The City of London Episodes w/ Phil Gibson, Philos Miscellany and Stormy Waters

Summary

The Pete Quiñones Show

Episode: The City of London Episodes w/ Phil Gibson, Philos Miscellany, and Stormy Waters

Date: August 4, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of The Pete Quiñones Show dives deep into the history, structure, and influence of the City of London as a unique power center within Britain and global finance. Joined by guests Phil Gibson (aka Mr. Sue), Philos Miscellany, and Stormy Waters, the discussion scrutinizes the City’s legal, historical, and criminal peculiarities—with a focus on the entwined roles of Jewish banking dynasties, the evolution of financial systems, and the City's ongoing capacity to facilitate global capital, both legitimate and illicit.

The episode’s tone is critical and probing, mixing financial history, conspiracy theory, and cultural critique, while tying contemporary monetary policy and geopolitical developments to centuries-old power structures.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Different Schools of Thought

• Pete introduces two major frameworks for analyzing global power:
  • Carol Quigley’s thesis: The British Empire, via the City of London, remains the controlling force, especially by pulling the US into its sphere (02:05).
  • The “Jewish Power” thesis: Emphasizes the outsized influence of Jews (as a small minority) in finance and global affairs (02:05).
• The episode proposes examining these intersecting and sometimes competing narratives, anchored by an article from Larry Romanoff, originally at Unz.com.

---

2. What is the ‘City of London’?—History and Function

Timestamps: 05:12–11:44

• The “City of London” is a one-square-mile, quasi-sovereign enclave distinct from the city at large.
• Historical claim: Established as a haven for Jews expelled from Khazaria nearly 1,000 years ago.
• The City has its own government, police, flag, and even legal jurisdiction; it may have exclusive port rights (05:12).
• Major banking and insurance institutions—Bank of England, Lloyds, and remnants of the British East India Company—are headquartered there.
• The City retains ritual and legal separateness: the King of England cannot enter without invitation (10:50).

Notable quote:
Pete:

"The City of London is effectively an independent city-state existing inside Greater London... It has its own government, police force, laws, levies, taxes, crest, ceremonial armed forces." (05:12)

---

3. Financial Power & Political Immunity

Timestamps: 11:44–18:10

• A representative from the City sits in the British Parliament with the sole purpose of scrutinizing legislation to block anything contrary to City interests.
• Intense lobbying, bribery, and influence over Parliament ensure the City’s privileged tax and legal status.
• Legislation threatening to disrupt the City’s business (e.g., banking oversight, pension plans for low-paid workers) is routinely killed.

Phil Gibson:

"The City's Financial Services Group spends well over 100 million per year on whining, dining, bribing and sexually satisfying UK politicians and regulators... It definitely has some Eyes Wide Shut vibes." (13:27)

---

4. City as a Tax Haven & Money Laundering Center

Timestamps: 18:10–24:23

• The City supports and helps operate a global network of tax havens.
• Billions in narcotics and criminal funds flow through the City’s Jewish banks; HSBC is cited as a prime example.
• City banks wash money for arms dealers, kleptocrats, sex traffickers, and assorted criminals.

Pete:

"Nearly all the world’s narcotics comes home to the City to be laundered by the Jewish banks, notably HSBC, but others too, equally." (20:34)

---

5. British & Global Financial System—From LIBOR to SOFR

Timestamps: 24:23–33:36

• Phil Gibson explains the mechanics of financial control:
  • Formerly, US monetary policy (even after WWII) was still influenced by the City via the LIBOR index.
  • The recent transition to SOFR (Secured Overnight Financing Rate) represents, in Gibson’s view, a US “declaration of financial independence.”
  • This shift has undermined the City’s previous leverage over US rates and offshore dollar creation.

Phil Gibson:

"LIBOR was our ball and chain... Now all that went away under the Fed, run by Jerome Powell... SOFR was the true Declaration of Independence for America because the City of London didn’t run our money anymore." (24:55–27:27)

---

6. Organized Crime, Secrecy, and Oligarchy

Timestamps: 36:07–48:22

• The City’s structure is “tailor-made” for organized crime—financial certificates and assets disappear into the City’s labyrinthine banking system, protected by unique legal arrangements.
• The City is depicted as a regenerative Hydra—a vast web facilitating global crime.
• Notable references to Guardian columns and Financial Times noting the City’s “offshore” legal status within Britain itself.
• International criminals and global elites use the City and its affiliated tax havens to hide and protect assets.

Notable quote:
Pete (quoting FT):

"...The corporation is entitled to special tax and legal privileges. This renders it an offshore island within Britain and a tax haven in its own right..." (18:15)

---

7. City’s Control Over Monarchy and the Nature of Power

Timestamps: 48:22–54:59

• The panel discusses photographic evidence and media stories (e.g., Rothschild poking Charles in the chest), symbolizing a real hierarchy—banking dynasties over Britain’s royal family.
• Liz Truss’s ouster in 2022 is tied to City/Global finance rejecting her defiance of international monetary trends.

Phil Gibson:

"...It’s people at the City of London, Larry Fink of BlackRock... they, there's a split between left wing Jews and right wing Jews, but... more of a European faction and... British UK neocon British Empire faction." (51:11)

---

8. Who Owns the City—Historical Jewish Influence

Timestamps: 54:59–57:04, 99:43–177:33

• The City is described as a private corporation owned by a handful of banking families—most notably various Rothschild lines and Sephardic families, with the original Bank of England stock overwhelmingly held by Sephardim Jews.
• The discussion is deeply historical, covering the following:
  • Jews’ initial exclusion then centrality to English (and European) finance post-Norman conquest.
  • Key innovations like the joint-stock company, insurance, derivatives, futures, options, created and exported from Amsterdam by Sephardic Jews (esp. after the Spanish expulsion of the 1490s).
  • The role of goldsmiths’ guilds, the Lombards, and the intertwining of early English corporations with religious, social, and governmental functions.

Stormy:

"I did the math. Over 80% were Sephardim Jews. That’s who owns the Bank of England. This is who set up the City of London. To pretend it’s anything besides this is retarded." (156:02)

---

9. Guild Structure & Corporate Sovereignty

Timestamps: 164:04–177:33

• The City is depicted as a guild-based, hereditary power center, with legal status and privileges (admission, immunity, etc.) going back centuries.
• The distinction between “citizens” (members) and residents is emphasized.
• The City’s livery companies (guilds) have roots in both commerce and ritual (e.g., Freemasonry).

Philosopher:

"I think it’s important...to change your thinking about what these people do for a living. You need to understand them as a guild...a company in a really traditional classical sense..." (102:23)

---

10. The City Today: Shell Companies, Tax Havens, and Shadow Finance

Timestamps: 174:13–215:00

• The City and its satellite islands (British Virgin Islands, Cayman, etc.) facilitate the entire spectrum of modern global “shadow banking,” from hiding wealth to laundering proceeds of crime.
• Little to no "KYC" (Know Your Customer) or anti-money laundering applies in this system.
• Panelists detail how US trust law rivals these offshore havens for secrecy and asset protection.
• Discussion of bond markets’ opacity, dwarving stock markets in size and influence, furthering the difficulty in tracing true economic power.

Stormy:

"The bond market...on any given day is about 10 times the size of the stock market. Well, where are all the bonds? The bond capital of the world is London." (176:59)

---

11. Why the System Is Failing—Leverage, Complexity, and Demographics

Timestamps: 210:00–225:12

• The system’s demand for growth is unsustainable (requiring constant new consumers, hence mass immigration).
• Financialization detached from real productivity breeds fragility and collapse.
• Attempts to tame this through central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) are regarded as desperate, likely to fail, and not trusted by an increasingly aware public.

Stormy:

"It’s complexity that’s killing it. The system got so complex that the usual machinations they were able to use to keep this thing in check...don’t work anymore." (223:14)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On institutional secrecy:
  Pete (citing article):

  "Behind it all lies the City of London, anxious to preserve its access to the world’s dirty money...a gangster regime cloaked with the respectability of British establishment." (37:03)

• On financial innovation:
  Philosopher:

  "...if Jews were not actually fathers of the stock exchange business, they were certainly primarily concerned in its genesis." (127:58)

• On changing global power:
  Phil Gibson:

  "LIBOR was our ball and chain...SOFR was the true Declaration of Independence for America because the City of London didn’t run our money anymore." (27:27)

• On the futility of reform or revolution:
  Pete:

  "There is one [solution]: If King Charles collects sufficient courage and a single-minded resolve, he could...demolish the City of London. But this is a dream." (74:14)

---

Section Timestamps (Selected Key Segments)

• [05:12] – Outline of City of London’s unique status
• [13:27] – Details of City’s lobbying, influence over Parliament
• [24:55] – LIBOR versus SOFR financial regime shift
• [51:11] – Rothschild influence and the sacking of Liz Truss
• [74:14] – Fantasy “solution” to City’s power
• [156:02] – Bank of England’s original Sephardic ownership
• [176:59] – London as the world’s bond market and financial control center
• [210:00] – Leverage and demographic collapse undermining the system

---

Flow and Tone

• Conversational, at times irreverent and polemical, with frequent jokes, asides, and intra-panel jabs.
• Panelists combine sourced historical research, personal analysis, and contemporary financial commentary.
• Discussion alternates between “redpill” exposé tone and careful parsing of nuance, e.g., necessity of certain financial instruments (futures, options) for a working economy.

---

Concluding Themes

• The City of London is positioned as an ancient, agile, and hydra-like power center whose real force stems from legal sovereignty, financial innovation, and near-complete secrecy.
• While Jewish banking dynasties are spotlighted as central drivers, the system's complexity and adaptability are emphasized over straightforward “conspiracy.”
• Recent monetary and technological shifts (US moves under Powell, declining system competence, public awakening to CBDCs, etc.) are regarded as signs the old system is vulnerable and may soon collapse or be fundamentally reshaped.

---

Further Reading & References

• Larry Romanoff’s “The City of London” on Unz.com
• Banks of the World: A History and Analysis by Roger Orsonguer
• A History of Central Banking by Stephen Mitford Goodson (with a section by Matthew Raphael Johnson)
• Sombart’s “The Jews and Modern Capitalism”
• UK Guardian articles (Monbiot, FT, etc.) on the City’s influence and criminal activity

---

For more from the guests:

• Phil Gibson:
  Twitter: @mrpseu
  Substack: qpol.substack.com

---

End of summary.

Transcript

[Philosopher]

Shelby Power Nitroplus fuels every drive from the Pacific coast to the high desert with a fuel like no other. It contains active coating ingredients that clean and protect for longer lasting engines. That means more protection with active ingredients for longer lasting engines. Shell V Power Nitro Plus Premium Gasoline Engine performance that lasts Chances are you're not far from a Shell station. Find it using the Shell app formulation unique to Shell compared to minimum detergent gasoline. With continuous use of Shell V Power Nitroplus and gasoline direct injection engines, actual effects and benefits may vary. See Shell Us more Dash Protection for

[Pete]

more information I want to welcome everyone back to the Pican Yono Show. Phil Gibson, it's been a while.

[Stormy]

How are you?

[Phil Gibson]

What's up man? Happy to be here to talk about our favorite people.

[Pete]

Why don't you tell everybody a little bit about yourself.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah so my name is Phil Gibson Mr. Sue on Twitter mrpseu for those who aren't good at phonetics. And I've been kind of following Pete's track for a while. It's funny how my ideology and a few others kind of change as his have. But I've been doing the podcast thing off and on. I mostly focus my efforts on my substack cube Paul qpol and where I talk about this stuff. I like to consider myself a Luongin Tom Luongo who I heard on Pete's show and totally turn my brain inside up inside out to upside down. And so I just kind of look through that really new school of thought of geopolitics macro and also how that all kind of impacts culture and yeah, I, I try to find the white pill and everything. And from what's been happening at kind of a macro level and kind of downstream from that, I think we've, we've picked up a few white pills this year, especially with this Chevron thing with a few things that have happened this past week. But yeah, that's kind of what I'm all about. I'm open minded to change opinions when the information is provided and just keep chugging along.

[Pete]

Well that's important being able to change your mind and not be stuck in stuck in the mud. So I guess there's a couple schools of thought I think on the historically a lot of people have looked at works like Carol Quigley's Tragedy and Hope and came at a lot of the problems that exist in in our society from England wants to bring us back into the British Empire. We've been a British Empire basically cut out since the beginning really. That's what A lot of people will say, right from the beginning, we always have been. It's just that this century, they've really amped it up to bring us into their empire. And then there's another group that says, there are some people who say, well, we can't ignore Jewish power and influence. If they're 2% of the population and they control so much, then we have to look at it. The people on the Quigley side, the people who say this is all being run from London. Well, maybe that's true. And I think that's on the map.

[Phil Gibson]

Yes. That's where they are.

[Pete]

Yes. So I guess that's why we, you know, we decided when we. When we read this that maybe it'd be a good thing to read this article by. I will share it in a second. Larry Romanoff. It's on November 22, 2022, on Unz.com where it's just entitled the City of London and it talks about the City of London. So you have any comments? You want me to just start reading?

[Phil Gibson]

No, I mean, I mentioned before we started going that this really sparked a lot of things that I've been looking at the past few years and some parallels I kind of like to draw out of that, especially when we get to Rothschild poking the finger in Charles's chest. You still see a lot of that today. But yeah, man, let's just. Let's let it roll.

[Pete]

All right. There we go. All right. Stop me anytime.

[Phil Gibson]

Cool.

[Pete]

All right. This is the City of London by Larry Romanoff.

[Phil Gibson]

And also for the record, I think everyone knows, but just from my recollection, Uns is himself Jewish, right?

[Pete]

Yes. Yeah, he is interested. He's definitely an atheist and definitely, definitely done a lot of really good work in our sphere. And another thing a lot of people don't know is that he's fine. He's. He's dumped a bunch of money behind people, behind laws, behind bills, in. In states. He's. He's a guy who, you know, he's in this. He's not just posting. He just doesn't have a website. He does this in real life. He's run for office before, you know, so.

[Stormy]

Yeah, Interesting.

[Pete]

All right. City of London. Larry Romanoff. You may be surprised to learn that the City of London. That the City of London and the City of London are two very different things, related to each other mostly by historical accident and geographical proximity and coexisting today in a rather complicated power system in which the City of London appears gloriously victorious. First, the City of London I'll keep the map up here so people can see it first. The City of London, a small area of about 1 square mile in size, was established as a haven by the Khazar Jews during their extermination from Khazaria nearly 1000 years ago and was named London at the time. And yes, I know the Romans had been there first. The City of London, with the bridge and Harrods and the fish and chips and the people driving on the wrong side of the road, was established much later, adopted the same name and gradually expanded with population until it completely surrounded the Jewish enclave of the City of London. You can see the positions and relative sizes from the map. When you read about the Lord Mayor of London, you are not reading about the chief executive of the city, but about the chief executive of the city. The City of London Corporation, with its square mile directly in the center of London, obviously owns some very expensive real estate. This in addition to a great deal of other property also in the city center. But this amounts to only perhaps 10 billion in total and as we will see, is trivial. The City of London is effectively an independent city state existing inside Greater London. However, its nature is unique and complicated. It is not so neat and tidy as is the Vatican, for example, which is clearly a separate sovereign entity nestled within the City of Rome. Still, the City of London has its own government and police force with its own laws and levies, its own taxes. It has its own flag, crest and ceremonial armed forces. I have seen one reference stating that the City also has its own port. I could not find an independent confirmation of this, but it would fit the pattern. And the City does have some responsibilities for London ports. So this is plausible, if true. It would be stunning because that would mean that the City could bring in products of any kind, including currency, precious metals, cocaine, and also people without the permission or even knowledge of UK customs and immigration or the UK government. In performing a search the other day, I was first met with a notice in capital letters telling me the City of London is not a sovereign state, followed by a small avalanche of websites, all doing fact checking and misinformation, debunking to assure me the City of London was not an independent anything. There is hardly a sign more certain that we are onto something than when 25 Jewish websites leap up to tell us there's nothing to see here, including Grok. Yeah, Grok. You checked it on Grok?

[Phil Gibson]

I did, yeah.

[Pete]

Yeah. You sent me the screenshot. Yeah. We should check in on Gab's AI.

[Stormy]

Sure.

[Pete]

The City is the center and home base of the world's banking and insurance industries. It is the home of the bank of England, which was supposedly privatized, but is still Rothschild owned. The home of Lloyds of London and the literal head office of many of the world's major banks, some of which you know and many of which you have never heard of. It still contains the home office of the former British East India Company, which was always a Khazar Jewish company and undoubtedly the greatest criminal organization in the history of the world up to that time, and whose archives are still closed to the world for good reason. The City of London is also the home of the oldest Masonic temple in the world. Our history books tell us that the origins of the Freemasons are lost to history, but that's not really true. Freemasonry was a Jewish cult that was formalized in the city in the early 1700s. There's a sign here from Corporation of London near this site. The Grand Lodge of English Freemasons first met in 1717.

[Phil Gibson]

The legal quick question on that. Um, I think you and myself might know a couple Masons. How much water do they hold with that statement that it was always like a Jewish thing? Do you have any idea. Are there. Are there like different factions of them? Do they dispute this from.

[Pete]

From knowing somebody whose father was a Mason? Apparently 97 to 98% of Masons, it's a social club and they get together and they buy stretches of highway to clean, do things like that. There's a 2 to 3% that take it seriously and actually start getting into the esoteric kind of teachings that people have that like Manly P. Hall talked about in his books about what the Freemasons are about. So, yeah, honestly, they're probably one of the most secretive groups, but from what I understand, most of them are. The overwhelming majority of them are just. This is something my dad did and it's just a social club basically.

[Stormy]

Right.

[Pete]

The legal political relationship between the City of London and the UK is a bit murky. On one hand, the city is at least theoretically subject, or can be made subject to at least some UK legislation, although in practice this seldom if ever has happened for reasons I will describe below. On the other hand, the city is so sovereign that the King of England himself is forbidden by the UK and City law to even enter the City of London without first obtaining a special invitation, which process is too complicated to bother discussing. The invitation ceremony is not required by law, but the invitation itself is. So do they. I don't remember. Do they put the picture of Jacob Rothschild putting his finger into Charles's chest. In this article they do.

[Phil Gibson]

It's like the last quarter of the essay.

[Pete]

Yeah. So yeah. Readers may not be aware that democracies can have flavors. The UK version being one such with a very distinct flavor in this case. On the floor of the British Parliament directly facing the speaker of the House is a special chair. Think of it as a kind of throne. The person occupying the chair is a representative of the City of London, attended by six lawyers. His purpose is to monitor all debate in the British Parliament and to scrutinize in exhaustive detail all proposed and drafted legislation to determine any possible effect on the interests or operations of the City of London and to take appropriate action if such interests are affected. The appropriate action inevitably results in the legislation being killed. This is not necessarily done by force, but by what we might term lobbying, sometimes by extortion and often simply by an all pervasive influence on British politicians. So next heading is lobbying and or extortion. There are many news articles available on the kind and extent on the kind and extent of the lobbying done by the City to ensure compliance from the UK Parliament. The City's Financial Services Group spends well over 100 million per year on whining, dining, bribing and sexually satisfying UK politicians and regulators. One place for dining is the opulent Guild hall which even high level guests describe as intoxicating because of the sheer power sitting in that room. It definitely has some Eyes Wide Shut vibes, doesn't it when you look at it.

