changed or surrogacy could be normalized
or transhumanism, all of these demonic things, genetic engineering, mRNA vaccination, all of
these demonic things. Doesn't it make sense to try to unite around the force that is terrifying
and strong against those demonic things, which is Christ, that's just put that out there. Anyway,
that's what I think. That's what I've gotten to. But I'd be curious to what you think as an Irishman
about that. Well, I grew up in the Catholic faith and I wasn't very impressed with it. I
realized I sort of couldn't help but notice early on that Catholics didn't seem to be any better
than anybody else. I think the Vatican itself has been a terrible force for evil in the world.
But in terms of the eternal battle between good and evil and spirituality, and us finding out
who we are, that's also been a battle. I mean, you can go back way before the French Revolution and
you could see what they falsely call the humanists, who people are Voltaire, where they were sort of
decrying God. Voltaire, you know, there was no such thing as God, man would have to invent him.
And that got into the Psyche. So that was very much part of that Jacobite movement that spurred
the French Revolution. But then you saw it later with people like Zygmunt Freud, and they want to
separate people from their spirituality to reduce us to the point where we accept that, hey, we're
just animals with instincts and impulses, that there is no higher power because that has to go
too. Because part of this cultural agenda is that you have to worship the state to the exclusion of
everything else. You don't have parents, the fact that the state raises you, they condition you,
you know, it's them that you salute every morning. That's all part of it. And if it sounds far-fetched,
I encourage people to go and again, study the cultural Marxist agenda so they can really
understand what's behind what's going on today. But if I could, I'm sorry, I can't see your name
up here. Amy. Amy Smith. Well, thank you, Amy. I have to say I've been pretty much an atheist
all my life. But I'm actually changing. I mean, I'm not pretending that I'm a particularly spiritual
person. In fact, I'm probably pretty shallow. But none of this makes sense to me unless I bring in
a spiritual element to it. There's definitely an evil that exists. You've heard the expression,
the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist.
That was actually written in 1848 by Charles Baudelaire, who was a French writer and philosopher.
And during that time in France, the place was in turmoil. The failed French Revolution,
the restoration of an unpopular monarchy, reestablishment of an aristocratic money
class. And the whole country was completely broke because they were being bled for reparations for
the Napoleonic Wars. Everybody was angry, but nobody knew who to be angry at. That was the
term. Well, we do know who to be angry at today. We do know there is a source for this.
People talk about joining the dots. I think it's actually easier than that. If you take any
conflict or tragedy going on in the world today, you can trace it back to the source in about three
moves or less. All right. Thank you. I completely agree with everything you said. They don't want
us to be in touch with our spirituality. They don't want us to think that there's anything more.
They don't want us to have values that conflict with theirs, which is that we should all worship
the state. But, Eamon, I'm not trying to contradict you now. Could you explain in China,
where is religion in China? Isn't that exactly what they do in China? Don't they worship the state
because they're so grateful to the state for dragging them out of poverty? Is that right?
No. Well, you can go to Easter Sunday Mass at a church in Shanghai if you want, or you can
worship at a mosque. There's freedom of religion in China. I mean, that's one of these things that
they try and throw out about human rights in China. Nobody has any example beyond the Uighurs. There
seems to be this assumption that the Chinese persecute their minorities. China has 55 different
ethnic groups, and it encourages them all to celebrate their culture and their local language.
One of those cultural groups are the Muslim population. They're all over China, all over China.
Now, they have always had more rights than the average Chinese. They didn't have to send their
kids to school. They could go to a mosque and learn that. Most of them didn't even speak Chinese.
They could have more than one child during the period of the one-child policy.
Now, if you look at where they keep pointing to, which is this area, Xinjiang province, which is
the extreme northwest of China. It's a large area. It's resource-rich. It's not productive land. It's
very dry. That's where most of the Uighur Muslim Chinese are. Now, there's never been a problem
with them, but what you have in that whole area, firstly, understand Xinjiang borders as Pakistan,
Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmikistan. So China actually has 14 borders that it shares with other
countries. Eight of them were Islamic. It has no problem with any of these Islamic nations. In fact,
they're very friendly, but they all have exactly the same problem, which is radicals trying to
fundamentalize the kids. Every single one of those countries has that same problem, and they're
western-funded. There's a terrorist group there called the Turkic Islamic Army that work in that
area. There, the guys driving around on toyotas, waving Kalashnikov in Syria and Iraq and everywhere
that they're stirring up trouble. So do you have religious freedom, China? Yes, you do.