[Phil Gibson]

I'll be honest, I haven't seen that movie but I've seen.

[Pete]

Oh yeah, I get the gist. Watch it and take a shower afterwards. There are well over 100 different city organizations and more than 800 people involved in securing stability, secrecy and tax free status for the City's operations. These groups are repeatedly successful in reducing banking and insurance taxes to save them billions. They are also notably successful in killing proposed legislation for any kind of oversight or watchdog effort to police not only banking activities but also quoted companies on the London Stock Exchange. They have even successfully killed a pension plan intended for low paid and temporary workers. I have no idea or how how or why this proposed legislation would have affected the interests of the City, but they felt it did and the legislation was scrapped.

[Phil Gibson]

I mentioned the Chevron doctrine earlier and I know like this is uk blah blah blah, but we have. These British plans have infiltrated our government and so with the SCOTUS decision to just get rid of Chevron, basically tell me stop. Sorry I have a cat, my lap is chewing on, on the table. Basically, the, these agencies that have more clout and power than the courts themselves are able to have that leverage anymore. And so it's going to go back to the, the courts and they, those have their own issues from the past. That's why Chevron came about to begin with. But I wonder how much of that, of that leverage, you know, those agencies and lobbying firms will lose. I'd have to do some, like, history, like, you know, compare contrast of what's happened. But is that something that you've thought about this past week?

[Pete]

Well, what I've, I've had two thoughts. I've had the thought that either, I mean, they're just going to ignore and just do business as usual, or, you know, another thought, and Lee Enfield was the one who really, you know, started talking about this before, before I heard anyone else talk about it, is if you have Trump, if they think Trump's going to get elected and Project 2025 is going to be implemented, then you've kind of just shot yourself in the foot because Chevron allows the executive to have more power than it does without. And we know that conservatives have a tendency to follow the rule of the law, unlike the left, which is why the conservatives always lose, Republicans always lose. And yeah, if you did have some hard chargers coming in there who, you know, were willing to, are trying to, you know, flip the table, then leaving Chevron intact would have probably been a better move.

[Phil Gibson]

But interesting.

[Pete]

We'll see. Yeah, still, it, I mean, when it comes down to it, if the executive decides he's going to rule like a king or a CEO, I mean, then that really doesn't matter. But the point is, is that is Trump going to do that or are the people he's surrounding himself going to do that? That's yet to be seen.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah, I doubt he will. I think he's just kind of like the first phase in that happening. And I think this is all just to like, reestablish what the rule law is going to be and trying to keep the oligarchs of those certain agencies out of it. And so I'm just wondering how that affects the people running stuff at the City of London that have infiltrated our government and agencies, if that'll start to, if they'll start to feel the squeeze on that. But I guess we'll, we'll have yet to see.

[Pete]

Yeah, I mean, well, I mean, a lot of the things the court has done, I mean, abortion was it as E. Michael Jones says over 50, 50, 50 or 100 Jewish agencies and organizations came out and said abortion is a Jewish, Jewish value. So, you know, I mean, they are, they're either completely in control and they've done this or what I think is happening is I think there's a civil war happening between right wing and left wing J's. And things are, certain things are, you know, and also I think that there's a, there's a WASP uprising in this country. And you can speak to that because you follow Jerome Powell and I think Jerome Powell and Jamie Dimon or even though Jamie Dimon's not a wasp, he's part of that coterie that, that seems to be at war with the Jays.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah. Bill Ackman of all people is back in Trump now. Who would have thought?

[Pete]

All right. Many believe the city puts its interests above those of the nation. And of course they are correct, evidenced by a long string of such legislative victories over Parliament. I mean, how can that be denied? You just look at, look at our, look at our government. Our government will do anything, will do anything for Israel. Yet, I mean, they can't close the border. They won't even consider it. They won't even consider like a reduction in immigration. And who pushes that? Groups like hias, who are Jewish groups. Other groups too. But I mean they've admitted they've. I have a whole collage of headlines from Jewish organizations talking about how we need open, you know, the United States needs open immigration. Why I think Israel needs open immigration. But hey, quoting. For almost a thousand years, the City of London corporation has resisted virtually every attempt by monarchs, governments or subjects to rein in its vast financial wealth and influence, such as the corporation's political and economic influence that today some suggest the British state, rather than controlling the corporation, is in fact subservient to it. According to the Financial Times, quote, because the corporation is entitled to special tax and legal privileges. This renders it an offshore island within Britain and a tax haven in its own right and gives those who own businesses within its borders a distinct upper hand over everyone else. End quote. But it is also true that the Jews in the city have UK politicians so much in their pockets that even the UK Prime Minister will lobby against any, any regulation that might handicap the city's financial crimes. The UK Labor Party tried to, tried at one time to obtain election within the city to have the power to repair some excesses from the inside, but failed. New heading the City Tax havens and money flows. The City of London is indeed a tax haven. This is not particularly germane to our main topic. So I won't dwell on it other than to state the Jewish bankers who run the city do so in conjunction with almost all the world's tax havens, with money flowing through those labyrinths in ways to disguise forever the source and ownership of funds. It is not a secret, requiring quiet discussion that nearly all the world's narcotics comes from home to the comes home to the city to be laundered by the Jewish banks, notably the hsbc, but others too equally. It is widely acknowledged that dictators, oligarchs, legal and illegal, arms dealers, bank robbers, jewel thieves, sex slavery kingpins and criminals generally will naturally funnel their money to the Jewish banks in the city for laundering, for anonymity and for privacy and security. For hundreds of years the city has been the safe depository of Jewish funds obtained from slave trading, tax farming, looting, opium and narcotics trafficking and also the temporary haven for funds when Jews were expelled from various countries over the centuries. I'm glad he included opium. Yeah, because anyone who studied the opium wars knows where the Opium wars were run out of.

[Phil Gibson]

And it's important to mention that HSBC, like Hong Kong, whatever, like you might think it's an Asian bank, but it was set up by the city of London from the get go. And so it's interesting when the whole Evergrande real estate thing was going down and neocons were pointing at China saying oh their economy's wrecked, they're screwed, they have nothing. Well I personally see it as China going self destruct on Soros esque and similar ilk soft power control. Because if all that City of London money is propping up their real estate and China hits the big red button on it, it's basically saying like hop off, like we're. It's just really interesting. So I don't know how valid that is, but I can see it very probable just way that eastern like slow time preference like mine but just way of thinking is just how strategic they are. So is that something that you thought about or no?

[Pete]

No, I haven't really put together the Evergrande thing, but yeah, I mean HSBC has always been a Jewish bank and I can't remember who they were they were funneling money to. I can't remember the, the scandal that they had. I know JP Morgan Chase some year in the 2000s was funneling money to Epstein victims but I can't remember the HSBC one specifically. To be sure, not all the money flowing through the city is from illegal criminal activity. About half of the daily 4 trillion in normal foreign exchange trading flows through the City's Jewish banks, as do nearly 50% of the world's derivative trading and 70% of Eurobond trading. And the London London Stock Exchange is still the fourth largest in the world, with much of this processing being legitimate and thus providing a good cover for the balance. However, due to the unique relation between the City of London and the uk, the tens of trillions of of dollars flowing into and out of Jewish banks in the City each day do not appear in UK capital flows or transaction records. And there is thus no way to know how many, how much money enters, passes through and leaves the City. Nor is there any way to know the source of application of these funds.

[Phil Gibson]

So real quick, this is basically what Jerome Powell was trying to destroy, if not destroy, take control over. Arguably, America didn't have its independence July 4th, 1776. Funnily enough, this is the week of the 4th of July. So happy birthday America.

[Pete]

But today's July 2nd and I think actually today is the day they actually started signing the Declaration. So yeah, that's happy independence,

[Phil Gibson]

except not really until 2022 because that's when we switched away from live board to sofa. What that word salad basically means is that City of London has always ran American monetary policy, meaning even after World War II, when British pound was no longer the world reserve currency, it was King Dollar. They still controlled our price of dollars. And that was through Libor. It was just an indexing rate. Your credit card, your mortgage, your auto loans, any revolving credit that was all tied to Libor. Libor. If you Google it, Google Libor scandal. It was bullshit. It was a central planning commie, we're going to make economics as fake and gay as possible sort of scheme as you can imagine. It was basically in later days of course, a panel of 17 member banks were would get like on a zoom call and figure out what this Libor rate was going to be. That was their benchmark and that's where they would start and charge interest to other, other partners. So basically they could set the price of their dollars. We would feel that over in America, for example, when there was a credit snafu, little sniffle across the pond, interest rates would go up over there because you know, if one party doesn't have the funds to pay back the other party, then of course interest rates go up. That's going to signal that that lender isn't trustworthy. So you know, risk, that's what interest rates really are. They're also rewarding you for the longer that you invest your money in like a Treasury bond. You expect to get paid more with the higher rate the longer that you put your money in. That aside though, LIBOR was our ball and chain, basically like our central planning communist ball and chain that we were tied to because when rates went up across the pond, we would feel that in our debt, in our credit cards, in our mortgage, whatever. So it's kind of like we bail them out in a way. You could kind of think of that. Now all that went away when under the Fed, ran by drone Pal, who I believe is a Jesuit. Like he went to a Jesuit school at least. So he's not your Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, that ilk completely.

[Pete]

He's the first gentile head of the Federal Reserve in how long? It's been a very, very long time.

[Phil Gibson]

I don't even know if Volker was a gentile or not. But regardless, this is what hire for longer pals monetary policy is all about. Sulfur was the true Declaration of Independence for America because the city of London didn't run our money anymore. And we'll get to like to the offshore banking kind of stuff. But what this basically does is that instead of this economy LIBOR rate we have sofr. SOFR stands for the Secure Overnight Financing Rate. What that means is like primary dealers, large banking institutions that borrow money from each other in the repo markets, basically overnight markets, they pay. The rate that they set is based off of like what all of our domestic debt is based on what those dealers charge each other. So in a way is based off of, dare I say, a free market rate. And I kind of cringe inside when I say that. But it's based off of something real, something tangible. That's why it's securitized, because it's based off of actual market activity. Whereas city London, those 17 panel banks decided what the rate was going to be, only one of which of those banks represented the interest of America and that was JP Morgan. So it really makes you think going back to Jamie Dimon Stone, a gentile, he's Greek, whatever. But there's really like a factioning of these banking powers on Wall street that are saying, hey, for lack of a better word, we want an America first bank. Federal Reserve is not going to be the central bank of the world that's going to bail everyone out because we're not going to abide by these City London policies anymore. And I don't know if we covered the offshore dollar stuff but. But where? The offshore banking stuff. But all the money that was flushing around at the City of London, that was basically Euro dollars. Euro dollars, don't think of the euro. Euro dollars are basically mechanism through the Marshall Plan. After World War II, when we sent money to rebuild Europe and basically buy the dip, a lot of family got rich that way, but basically gave them dollar reserves and all these banks and offshore banks and they could basically leverage that and print as many dollars print. There's no like real like printing anymore. And the Fed doesn't print. That's Congress. They're just forced to monetize that debt. So that's why there is a battle between Janet Yellen at the treasury and Jerome Powell. Like fiscal battle versus monetary battle. But that aside, sorry, tangent. Basically with these offshore banks and these reserves that they could leverage up, they could print more dollars beyond America's jurisdiction. And that was okay as long as the Fed was compliant with that. With all that, in addition to Ben Bernanke's zero interest rate policy zirp like qe, by definition, basically what they came up with, it goes back to our meetings. QE doesn't exist unless if we are going towards the zero boundaries. In Europe's case, negative. And this is why, if you follow Danielle DiMartino Booth, who was a great. I've learned so as much from her as I have Tom, that Jerome Powell does not have to be doing this. They call him private equity pal for a reason because that's where he came from. But he was also like a lawyer and he went up against like Salomon Brothers when they were trying to corner the treasury market. So it's kind of like Yari has like this predestined, like beef with this ilk, possibly. But this is a completely different ball game. Like this, on the surface is representing that there is a faction of, if you want to call them sovereignists or not. But these are people that aren't really. They are thinking globalist in the sense where they want to maintain safe, sound, rational policy, trading and economic activity between nations. But they're done weaponizing the dollar against China and Russia and raising rates, is basically bankrupting these offshore banks and offshore entities in the City of London because they don't control the price of their money anymore. Because by September 30th of this year, we're done with Libor. Well, we've been done since 2022 because we are on silver, but everyone else in the world is completely done with Libor by September 30th. So when you. I mean, like even on stories like on Yahoo, the vosians as Tom likes to call them, basically these globalist traders in the us Elizabeth Warren will send out like, like letters saying that Powell needs to cut rates or else. So like when he's raising rates, who's that really hurting? Yes, everyone in the economy is getting wrecked to some extent. Like I lost my job because when Silicon Valley bank went down, that's the company, the company I worked with banked with them. But Silicon Valley arguably was like taken out as a hit job by the Fed because they were essentially another offshore bank, effectively onshore. But San Francisco Fed is as globalist screwy as it gets. And all these companies, all these banks had lobbyists that could charter, that could lobby for them to get a bank charter to essentially be like these onshore Eurodollar banks under literally loose monetary policy to bank the reserves of all these bullshit companies that wouldn't exist if ZURP hadn't been around. So we're having this complete demolition on the economic playing field of basically punishing bad actors, if you want to put it that way. No one here essentially is your friend, but it's just aligned interests. And it all stems on. How do you nip it in the bud at the City of London? Well, you get someone in charge of the most powerful central bank in the world to give them the finger and say, hey, our monetary policy is going to be America first. Go fuck yourself.

[Pete]

Yeah, I can't stress that enough. Where it's not that Jerome Powell and friends are on our side. It just so happens that by them doing this and we will eventually benefit from it as the rest of the world is suffering, as the rest of the world, who is decide who decided to get in bed with us now? Russia, China, brics, they're going and doing their own thing. And you know, they, because they, they see this coming. That's why you have so many people flocking to bricks. And I mean like I said, do I think Jerome Powell's our friend? I don't know. But what he's doing seems to be helping the country and inevitably will help us. Would you agree with that?

[Phil Gibson]

I do. And one more point on this and then we can continue with the article. This whole fear porn of d dollarization that maybe you'll see on Zero Hedge or you know, similar kind of outfits, raising rates itself is dollarization, if you think about it, because it's deleveraging, destroying all these offshore dollars. And who's that hurting? You know, the usual suspects. And so it's kind of funny, I heard Tom talk about this in a recent interview. But I, I told him like, yo, I can't believe this because I never thought to frame it in that way. But it's, it's just brilliant because that's why Powell is okay with the dollar no longer being the reserve currency. He's on record saying this on tape somewhere a couple years ago, but he said basically there's more than enough room for one reserve currency in the world because he understands how Trippin's Dilemma has basically screwed us over the long term. And so de dollarization basically means destroying and deflating that euro dollar system that again is outside of America's control. While we kind of rang it in, put a leash on it with sofr. So we're kind of now in control of that system. But again, monetary policy in general happens on a 6 month to 12 month lag. But ever since he started doing like stealth QT, technically in 2021, we really kind of see the hens come home to roost for people that are running certain institutions that aren't favorable to the people, if you will. If I. If you will.

[Pete]

All right, let's go on. Whatever the original intent of the financial design of the city by its Jewish owners, one clear result is that the entire design is tailor made for the benefit of organized crime of every nature. Currencies, gold and precious metals, financial certificates are run through an enormous labyrinth of tax havens and then simply disappear into the black hole of the Jewish city banks. The secrecy fully protected by the city's unique relationship with its host country. There's a block quote here and I'm going to link to this article. There's. We're already up to 22 footnotes on this and there's three footnotes just in this block quote. I'm not going to say them. You can please look them up on your own.

[Phil Gibson]

That's not even like half of the footnotes too. I think there's like 40 or 50.

[Pete]

Yeah.

[Phil Gibson]

Did you look at any of them?

[Pete]

Yeah, yeah, I clicked around a couple.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah.

[Pete]

I mean there are great articles on legitimate sites.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah.

[Pete]

And whatever articles they are are footnoting legitimate things. I mean, this isn't some conspiracy theory quoting. Behind it all lies the city of London anxious to preserve its access to the world's dirty money. The city of London is a money laundering filter that lets the city get involved in dirty business while providing it with enough distance to maintain plausible deniab a crypto feudal oligarchy which of itself is captured by the international offshore banking industry. It's a gangster regime Cloaked with the respectability of the trappings of the British establishment, guaranteed protection, no matter just how nakedly lawless their own conduct. End quote. New quote. The City is often now described as the largest tax haven in the world and it acts as the largest center of global tax avoidance system. An estimated 50% of the world's trade passes through tax havens and the City acts as a huge funnel for much of that money. End quote. Here is an important website that contains many links related to the City of London and its use of tax havens to launder money. And then he links to a. Links to. Let me look at. I'll just say what that one is. What website that is UK and City of London, center of world tax havens. It's www.betterworld.info all right, new heading. The Hydra. The Hydra was one of the most fearsome monsters in Greek mythology. A multi headed snake descended from a long line of terrible beasts, possessing deadly poisons and with the power of regeneration. A rather accurate description of the City of London today and its Jewish Khazar denizens. At least by some measures, the City of London is also the mother of all tax havens and is unquestionably the home of all the world's dirty money today. Here are several references that describe the City of London as a global spider's web of deceit. One, by the UK Guardian claiming that shrinking the city is the only way to stop the world's criminals flourishing in the uk. And two, of other interests. So yeah, we have Guardian. There's one called Banking City of London Tax havens, Global web spider deceit, chapter 10. Yeah, a bunch of links. Check all these out. All right. George Monbiot wrote an excellent article for the UK Guardian where he quoted Nicholas Shockson's Treasures island stating that, quote, the corporation exists outside many of the laws and democratic controls which govern the rest of the United Kingdom. The City of London is the only part of Britain over which Parliament has no authority, end quote. His last comment may not entirely be true, although it does work that way in practice. Monbiot says further that the corporation acts as the superior body, superior to the UK Parliament. And that part is definitely true. Monbiot begins by writing the City is the heart, the dark heart of Britain. The place where democracy goes to die. Immensely powerful, equally unaccountable. Monbiot cites Clement Attlee's Lament, that quote, over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power, that which has taken its seat at Westminster. End Quote, he continues that quote, the City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the networks of tax havens housed in the UK Crown, the UK's Crown Dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in position to global the ill gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. End quote. All of that is very true. And the power of the Jews within the City have made impossible any effective regulation of global finance. American firms like AIG and Lehman Brothers simply moving to the City of London to carry out their balance sheet criminal machinations that bankrupted so many people. American and other firms have often utilized the services of the City to evade the financial laws of their own governments. The City is in real terms a vast criminal enterprise run by gangsters. That's what they're saying over there. This isn't a bunch of American conspiracy theorists. These would be European conspiracy theorists who bring receipts. It doesn't seem widely known that immediately prior to its financial collapse Lehman was selling their corporate bonds backed by the full faith and credit of Lehman Brothers. So unsuspecting investors who had no idea that bankruptcy was already virtually in motion. I don't know where all these bonds were sold but I know that billions of dollars of them were disposed of in Hong Kong. The money from these sales apparently disappearing into the bowels of the City of London. Joseph Stiglitz also railed against the Jews in the City telling UK legislators quote these people are just using your rule of law to protect money they have stolen in other countries. From a global point of view, you are aiding and abetting theft. A British MP said the City of London is a magnet for dirty money. At the same time the government's anti fraud minister resigned because the Jews in the City had once again killed legislation to combat economic crime by the City saying that nobody in the UK government compared about stopping kleptocrats, oligarchs and organized crime lords stashing their loot in the uk. And another article telling us how the City remains a safe haven for all the world's dirty cash. Here is another interesting article from the UK with the Five Step Guide telling how the Jews in the City can help you get away with stealing millions. That is 31 it says. Yeah, it's just. It's from the Guardian. Yeah, all right.

[Phil Gibson]

Ironic.

[Pete]

Yeah, yeah.

[Phil Gibson]

I mean like we'll get into it how they basically off you if you go against them. But I'm just curious, like the Livelihoods of all the people that are coming out and saying this and all these sources that he cited, like did they have to change their names? Like what happened?

[Pete]

One indication of this is the UK's official UK company's register that is littered with fake names because no identity checks are required. One corporation is registered for example in the name of Holy Jesus Christ with his stated occupation as Creator, his nationality as an Angelic and his country of residence as heaven. Another is in the name of Adolf Tooth Fairy Hitler with a city sales firm in the name of Donald Dunk Duck and so on. The UK government claims it hasn't the resources to police the corporate registry, but the truth is they permit it to continue because it serves nicely the purposes of the gangsters in the city. Another quote, another footnote there. Controlling legislation was proposed but the Jews in the City had it killed. We're at another block quote here. An article in the Eurasia Review called the City of London a parasite's paradise.

[Phil Gibson]

Killer band name by the way.

[Pete]

That would be really cool. A parasite's paradise or the best criminal sanctuary money can buy. London has become the center of global financial capital by engaging in long term large scale active collaboration with multi billion pound drug, arms, people smuggling and sex slave cartels. The Jews in the City specialize in laundering funds from the Mexican, Colombian, Peruvian, Russian, Polish, Czech, Nigerian narco kings. White slavers have their private bankers at prestigious city banks. Kleptocrats, lifelong billion dollar tax evaders fleeing from their pillaged homeland. It continues that the city boys welcome every gangster oligarch. It continued by stating the London sanctuary for the world's richest plunderers and parasites. Often unprecedented services, especially protection from extradition and criminal prosecution at the site of their crimes. Nowadays the City of London is an anachronism of the worst kind. The corporation which runs the city like a one party mini state is an unreconstructed old boys network whose medievalist pageantry camouflages the very real power and wealth which it holds. The City of London Corporation ranks as a political power without rival in Britain, possibly in the world. It has used its power to exert enormous political influence to resist regulation and extract tax exemption. It has fostered criminality by ensuring that the City ranks amongst the least accountable of financial centers on the face of the earth. The tax justice website calls the City of London a state within a state. The most powerful self interested political lobby in the world. There is much more, including the Rothschild Bank. Rothschild Bank's financing of Zionism and the atrocities continuing in Palestine since prior to the founding of Israel, all through and under the auspices of the Jews in the City of London. Also, Sinhalenet had an article you might find interesting in which it is claimed that three corporations run the world City of London, Washington D.C. and Vatican City and that together they control politicians, economies and 80% of the world's worst wealth. New heading the King of England Meets his Master North Americans seldom pay attention to news details in the UK and might not be aware of the recurrent brief media campaigns about should the monarchy be abolished. These normally emerge abruptly, without warning or with or apparent cause, listing all the usual issues of monarchy being an anachronism, the British royal family being a useless appendage to government, a needless expense and so forth. They disappear equally suddenly, all the UK media silencing their peeps at the same time. These little campaigns are not accidents, they are reminders or in some cases a warning by the gnomes controlling the City of London that they have the power to work the UK public into a frenzy on command and also the influence to introduce and push through Parliament a vote that would indeed disband the monarchy. This would leave the King and all his princelings not destitute or homeless, but alone, shunned and unemployed. Look at this photo of then Prince Charles and Evelyn de Rothschild. I said it was Jacob Rothschild, my mistake. And Evelyn de Rothschild. I think when Evelyn de Rothschild got married, I think he got married in 1999 and I think he spent his honeymoon at the White House. Look that up.

[Phil Gibson]

Huh?

[Pete]

Look at the look at the photo of then Prince Charles and Evelyn de Rothschild with smug Rothschild poking Charles in the chest. That is a very aggressive gesture and not something one would do to a superior. Can you picture yourself walking up to your to your boss or the chairman of the board poking him in the chest and saying, I have something to tell you? Definitely not. We would do this only to a distinct inferior and someone we were bullying also treating with contempt. The gesture is not only to accentuate a point, but is a kind of threat, one we might imagine a policeman making when issuing an order. From the photo, the relation between the two men is quite clear. We can't know the topic of conversation, but Rothschild is essentially telling Charles, this is how it is and you don't have to like it.

[Phil Gibson]

All right, quick parallel to this. So if anyone remembers in fall of 2022 there was the gilt crisis that happened basically, I guess you could say there was like no bid on the gilts. So those are just basically like Great Britain's version of treasury bonds, 10 years. And that is because the main buyer of those gilts and long duration debt is usually pretty reliable, stable, sound investment. And so the main buyers of those are people that manage pensions. The main manager of pensions is BlackRock. This is also the time I can't remember if it was before, after King Charles died. I think it was definitely out.

[Pete]

King Charles? Yeah, King Charles died.

[Phil Gibson]

Sorry.

[Pete]

No.

[Phil Gibson]

Was it.

[Pete]

Are you talking about Queen Elizabeth?

[Phil Gibson]

Yes.

[Pete]

And then King Charles took. He became King Charles.

[Phil Gibson]

Okay, cool. Thank you. Yeah. So this was after Elizabeth had passed and they got Liz Truss in. This is also later in 2022

[Stormy]

and

[Phil Gibson]

if you remember when I said earlier, January 1st of 202022 is when one we re indexed all of our debt to SOFR and that's really when Powell started up in the ATM raising rates and there was talk about the bank of England following suit. So I just thought it was very interesting how you can think of BlackRock managing Great Britain's pensions, deciding Noah's trust. You're going to saddle up and go along with what we're going to do what we would like to see happen and not preserve any credibility in the UK and follow Jerome Powell's monetary policy of tightening and making our offshore dollars more expensive. So if you're going to do that and you're not going to play ball with us, then we're just going to not buy your, your guilt anymore and we're going to scare the pensions and you're going to either put up or shut up. So you would have want that. I mean they got rid of her. They replaced her with Rishi Sunak eventually. So that was just kind of like one warning sign. But I just thought it was interesting parallel that people that are running Great Britain that you think are, aren't actually doing it. It's people at the City of London, Larry Fink of blackrock and just most of Blackrock. I mean they're majority as you can guess and they're very much. Tom likes to talk about how there is a faction between like I'll just say it, they, there's as you said, there's a split between left wing Jews and right wing Jews, but more granular than that. Maybe that's more like macro but there's more of like a European faction and there's more of like a British UK new con British Empire faction. And it's interesting how Rishi Sunak is more of we can call the European faction like Davos as Tom does and whatever is remaining of the British Empire, those old heads are kind of being replaced by the European oligarch, globalist devotions. And so sacking Liz and replacing her with Rishi Sunak, I think, is just a. Is exemplifying how Great Britain doesn't really have control over the Crown anymore. It's Davos, it's City of London, but at the end of the day, we all kind of know who it is, but it just kind of reveals that fight that is happening there. And it's all using the fake and gay tools of economics. Who's managing people's pensions and money? People that depend on. Well, it's blackrock. They're the ones that are buying up all this sovereign crown debt and giving it a value to begin with. So if you want stability and you, as Liz Truss, want to look good as a monarch figure or whatever, then you're going to put up with what Sidney London wants to do. If you're not, you're going to get embarrassed and we're going to replace you.

[Pete]

Cool. Thank you. That's why I invited you for this, because you have background on this that even I don't. So thanks.

[Phil Gibson]

I better be right.

[Pete]

What?

[Phil Gibson]

I was happy to be here.

[Pete]

Oh, yeah. All right, moving on. But why wouldn't Rothschild poke that little twerp in the chest? Charles is nothing to him. A convenient nuisance, a bit of a public shield, but no more. Rothschild has wealth that Charles can barely fathom and power exceeding that of Charles by orders of magnitude, including over the UK Parliament and UK public opinion both know. Both men know Rothschild could dethrone the King at any time. That Charles as a royal, exists only at the Jew's pleasure. Charles, the supposed King of England, can't even enter Rothschild's home or place of business without a specific invitation. How subservient can you be? It is several Rothschilds, Sebag Mansofiores and others similar, who are considered the real royalty of England. Charles Andrew Edward being Puppet caricatures.

[Phil Gibson]

Yep. Basically. New head laid out what I. What I said. Who runs the City.

[Pete]

So new heading. Who owns the City? While the entity is described as the Corporation of the City of London. But since this is a privately owned company, we have no shareholder list. I am told that there are 13 Jewish families who are central to this enterprise, the Rothschilds being the first among them. The City may well operate as a corporation in some senses, but they're more accurate.

[Phil Gibson]

Did you think of 13 tribes when you first read that? Because I did.

[Pete]

Of course I did. Yeah, of course. I don't Miss numbers. I don't miss numbers at all. All the Bible study and then, you know, all the. It's amazing how, how often the number 33 comes up. It came up again today in a conversation we were looking at. I was read it, reading something, I was just like, oh, come on. The city may well operate as a corporation in some senses, but could be more accurately described as a typical organized crime family who are lords of their own mini state and effectively operate with virtually absolute impunity throughout the world. This impunity resolves primarily from their financial power, but secondarily from the political power and influence obtained by that financial power. It is hardly a secret that national governments like the us, the uk, France, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and other are fundamentally and essentially Jewish controlled states. With that control emanating from the city of London, there it is. When the followers of tragedy and hope with the Carol Quigley. When the Quigley say, oh, it all comes out of the City of London. It does. Capital C, City of London. If we think of Jeffrey. What?

[Phil Gibson]

Oh, I just gotta admit, I haven't read that or listened, so I'll to cross out my list when I. When I get to it.

[Pete]

Long book, bro. Long book.

[Phil Gibson]

All right, well that. That's your next read then.

[Pete]

Yeah, screw you.

[Phil Gibson]

After 3,000 years together or whatever it is.

[Pete]

200 years together. Yeah, that one's all the way down the line. All right. If we think of Jeffrey Epstein and his sex entrapment enterprise that flourished for decades, it makes sense that the City of London would have been the source of the planning and financing. Epstein's operation was definitely Jewish and worldwide. There is no other candidate body in the world with an interest in controlling the politicians of all nations. At least not by that dirty means. If we think of the world's mass media, which is largely and increasingly Jewish owned and which is vitally necessary for the propaganda to control the standard narrative, it makes sense that increasing media control would arise primarily from the same source. This would clearly account for the development of the social and Internet media, almost dictating the necessity for the creation of a Google, a Facebook, a Wikipedia, an Instagram, a Telegraph and the takeover of Twitter. There is something else here dealing with the intelligence agencies, primarily the CIA and Mossad. Although MI5 would also almost surely fit into this. I have a copy of a document that was released by the CIA under a FOIA request. It is not a CIA document and it is not clear why it would have been in the possession of the CIA. The document is not redacted but the original author is not identified. The salient point of this document indicates the existence of a group somewhere within the CIA that operates independently, acting under the auspices and authority of the CIA, but with its own purpose and agenda unrelated to the remainder of the organization. The document maddeningly lacks precise details, but the implication is that the group does not report to any part of the CIA and that its activities may not even be may not even be known by the CIA executive. I had read of or heard rumors about such a group before, but this was the first bit of documented evidence of it. Edward Snowden, in an article titled the CIA Is not yout Friend, made reference to this as well. He wrote that after the creation of the CIA, within a year, the young agency had already slipped the leash of its intended role of intelligence collection and analysis to establish a covert operations division. Within a decade, the CIA was directing the coverage of American news organizations, overthrowing democratically elected governments at times merely to benefit a favored corporation, establishing propaganda outfits to manipulate public sentiment, launching a long running series of mind control experiments on unwitting human subjects, and interfering with foreign elections. I don't think anyone is going to argue with that.

[Phil Gibson]

Nope.

[Pete]

This is. This is a very large topic with so many interwoven threads that even a very long article could scarcely do it justice. But I wanted to raise one point about the secrecy, the agenda and the lack of a CIA reporting chain. As one example, it has been reported in several places that neither the U.S. congress nor the White House had any knowledge of the CIA's MK Ultra program. I covered this in much detail in a previous article on MK Ultra. During congressional hearings on an unrelated matter, one witness brought a colleague who began testifying on a bizarre mind control program that was unknown to that date, which led to the exposure of MK Ultra and the rapid destruction, so they said, of all related documents. The important point is that this enormous and horrific program spanning decades, escaped external attention. MK ULTRA was entirely a Jewish program. I have a list of the top 30 lieutenants of MKUltra from Gottlieb down, and all are Jews. This is not in dispute. And in fact I believe that the top 50 or 60 people, only two or three at the most, are not Jews. The question is, how would it happen that an internal group of the American CIA would have such a determined interest in such a horrific program and would have staffed it entirely with Jews?

[Phil Gibson]

That's a good question.

[Pete]

Well, I mean, World War II happened. And after World War II a similar concern arises from the Congressional hearings conducted on the exposure of the CIA's program, again spanning decades, of assassinating some 150 world leaders and senior politicians. Upon examination of the evidence of all the those assassinations, as is by no means clear, that many or even most of them would have been to any benefit of the US Government. In fact, like the worldwide gold thefts conducted by the US Treasury Department in the 1930s or the hijacking of Iraq's oil today, it is easier to believe they were carried out on behalf of the secret government to the benefit of and masterminded by the City of London. Looking back on so many world events, it is by no means certain that any part of the US Government would have had any interest in or seen any benefit in those activities. I can only speculate here, but if we assume all those activities, programs and events were carried out at the instruction of the gnomes in the City of London, everything seems to make sense. Like a jigsaw puzzle where all the pieces fit perfectly together to make an overall picture. It's interesting that he mentions that. Like missing pieces in a puzzle. I've started saying recently that you can't understand the last 2000 years of history until you can say that. Until you can say the word Jew.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah, no, it's like, I think you brought this up, but like that Rothbard quote, like the history of the United States is the history of banking. Okay, well, don't stop there.

[Pete]

Yeah, keep going, keep going. We can recall that Jeffrey Epstein was spared from his first arrest because he is intelligence and above your pay grade. But as I pointed out above, there is no way the US CIA would have created a worldwide sex entrapment scheme with or without the knowledge of any part of the U.S. government. There would simply be too great a lack of both interest and benefits in any part of the us and the only conclusion I can see is that it must have originated in the City of London, where it would fit perfectly into the overall picture. In a similar context, the Boer wars make no sense if we attribute them to Britain. Yet England did send in her army to commit astonishing crimes and atrocities with no benefit whatever to England. But when we understand that this was done on the order from the Jews in the City of London to take over all South Africa's gold and diamond mines for Rothschild, then all the pieces fit and everything makes sense again. There are perhaps hundreds of articles and many books about the CIA importing heroin and cocaine and generally trafficking in drugs. Now, I have no illusions about the chastity of the CIA. And I'm sure many of their staff are sufficiently Evil to do the. To do just this. But it doesn't compute. It certainly is possible, but it doesn't make sense that the American CIA would entirely on its own account become so deeply involved in international drug running. But the Jews in the city of London cut their teeth on narcotics trafficking. In fact, this was the source of much of their initial fortunes. The Khazar Jews have always been among the world's biggest drug dealers. Thus, if we attribute the drug trafficking to this central private core in the CIA that reports to the city of London, all the pieces fit together and everything makes sense. This would even explain why the HSBC is reportedly fined so heavy in the US for laundering drug money. That is what the HSBC was created to do 150 years ago and its headquarters are in the city. Even the small pieces fit perfectly.

[Phil Gibson]

So in that case, they're fine. They're essentially paying themselves, right?

[Pete]

Yeah, pretty much. Well, I mean, they're. Yeah, if they're paying fines to the US government, if they're paying fines to any government and people will listen to this and they'll listen to the language and everything and they'll go, well, I mean, this is just speculation.

[Phil Gibson]

Well, he says that himself, but look at the footnotes.

[Pete]

Yeah, look at the footnotes. And look at what we've all learned since October 7th. This government is, is Jewish controlled.

[Phil Gibson]

I mean like Covid 2020 and 9, 11 before that, like this stuff is just. It's only with the Internet, this stuff is blatantly in front of us now. And now somehow it's kosher to like talk about it. It's weird.

[Pete]

That's the weird part.

[Phil Gibson]

That's a completely. Another hour conversation.

[Pete]

Yeah. Think again of the CIA assassination program. There is no way that the CIA by itself, rogue group or otherwise, would decide to kill 150 presidents, prime ministers and other high government officials, which in the most part would have no benefit whatever to the us and no CIA group, rogue or not, would take it upon themselves to kill the Secretary General of the UN Again, with no apparent benefits of the us. But if we insert into the equation the political hegemony ambitions of the Jews in the city of London, the pieces again fit snugly together. It is true. This is speculation on my part. I cannot supply proof for these assertions. I have simply cobbled them together from logic and circumstantial evidence. Once you understand this, once you understand exactly how much power the city of London has, capital C. City of London and who runs it, then you realize that Israel is, Israel is not. The country of Israel, the Knesset, everything in Israel is not operating on its own. And it's not a puppet of the United States like so many fools have been saying lately. It's controlled by the City of London. I mean, where did the Balfour Declaration come from?

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah,

[Pete]

yeah.

[Phil Gibson]

It's like they exported their military muscle to the US and it was just the City of London neocon transplants in our government that were heading it. It's always like, been the same source. They just. They're nomadic, they have no home.

[Pete]

Why can they blend in? Why can they appear? Why are they called European? Because they take on that aura. They sound, you know, the Rothschilds sound British, but they're not. They're not any more British than the people who came on the Windrush or the people who float out of Middle Eastern prisons in the last 20 years to infect, to destroy Britain. It'd be really interesting to see what the crime rate is in the City of London. Capital C. City of London. Do they have an immigrant problem there? I would assume not.

[Phil Gibson]

Probably the same as DC Incorporated.

[Pete]

DC Incorporated. Yeah.

[Phil Gibson]

Or Vatican. Whatever.