So you can go there and practice any religion you want. I'm afraid that's another mess.
Very good. I'm an excellent explanation. We've got everybody half an hour to go home, and you're
doing very well. It's now four o'clock in the morning. Thank you so much. We've got a couple
hands up, and then we go back to Stephen.
What did you say, Eamonn, then?
I'm not going back to bed. The coffee's kicked in. I'm wide awake, so please feel free.
I'm fine. I've got to tell you, your analysis of everything today is absolutely excellent.
I've studied China, particularly its financial system, its banking system for a very long time.
25 years I've been on the job. Everything you said today is accurate. They run their
financial system like a Swiss clock, and they enable it to then basically let the real economy
get to work on the goods and services. So everything you said there is, I agree, totally 100%. I watch
the Chinese finance system very closely. I read reports every week.
I've got three questions. Thank you for your excellence of your comments today. I agree with
just about everything you've said on other things to geopolitical situation and whatever.
I've got three questions for you, and they're all fairly similar.
So you could make a note. First is the connection between WEF and the Chinese government.
I'm very concerned that they're continuing with the summer Davos meetings. So that's question one.
Question two is, was mRNA technology used for the vaccines in China? I really can't find this
information. And thirdly, I just want to back you up on the CBDC, the Chinese Central Bank
Digital Currency or the digital yuan. It's in very, very small circulation in China. It hasn't
been expanded much at all. I put the actual facts up on the chat previously.
The digital yuan is 0.16% of China's cash in circulation. So it's nothing. It's tiny.
And it represents only 1.4% of total GDP transactions. So this endless talk in the
West of the social credit system and their digital money system is just not true. It's another myth.
So they're my three questions. I'll just go through them again. The WEF and the Chinese
government, mRNA use in China, and perhaps another comment on the CBDC, but that's not so essential.
Everything you've said, firstly, you'll understand, of course, that the Chinese,
the way they do things is slowly. So that's, they don't have an arrogance when they do something
new. It's kind of like this is something new. Let's try it. That goes back to Ding Xiaoping,
you know, when he spoke about how it was going to go. And he said, we'll cross the river by
feeding the stones under our feet. It's a famous quote. So they will always do something like that.
When they roll out new government policy, they'll sort of put a small version out to the provinces,
have them work with it. And this CBDC thing, you're right. And it's not going to be a huge
departure from what they're doing now. So yeah, it's a very small portion now. I think the digital
yuan is going to be more for international trade, frankly. But they've got a perfectly
functional payment system now that everybody seems to be wired into.
That's the first thing. The second thing is my understanding is no, that wasn't mRNA technology.
They didn't want any of the Western vaccines. That's my understanding. And the first one is
the WEF represents everything that the Chinese are against. So if you look at
Xi made a speech to them. And if you read between the lines about what Xi said, it was like, yeah,
fine. Love all the stuff you're doing. It's not for us. You know, no, we're not going to open
our capital markets. No, we're not going to, you know, move to your neoliberal model. No, you're
not having any of your oligarchs coming in influencing policies that are made with the
best interests of the Chinese people. So yeah, well, I mean, Putin showed up. I mean, Jesus,
Jerry, if they invited me, I'd go out of curiosity, wouldn't you?
Oh, that's a great comment. Because I think that's right. I think Putin and Xi Jinping
tolerate the WEF just to seek intelligence. I mean, I suspected there was no strong connection.
They're there just to see what's going on. I may be wrong, but that's my gut feeling.
You know, when I tried to cover it earlier, because I mean, there are still a lot of people
that think it's all a show and China and Russia are part of it. No, it's not. If you understood
the mindset of the Chinese people, the Chinese government, the understanding that's shared by
the Chinese people, what it's about. If you understand the Russians and what they went
through, where, you know, their financial shock, well, the rate of Russia, you know, a friend of
mine, I wasn't there during that period of time during the 90s. But a friend of mine showed me a
book that he bought off this really dignified elderly gentleman sitting on the street in Russia,
selling his last possessions, which was three grubby old books and a pair of slippers.
One of the books he'd written, because he used to be a professor at Moscow State University.