[Pete]

Caught New new heading. Caution is advised. Certainly these people are ruthless. There is no shortage of evidence that they will kill. Just they will kill. They will destroy anyone who challenges them and will kill anyone who threatens to expose or frustrate their plans. And this doesn't apply only to Gentiles. They are equally ruthless to their own. You have read what they did to Dominique Strauss Kahn. It is important to note, and there's a footnote there you can check out. It is important to note that this man was the managing director of the IMF and almost surely the next President of France. And yet he was very much an outsider, far from the center of power. As I mentioned in my article, he confided to his wife and others that they are out to get me. To use such terminology, we can understand. These were not people who were close to him, but who were at the same time far above him. And he was clearly hoping he might be sufficiently insignificant they might just ignore him. He was wrong. Jeremy Corbyn was similar. Former leader of the UK Labour Party. Corbyn earned the enmity of the Jews in the city and they destroyed him. He was permanently tainted as an anti Semite and absolutely trashed for his disobedience to the Jews and his good intentions towards the British people.

[Phil Gibson]

People.

[Pete]

The Labor Party state firmly. The Labor Party state firmly that Corbyn will never again cross their doorstep because he is now too toxic. There was another matter with Newspaper headlines some years back of Amshel Rothchild commits Suicide. This man, a sixth generation banking Rothchild, was slated to take the reins from his cousin Sir Evelyn Rothchild as chairman of NM Rothschild's and Son. His body was found by a chambermaid in a Paris hotel room. But there was nothing about this that made any sense. The first policeman on the scene told reporters that Rothschild was found with a rope around his neck attached to a bathroom fixture upon which he supposedly hung himself. But the policeman said he tugged on the rope and the entire fixture detached from the wall. He said there was no way the man could have hung himself because the fixture could support no weight that the rope had been tied there. Afterward, the policeman quickly disappeared and the story was totally scrubbed from the Internet. I saw an email copy from Rupert Murdoch instructing all his newspapers to state this as a suicide, if you mention it at all.

[Phil Gibson]

So I guess now we know who killed Epstein. Big surprise.

[Pete]

There was no question about that. The official stories that followed were all nonsense, too pathetic to even be termed lies. The UK Mirror was typical, saying it seemed the real noose around Amschel's neck was his fortune of 18 million pounds. That huge riches and influences have not always brought great happiness. And that of his great fortune, you could describe it as a gilded millstone. His great fortune of £18 million that would buy two Ferraris, one Bugatti and leave enough loose change for a bucket of Haagen Dazs ice cream. But this gilded millstone stone led to such depression, the man hung himself. Another story was that the man was depressed at the death of his mother and so he hung himself. Others, and there were many, were equally stupid. Of all people, the Rothschilds would have had the influence to put nearly the entire Paris police force on the case and hunt every clue to the ends of the earth. But they didn't. They simply told many foolish lies and buried it. I do not know what really happened, but I have to say, when reading the initial police report and then the frenetic cover up stories, my instinctive reaction was that this had to have been a family hit. We will never know and it might not have been the first. Can you imagine committing suicide by slitting your own throat? Why not? The Rothschilds do it. According to the Jewish Telegraph Agency, Nathaniel Rothschild, second son of the first Lord Rothschild, committed suicide by cutting his throat. The specific reasons for the deed are not revealed, nor are the reasons revealed for the stupidity of the method. Of all the options available for killing myself, cutting my own throat would not be my first choice. Here are some media reports. Decide for yourself. And he links to five different sources. New heading, last heading. Where do we go from here? Nowhere, so far as I can see. Many readers like to see a solution offered. There is one. If King Tralska collects sufficient courage and a single minded resolve, he could deal with it. He could commandeer the UK media and explain the situation to the people in a way that they could understand. If he were to do that, he would surely have the support of the entire country and also the military. Now the UK army is admittedly nothing much, but even they have the military might to launch an all out assault on an unprotected one square mile of urban landscape. I guess that's when Yarvin talks about tanks on Harvard Yard. Be the UK version will be tanks on the city of London. Gather all the missiles and arts. Gather all the missiles and artillery and completely demolish the city of London. Leave no stone resting upon one another and kill anything that moves. If the head and brain of the Hydra are thus killed, the body would slowly die too. But this is a dream. Let's just say we do not endorse his message at all. You don't endorse that message, do you, Phil?

[Phil Gibson]

No, but I will say thanks to pal, some dreams do come true. Well, we do not promote violence, for the record.

[Pete]

Yeah, we do not promote violence. But you know, lawfare and you know, people who know how to use the system against them. Well, I think we're see. And that's. I guess that's what, what I'd like to end discussing is that, you know, when you read this, he let me stop sharing this. When you read this, he's. It's late 2022 and October 7th hasn't happened yet. It seems like October 7th, since October 7th, the conversation about, I mean, not specifically the city of London, things like that, but definitely about Israel and definitely about Jews in general has opened up. And the way you know that the, it's. The conversation is making a. Making a mark is how people are reacting to it. And you immediately saw people who were with Jewish backgrounds, who had never really invoked their Judaism before, immediately become tribal and completely lose their shit, basically. Gad said Dave Rubin. I mean the list can go on and on. I mean, we know Ben Shapiro was a lunatic. He just, it became so much more magnified after October 7th. So I mean, is this, Are you open to talk about this? I mean, sure, you're. When you talk about this, it's still. We still live in a world where you Know, it's. Pete blames everything on the Jews. Everything that, you know, every, every problem Pete's ever had in his life, he blames on the Jews. Something I've never, never done.

[Phil Gibson]

It's because they stole your hair.

[Pete]

Never. Yeah, something, something I've. Well, I still want my foreskin back. Okay. But it's something, something I've never done. I've never said because of Jews, because of this. I can't do this. I've never been able to do it. Never said that ever once. Find that on record. You can't find that on record. You know, it's always been, these are the people who rule over us. The society's going to shit. Everything's going to shit. Is this the way we want to keep going? I mean, that seems logical once you start taking it apart and you start seeing, okay, who's in charge of Hollywood? They admit Dennis Prager says every ism besides Nazism was created by Jews and propagated by Jews. They celebrate the fact that basically feminism and, and the Civil Rights act and all these things that basically destroyed, destroyed America, they're responsible for. Okay, well, I mean, I mean, is it anti Semitic to believe them? I guess it's not anti Semitic to

[Phil Gibson]

believe you're celebrating majority of state.

[Pete]

As long as you're celebrating it.

[Phil Gibson]

What they wanted to be in the majority of states. Yeah, with, with the bill. But no, like you, you raise up a really great point, I think. Yeah, it's a loser attitude to just blame all your problems on them. And it's not entirely true. I mean, it wasn't for 300 years in Spain, as you and I talked about on my show a few weeks back. But like, it doesn't have to be that way. If there are methods, everything that I kind of laid out about what's happening at the Fed, that is a method. And it's also dangerous for people to. And look, I'm victim to this. Everyone is. We're all human. We have our lizard braid, like knee jerk reaction to that we see online. And so that's going to warp our opinion and is gonna tangle at our heart heartstrings and make us emotional. And really, I've been saying this for a while. That's really the only weapon they have left. I think if the money's going away and not, not going away, they're, they're still loaded. But if it's, if they're starting to feel that pain, then the last spigot of power over us, I, I think they have, is wielding Propaganda and using that to scare the markets into, like, this is what Martin Armstrong talks about. He's all about capital flight, the bond market and the value of like the dollar index versus the euro. And so when something happens in the US like, oh, it's Powell going to raise rates or is he not, or even the debate, right? All of these things are manipulating the average Joe psyche. And that's really what they want. They want to demoralize us. They want to put in front of us because that's all they have left is just to manipulate our emotions. And so much to the fact that they probably want a civil war to happen. Like, we should have some sort of secession, but have it be on our watch and not theirs. And so that's why, as harsh as it sounds like I wrote my last article about this, like, don't be a useful idiot to these people. Like, mind your emotions, understand? Like, this is what I learned from Tom. What am I looking at? Who's presenting it to me, why? But why now? And so that's everyone in, you know, across the spectrum, both left and right, but primarily in the dissident corners. I think that we all kind of fall victim to that and they benefit on their victimization because they just leverage that against us and they use that an excuse to pass another law here or there to just assert more control over us. And it's just something that we have to be careful of. Like, I fall victim to this every day, you know, but it's just something to be mindful because I honestly do think that's one of the last things that they can leverage over us is our emotion of how they use the propaganda machine.

[Pete]

I think it's one of the reasons why I like finding and seeing older articles, because no matter what the purpose of the article was written then you can read it in a new light. Now you see it, whatever the intent was of writing it at that point, well, we're in a new age. And as far as I'm concerned, post October 7th is a very new age.

[Phil Gibson]

Yes.

[Pete]

Especially when it comes to this group of people. So you read an article like this and you're like, okay, Israel is doing all of this. They're demanding money from the United States. Why? Why would they demand money from the United States? Obviously the City of London can finance everything they could find. I mean, they could, they could level all of Gaza and rebuild it 50, 100, a thousand times over. Why are they doing this to us? There's only one reason is because they're trying to destroy Us. They're trying to destroy the system. They're trying to destroy our dollar. They're trying to. Maybe this is payback for. Payback for what Pal's been doing. And it's just, you know, it's like I describe it like the movie, the original movie, Independence Day. So you go to one place, you exhaust all the. Exhaust all of its resources and you move on. That may be what it is too. But really what it comes down to, what I think it is, is that if Powell's taking away the power of their money, he's taking away their power. And people like this, especially materialists. And when I mean materialists, I'm not only talking about money, I'm talking about people who don't believe in an afterlife. Everything becomes about this life. And that's why I remember I worked for a Jew for a long time. He told me, he was like, I go to Israel. He goes, if you think I'm. I mean, he literally said this to me. If you think I'm cheap with money and I'm bad, you know, about money. He goes, I go to Israel. And there are these old guys who are like on their deathbed and they're still talking about their investments and what their money is. And he goes, and when you, when you look at that and you realize that if you believe that this is life is the only thing we have, then you're going to do everything you can to do whatever your ideology is, whatever your personal ideology is. And if you take away or you limit their power at all, this, this basically absolute power that they're used to wielding, this causes an existential crisis for them.

[Phil Gibson]

Especially if they believe the whole tikkun olam, where they feel obligated to fix all the evils of the world. And if, I mean, I don't know

[Pete]

their theology, I'm starting to wonder if that's. I'm starting to wonder if that's a psyop too. If that's just something to throw you off the trail.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah, maybe it might be, but it kind of plays in.

[Pete]

But it might be also the left wing, right wing, the left wing, right wing Jew kind of thing. Because that tends to be. I think that tends to have more to do with left wing Jews. And I don't think these. I wouldn't consider the city of London.

[Phil Gibson]

Well, left wing I would imagine are more liberal and not religious.

[Pete]

Right.

[Phil Gibson]

What's the word? Secular. So the whole like religious aspect of like whatever Tikun Alamu really is, that's more of like A theological thing, I

[Pete]

would imagine, but more focused on culture than banking and war and things like that.

[Phil Gibson]

Culture, Marxism, whatever.

[Pete]

Right. Well, Hollywood, you know, pornography, things like that. So there's something I wanted to say

[Phil Gibson]

on that, but I completely forgot what it was.

[Pete]

You should take you. Dude, I learned this from Buck Johnson. I saw him taking notes. I saw him taking notes, and that's what I, like, got a notebook and a pen, and I'm like, I just take. I take notes now, so. Because my mind is gone and if I'm recording at night, I probably have some. There's probably something in the drink that I'm drinking. So, yeah, that could even mess me up, too. So, yeah,

[Phil Gibson]

So like, to bring it home. Like, where do you. They realize, like, their main source of power, money, is being taken away from them, and so now what are you just saying? Like, yeah, they're just going to be as loud as possible to bend the US to our will. Because I believe that it is. It is like a power struggle between City of London, slash, like ECB versus the major Wall street banks and the Fed, because the superpower that America has is that they never defaulted on their debt. And the way that you force them to do that is to drag them into World War III against Russia, China, whatever, Iran. So I don't really see that happening, especially when you have, for whatever reason, more cool, calm, collected people of this class. Kind of the usual suspects of getting behind Trump again. But I think, and I'm in the process of writing about this, but I think they have just been so exposed in the limelight for too long, and they just need to bring it back in. This is what Matt King Bill, talks about when he read the American Dynamism paper, what a 16Z Andreessen Horowitz kind of talks about is everyone's fed up with dei. People want to bring jobs back to the United States while stapling green cards on, like, smart Indians diplomas, because they just want to get rid of some of the oligarchical bureaucracy. And people like Musk and Teal just want to make it their oligarchical bureaucracy to their terms. So because of that, I think that there is a faction of them that don't want to drag us into World War three with the Global south, whatever, because it's not good for business. So that's one of the few white pills I think, that have been mentioned in this conversation. But, yeah, I'm not really depressed. Doom and gloom about the future. Trump's not going to fix everything. He's probably going to be a useful idiot boob. And we got to rely on the fusionism that's behind him. You've had Wendell Cozy on and he kind of splits up the fusions of you got PayPal mafia, you have faction of like Christian nationalism, whatever. And then you have, or was it Charles Johnson that kind of laid this out. And then you have like the new generation of Zionists that I think are less radical and they kind of play in. They're so oligarchs, so they have their fingers in the paper mafia stuff. And they're probably not radical like neolibs either. And so they just maybe want to close the borders like a little bit and are backing Trump just because they wanted to have like a reset. It's not a great reset because one Wall Street, Jamie Dimon, Bill Ackman, they don't want that because that great reset that they want in the EU is that just means the end of commercial banking and the end of the creation and preservation of private capital. And you can't have that with a CBDC because CBDC means commercial banking's bye bye, believe it or not. Like that is a decentralized mechanism of the commercial banks being the shareholders of the Federal Reserve. And so again, this all goes back to like Team Fed kind of financing backing this fusionism that's backing Trump because these people at the City of London try and drag us into World War III to force us to default on our debt. Not good for business. They're not the good guys. They're just rational. They're Machiavellian. Yeah.

[Pete]

And I think that was something that. Me and Matt talked about the first time he came out when we were Talking about the PayPal mafia is they want to make money, but they also are really, because of where they come from, they're really into competence. And I think that they see that there are so many people right now that are just completely incompetent.

[Phil Gibson]

They also have their own dynasties like they want, they have families, they, they're well off to have as big as families as possible. And so they sure, like you might be able to call this altruistic. They want to have a future that their kids can rule as oligarchs over as they see it, not with these other people, how these other people see it. And we just happen to also kind of benefit from that sometimes.

[Pete]

There's a lot of self interest. There's a lot of self interest there.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah, yeah.

[Pete]

And you know, self interest. Self interest. If somebody is self interested and they're Looking to take power and they don't hate you. Like, the people in power right now say they're sort of like, neutral where you're concerned. It's a whole lot better than where we are right now. Oh, yeah. And it also allows us, if they're all about business and they can create a system, if they can create an environment where it's easier for people like you and me to acquire wealth and to accumulate wealth, well, that's just things down the line that we want to do changes that we might want to see that we. That will help us. So I just, I just want things to get. To get to the point where competent people are actually doing things. So. But the, the crazy thing is, is when you look at everything that's happening, is Trump going to jail? Is Biden going to die? Is Biden. Are they going to replace him? It just keeps us. And I'm not one of these people. I do not believe it or not, I don't sit around all day thinking about these things.

[Phil Gibson]

Really.

[Pete]

I don't.

[Phil Gibson]

I know.

[Pete]

I don't. Like, like, I don't. Well, I don't stress over them. I think about them, but I don't stress over them. It's like, I mean, what's going to happen. Yeah, me stressing over it is not going to change it. So I think about it, Think about it for content, obviously, and. Yeah, so. But I love to know this stuff and, you know, knowing about the City of London versus the City of London, and then you hear people going, no, no, it's not the Jews. It's the. It's from the City of London. And then you're like, kind of both. Kind of both. All right, but let's. We got to figure out exactly what the City of London is first. And.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah, so do we, though.

[Pete]

Do you ever, like.

[Phil Gibson]

No. Like that. That's one of the, like, being in the sphere from, like, libertarianism to, like, whatever the we are now, it's just like, why do we care? Like, why are we all this autistic? Like, why are we. So why. When this does consume our mind out of the whatever percentage of the day, like, why does it. Because, like, we're. We're curious cats. We're true seekers. But then, like, then what do we do? And then this is like, what people, like, will throw at you and me. Like, okay, you brought this up, so what are you going to do? That's, of course, when we're like, okay, well, you know, focus on your local communities, what have you. But it's Kind of like, it is kind of aggravating. Like, what would it be like if I didn't know any of this and I was just a normie, you know?

[Pete]

Well, I mean, ignorance is bliss. Right? Right. But I mean, it's where. It's where we are. It's who we are. It's. It's a part of our nature and we just have to run with it. And, you know, I'm one of those people who. I don't necessarily. I don't believe that, like, 100 million people are going to change anything, because 100 million people can organize, but 100 million people being upset about something. I think what you've seen definitely since October 7th, is you see people who potentially elites or elites, people who are in charge, who are like, okay, there's a tide changing. Or they look at how bad things have gotten with the economy, with price, everything, with international relations, everything. Ukraine. And they're like, well, change needs to be made. People are complaining about this and we need the backing of the people in order to do. Even when you go, you know, I've been studying a lot about a lot of the 1400s in Spain, even before 1492 and early, the kings couldn't get anything done without the nobles. Yeah, they had to have the nobles on their side, and the nobles had to be able to communicate with the, you know, with the people who were under them, with the population and to know what they're talking about, to know what the buzz is, to know if the king does this, is he going to cause a rebellion, things like that. So, I mean, and that's just the same way it is now. And you just look at. You look at the way the wind is blowing, and a lot of. And a good elite will look at the way the wind is blowing and go, okay, maybe we need to go this way. And that's the reason why I do what I do and not why I'm like, okay, you know, I wish that I had 10 or 20 times the audience that I do, just because there's a potential to talk to more elites, but there's also a potential to create more of a buzz that elites recognize. And they're like, okay, then we need to. People are upset about this and we need to. We need to get rid of this. We need to end this trans stuff. We need to end gay pride parades with men naked in front of kids getting pissed on and giving blowjobs in public.

[Phil Gibson]

Okay.

[Pete]

We also. Twitter needs to end. X needs to end people being able to put that Stuff on there unedited. Because I. I don't need to scroll my timeline and see that. I don't need to see it explicitly.

[Phil Gibson]

I'm so sick of the training operation photos too. Like, I'm just trying to go about my day. Like, I don't know, maybe I need to fix my settings.

[Pete]

There. There was a time when I would put those up because I was trying to wake people up. And then I just realized that I was doing more harm than good. Yeah, just.

[Phil Gibson]

You become part of the problem.

[Pete]

Yeah. You give them. Yeah. Libs of TikTok is. Is an awful, awful account. Yeah, it's an awful account. I mean, besides the fact that, you

[Phil Gibson]

know, well that therein lies the source of propaganda demoralizing us to make us feel like shit. Yeah.

[Pete]

All right. Tell people where they can find your stuff. We'll get out of here.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah, no, this is a great chat. Thanks a lot for having me. Pete, again, my name is Phil. You can find me on Twitter, primarily handle mrpseau Mr. Sue. And you can find most of my work on QPol that this qpol.substack.com where I'm putting out like one article, ish, like a month because I like to take that time to really focus on what happened most, what matters, try to make a narrative out of it. And so yeah, you can Support me for 69 bucks for the year if you think I'm worth it. If not, then that's cool. Money's tight these days. I get it. Also, if you are around on July 27th in Nashville, Tennessee, or if you're just bored, that Saturday, I will be part of the first annual Patriot Jam, the free will, most free will and music festival in the country. And Pete was just on with Iggy Normous Stephen on his show. So him and I and a few others have been working to put this together. Kind of like, I really want to say like a right wing music festival. I just want to say, like it's not filled with debauchery and crap like Coachella or something like that. So that's something that's. We're gonna put the first one on for the year. It's. It's gonna be smaller, low key. If you're interested, you can DM directly at the Twitter page Patriot Jam Fest. And then we'll be able to send you more Info, get you RSVP'd. And if not, then the stream link will be floating around for YouTube and all the other stuff. But that's my story and I'm sticking to It. And Pete, again, thank you so much for having me on to have this conversation. It was great. Pete was also on, like, one of my. I think the most recent podcast where we talked about Spanish Civil War, if you want to check that out. But thanks for having me, man.

[Pete]

Yeah. One question before we go. Is that festival indoors or outdoors?

[Phil Gibson]

It is indoors.

[Pete]

Oh, okay. Okay.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah, we basically kind of get people

[Pete]

that might get people to Tennessee at the end of July.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah. Yeah. No, it's like, to be honest, a place, like, caps out at, like, 60, at least for, like, the room. So it's going to be small, it's going to be chill, but I think it can hold more. So we're just going to.

[Pete]

Stephen's a great guy. He's a funny guy. We got to hang out. He was at OG at the Old Glory Club.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah.

[Pete]

And we were smoking cigars and drinking and talking. Talking.

[Phil Gibson]

I'm excited to meet him. It's gonna be a good time.

[Pete]

Yeah. All right, man. Take care of yourself.

[Phil Gibson]

All right. You too. See ya.

[Pete]

All right. As per. Is per usual when I get together with these guys, we were. We're in the middle of a conversation and yeah, we're here to talk about the bank of England City of London. And I got Philos here. Philos, how you doing?

[Philosopher]

I'm doing very well.

[Pete]

Cool. Stormy, how you doing?

[Stormy]

I'm on team no sleep, but I'm. I'm feeling ready. I'm good.

[Pete]

Cool.

[Phil Gibson]

You've got.

[Stormy]

All right, well, solid amount of autism.

[Pete]

Well, before we started, we were. We started. Before we started, we were doing market autism. But let's jump. Let's jump over here and maybe you can even do some more market autism once we start getting into this here. So. But historic market autism. But anyway, Philos, why don't you. Why don't you jump in?

[Philosopher]

Yeah. So the theme of tonight's stream is broadly the history of the city of London. And kind of the question that we're going to ask is, do Jews have a disparate amount of control over said City of London and current financial markets relative to, say, the British elite? When, you know, the City of London, it's just a bunch of evil European globalists, and Judaism doesn't really play a role in it. The time period that we're going to cover is about the year 1000 to 1700. And I hope to conclusively demonstrate that yes, Church Jews pretty substantially and definitively controlled finance, financial innovations, markets documented all the way through all of these times. And I think I'll Sort of skip the more modern questions here and just get right into the question of how Jews control English banking.

[Pete]

Don't let me stop you.

[Philosopher]

I guess it will, I guess it will.

[Stormy]

Go ahead. Wait, I thought the globalists and the British did well.

[Philosopher]

So this is where you run into the question of them. It's thrown around so many times in our circles and it seems to be that it does split into a camp of it's the Jews versus it is globalists and Jews are incidental or irrelevant in this question. There's been a history throughout conspiracy theories, the American right referring to a them, referring to bankers, elites, shadow government, smoke filled rooms, neoliberal and broadly speaking by like a measurable demographic quantity. They're not a majority of them being Jews, but the Jews that are in those positions exercise undue and outsized influence upon those institutions.

[Pete]

And I think you're describing Bolshevism. Unbelievable.

[Stormy]

This is crazy.

[Pete]

It's almost like every single time which

[Philosopher]

is the real, it's honestly the real nuance of the jq. It's, it's not present in this simplified version of just Jews run everything. It's quid pro quo. That's it, the end of the statement. It's you have to have that nuance of power relative to size.

[Stormy]

I went to the DMV and the Jews were not running the dmv Exactly. I guess they run everything. This is already disproven. Everybody can go home now.

[Philosopher]

Shaniqua runs the digital IDs I guess at the DMV. So looking at this, I mean I think it's important right off the bat because when we refer to people in power structures, these are not people working in a job is what they do. Is it a profession? Is banking a profession? A job like any other? I assert that it's not things like law and medicine, they are professions. In a profession you reach a standard of education and training that enables your specialization in a subject and your credentials to continue work in that field. A vast majority, I think, of people that you'll meet in your life are either professionals or wages wage earners. But I think in order to understand Jewish influence in the city of London, you need to change your thinking about what these people do for a living. And you need to understand them. Concept of a guild and what a guild functionally is, is it is a organization that provides exclusive privileges to members within a territory. There is no such thing as free competition in a guild system and its members can only join at the recommendation of multiple members. If that's a confusing structure. Just think about something like the Freemasons, which perhaps not so coincidentally are founded with their Grand Lodge in the City of London. And when you begin to think of the structure of the City of London, you need to think of the company not as a modern quarter to quarter innovation that's run by Indians, that's over leveraged in the AI bubble, that is heavily invested in a services and finance based economy, but a company in a really traditional classical sense of the word. That's the sense that you need to understand how I refer to bankers in this stream. So we're going to start in the year 1066 with William the Conqueror and I'm going to pull from two different sources here. Source number one is Banks of the World A history and Analysis by Roger orsonguer from the mid-60s and also the classic A History of Central Banking by Stephen Mitford Goodson. And that has actually a section in it that's by Matthew Johnson, who I presume is Dr. Matthew Raphael Johnson, who's been featured on your streams very regularly. So these are the two sources that I draw this following information from. This is not your wikipedia stuff. As a matter of fact, you can't really find this on Wikipedia. So 1066 William the Conqueror takes England in the Norman invasion and prior to this England was in a financial golden age. Small holders on land are the norm in this situation. Urban trade in cities has very low consistent prices and there's an overall lack of liquid capital that is forestalling any kind of centralization of nobles or powers. You have power centers but not this centralized government within England. Usury was formally banned in Mercia under Offa the Great and King Alfred the Great. Although he's in the process of centralizing Wessex power to resist the Danes, he refused the services of the banking cabal. And obviously William the Conqueror going into England, he needs funding to fund his invasion of Anglo Saxon England. He was assisted by bankers from Venice and Rome. And if you will recall some of the earliest Jews that left Palestine, Roman Palestine, they went to Rome and Italy was the first place that Jews were able to go to in the west to establish their systems. Under William the Conqueror, usury was permitted. The old Anglo Saxon aristocrats were killed and William bought in a new nobility which established the first iteration of feudalism in England. This led to a system that charged 33% of collateral lands and 300% on capital as a tool within the cities for trade. In two generations after William the Conqueror, 66% of England's land was in the hand of moneylenders. And I make that distinction very clear. Money lenders are not the same thing as bankers. These are different. And I'll get into it later by both sources. Between the time of Rome being in Britain and their eventual evacuation out of the area that was to be the City of London all the way through for the next 900 years to Norman the Conqueror, there are basically zero Jews in England. And what both of these separate banking books have asserted is that Jews were the first people in England to deal in money as we understand it in our modern conception. For a long time, the Jews alone gave the Norman kings the support they needed in terms of war and rebellion. A charter of Henry III was necessary to limit the permissible interest on loans to 2 pence on the pound per week, that is to say, a limited interest of 43% per year. So to put that in context, Jews come in with William the Conqueror, and by the early 1200s they are starting to have to issue royal charters to limit the amount of interest to not be super exorbitant. During the 1270s and 1280s, the Crown officially attempted to crack down on coin clipping. I'm sure all of your audience members know what coin clipping is, even by Jewish sources, specifically some 1990s books that I've read, looking at the Jewish histories. The English Jews of the time were extremely wealthy relative to the Anglo Saxon and Norman populations that were there. Edward I expelled the Jews formally in 1290. What happens after this point? Jews are no longer in England, for the most part, at least the wealthier ones that were allowed to retain most of their possessions and were physically required by law not to be harmed as they were put on boats and sent to the continent. The Jews, however, succeeded in the money lending trade by the Lombards. These are Italian merchant bankers from Milan, Florence, Venice, Genoa and Lucca. Banking houses of Italy had branches in London starting from the 13th and 14th centuries. The Italians, as they're coming into London, are bringing the earliest direct predecessor of liberalism in the form of Renaissance humanism. And so these men are essentially equipped to handle the property and financial circumstances of the elites within English society. At this time, money and valuables began to be trusted to these Lombards. There is within the city of London a Lombard street that they would con. They would gather in on the open street to conduct their business. And from this time, the Corporation of Goldsmiths was formed. Goldsmith obviously refers to anybody who works with gold jewelry who is tasked by the King to have a standard of weights and measures. This is extremely important in inventorying the wealth of, of nobility in the country. There were in 1556 approximately 100 goldsmiths in London. By the Elizabethan period, in 1600, personal fortunes were mostly jewels, plate and gold and silver coins. This wealth was either situated with these 107 goldsmiths or the Royal Mint directly. The system, honestly is pretty stable and not too complicated as far as financial systems go. By the time of Charles I and Charles ii, the looting of the Royal Mint starts to begin. Charles I appropriates 130,000 pounds sterling and Charles II appropriates a hundred, excuse me, 1.3 million pounds sterling out of the Royal Mint. So that is money that is being taken directly from the goldsmiths and the Royal Mint in 1672. The reason that decision for 1.3 million pounds sterling was made is to finance the Dutch war that England was currently fighting in. The King several years afterwards acknowledges his debt to these goldsmiths and paid interest on it for a few years. It is this interest which created the concept of a national debt. In England, prior to this point, there are only two major types of people handling massive amounts of wealth. These are the goldsmiths and the money lenders. But after this point, there is banking, this massive national debt. This creates a funneling effect in an economic crisis when most are driven to bankruptcy. The individuals who survive largely tend to amass further power and wealth after the fact. And this is where we get into the Dutch. When looking at a financial system, you, especially in the early modern, the Mercantilist period and the Middle Ages, you are almost never looking at a market totally in isolation, especially as it's beginning to modernize. How does this come about? Well, financially speaking, let me start out earlier. The Dutch Sephardic Jews. So in order to understand what the Dutch are doing in London and creating the concept of banking, you have to understand what the Jews are doing at this time. So upon their expulsion From Spain in 1490, 2, Major Dutch Sephardic Jewish families move to Amsterdam and they're rebuilding their banking base with a square of influence. They're controlling this power through grain trade in the Baltic, Their management of Amsterdam banks, trade routes in Constantinople, the Turkish market as well as Poland, forming a square. These are the overland routes of modern grain trade that enable them to skyrocket grain prices in the west for forcing the east to export more and more. They're playing both sides here. The earliest new examples of these modern banking technologies I'm about to present are in the grain market. And they are ongoing and developing in Dutch Sephardic Jewish families in Amsterdam between 1550 and 1620. Well, what's a banking technology and innovation? Well, they, the Dutch Sephardic Jews invent the following in Amsterdam. Exactly. But to understand their brief connection to London, the Dutch essentially conquer England in 1688. William III, who is known as William of Orient, stadtholder of Holland, he is offered the English throne by the Dutch in 1689. Many Sephardic Spanish Jewish families come to that had come originally to Amsterdam and were responsible for the grain trade, followed this specific king to London and they institute all of these banking innovations that they had previously created in Amsterdam. What did they invent? Well, here it is. Loan collaterals, repo transactions, short and long term annuities, annuity associations, tontines, lotteries, public securities, futures and options trading, derivatives, and the perpetual bond. So that's a lot of different innovations. Not all of them, honestly, I understand. But I can tell you that some of these perpetual bonds and institutions, they're still honored today.

[Stormy]

This way, both of us. Every single one on this call is a perpetual bond. Every treasury bill is basically a perpetual bond that we pay forever.

[Philosopher]

Go on, lick Dick Bovendams. Which is a Dutch water authority bill, there's one in existence from 1624 that's still currently paying 5% interest a year. And so why did the Dutch invent all of these innovations in banking? While trade and risk are inseparable, in order to make an investment you have to alleviate or eliminate if possible, most of your risk to ensure your stability of your supply and your price. It's complicated, I don't understand it. But essentially this relationship between trade and risk incentivizes you as a banker to make a contract for future delivery. This is the foundation within Amsterdam of futures and options trading. And eventually from this, the evolution of the derivative. Why are these created? They appear in a modern form in the market of shares for the Dutch east and West India companies in 1602 and 1621. Why them? Well, you have a major risky investment. You need to create, outfit, rig and gather men for a ship and then multiple ships to mount an expedition, send them to the other side of the planet to gather extremely valuable resources, which you can then sell at high prices near to your home country. And what that means in practice, if you're a banker, is that a very large, a vast majority of your investment is going to cease to exist. It's extremely risky. The ship is going to sink, the crew can mutiny, there can be pirates. There's a very high likelihood that your expedition is never going to have a return on it. And what that means is that bankers that are involved are trying to diffuse risk amongst each other. So one man who theoretically could pay for an entire expedition if they were extremely wealthy, would not, you know, be forced to eat their shoe leather. So the British form of this comes about in the East India Company in 1600. This is something called a joint stock company. But the East India company in 1600 in its charter, had less financial fuckery going on. What made the Dutch, East India, India and West India companies much more profitable for speculation is that they were distributing annual dividends of between 10 to 20% on average and sometimes as high as 65%. So what this allows for with these dividends are speculation in forward markets. And so essentially very wealthy people with a lot of mind, like a lot of money and a lot of time on their hands to research the likelihood of success of an expedition, will begin to conduct futures and options trading, begin to think of derivatives. And all of these inventions are created by the Jewish banking families in Amsterdam. If you want like a more real world example that you've probably heard of in economics class, look up the tulip mania, the Dutch tulip mania, between 1634 and 1637. So, okay, we now have all these crazy innovations.

[Stormy]

Isaac Newton went bust, by the way.

[Philosopher]

Correct.

[Stormy]

Is the blowing up, when the blowing up of the collapse of the Dutch stock exchange was a controlled demolition, it was going to go bust anyways, right? So if the house is going to fall down someday, it's better to just demo it to make sure you're not inside at that day, right?

[Philosopher]

Absolutely.

[Stormy]

Nobody told Isaac Newton, apparently. And he was almost bankrupt. He basically was bankrupt. He was a large shareholder, he was a successful guy and was a large shareholder of the Dutch East India Company. But one quick thing about futures and options, right? These are not predatory instruments on their face. They fulfill a very important function in any type of commodities trading. And simply like anything above subsistence farming is going to be some form of commodities trading, right? Like just simply a farmer taking his goods to market, whether it be grain, corn or whatever, is commodities trading. But he can't control what price he gets at the market, right? Somebody could, you know, be getting out of the business or switching to, you know, tomatoes or whatever, and is basically just selling all of his corn, including the seed corn, which you generally wouldn't sell. Right? That's for planting. He doesn't care. He's getting out of the business. So you get to the market and the corn prices are, you know, 40% less than what you needed them to be. As in like just to recoup your cost. Farmers operate on a very thin margin, right? They're basically betting the farm. This is like they're betting the farm each time because of the amount of money it would take to plant. And once that money is in the ground, it's frozen until harvest. So basically all of their expenses that they would have throughout the whole year, they would have to use their say. This is why farmers are such good savers. Every, I would bet every single farmer in the country that isn't some major agricultural combine or some shit like that has literally like mason jars full of gold or hundred dollar bills buried around his property. That's just how they do it. Because they basically have to, they have to put in so much capital into their crop each year, it leaves very little left over for them to live on. So anything goes awry, any machine breaks, anything, it could be disastrous. And they're basically living off savings. So this guy just found out that like all of his money that he invested into his crop, because that's what it is, every planting season he is making an investment and that investment was locked up for a whole year. And now he gets to find out that when he goes to sell it, he's lost half his money and he's already eaten through all his savings. How much grain do you think is going to be planted next year? Significantly less. Right. That farmer is not making the same investment again either because he physically can't or he's too afraid to now. And every other farmer that brought their goods to market along with that farmer, they got 40% less too. They will be planting 40% less next year, minimum. And this is how you have basically rapid boom and bust cycles that are inherent to commodity markets without. Before, like this was a very common thing, just was, you know, the invention of futures and options were almost necessary to grow any type. Let's put this way, like, let's say you boot all the Jews out, kill all the derivative contracts and say, we're not doing that. We're not doing financialization at all. If you're going to have a national economy, you would have to put back futures and options because it's the only way to do agriculture outside of just your immediate locality. Because basically, what if what an option is or what a future is, is when that farmer is making an investment. Like let's say, all right, I am in, I am going to sink all, literally all of my money into the ground. I need this percent return. Like I need to make this amount of money or else I'm going to go bankrupt. I need grain to be, you know, let's say 10 or 15 or 20 cents more a bushel than it is now for me to even break even. So as insurance, I'm going to buy. And grain brokers are happy to do this because it's also insurance for them, right? The grain broker, like, all right, I will agree to buy your crop once you're done harvesting at this price. And the farmer goes, all right, that's a good price. Okay, I can live with that. Everyone's happy. We shake their hands. That's just a six month. That was a six month option contract, right? Both the farmer and the grain wholesaler came to terms that were acceptable regardless of where the price is at the moment that that crop is brought to market. If the crop is going to market and grain prices have tripled, then that farmer made a really shitty deal. He just gave his crops away for pennies on the dollar. You know, when he could have been getting, you know, $5 on every dollar, you know, he made 20% or 10% when he could have made 200. And that grain merchant, that grain wholesaler is very happy. But let's say he goes to market and the scenario happens that I just laid out where grain is down 50%, 40%. Yeah, that grain wholesaler is going to take a hit on just that guy's order, right? That'll get evened out with all the other people he has to go buy grain from. But that farmer stays in business instead of getting wiped out, right? Because he made a deal six months beforehand for his bare minimum and like his total investment plus a bare minimum to keep going. Like total investment, all my money plus 10%. So, yeah, that time the grain broker got screwed. But he's buying the entire crop of 100 farmers. So him getting screwed in that one little thing gets kind of washed out, but it saves that farmer and he's going to plant the same amount or more next year because he at least earned a little bit more money and can buy more seed. This is like, it's like dampener systems on your car, right? It's a suspension system. It stops instead of like price action that it's, you know, dampening up and down it's supply that it's dampening up and down. And it stops there from being basically feast or famine cycles. Because the opposite of green shortage is a whole bunch of green going to waste, right? It goes, what do they call it, fallow in the Fields where the farmers literally just let it rot in the field to fertile so they don't have to buy fertilizer next year anyways. So they're not. When people hear like derivatives, futures and options, they immediately think of like, you know, the big short and just financial and casinos, whatever that is largely true. But when it comes to agriculture specifically or mining, right, things that make things that either grow or pull out real things, these are necessary mechanisms for any advanced economy. So I will say there's a very, very large amount of and a very small amount of innovation. So we do have to kind of, and trust me, if anyone wants to slam the fuckery of these people, know it's me. But as we go and we tear down what exists and rebuild something new, we need to know what's worth keeping. Futures and options contract in relation only to agriculture, mining and basically resource businesses are imperative. Go ahead, philosopher.