That's how bad it was. That's how badly the country was humiliated. If we talk about China's
century of humiliation, Russia's decade. And if you want a story of woe like that, you can throw a
map and whatever country it lands in, they got a tale of woe like that, where they've been the
victim of empire. And fortunately, that is what's happening now. I am not one of these people that
is all doom and gloom. I've been through that. I've been what you might call conspiracy theorists
since the Kennedy assassination. My old mom, Jerry, an Irish girl, we were sitting there on
a Sunday night watching King Kong in London, and a newsflash came on JFK assassinated Lan
Gumbay. My mom's gone, they killed him. And like that's been pretty much it. You know, and I will
tell you right now that like in the early 2000s, the fall of Russia, China hadn't really emerged
yet. And Francis Fukuyama wrote the book The End of History, the Victory of the Neo-liberal Model.
They had pretty much won. That was the time for gloom. Now, no, now for the first time in forever,
the world is moving in the right direction. You know, this block that's united around Russia and
China is strong, and it's not going back. Napoleon said that there's something stronger than all the
armies in the world. That is an idea whose time has come. This is that time. That's the positive.
You know, we're in for some hard times in the short term. The rest of the world will come out
of it, reemerge and rebuild much faster than most people think possible. Because history's shown us
with the right economic model, it can happen very quickly. The Western world, I despair of.
It's going to be a long march back to get rid of this virus of cultural Marxism that's penetrated
all the institutions and poisoned the minds of kids. And in the Western countries, they've hitched
their wagon to the US financial system and they're going to go down with it. It's going to be a long
climb back because I see no leadership there at all. The real leaders are not in the West anymore
and that's a tragedy. Very good. I mean, that's excellent. You've answered the three questions.
WEF in China, no strong connection. mRNA in China, not used in China. And the last one was CBDC in
China. It's all a massive misinformation program in the West. It doesn't really
carry any significance in China today. They're the three big questions. You've answered them in no time.
Well, the CBDC doesn't make any difference to them. They're using the same payment system anyway.
They're using the payment system that's the same as against the CBD. That's mainly only for
international trade. It's small now, but it won't be. And thank you for your input and your
comments, Jerry. That was great, buddy. Thank you very much. I'm sure we'd have a much more interesting
conversation. Just before I go in, I'll just put my website, my financial website on the chat and
have a look at that. And I will try and contact you. We should talk. Thank you. Well, Charles,
I don't have quite any social media, but Charles is absolutely in liberty to give you my
or anybody here my email should you wish. Okay, very good.
Okay. Thank you, Jerry. Tom, then Janet and then Stephen, and we're finishing in 20 minutes. Go, Tom.
So I just heard this hour long thing with Scott Ritter and I think Garland Nixon from one of the
Russian outlets and they were talking about war games with China and how we just consistently lose
after lose, you know, on and on. But I don't have one question. I'm just going to run a bunch of
ideas across. I'm thinking there's probably some anecdotal stories, people that you know,
you got to know in China. I'd like to hear, you know, a couple of those like formative experiences
and then going over the culture, you know, the, do you read the text? Is it, you know,
it's just so foreign to me and I know so little about China. I would think they don't use a
character based like us in alphabet or do they? Or, you know, I'm just very ignorant.
You know, something about the media and the pop culture there and, you know, sort of like a high
school civics level thing. Like do they have provinces? How do people get involved in
how do people get involved in the government? And then another big shift would be
money creation. It sounds like the government creates money. They decide on big infrastructure
projects. So how does that governance work? It seems like we're very afraid of centralized control
and here in the U.S. right? We vilify that. So how do the people get represented?
You know, if we got rid of the Fed and we set up a similar mechanism here,
everyone would worry about it becoming corrupted. So those are some ideas and then, you know,
do they use cash? What's the deal with taxes? And they forgive debts.
I wouldn't argue with any of that. Give me a couple of simple questions. Otherwise,
we'll be here until the dawn of the next empire.
Yeah. Well, okay. How about just the, some of the people that you met,
like formative relationships when you were there, you know,
you described some of the characters that you got to know.
Well, I met Deng Xiaoping in 1980 when I was there with the initial delegation of
Occidental Petroleum. It was a strange set of circumstances. And I've met many people that
influenced me. Look, if I go wandering off into the anecdotal, I mean, it's all a little bit
abstract. Yeah, they use cash, but more and more everybody's using the electronic payments.