[Pete]

Well, let me. Let me jump in there because I do have definitive proof that Jews didn't invent the future. The concept of future.

[Stormy]

That's amazing.

[Pete]

Sambart. Sambart. In the Jews of Modern Capitalism, he goes through an exhaustive he talks about Cromwell, he talks about the Dutch east and West India Company. Then he comes and says. Most important of all, however, the book which for the first time exhaustively treated, treated of stock exchange business and all its branches was written by a Portuguese Jew in Amsterdam toward the end of the 17th century. I refer to Don Joseph de la Vega's confucian de confuciones etc. Which appeared in 1688 and which a stock exchange specialist had described as being still the best description both in form and substance, of stock and share dealing even today. The book bears witness to the fact that a Jew was the first theorist in the sphere of speculation and futures. De la Vega was himself engaged in commerce, and his treaties clearly reflects the atmosphere in which he lived. De la Vega's book, in conjunction with the other evidence quoted, cannot but lead to the conclusion that if Jews were not actually fathers of the stock exchange business, they were certainly primarily concerned in his Genesis. Should this nevertheless be skeptically received by some, I have a trump card. Card In a way of direct proof in support of it, we possess a report, probably of the French ambassador in the Hague, written for his government in the year 1698, wherein he distinctly states that the Jews held the stock exchange business in their hands and shaped this development as they willed. The most salient passages here follow. Here follow. In the state Holland, the Jews have a good deal of power and according to the prognostications of the these pretended political speculators themselves often unreliable. The prices of these stocks vary so considerably that they cause transactions to take place several times a day. Transactions which merit the term wager or bet rather than business. The more so as the Jews who dominate this kind of activity are all are up to all manner of tricks which take in people, even if they be ever so skilled. Their Jewish brokers and agents, the cleverest of their kind in all the world. Bonds and shares of all of which the they hold large amounts. The author acquainted as he. As he, as he is with all the secrets of stock exchange activity, describes at length how the Jews succeeded in obtaining the influential position they held on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange. I will refer much to this later in the book.

[Philosopher]

Well, there you go.

[Stormy]

Basically, what they. What where derivatives and stuff comes from, where the. This is the financial. That blew up the. The Dutch Stock exchange. So futures and options, you get a good idea of that, right? Yeah, I'm basically buying something, right? To kind of. I'm hedging, I'm hedging my risk, right? Farmers, commodity producers, these people have risks. I don't know. Pick any piece of equipment on a mine, whether it's one of those bulldozers or dump trucks the size of like, you know, 30 semi trailers tacked on top of each other. One of those things is about 30, 40 million dollars. Just one dump truck. You're investing serious amounts of money. And with other businesses there's ways to hedge risk. But when it comes to real materials, either you're, you know, digging real things out of the ground or growing real things, that relationship is with you and nature. That's it, right? There's not like a counterparty that's, you know, that you can negotiate downwards, say, hey man, I'm taking a huge risk on this. You need to come off on price or you need to come up in price, whichever. Mother Nature makes no deals, has no terms to offer you. So these things are necessities. But what happened is people got the bright idea, people got the idea to use futures and options contracts on stocks. Well, I've added another layer of variability here. So instead of like whether the fucking crops grow, which they do every time, well, now it's a comp. It's whether a company can make money or not. Well, what if somebody's stealing? Or what if they run a bad business? Like, what if a bunch of Jewish guys are speculating on the stock? Like Sambar just talked about driving the price up and down, buying and selling it several times a day. Well, now, if you're the guy that happens to have a contract to buy that stock at a predetermined price, some Jews speculating the price up and down wildly is going to destroy you. Because on the day. And basically what they would do is they'd buy all these options really, really cheap and then they would drive the stock up through speculation, getting many, many multiples on their money. That's all well and good if the stock keeps on being a functional company. When that doesn't happen now, you're on the hook for hundreds of times your money. What leverage gives you on the way up. It takes away 10 times faster on the way down. Go ahead.

[Philosopher]

So I think it's also interesting to just kind of clarify what a company is at this time, where this came from. Because this is not your modern conception of a company. 16th century England, this, in this world in which this is taking place, it was a franchise government. So offices and positions within it tied to the nobility. These are both a public service and private property at the same time. And that is sort of enabling people to have social and financial advancement. So these people that are forming a joint stock company, initially these are just merchant adventurers within the City of London. But very rapidly nobles start to get more involved because there's certain privileges that have to come down from the king. Royal charters have to be approved for certain elements.

[Stormy]

You need to be protected from piracy, you need to have someone's flag on your boat.

[Philosopher]

And this also within the country, like a company in early modern and medieval England, this merchant adventurers group, it's not only a commercial association, but it's also a religious enterprise. It's a mutual assistance society, it's a quasi government council and it's a guild. And this idea mostly originates in these Dutch and Italian conceptions of a company. This is why, like a lot of

[Stormy]

Christian conceptions of a company, you mean.

[Philosopher]

Exactly, yes, exactly. Christian consumptions of a company.

[Stormy]

This is a lot of these carryover in the Transylvanians.

[Pete]

Right.

[Stormy]

The Transylvanian Germans basically operated like this up until the time of the communist revolution. Sorry, like the Georgian revolution that happened like. Or, sorry, Romanian revolution, like right before the communist revolution. So maybe like what, 30, 40 years when they. Anyways, the Transylvanian Germans operated on exactly a system of guilds, right. And father and son businesses, as Philos is describing right now. And a tiny, we'll call it like a area the size of, you know, Connecticut, maybe Massachusetts, dominated all of Romania, all of Eastern Europe, really. Right. The best armaments the best watch. The best of everything in Europe at that time wasn't made in Paris, right. Or Milan or Rome. It was made in Transylvania by a series of guilds that created a governance. So basically he's talking about public and private benefit. And so who sets water policy? Well, the guys that are in charge of the, the water. The water treatment plant. Right. The plumber's guild. Okay, well, the plumber's guild is responsible for all of the public water works. It pays its taxes, right. So it puts in its contribution to the larger society by building all of the water infrastructure in the city. And. Well, what, what about the, the builders guild? What about the build. How are they paying their taxes? Oh, well, they're paying for out of their pocket, the building of the public buildings and maintaining them. The blacksmith guild is doing the same thing. And the maintenance of this infrastructure becomes flawless because the actual guild people are on the hook. When it breaks, I'm going to build the best quality thing ever and I'm going to maintain it amazingly because if it breaks, A, I'm going to be blamed for it and B, it's my pocket that's going to be repairing it. So the guild system for public and private benefit, this is what he's talking about. Right. So companies at this time were also a public good. It's a lot easier for the nobleman to say, well, how about you just build all this for me? And rather than you trying to, you know, hide the amount of money you make and basically me, you know, tossing your office to find out how much money you actually made and then extract taxes out of you, I have things that are expensive that need to be done. So how about you just do those things?

[Philosopher]

And there's two interesting ideas also to add into this. The first one is that I think this is the actual definition of sovereignty. And I think there's huge lessons for the Right. Mike Maxwell's book Travel Future of the west, it goes into all these examples of sovereignty. Shout out to him. He had a great interview on your show. But this is the origin point of future sovereignty. I'm reminded Stormy of when on your latest sub stack posting you were talking about the trade unions in Nazi Germany. And in this country we used to have the longshore men, stevedores who used to have auto workers, unions. These systems, the mentality of a corporation that without prompting, without regulation, that of its own sense of obligation, would give more than just a watch and a handshake to someone when they left. They would pay out that person's pension for the rest of their life. That sense of obligation comes from this original organization of a corporation. And when conservatives get all warm and fuzzy about what a business is and what business make America great, it all has to derive from this original conception of a corporation's obligations to its members, to its employees.

[Stormy]

It is much easier, as Hitler says, to. For me to turn a trade unionist into a national socialist to give. To give him back to his nation, as it is for me to make a bourgeois conservative, a revolutionary right. So Hitler says, like your people that you pull from are going to be lower to middle working class, right? The people the more on the margins, the better. The more on the margins, the more they're in need of you to help them and the more willing they are to make revolutionary change. Also, they're inherently patriotic, fiercely patriotic. A guy that works at GM his entire life, he knows a Mercedes is a better car. He knows it. But if you ask him what the best car in America or in the world is, he's going to tell you a Cadillac. Why is it the best car in the world? Because he built it. That's why. They're patriotic, because their patriotism is a sum total of their labor. They are interlinked and inseparable. I mean, you can literally just have. Have this in like a gun debate with a Swiss guy and a German guy. Anyways.

[Phil Gibson]

Yeah.

[Philosopher]

I mean, I think when I consider politically how this came to be, I mean, how we went from a guild system, or at least something that mimics it within a company, to this just utterly atomized, extractive world of an AI bubble of infinite Jeets, H1B types. I was really thinking about the political theory behind it. It has to do with the divine right of K kings. Divine right of kings was that was the prominent political theory in this time period where these mechanisms are being set up. And on the one hand you have Filmer or Hicks, they're asserting the state is the natural outgrowth of a theory of compact under the King, the noblesse oblige that's present. The state has an obligation to provide for its citizenry. Then on the other hand, obviously, who went out in the Enlightenment, it's Locke and Hobbes. And to them the state is largely a mechanical instrument. And this eventually leads to the rise of the concept of utility. And I would also point out that people think this is ideas that came about in the Enlightenment and then American Revolution happened and then liberalism happened after that. If you look at the origin points of the English Civil War, it is far more modern of A war in how it debates the guild and nobility against the atomized mercantilist individuals that are beginning.

[Stormy]

Even Wikipedia will tell you that that's the, that's the source of the Enlightenment. We don't even have to try and sell you on it.

[Philosopher]

Exactly.

[Stormy]

Cromwell's revolution is where we get the Enlightenment from. More important, interestingly enough, William of Orange, who was he overthrowing?

[Philosopher]

Wasn't Charles. Yeah, Charles ii. Am I correct in that?

[Stormy]

Yeah, it was overthrowing Catholicism. Who was Cromwell overthrowing?

[Philosopher]

It was the Catholics.

[Stormy]

And the. There's all the, Exactly.

[Pete]

All the.

[Philosopher]

I mean it was. The whole, like,

[Stormy]

was a disaster for the, for the Christian faith in Europe, in the world, because we spread it to the world and it was. And before Protestants get nuts real quick, let me just throw out a caveat. It was 50 Rome's fault, actually. You probably say larger papal pigheadedness, Italian pigheadedness and their inability to let Germans worship like Germans germonics. Let Swedes worship like Swedes and Englishmen worship like Englishmen, you know, because these are very. I mean all of those three different cultures have very distinct concepts of display of wealth, right? Like the English, you have like this, the concept of stealth wealth. And anything in Sweden, any type of, any type of gaudiness or showiness, right, or ostentatiousness in any way is, you know, it's, it's basically socially insulting, right, because of the rest of their culture. So you basically had, you had to worship and you had to do things Rome's way. And he, the, the Pope refused to, you know, convene about a, a council of bishops, which he should have, considering the amount of dissent, whatever, so that it was equally Rome's fault. But everyone needs to put this bullshit aside because what. The Catholic Church was the vehicle, right? It, it's the only thing that can come that combats a decentralized money network of people like this. It's the only place where you, it's the only thing that has the tools that you need, right?

[Pete]

The,

[Stormy]

the head count in the places and the bank account in the right places, right? So when you fractured the Christian Church, where did all that Catholic wealth that was in all those place, all of these countries that went Protestant go? It got stolen to pay the national debts he's talking about that got raided. So you basically cut out the legs from the only institution that was capable of stopping people like this. They have more money than kings. The Protestant church is basically a nationalist church, right, that you can call Lutheranism, German Church, Anglicanism well, it's a little bit more obvious, but when the people that are destroying your civilization are the ones lending money to the King of England or lending money to any of the other nation states they have, they're lending money because they have more money than that person. Right. Catholicism was a way to centralize Christian financial and political power. And Europe has never been the same since. And every time it re attempts to reassert itself, these magic revolutions kick off magically and funded by coincidence people.

[Philosopher]

Exactly. I don't have much to add on that other than some smaller points that I've found for that I'm gonna script.

[Stormy]

Let's name names. Not the people that propagate this. Not people that propagate this, but the individual bankers that financed William of Orange. Because we can pull quotes about, you know, from the bank, from the, from the Jew himself that lent William of Orange all of his money, telling you exactly how many times he, how much he was going to make in returns.

[Phil Gibson]

Right.

[Stormy]

He's like, yeah, I'm going to invest all this money. All of the. I, I can't remember how many guilders I think was 3 million guilders in William of Orange because I'm going to make seven times my money back in his victory. Like, they will tell you what they're doing. The idea that these things occurred organically or that anybody other than these people are in financial control of these places post revolution is dishonesty because all you have to type in is Oliver Cromwell and the blank. And your search bar will fill in the Jews.

[Pete]

All right.

[Stormy]

They're proud of it. We can go to Jewish, you know, Jewish, my Jewish daily learning or whatever. They'll tell you William of Orange and the blank. Your search engine will snitch, you will, will tell you more than people are telling each other now in our spheres. They're not shy about it. I mean, would you be if you made seven times your money foreign? Let's talk about the City of London.

[Philosopher]

Sure. I'll, I'll just briefly talk about London Exchange and Bank.

[Stormy]

Sure.

[Philosopher]

And then mercantile banks and then City of London.

[Stormy]

So yeah, this is equally as well documented. This is a silly that we have to do this, but it needs to be done.

[Philosopher]

It also lines up perfectly chronologically with the Anglo Dutch invasion. Like they, they install a king on the English throne. The newly formed lending exchange was created by Sir Thomas Gresham. It was simply that gold exchange and money lending practice. But then after the Anglo Dutch thing in 1688, boom, it just becomes filled with all of these different elements of financial tools that were discussed earlier. Notably, Gresham writes that it's filled with Dutchman, Frenchmen, Venetians, Spaniards, Italians and Turks. He, the founder of it, directed the English exchange rate within Antwerp and also the English information services that are present. And then 1688, a Scottish man named William Patterson began finalizing his work on a bank. A bank functionally provides a higher degree of security, reduced interest rate and a paper currency. It takes about six years to clear Parliament. But in July of 1694, the bank of England begins. This enables, in the positive sense to Stormy's earlier point. Industrialization and the great titans of English industry, English metallurgy, textiles, pottery and engineering, they all begin to spring up factories all over the country that are employing workers. And this is forming a positive feedback loop for a vast colonial empire in the 18th century, which is subsequent. If you look at a map, London is geographically situated on waterways, which is extremely convenient for international trade. And internally within England, the water system that's there. London also surpasses Amsterdam at this point as the hub of commerce and finance. And so what happens to these joint stocks, banks? They are beginning to be reduced over time. And when I say reduced, I'm just going to like fast forward ahead to the modern example. In 1899, there are 106 joint stock banks by 1918, after World War I, there are 34. And by the mid-1960s, there are just five. Five great banking houses. These are Barclays Midland, Lloyds, Westminster and National Provincial. How big are they? In the 1960s, they are 75% of the liquid reserves and means of payment of the economy in Great Britain. How do they operate? This will transition us into City of London. The five banks have multiple global affiliates. They were in the British Overseas Bankers Association. They are all headquartered in London. This is what makes the City of London an extremely powerful tool of the globalists. Prior to the 1960s, as a counter example, United States banking was mostly investing again in itself. While the British banking system throughout the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, it's better adapted to international trade and foreign operations. So we can then pivot into the history of the City of London itself.

[Stormy]

Well, so the funny enough Francisco Lopez Soualza, right, the funder of the Glorious Revolution, who gave William. Here's a direct. Here's an interesting quote. The Sephardi population of London was little over 500 families at the time, because they sought that under William, London would be transformed into a city where Sephardi Jews would feel as secure and as home as they had long felt in Amsterdam. It would even seem that William's expedition to England at the head of his Dutch army and the ouster of the stewards was largely financed by Lopez and other Sephardi Jews, one of whom mentioned Lopez Francisco Lopez Soua of the Hague is believed to have advanced the Prince of Orange an enormous loan to this end to 2 million crowns at no interest with no guarantees. Then it goes on to cite Roth, Cats and Edelman. Those are three separate authors. And the Jews of England, which is another book, page 2829 if anyone's interested. Nevertheless, proposals were still being brought forward and acted on that placed burdens and restrictions on the Jews alone. And at the end of 1689 for instance, the House of Commons passed a revolution. A resolution tax basically goes on to talk about how they, they continued to tax them till 1691, which was until, you know, William of Orange got around to pulling every last bit of, you can call it, hindrance that was placed on Jews to keep them out of England. So by the end of 1691 it goes on further still the. The end of this. There's like two more sentences I think are really interesting. With the passage of time, more and more Jews, especially the wealthier native born Sephardim, were participating in English social life with no obstacle. As Cecil Roth puts in a 1952 book, Acquiring Property, sometimes intermarrying with gentile women, attending theater. And as early as 1723, for instance, Jews had come to hold the highest offices in Masonic lodges. That's weird. And so these, these families of these 500 families, the Hague, a couple families, some names you might know.

[Pete]

Right.

[Stormy]

Were really pivotal in setting up the. The City of London. But before I get distracted about the 13 dragons, Pete, remember a while back when you sent me the stock, the original stockholders of the bank of England, the stock purchasers list,

[Pete]

it was a while ago. Yeah. Yep.

[Stormy]

A Solomon Lopez Suaza was one of them. He was the largest holder I believe at the time. He probably, I mean those shares have probably moved about. But there's like 200 people participated of varying degrees in the bank of England's initial stock offering. I did the math. Over 80% were Sephardim Jews. That's who owns the bank of England. This is who set up the City of London to try and pretend it's anything besides this is retarded. And the 13 families, the 13 biggest families, the City of London. And we can just look up the 13 dragons of the City of London. They all have interesting little statues. Literally they have Demon statues on every corner of every street in the City of London. Dragon statues.

[Pete]

Oh, yeah, I've looked those up before. It's wild.

[Stormy]

Yeah, I'm reading. Yeah. That mark the boundaries of the City of London. Right. So at the corner of every street where the street intersects with actual London. Right. Because City of London has its own laws, issues its own passports. And I mean, the King of England has to get written invitation from the City of London to come to the City of London. He's not invited.

[Pete]

Sorry.

[Stormy]

14, not 16. My bad.

[Philosopher]

But Stormy. It's all quirky English tradition. It's just all so silly. It's those damn Brits.

[Pete]

Those damn Brits.

[Philosopher]

Man, oh man, I want to like.

[Pete]

It's that old. It's that old European nobility stem bricks.

[Stormy]

Francisco Lopa Lopez Suaza.

[Philosopher]

And for all the. For all the complexity of this system, it's. Okay, let me back up. There are finance centers all over the world. New York is one. Amsterdam is one. Tokyo is one. These are not legally the same status as London. Everyone knows that London is the global financial capital on the planet. Planet, period. But what enables it to be the case is the legal designation of the City of London. And it is far more than the marketing terms of, oh, it's just some quirky thing. It is physically a square mile of London that has not materially changed since the Norman Conquest. It is a. It's also not a city. It's a corporation, like a capital C corporation. And that is understood in law as a legal entity which is separate from the individuals which comprise it. It has a corporate spirit and a corporate reputation that is distinct from its individual members. So in layman's terms, any person who is a member of this is legally protected through its complexities. The mayor of London, it's not a municipal position, it's the mayor and the commonality. And the citizens of the City of London, they are members of said corporation. And like a brief aside, the like Prime Minister of Canada is one of these sorts of people. And the. I think. What was it? The current mayor of the City of London is an American. There's this very incestuous. I mean, Carol Quigley writes about this and I believe up until the 1960s, Carol Quigley is completely accurate. It's a little strange to have a direct analog to today. But when he's talking about the Anglo American establishment, these are the Anglos in the Anglo side of that. It is not the wasp American Anglo population.

[Stormy]

That should put the American Revolution into context.

[Philosopher]

Exactly. Which was ultimately the more I read in this banking books about it because I've actually been fortunate enough to get the original primary source books from the City of London. I actually was able to find one that was signed by a US ambassador that was attending one of these guild dinners there. Wild story. But the where was I within this American Revolution? Everyone knows about the Stamp act and people look at it and say oh it's just a couple interest increases over a small period of time. What's the big deal with stamps and tea? Well what is not publicly known is that in the decade or two prior to the 1765 Stamp act the Bank of England is basically just punishing and punishing and punishing the American markets. Kind of like the Friedrich List sense of political economy where it's you, you just taxes and extract as much wealth from the colonies as possible to benefit the the home system as it were. And then let's see.

[Stormy]

Yeah, here's an interesting quote you can find right on Wikipedia. There's some English history of English revolutions, right? It's like third paragraph down in 1290, King Edward I of England, he's that meanie that they depicted in, in what you call it, Braveheart. That mean, mean man that was mean to Mel Gibson. Also the guy that threw out all of the Jews funny enough had issued an edict expelling all the Jews from England. However, the English Reformation which started in the 1530s, they seemed to leave out poor Mr. Poor Mr. Cromwell like 40 years later. But anyways that brought a number of changes. The English Reformation which started a number of changes that benefited the Jews long term doctrines and rituals of the Roman Catholic Church that insulted Jews were eliminated. Especially those that emphasized their role as the killers of Christ. Deicide further anti Catholicism and with the Pope as Antichrist came to replace anti Semitism. During the period of the revolution and in the period of the English Civil wars interregnum was marked by both widespread millennial beliefs and the beginning of religious or religious tolerance throughout England. Significantly, millenniarianism in England often had a strong Hebraist character that emphasized the study of Hebrew and Judaism. This was sometimes extended by certain individuals to claim that the English are the descendants of the ten lost tribes of Israel. With Cromwell himself numbering amongst the supporters of this idea. Oh wow, what a crazy, crazy thing to say. Wait, so we're going to replace those doctrines that insulted the Jews? Those were eliminated and especially those that emphasize their role as the killers of God, Jesus Christ and further replacing the anti Semitism with anti Catholicism. And instead of the Jews as antichrist that naughty Pope is Antichrist. Now that's interesting.

[Philosopher]

So the next two sources I got for you, these are the originals from the city of London. The first is a 1960s book, Guilds of the City of London. Second is the Guild of Freemen of the City of London. That's the one signed by the ambassador. So this is all straight from the horse's mouth, tying that into sort of the Semitic question, if you will. The free men of the city of London, they have the right to trade. They're admitted to the franchise. They have a freedom from tolls all throughout England and a freedom from custom. In London, that privilege is 1200 years old. So taking it back to the very beginning, Alfred the Great, the one who was against usury in Mercia, he re establishes this entity in his reign, the City of London. But then, separately, William the Conqueror, who's backed by the Italians, if you will, the Jews, they explicitly confirm legal, distinct rights to the city. That is when the policy is established that the king must recognize the city's special status in order to enter it. So are you really a king if you have to ask permission to enter your own capital at the same time, with this city of London having special status? Because at this time, very early on, it's more like a walled fortress than a distinct city in the classic sense. Westminster and other fortresses are built around it physically to try and compete with it, but they are unable to. In the 1190s, a distinction is already apparent between the citizens of London and people that just live in London. Within the city, there are something called liverly guilds of London. These are usually known as the city companies, essentially, like throughout the history. So, okay, early Middle Ages, there's a Black Death. Part of that is what led and transitioned us from feudalism to, like, the joint stock company, because there are fewer skilled traps like tradesmen and craftsmen. So they begin to conglomerate and centralize in the cities and form guilds to protect themselves, because they have a very specialized amount of knowledge. That's essentially like the cultural origin point of these corporations a couple hundred years before they were to become the capital C corporation. But that has a social effect within the city of London. So they start creating rules in order to systematize their society and to distinguish their guildsmen from commoners. In the Middle Ages, this was men wearing their guild colors with emblems denoting rank. What that is, functionally, it's a straightforward way of saying, if you fuck with me in business or in life, a whole bunch of people are going to have My back and ruin your life. That's what the function of a guild is. I mean, the mafia structure is very similar in general, Any of these guild systems are like this.

[Stormy]

But continuing on, by the way, they have diplomatic immunity.

[Philosopher]

Oh, yeah. I don't know if they have their own passport. They probably have their own passports.

[Stormy]

The bank of International Settlements has their own passport, bro.

[Pete]

I'm sure that.

[Philosopher]

There you go. There is also a direct lineage between these early guild. This is all City of London primary source stuff. There is a delineage between the early guilds in what was to become the Grand Lodge of Freemasons that was formally established in 1717. But the hall of Merchant Tailors, which is physically the oldest building in existence at the time, was their hosting spot. Between 1331 and 1940, this building, prior to World War II and its destruction, hosted the Grand Lodge of Freemasons. And there's also crossover where when the Knights Templar was kind of destroyed, they sort of generally went to Amsterdam and London. As I understand it, these guilds and these systems within the City of London, they began to gain power and wealth throughout the Middle Ages. They're forming complete monopolies and they're preventing all competition from outsiders early on. So prior to the adoption of the Anglo Dutch standard, where they would bring in people from Amsterdam, Holland, Italy, whenever these guys would try to show up and do business in the City of London, the English City of London guilds would physically remove these foreigners. Initially, as they're starting out and gaining power and privileges, they're appealing to the mayor's court, who is in charge of their Capital C Corporation, which is the original source of their authority. But why would you appeal to the Mayor of London, the City of London, when you can appeal just to the Crown itself? So having the advantage of having the backing of the Crown for your Royal Charter, it gives you significantly more powerful legal jurisdiction and authority over your trades. And it also gives you complete, eternal autonomy. Like I said earlier, you are a City of London. You are legally protected from a lot of different tax laws, business practices. And now with the Royal Charter, you are. There's. There's no way in which another guild system from another city can possibly compete with you. And so you might think that having a Royal Charter as a private citizen and a private corporation, that makes you as powerful as a nobleman. Well, you're completely correct. And the distinction between nobleman and City of London citizen is very, very blurry. We start getting into the royal involvement here. The earliest royal charter for the Weaver's Guild predates the Magna Carta. It was in 1130 and it constituted a lordship endorsement of their trade as weavers. So each guild is sort of tied to a specific industry and the money trading on that industry. By 1500 A.D. 25 guilds had corporate rights and powers of jurisdiction. The Crown and Tudor times and after began to regard the city companies which could reliably produce funds for every emergency that might befall them. So when Charles I and Charles II are pulling massive amounts of money over the out of the goldsmiths and the Royal Mint, this is their predecessor to it. This is their fund in which they basically become debtors to the City of London. So there's an interesting little cultural phenomenon. There's the Lord Merritt's show. This is the only public appearance of the City of London. They actually still do this each year. They have a little parade where they all put on their guild colors and they formally welcome in the mayor. Usually that has its traditions. After the king would win a foreign war or coronation which would be completely sponsored by the City of London all the way back through English history. Edward I was welcomed to the City of London after the Scottish campaign as well as Richard II and Henry V. So okay, what is. How can I prove that the City of London owned him? Well, when Henry V's French Queen in 1420 commented during this parade about the extravagant cost of it, the head of the Guild of Mercers, which is the most powerful guild in the City of London, said, quote, I have something still costlier. And he threw from his hand £60,000 of royal bonds into the fire in front of her and King Henry V. That is the equivalent of 61 million pounds sterling or 83 million US dollars today. That's how much money and power the City of London had even at that time funding. What does the City of London do in the mercantilist age in the early modern age? Well, the plantation of Ulster in Ireland and the plantation of Virginia was founded through the Virginia Company of London. So these are massive investments. That joint stock, that guild system is paying for the colonialism of the crown. Ostensibly. The City of London also has had its own military and its naval forces at the time of the Spanish Armada in 1588, the City of London itself furnished 30 ships with 10 belonging to the Merchant adventurers of London. So the defeat of the Spanish Armada at that time was primarily due also to the City of London directly. So fast forwarding a little bit in 1947, so that's when I have the source book from There were between 70 to 80 companies or livery guilds guilds. And at one time in English history, the liverymen were entitled to parliamentary votes. Since Edward iii, many of the monarchs in England have been members of these guilds, specifically the Mercer's Guild, the Magna Carta itself. The negotiation with the King was negotiated by the mercers. And as a small side fact, the first recorded death by a handgun was Robert Pakington in 1536, a Mercer guild member. To very briefly touch on it, this is where I'll cut off here. How can one join the City of London? There are three ways. You can't really buy your way in per se traditionally, but it's patrimony, it's father to son, it is service to an apprentice within the guild, or it is quote, redemption that is buying away your sin and buying yourself into this system. That's all the information I was able to glean from the City of London sources here.

[Stormy]

Let me. Let's talk about what the city is up to now.

[Philosopher]

Sure.

[Stormy]

Because when people we talk about oh, who's doing this? Is it the cartels? Oh, what's going on over here? Is it the sex traffickers? Is it the this or is it the that? All these varying criminal networks all over the world. Let's. This is from a. This is an excerpt from an article cited in actually funny enough, the Guardian. Right. It's you find this in just type in the City of London space unz. The very first thing that'll pop up is a very lengthy, very informative article that I urge everyone that is listening to this episode to do as the very next thing that you do. It's long, so if it's late, save it for tomorrow, but read it. Probably the best thing on UN's report and that's saying a lot. At the same time as the government's anti fraud Minister resigned because the Jews in the City of London had once again killed legislation to combat economic crime by the city, saying that nobody in the UK government cared about stopping kleptocrats, oligarchs and organized crime lords stashing their money in the uk. And another article goes on to tell us how the City remains a safe haven for the world's dirty cash. Here's another interesting article from the Guardian with a five step guide telling you how the Jews in the City can help you get away with stealing millions. There's no KYC or aml, right. So know your customer. Anti money laundering stuff that happens inside the City of London. Yes, UK has got very rigorous KYC AML laws and KYC AML checks and all these things, none of that exists in that one square mile. And any of the banks that do business in that one square mile it's a one indication is of the UK's official UK company registered list that is littered with fake names because no identity checks are required in the City of London at all. One corporation is registered for example in the name of Holy Jesus Christ with his stated occupation as creator, his nationality as angelic and his country of residence as heaven. Another is in the name of Adolf Tooth Fairy Hitler with the city salesperm in the name of Donald Duck.

[Pete]

Right.

[Stormy]

So there is a firm that operates out of the City of London in the name of Donald Duck and so on and so forth. The UK government claims it hasn't the resources to police the corporate registry. But the truth is that they permit it to continue because it serves its purpose. Because it serves the gangsters controlling the legislation. An article in the Eurasia Review called the City of London a paradise for parasites or the best. This is the the title is A parasite's paradise or the best criminal sanctuary money can buy. London has become the center of global finance capital by engaging in long term large scale active collaborations with multi billion pound drug, arms and sex slave and people smuggling cartels. The Jews in the city specialize in laundering funds for the Mexican, Colombian, Peruvian, Russian, Polish, Czech and even Nigerian narco cartels. White slavers. This is in the article you raise your review. Thank you for calling out white. The white slave trade. White slavers have their private bankers at prestigious city banks. Lifelong multi trillion dollar tax evaders fleeing from the nations they pillage. And it continues on that the city boys welcome every gangster and oligarch. The London. Sorry. The London sanctuary for the world's richest plunderers offers unprecedented services especially protection from extradition and protection from criminal prosecution in the nations that they commit the crimes in. So City of London will also hide you expensive place to live is one square mile. But you can also live inside any bank owned properties outside because again this is the beauty of a corporation. And this gets into the concept of something that Pete and I talked about a while back. I believe the episode is when there is no justice about a concept called corporate citizenship and the lovely loopholes to evade all types of prosecution. And how anybody inside these corporations can commit crime and aid and abet others penalty free if they're acting on behalf of the corporation. Like oh, how do you slap the handcuffs on a corporation? Well you don't because it doesn't have hands. Well how do you throw a corporation in prison? Oh, well, you can't. You can't. Well, let's throw all the officers in prison. All the officers? The CEO. Well, the CEO is just an employee. He's doing what he's told by the board of directors. Well, let's throw the board of directors in prison. Oh, they're just appointed delegates. Kind of like a lawyer is your appointed representative of the shareholders. Well, who are the shareholders? I don't know. There's one share over here owned by some Taiwanese hedge fund. There's a couple million shares in this Hong Kong entity. There's this. There's this over here. There's some over. You get the point. And what happens in a bond issuance? I want to talk briefly about bonds because everybody thinks that. Oh, no, New York City, Wall street is the financial capital of the world. No, it is not. It is the equities capital of the world. It is the stock trading capital of the world. What is the bond market? Well, the bond market is the debt market. It's the IOU market. Well, how big is the stock market? Well, let's just say, I don't know, 30 trillion or 5 trillion or 50 trillion. Doesn't matter, because the bond market on any given day is about 10 times the size of the stock market. Well, where are all the bonds? Well, the bond capital of the world is London. So, yeah, stocks are worth money. And loans are also worth money. Right. If Pete gives a loan to Philo for $100 at 10%, I am. You know, if I buy that loan, I pay Pete $100 and another 10% for the vig. Astral and Thomas are going nuts in the group chat, and I forgot to silence my phone because I'm an. There we go. That. That loan is worth money. Right? So having a bunch of loans is like having a bunch of money. You can sell those loans to people that want to buy them. Hey, I'll. I'll buy that for a hundred dollars, and then Philos can pay me the vig instead of you, Pete. Well, you're getting 10% from philos. How about I give you a hundred dollars plus three years of interest? So 130 bucks, and you could have 130 bucks now, rather than waiting three years for Philo to give you that 10% each year, say, okay, this is. It has a value. It's tradable. But unlike stocks, where I can go to a company and I can get a list of every single person that owns a share in that company because they have to Have a list, because each one of those shareholders gets a vote, right? Corporations are incredibly democratic institutions. Probably the only place democracy works, because everyone has the same vested interests. I'm not going to vote for some fucking Indian asshole to be the CEO, because if I vote an Indian asshole to being the CEO, the company's going to tank and then my stock that I own is going to be worthless. So everybody has each other's best interest at heart because everyone has the same interest. So there's lists of all the people that get to vote. There is no list of who has lent money to the company. There is no bond regulator. It's funny enough, bonds are largely out of the purview of the sec. So not only is there really no list of who owns what bonds, there's really no regulators to enforce any rules that for, for every hundreds of pages of security law, for every 100 pages of security law, which there are thousands, there's maybe about five pages of laws about bonds. It's almost like bonds are, you know, an afterthought in people's heads, right? To legislators, they practically don't exist. They are 10 times the stock market. Companies can issue bonds at any moment in time. That's the benefit of being a publicly traded company. You don't need to go to the bank and say, I want to borrow some money. You could literally go to the entire market and say, who wants to lend me money? You're not, you're not under any obligation to tell the world who decided to take you up on your offer of lending you money. You just have to tell your shareholders how much interest you have to pay. And if you're going to be able to make those payments, that's it. So there's really no way of finding out who owns what. And a bond holder is basically a shareholder in certain cases of bonds, right? So like a convertible note. A convertible note is largely used in venture capital for early stage companies because they haven't really set a share price yet. No, they could. An Indian founder can tell me that one share of his, you know, shitty tech company that's not going to work is worth a million dollars. But has anybody paid him a million dollars for a share yet? No. So it has, it hasn't been priced. So since the shares have no price, I'm just going to give him a loan at a set interest rate, let's say 13%, which is about average. And at any given time I can say, hey, give me my 13% back plus my principal, and he has to do it let's say after a period of two years, I can call that note whenever I want to, or whenever I want to, I can have. So let's say a million dollars plus 230,000 roughly. So 13% interest of two years. I could say, all right, asshole, Well, I actually don't want my money this time. I want $1,230,000 worth of shares, and you have to give them to me. I have converted my convertible note. So that means that that founder, that CEO, whether it's an Indian startup that's worthless or a big company, you have to treat me like a shareholder because at any given time I could be one. I could just decide, well, I'm going to convert and I own shares now, not debt. So you have to treat me like a shareholder because I could be one whenever I want to be. So that means if I say, hey, company, maybe you should think about doing X, Y and Z, you have to treat that like it's a shareholder, because if you don't do that and you keep fucking up, that guy will convert his share, his debt into shares. And the very first thing he's going to do is he's going to vote you out of a job. And the guy that he votes in the job will do X, Y and Z, because you didn't. So you have a large amount in these. Convertible notes aren't a big thing in public market companies, but they very much are in private companies. And they used to be a big thing in all companies back in the Seventeens and 1800s. And I'm working my way right now to the thing I wanted to talk about when I started on this bonds thing, and that is the British East India Company. Well, guys like Isaac Newton lost his ass when. Oh, by the way, this Suaza fella that I mentioned that financed the Orange Revolution and overthrew Catholicism in England, not only was he the founder, right, this, the guy that started the Dutch East India Company, he was also the creator of the Dutch stock exchange, the very first stock exchange that Philo mentioned. So remember when I said, like, you don't blow up, you don't like demo your house when you're inside of it, but you know it's going to fall down. So you get all the, all your valuables out of the house and then you demo it. You're not going to demo it with all your still in there. That would be. So once he got all his out and William of Orange got him a new place to put it in England, he demoed the stock Exchange, Stock exchange collapsed. Everybody lost everything. The Dutch East India company collapsed. Everybody lost everything. If they owned shares. But the interesting thing in bonds, right? Just like a mortgage. Pete, what happens if you default on a mortgage? Who gets the house, physical asset?