And I've been in China for four years now. I'm still running my business there,
but I haven't had to go. Four years ago, I never had cash in my pocket for 10 days.
One of my colleagues was me, everything was on the phone. I'm sure it's, you know,
that's stepped up now. But I mean, look, I appreciate all your questions. And I mean,
it honestly, I wouldn't know where to start answering those sort of things.
It's centralized control. No, people don't like it in America, but you've got it.
You know, I mean, that's always been about the power of the federal government.
It's always the lone patriots in America. So, yeah, well, yeah, what China had to do
in one hundred years project, there's no other way they could possibly have done it,
but the way they did it. And that's an absolute fact. And they're not wedded to communism and
ideology. It's just about practicality. I mean, they're teaching schools over there.
At the time, communism was what China needed. You know, in a hundred years, we'll need another
system and we'll move to that. That's it. They're not ideologically linked to it.
Deng Xiaoping, when he started moving to market reforms and there was criticism because it was
contrary to the Marxist model, he said, white cat, black cat, as long as it catches mice,
it's the right cat. So it's a very pragmatic approach. It doesn't lend itself to any ideology.
But talk on journeys through China and anecdotes and things, I wouldn't even know
where to begin condensing those down. I'm sorry to disappoint you.
Good question.
Thanks.
Thanks, Tom. Thanks. Thanks, Janet. Then Stephen.
Yeah, you mentioned the Uyghurs. I mean, we've been led to believe that they've been
herded into camps for reprogramming. I mean, what is actually the truth of the matter with
regard to it? Lies, lies. He's been saying lies.
Yeah, well, let's bear in mind who's bringing you all this concern. Who's actually talking this up?
Coming from the American Empire. Now, I don't have any doubt that Muslims all over the world
are heart-warmed. The American Empire is no concern for their well-being. I'm sure they're
blowing trumpets from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib. No. China gets on with all of its Muslim
neighbors. Look at the relationship it has with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria,
the Arab League. If China was abusing Muslims, do you think that would be happening? I'm afraid
that is just more propaganda. That's the narrative. And they've even given up on that because
it's been so disproved. You know, China's been under assault from America since 1950.
That's the truth of it. From that region there to trying to provoke them over Taiwan to the
South China Sea to Tibet, everything is about attacking and trying to destabilize China,
including the attempted color revolution in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Everything that you
have been told in the West is a lie. That's the truth. So, the answer to the question
is no, there is no persecution of minorities in China. And what did you say about Tiananmen Square?
Tiananmen Square was an attempt by George Soros at a color revolution in China. George Soros
has never been allowed back in and the Chinese collaborators with him were arrested. So, that was
an early version or an early attempt at a color revolution. I was actually in Beijing at the time.
And it was nothing like what was reported.
Eamon, can you explain what a color revolution is to the audience?
Well, we saw an attempt. I think most of you must know, but I mean, George Soros has been back in
them. I mean, Maidan Square in 2014 was a color revolution by George Soros and the Neocons. There
was an attempt at another one in Hong Kong, let's say a couple of years ago. This is what they do.
They regime change programs. Very good. All right, everybody. Before we go, Stephen,
Eamon started talking with us some two hours ago. And he said, this is complex. China is complex.
If you've been there for 20, 30 years, you wouldn't know where to start to explain it. And one of my
favorite sayings, I believe, is a Chinese saying that says to be uncertain can be uncomfortable.
And if you want a certain answer, there are uncertainties. To be uncertain can be uncomfortable.
However, to be certain is ridiculous. So, contemplate that, everybody. Looking for
certainty in the chess games that are going on on this planet is ridiculous. All right, Stephen,
over to you. And then the last 10 minutes and any chat. Save the chats, everybody. Eamon,
I'll send the chat to you and introduce Jerry to anyone else who wants to. Stephen?
Yeah. Thank you, Eamon, for answering these questions in the middle of your night.
I just wanted to ask you about what are described as atrocities,
as far as I know, anyway. So the Great March of Mao, Mao Zedong, then the Great Leap Forward,
and then the Great Cultural Revolution. So the Great Leap Forward, I think, was 1948 to 1952.
The Great Cultural Revolution was 1968 to 1976 when Mao Zedong died. Is that right? And then
the Great March was in 1949, I think, or was it 1948?
Yeah, this is during the Chinese Civil War. And again, I mean, it's
there's very, very little known about it. I mean, so let me give you a parallel.
The point I wanted to raise, Eamon, is this. It's alleged that all three of these events in China
caused massive, a huge number of deaths. I think the Great Leap Forward, it's alleged that
15 to 55 million, so that's the best they can do, 15 to 55 million people died. And what I've read
about it, I don't know whether it's true, but it was about the crops. And they continued every year
after the first year, they carried on making the same mistakes. I don't know,
but I don't know whether you. Let me first. And also I want to ask,
what's in Chinese schools about those events now?
Well, there's a narrative about it, which is talk, but I'll give you the
deepest talk. Firstly, understand something.
Okay, the American Civil War. They say there's been about 20,000 books written on the American
Civil War. So if you want to understand the American Civil War, you can read about it from
so many different angles and get to understand it and all the contextual issues that don't
find their way into the narrative. How many of those do you think were written in Chinese?
You mean the American? Yeah, how many books on the American Civil War do you think have been
written on Chinese? Very few, I should think. Very few, and I'll probably follow the original
narrative. And I'll use that as an example. So unless you read the original Chinese of what's
going on, you don't really understand. And the books that, I mean, well, they write about it
afterwards. So yes, there's ambiguity about the American Civil War. There's ambiguity. Of course,
there's ambiguity and uncertainty. We're all very uncomfortable with ambiguity, generally speaking.
We want certainty in our lives. And that's why the existentialists view, you know, the maximum
existence precedes essence. That's got me interjecting here. Thank you for listening to me.
Yeah, Lou, I've got to tell you, the American Civil War has been a fascination with me since
I was a kid. So I agree. But my point being is that it's not properly understood in the West.
So yes, the Long March was part of the war. It was an amazing human achievement. Many died. It
was dreadful. The great leap forward was about collectivism. Collectivism doesn't work.
Collective farming doesn't work because it disincentivizes people. Now,
in the initial days where they had the collective farming and a number of other things,
it didn't work very well. The production was way, way down. But they carried on with it, right?
Turns out that isn't exactly what happened. The production was, in fact, way up. People had less
because, and this is the truth of it, was because Mao was taking the grain surplus and sending it
to Russia for their help in developing a nuclear program. So they knew that collective farming was
making the people unhappy. But it wasn't because it wasn't working. It's because they were taking
all the surplus. OK? So the blame for the shortages goes on the collective farming policies,
whereas in fact that wasn't true. There was plenty of food. It was just going elsewhere.
The Cultural Revolution was really in the-
Sorry. Why wasn't the blame directed to the government which had formed those policies?
Well, it was, Stephen. I mean, at the time, there was a narrative. Nobody knew what was going on.
You know, people were isolated. They weren't moving around. So you only got what you knew from the
people that you were surrounded by in the official narrative. So it was a different time.
The Cultural Revolution was essentially promoted by some of the hardliners like Jin Chang, who was
widely hated, who was Mao's fourth wife, complete psychopath. And it was very much like the kind
of hysteria that you see now with these LBTG kids. All right? It's an ideology. Nobody's ever
ideologically pure enough for them. And there were complete atrocities committed.
It was their sort of last ditch effort to save a failing system by rewriting and going back to
year zero. I was there. I got there the day Mao died, September the 9th, 1990.
Nobody was sorry to see him go. At the time, there was a power vacuum and it was taken over by what
they called the Gang of Four, which included Jin Chang, Mao's ex-wife, and three or four other
hardliners. And that was the case. And then in the end of October, so I'd been there about
six weeks, they all got arrested and thrown in jail. And the whole country celebrated.
So communism died then. It more or less died with Mao. Okay? And people talk about communist China.
They use it as a slur to try and scare you. It's not really that anymore. The Chinese people have
an affection for it because it was that freedom from the century of humiliation and imperialism.
But they'll be moving on to a different system. They're not ideologically Marxist.
Yeah. So, Eamon, and what, so I think we discussed it when we talked. So we've got these trojan
horses for what we see as a descent into totalitarianism. Is what exists in China
now totalitarianism or not? Because you described the people, I don't know whether they worship the
state, but they certainly like the state. No, they accept the state. Okay. I thought you said that
they were grateful to the state's foot. No, they understand. If you take a rationale,
and people look at it in the context of what's happened in the last 40 years, they all appreciate
that. They're all proud of the new China, or it's glistening new cities and high speed rail. And
of course, because for 100 years, they were ashamed to be like Chinese. They were ashamed to be Chinese.
They were treated like crap. They've got their sense of national pride back,
but there's nothing dangerous or wrong about that.
But there was something dangerous or wrong about what appeared to be happening in China with the
zero COVID policy and the lockdowns. Yeah, there's aspects of that that I still can't explain,
Stephen. There's still a lot of questions to be answered there. They went overboard,
but most of the Chinese would agree. I can only assume that they were concerned about something
more serious. So they believed that there was a disease called COVID-19?
I don't know. To be honest with you, we can only look at one reaction.
So what I'm trying to get at, so in China now, is the regime supported by what we would regard
as propaganda and censorship? I mean, obviously, we've got the same problem in the Western world
now, and maybe you've had it for some time, but not so well.
Well, firstly, if you read the China Daily or something, there's areas they can't go into.
So is there censorship? Yeah. But the government doesn't...
I don't see where the government actually lies. That's important to them, credibility. So they're
inclined to put a happy spin on things. Let me put it like that. But the Chinese people,
and I mean, you've got to understand that, they have this very healthy cynicism about government,
which is, I think, the sign of a healthy society. Well, they wouldn't change their system
for anything else. Their democracy, their voice, their local issues have dealt with a local area.
And, you know, trust me, when the Chinese get pissed off about something,
they make the right people know about it. And if they got a reasonable case, they listen to it.
I wish we had that in the West. But Eamon, how would we know about the
possible dissidents who don't agree with what's going on and who have to sacrifice their lives
for the collective good? This is what we don't like about what's happening in the West, you see.
So that's why I'm asking. I don't know that this isn't happening everywhere. I don't know really
about dissidents. They're usually people that get caught in corruption. There's a lot of
Chinese that leave China for whatever reason, and then they turn against it. And I'm not trying to
glorify China. My whole point here is to try and understand their mindset about what they're
combating and to make the point that China isn't the problem in the world. China's a solution.
You know, that may be the case. Even if any of these things.
Yeah. So what I'm worried about is that the perception of what's going on in China is used
by the people we're opposed to. Like the whole con- you know, oh well,
I think you know what I mean. Yeah, no, I do. I mean, look, all I'm trying to do is count
the narrative that you get there. And I mean, look, I remember it was last New Year's Eve and I was
talking, I was round a friend's house and I was talking to this delightful Australian guy, 40s.
Seemed like a complete red pillar. You know, talking about the government and New World Order
and COVID and everything. Yeah, great. And then at the end of it, he said, but we got to do something
about Chinese aggression. And I'm like, okay, give me an example of Chinese aggression. Give me
an example of where China has invaded any other country in the last 5000 years.
Yes, exactly. There is not one example. Not one example. That is the narrative. So the point I'm
trying to say here is that, you know, all of us are duly skeptical about things that we hear,
but there is this ambient propaganda that's relentless and it's always there against China,
against Russia. Okay, that's the narrative. So, you know, people talk about Chinese aggression
and usually they will come down to Taiwan. Aggression, what we've seen is 72 years of
unbelievable restraint in the face of relentless American provocations against Taiwan. China is not
going to attack Taiwan. The right people in China and Taiwan are talking to each other. It's not
going to happen. And the will of Chinese people overwhelmingly, okay, is pro-China.
And what you said about China just now, Eamon, isn't that true of Russia as well? Because as far
as I understand it, Eastern Europe was handed to the USSR as part of the agreement. I don't know,
reward for getting to Berlin first. But I don't see much evidence of USSR and Russia being
expansive since 1945. Do you? No, I mean, that whole Cold War period is very widely understood.
And you're seeing now a lot of people like Cold War 2.0. Well, firstly, the Cold War wasn't cold
and it never finished. And there were opportunities for peace many times during that
and it wasn't wanted and it was scoupled by the deep state. So that whole period needs to be
better understood. Yes, so some people are thinking about it and who continually something.
But during that period, let me explain, we had the Korean War, we had the Vietnam War,
we had the Russian-Afghan War and we had all kinds of low-level conflicts going on.
We had the anti-imperial forces against the empire. That was happening from 1945 to this day in Africa,
Latin America, parts of Asia. But it's still going on. Everybody, and I have to say this is true
about the Europeans, they just need to move on. They've all got historical animosities about
previous transgressions. The Poles and Ukrainians, it hasn't seen occurred to them yet.
Stalin is dead. Yes, he was an asshole. There was a lot of them about at the time.
Putin is not Stalin. Move on. It's a new world. But Eastern Europeans, I swear to God,
they have animosities that go back centuries and they can't let go.
Yeah. No, Putin's Russia has been a force for good in this world and it gets on with everybody.
It's the way it treats other countries and so has China's. I mean, they had the president of the
Solomon Islands visit in Beijing. He got exactly the same VIP red carpet treatment that the president
of the United States would get. Bad example. Bad example. All right. They treat countries with
dignity. They don't turn around and talk down to them. And that's what you're hearing from
Latin America. That's what you're hearing from Africa. This is the tide of history that is turning.
But also, we are living through a time where we are witnessing for the first time in human history,
the end of empires.
All empires, you mean?
All empires. Once this Anglo-American empire and its evil is vanquished from this world,
and it will be, OK, we will see a different world where there won't be an anti-Egymon.
So do you think that the Cold War was a construct just as the war on terror was a construct?
And maybe the war on the world was a construct.
Absolutely.
So the demon, which is China, is also a construct. It just happens to fit in with an outside enemy.
Yeah. Well, if you understand the people who love war and why, you'll understand why we always had
them. If you followed the trajectory of the Cold War, there were so many opportunities.
And I think that's what we're hearing from the people who are watching this.
If you followed the trajectory of the Cold War, there were so many opportunities for peace.
Peace was never the objective. Russia, I'm not saying it was great at the time,
but I'm saying that Russia was the enemy that they needed.
Was the...
In 1990, when the Soviet Union fell, it then eliminated the only credible enemy that the West
had. NATO should have disbanded. The military industrial complex should have scaled back
considerably. So whereas the financial arm of the banker industrial complex was making hay in Russia,
okay, the military side of it was pouting. Then we have 9-11. Now we've got a new enemy,
an invisible enemy. Exactly.
An abstract. Which by the way, Eamon, justified all the security measures in the air ports.
Do you mind taking off your shoes, sir, and all this nonsense?
All right. We're going to go.
We learned helplessness. Yeah. Listen, I was an early member of scholars for 9-11 truth. I was
there at the time. I was in Cleveland on 9-11. You could see it was bullshit from the minute.
So yeah, that was all part of it. The reason we don't have any peace is the people in power
don't want peace because it doesn't serve their interests.
But the ridiculous part about the war on terror was that it should have been the war on terrorism.
But even then you could argue that war is only against the state, not against the technique. So
the whole thing was just nonsense. And people went along with it and thought it was a good idea that
we have to sit and stand for two or three hours in security in airports when I'd rather take my
chance with the terrorists. And by the way, where are the terrorists now? The hijackers?
They've disappeared. Are they trying to suggest that?
All right. Come on. Come on. Come on. We're finishing.
Okay. Amon, we're over two and a half hours. You're wonderful. Congratulations on your great
scholarship studying. Alex, thank you for introducing Amon to Stephen so that
Amon could be with us. Thank you for all of the resources in the chats. Stephen,
thank you for organizing Amon. And we're going to call you in 20 minutes to make sure you're
still awake, Amon, so you haven't gone to bed. Well, bless you, Charles. You're a good,
young man you are. Yeah, very cool. We love Charles.
For he's a jolly good fellow. For he's a jolly good fellow. For he's a jolly good fellow.
Would you know what he can do? Especially not here.
Thank you. Great singing. Great singing. All right, everybody. A round of applause.
A round of applause. A man wants to say something. Yes, go ahead.
Could I just wrap up here? It's not exactly a plug, but I want to explain.
We need to wrap you up like a mummy. We need to wrap you up like a mummy, Stephen. Come on.
Amon. I'm a member of another group here on Koh Samui in Thailand called Samui Real.
It's a community truth group. I stumbled across it about 18 months ago. For most of my life,
it was the journey of the lonely truth where nobody wanted to listen to what was going on.
And you end up living this parallel life. Let him speak, Lou, please.
Lou, yeah, if you don't mind. I get introduced to this group who met during COVID.
Now we meet every Wednesday. There's 60, 70 people there. We always have a talk.
Alex is a friend of the group. He's done three magnificent talks followed by a Q&A.
What I'm involved in now is community, developing these community groups because there's a template
to how you go about developing these. And they're so important. Seeing so many people come
through there over the last couple of years, we really begin to understand this awakening process.
If you go back to the days of the Roman Empire, there was some foreign dignity visiting Rome and
I think it was Tacitus or Sano or somebody was showing them around Rome. And the dignity said,
how do you know which ones are the slaves? And they said, well, you don't. They just mingle with
everybody else. And the guy freaked out. He said, well, you should make them wear like a
yellow stole or a band so you know they're slaves. And he said, are you crazy? If they see how many
of them are, they'll kill us all. It actually happened a few times in Rome. What everybody
needs to understand with this awakening process is we are not alone. There was much more of us
than we know. Look how many we are. Everybody needs to see that. And so many of these people
that have come and come to these meetings for the first time and gone, I thought I was the crazy one
because I'm trying to talk to my friends and family about COVID, about everything I found out. And
everybody's saying I'm crazy. Well, it turns out I'm not the crazy one. So community is so important.
So that's what I'm doing most of my time. I'd like to share some of the stuff that we've been
doing on our group. So we have in person meetings, but also Zoom. So I did a talk last week and
we're joined by Zoom from people from Argentina to Japan to Australia. So that's another group.
We're about the same pursuit exactly as you guys are. And to go back to Amy, there is a very strong
spiritual content and feeling and energy about the group. So I'll share that with
Stephen and Charles and we'll see if there's any synergy there. But listen, it's my distinct pleasure
to join you here today. And I'm very grateful to Alex for the introduction. Stephen, Charles,
what you guys are doing is making a difference. So thank you so much, all of you.
Well, thank you, Amy. We'll happily share that information. And as Meredith Miller, one of the
presenters here, Amy shared with us and others who weren't at that talk, and I've been quoting
it in a number of other meetings that I moderate, connection is the resistance. So
I think it's a great slogan and you're doing it and Stephen's doing it, we're doing it here.
Connection is the resistance. So it's a great idea. With that, we want to
get together and having shared experiences. That is absolutely, they do not want us to see how many
of us there are. That should be our focus. If everybody understands that, no, you're not crazy,
all right. And when you talk about waking people up, trying to engage them on any particular
subject is fruitless in my experience. You have to start by getting them confirmed that, look,
do you believe the narrative? Do you believe what you're being told? Do you believe the government?
Do you believe the media? Anybody with a modicum of intelligence will say no, well, that's fine,
but we're on the same side. We both recognize the same lie. And we're both on a search for our own
truths. And again, I completely applaud what you're doing. In fact, Charles, I'll have to get you
on as a guest to one of our Wednesday meetings. You will feel the energy. Yeah, okay.
Charles Larkin Pleasure. All right, everybody.
Charles Larkin Thank you very much.
Charles Larkin We'll also talk about industrial head for Thailand,
which is a big opportunity. Okay, thank you. And for those of you who have the time,
Tom Rodman has put the link into the video telegram conversation that will now continue.
Eamonn, if you have time on that, if you save the chat, you go there, but I'm not suggesting you do.
But there is a subsequent conversation and the link is there. Thank you, everyone, for being here.
Thank you, Eamonn. Eamonn Where do I find the link? I'm fine. I'm up now. I'll put some more
coffee on. Where do I find the link, Charles? Charles Larkin Tom, could you, it's in the chat,
Eamonn. Tom, could you just make it easy for Eamonn to get onto the...
Eamonn Yeah, telegram is not necessarily easy.
Charles Larkin I got it. Okay.
Eamonn The link is there. Yeah, you have to set up a telegram account. Okay.
Which, and you don't have a smartphone, so I apologize for that.
Charles Larkin No, I didn't. I'm already using it.
Eamonn Oh, you do. Okay.
Charles Larkin Beautiful. All right. Well done. Thank you, everybody.
On we go and we'll be in touch and we will get the chat to you. Eamonn knows how to save the chat.
On we go. Thanks, everybody. Eamonn Okay. Eamonn, thank you so much.
Eamonn Thank you, everybody. Thank you. My pleasure.
Charles Larkin Thanks. Bye-bye.