[Pete]

The bank does well, but the county.

[Stormy]

The county gets it.

[Pete]

If it defaults, it usually goes to the county court, the county courthouse, and goes to the is auctioned off on the steps of it.

[Stormy]

But normally it's because the bank isn't going to come down and put a for sale sign and show the listings itself, is it? No, it's going to give it to the county. Like, you take care of this.

[Pete]

Mm.

[Stormy]

Okay. So when a company goes out of business, just like with a mortgage, if you, the person go out of business and you lose your house and you can't pay your bills anymore, right. Your house is going to be sold to pay off your debts. Let's say you're a shareholder of Microsoft and Microsoft goes bankrupt and they auction off all of its assets, you're not getting a red cent of that.

[Pete]

None.

[Stormy]

The bond holders, they get paid out from the assets. So when a company goes bust, the bondholders get the assets, not you, the shareholder. Right. So bondholders always get taken care of. Now, whether the company is a success, right. Or the company is a disaster,

[Phil Gibson]

the

[Stormy]

bondholders are always taken care of. And they are sacrificing, you know, big 20, 80, 50, 100% returns. Like a stockholder would like the speculative value for a stock, steady rate of return. Like, I don't care if your stock goes up. I don't care if your stock goes down. You're going to give me 6% every single year, or I'm going to call my bonds and then make you basically give me all of the money at once, which you're not going to do. And then you're going to basically go out of business. And I'm going to basically get my money out of you by auctioning off all your while you look for another job, Right? He gets that security because he's making a calculated decision. Like I, I would rather know that I'm making 9% and who cares how much I could have made? Doesn't matter. I would rather make 9% guaranteed than 100% maybe. And that's a type of risk profile that bankers need. Bankers need to know that you are going to give them a certain amount of money. They don't care if they could get more, even if they could get hundreds of times more. That's a risk. Bankers don't Like Risk. So this guy, Mr. Suuowza, was also the guy that started the British East India Company. And when the British East India Company went bankrupt, what happened to its assets? Well, what assets did it have? Boats, you know, cannons. Islands. The British East India Company had islands. Why is the. Why is the uk? Why is the. Why is New Zealand or Australia a Commonwealth country that has roughly the same laws and tax system as the uk but then there are these other things called protectorates, like the British Virgin Islands or like Hong Kong was until like 10 years ago. Right, where there was no tax, no banking law whatsoever, no regulation whatsoever. Literally a black box. The Cayman Islands, all these interesting little islands. What's that other one next to Madagascar? The Maldives one by Africa? Anyways, the islands, the islands are called the British Virgin Islands or the British XYZ Island. They get British protection, the Brits have to protect them, but they get to basically do whatever the fuck they want. And it's funny that the thing that every single one of these islands got into, these protectorates, got into the banking business. Every single one of them. More US Treasuries are funneled through the British Virgin Islands than the European Central Bank. Just go to any treasury auction and it'll tell you what nations are buying. The BVI will be in the top 5 top 10 every time. Hundreds of billions of dollars. So hundreds of billions of dollars. Every treasury auction is just moving into this black bot country. Country or sorry, this black box island with 100,000 people on it. What did every single one of them decide to buy a billion dollars worth of treasury bonds that day? There's not a who on that island needs hundreds of billions of Treasuries every other month. I don't know. They're not running through England. Like as in, like London? Yeah, the bank of England's treasury purchases go to the bank of England in London, the European Central Bank. Well, those, those get sent to Brussels. Right, so it's not Britain buying hundreds of billions of dollars in Treasuries, is it? No, it's not. And Pete, like, you know when I talk about like the offshore dollar market, that is like, exists outside of any regulation.

[Pete]

Yes.

[Stormy]

This is what I'm talking about. It exists here. It exists on the, in these islands, in these tax havens. Hundreds of billions of dollars and tens of trillions in assets, like you. It's not like bribe a couple politicians, it's buy a country, buy a couple. Right. Conservatively, I don't know, 40 trillion in assets, maybe more. 60 trillion in insane amounts of money, but also insane amount of debt because they borrow on all of it. They're basically buying it with leverage money.

[Pete]

We lose.

[Stormy]

Stormy, no, I should be here.

[Philosopher]

I'm here.

[Pete]

Okay, cool.

[Stormy]

Yeah. Anyways, this is where the offshore dollar market exists. Everyone's like, oh, well, how does this exist outside of regulators and all? What do you mean? We don't know how much it is. This is the shadow banking network. This is it, right? It's the City of London, the bank of International Settlements, if you notice, sovereignty in these little banking clusters that exist in a country so like England, Britain is a sovereign country, but the City of London, this little tiny island, is also sovereign. The bank of International Settlements exists in Switzerland, which, I mean, don't get me wrong, it's got really liberal banking laws up until the US put the screws to them. You could get away with bloody murder in Switzerland. You could set up. You could open up a bank account and instead of using a name, you could just have a number like you. That bank had no records of you except for a number you'd be. If you lost your password. But anyways, so why would I need to set up a tinier little island that is sovereign, issues its own passports, diplomatic immunity, all that fun inside a nation like Switzerland? I can already get away with whatever I want here. So you see these little tiny tax haven islands that are self saving, sovereign all over the place, and the only thing that they have in common is hundreds of billions of dollars moves through them every day. Who is that money going to? Nobody knows. What is it being used for? Nobody knows. This exists as a sovereign nation. It's a decentralized superpower.

[Philosopher]

I should add that the City of London no longer. I mean, at one point it had a monopoly on this sort of tactics generally hundreds of years ago. But they've kind of let everyone into the club, or at least into their tactics, as I understand it, because they're kind of this conduit that can sit on top and skim money off. As a sidebar, the Trump administration changed a lot of its foreign trade organ, like foreign terrorist organizations, to be transnational criminal organizations. So just to like, very briefly tied into current events, Hezbollah, for example, and also stuff with Venezuela. A lot of the sanctions and stuff that were being put on were going through the Treasury Department because essentially they found out that Hezbollah, for example, was laundering hundreds of millions of dollars through this global illicit economy. And when they say illicit economy, it's. When I was looking at the stats back in 2019, it was something like $2 trillion of wealth was circulating in this sort of city of London sort of pipeline. I mean, and it's just. That's just a rough estimate. No one has really any idea how much money is circulating. Because when these things will tie in, for example, like when. And I only really know Hezbollah as a specific example of this.

[Pete]

Yeah.

[Stormy]

Because the Israelis are willing to like, blow the whistle on it. You also get the cartels, right? So basically this is how intelligence agencies also move their money around.

[Philosopher]

But they would do stuff like the UNESCO building in Beirut. The fifth floor of it had something like 10,000 shell companies registered to that floor in a building, bro, I can show.

[Stormy]

I can. I can point you towards literally strip malls in Delaware that have hundreds of thousands of cor. Large corporations h. In a building.

[Philosopher]

I should, I should remind everyone I have.

[Stormy]

I have two Delaware registered c. Corporations. I've never been to Delaware, ever. I drove through Delaware once.

[Pete]

Right.

[Stormy]

But there is a. There is a business, right? So there is a. It's called trustees, right? So I call a trustee and say, hey, set me up a Delaware company. I don't have an office in Delaware except for a post box that this guy gets the mail from and sends to me. I don't ever have to go check this post box. He does the filing. And he is my registered agent. Registered agent businesses are, you know, an actual. It's like a profession, like a barber, right? I have this registered agents in the Cayman Islands. They will help you set up a company. They will register it and they. Because you have to have one officer, right, that is from the place or exists in the place. All right? So he takes all of your mail that comes to your Cayman island post office box or this, you know, mailbox room the size of, you know, a big restaurant full of thousands of little mailboxes and whatever, whatever mail and official communications, like taxes or whatever you're trying to dodge, go there. He forwards that mail to you. You can register a company, you can create a corporation in dozens of dozens of countries or any state in the entire 50 states. Wyoming is really good. I'll probably, you know, if Delaware gets sketchy, I'll, you know, re register my entities in either Wyoming or South Dakota. South Dakota has the best trust laws in the world. They have a trust team. The US Is rivals. These entities that I'm talking about for money laundering abilities, right? So we're talking about like British Virgin Islands, places like that.

[Philosopher]

Well, Dublin, Ireland as well. There's a lot of these.

[Pete]

There you go.

[Stormy]

Well, South Dakota beats everybody the governor of South Dakota sends out a trust team every year and they go to all of these countries and find out what new rules and laws that they are putting into place to protect these anonymous buckets of money and whatever the best one is, he then goes and enacts those rules through the financial regulator of South Dakota that year. So no matter what year it is, you can guarantee that South Dakota has the most robust trust protection. I mean, the federal government could come after me and basically nail me to a wall. And if all my assets are in a South Dakota trust, you're not getting them. Not only are you not getting them, but you're not even allowed to know that they exist. You have to invade South Dakota and put it under martial law to find out. So how bad do you want to know? You know what's in Stormy Water? South Dakota trust. The US is the king of the money laundering business.

[Pete]

Here.

[Stormy]

I'll give you an example. And this is, this is all you need to know about it. We're the roach motel of money. So let's say, Philo, you're a Hong Kong citizen. You're not Philo, you're Chilo, right? Or Chinglo. And you and I are good friends and you find out I'm getting married and you want to give me a wedding gift of $100 million. Chilo is a good friend. It's my favorite Hong Kong Chinese person. So this is not a surprise to me. I'm going to fill out a one time foreign gift, right report for the IRS. I'm going to tell them I just got $100 million for free. How much tax am I paying on that? The answer is $0. I can get as much money from any individual in the world as a gift as long as I report it. If it's over a hundred thousand dollars, if it was less, if he was going to give me $99,000 wedding gift, he is less of a good friend, obviously. But I don't have to report it. And if it's over 100,000 and I fail to report it. The penalty for failing to report is the full tax, the maximum tax bracket. So it would be like 40% of whatever the amount is, is the penalty. So the US will let you bring money from anywhere in the world and as much of it as you want into the country. But if you try and take even a red cent out of the country without giving Uncle Sam his slice, he will chase you to the ends of the earth. Ask Roger versus. So that gives the U.S. tremendous power. We are a safe haven for capital as these other nations break down. Just being the place where rich people keep their money is power. So now, how much power does these little network of tax haven islands that were once the British East India Company have? A lot. Again, like, you have to look at these little chains of tax havens as a decentralized superpower, because they are. They don't need armies. They can finance somebody else's armies to go do war for them. Ask Russia. They're not enjoying this aspect right this minute. Well, now they're enjoying it a lot more because they're plowing through Ukraine. This is how it's done. And this is why you'll find Hezbollah moving money through tax havens. This is why you'll find Mossad and Amen moving money through these tax havens. Now, if moving money for rich people gives you power, what is moving money for? Intelligence agencies give you a lot of power. They're like. I mean, Spangler is right. Like in our age, unfortunately, it's quickly coming to an end, thank God. But money, power, rules. And these people, these lovely Sephardim and not, you know, Englishmen, have been ruling at it for a very long time.

[Philosopher]

I mean, this. This bears, like, a final question, which is, sure, if it is so powerful, if it circulates so much money, I

[Stormy]

mean, how to business, buddy.

[Philosopher]

It's going well. It's. My. My question is really, how is it all going in the toilet so quickly?

[Stormy]

Leverage. What? Leverage. Giveth on the way up, takes away twice as fast, right? So imagine if you had all these loans out, right? Remember bonds? It's like a game of poker, right? If the three of us are relatively the same skill level, right? And new players come into the pot in a short amount of time, their capital will be evenly distributed amongst us three. And if Pete's better, he will have a disproportionate amount. They say he's 20% better. He'll have 20% more than you and I, right? But on a long enough timeline, that money that that new guy put trickles into us and out of his pocket, right? By osmosis, each hand a little more, a little more. I'm giving some to Pete and taking some back. I'm giving some to you, taking some back, right? This guy is losing and losing and losing. Sometimes he wins. Doesn't matter, right? It's it. It's the timeline that money trickles down into our pockets. All right, so this is what. This is what the Federal Reserve and the. You basically the US Government libertarians Federal Reserve doesn't print money, right? Ending the Fed will do nothing, you stupid. Just read the Fed's charter. They will tell you they can only monetize the debt that Congress tells them to do. So whenever Congress passes a budget, they go to the Fed and say, here is our budget. Make this amount of money happen, happen. And the Fed is legally obligated again. So much of our politics is just misdirection, right? It's like teaching people to protest. Like that gets changed. You're sending people in directions where you know that they can make no change because they're in the wrong direction. You can't stop money printing by ending the Fed. You have to stop money printing in Congress. The Fed is forced to, by law, to print every dollar that Congress tells it to. They don't just get to decide anyways. Fed prints tons and tons of money. Europe prints tons and tons of money. England prints tons and tons of money, right? That money will flow down and into these. Look them, look at them like estuaries, right? It's the, it's the flow of money that matters, right? Sitting on a bunch of money in a bank account doesn't actually do anything, right? It's the movement of money where you make money either flowing in or flowing out, flowing into new investments, flowing back in returns. So these banks, these institutions, these entities are constantly, as soon as money comes in the door, they are lending it out the door like money. The farmers chose growing crops, the miners chose, you know, generating coal or copper. The Jews were in the money growing business. Like that was the commodity in which they traded. So it's not like the money hoarding business, it's the money trading business. So money comes in, you lend it to somebody else because now that guy's paying you interest. So what happens if, let's say the Federal Reserve starts shrinking the amount of money at the table? Well, this is very bad because you have been lending it out the door as fast as it's been coming in. So if the money coming in is drying up, but the amount of loans that you have out is staying the same, then you're about to have a really bad day. Because the money that's flowing to you is also flowing to all of the people that you lent that money to, right? Whether you're a business or a bank. If I nuke 10% of the dollar supply, guess how much revenue that, that business that you lent a bunch of money to is earning. Well, it's earning about 10% less money, 10% less revenue because there's 10% less money in the system. This is why you need mass immigration. This is why you need 2% inflation, right? Why does every central bank say, oh, we have a target to inflation. Wait, so Your goal is 2% inflation a year, compounding. That's the goal. So your goal is to just print 2% more money than you did last year and then that amount 2% more than that the following year. Right? We need. It's not that like, oh, line must line go up. This is good. It's line must go up or everything blows up. Once consumption starts to backwardate, once any of this starts to backwardate at all, all of the leverage in the system implodes because it needs growth. It needs growth to live. It's like a cancer in the most literal sense. If it's not growing, it's catabolically collapsing. Peruvian Bull is a great guy to check out on this, Roberto. He'll talk. He'll tell you all about it. The system cannot afford even the small the slightest backwardation. This is why they're in such a panic, because as the boomers die off, there's no one to backfill the consumption. This is why they're giving every illegal immigrate or legal immigroid. Doesn't matter. He gets a government stimmy debit card because you need the spending to continue. It doesn't matter that you're giving it to a fucking 60 IQ Somalian to waste on Netflix and Doritos. That doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that he's buying something, that the consumption continues, the growth continues. So this is what's killing the system, Philo. It also, the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet. The Fed is shrinking the amount of money in the system. The amount of consumers in the system are shrinking. And this is the real problem, right? They've been inflating and then deflating a little. Inflating and deflating a little. That's not directly killing the system. This last bout through this is what Covid really was. Covid was a grand $10 trillion heist, right? The Fed was shrinking its balance sheet, right? When the Fed raises, when central banks raise the interest rates, the amount of money in the system goes down. So after Covid. So Covid was basically a political weapon. You put a gun to the Federal Reserve chair's head and you say, print me $7 trillion or you're basically politically murdered. $7 trillion goes into the system. That gets used to create more and more loans. It's levered up except for this time, it just went in everybody, every big corporation's pocket. It didn't trickle down because the lockdowns and all the other they needed to sell the con on, right? The, the scenery, the set pieces, well that caused a whole bunch of people to go out of business and a whole bunch of other people just straight up left the economy. So in this last chance to prop it up, they ended up doing damage that they can't undo, right? They, these people, they. It's a very simple system run by people that don't understand complexity and third and fourth order consequences. So even though the action that they're doing should have reciprocal effect and you know, I'm putting a dollar out and a dollar come back in. There's a. Everything checks out. Well no, because like when you gave that guy a dollar, he gave it to somebody else and that guy got hit by a bus. So the dollar you're getting back in looks like a dollar, but you're actually richer a dollar. But you're short a consumer and that consumers, you need him to spend X amount of dollars for the next 30 years or whatever. It's complexity that's killing it. The system got so complex that the usual machinations that they were able to use to keep this thing in check, right? The boom and bust cycle, the consolidation cycle, the accumulation cycle and then the distribution cycle, right? Like imagine it like breathing in and out. Yes, we all get poorer each time, but the amount of consumption stays the same and grows. But each. But these, as the system got more and more complex, you can't pull away and then affect and think that you can re inflate it right back up

[Philosopher]

again when it's so desperate for money coming in from consumers like you have after pay, you have Klarna, you have these unsecured installment loans, you have these instances where you're trying to get, it seems to this shortest possible time cycle of getting money out of the consumer. And the problem when you shorten and shorten and shorten is eventually like one, people just run out of money to put into the system, period. But two, they become so thoroughly an indebted class of people that there is just a. This is where like the left wing sort of things is actually correct. This total disparity between rich and poor. It just gets insane.

[Stormy]

And this actually which rich people actually spend very differently than poor people, right? So this is why they're pumping all of these bodies in these countries thinking that it's a one to one replacement. But the spending is entirely different, right? So rather than spending in the economy, the immigrants are just sending it all away in remittances or other things. Right. They're not spending the same. So the businesses that depended on these, they're not able to survive anymore. Right. It's complexity. Sorry, go ahead.

[Philosopher]

Well, I just think it's to sort of draw a through line through it. It seems as though these financial tools and instruments are perfect for a society that is in the process of industrializing and tying it to, to physical goods returns. Hard reality, when you just put this financial tools and system back in on itself over and over and over, you just have. Yeah, and you get entropy. And it's just this, it's sort of this impossible cycle to escape out of. I wonder.

[Stormy]

Well, they were trying to. This is. Why do you. Does everybody remember central bank digital currencies? Yeah, like they tried that. The bank of International Settlements is still rolling ahead with it. Luckily it's illegal in the US now, but that can change. Like this is their last ditch attempt. Right. Their goal is to put it entirely in the computer and then you can just move it up and move it down. They think that. All right, well, we've tried letting the consumption thing happen organically. So now when we need to, we'll just burn money right in your bank account. Right. They're trying to now control consumption. They tried to control the financial end of it, the fiscal end of it, but it always blows up because they don't have control of the other thing. The other side of it. Central bank digital currencies is for them to try and control consumption and production in both consumption of money and production of money. It's not going to work because these, these nation, these, these institutions are not going to survive long enough for these systems to be rolled out and troubleshot and all that other stuff. Every country that tried to roll out a central bank digital currency ended up having to call it back because everyone was already hit. Everyone's hip to it now like this, the central bank of Europe is like, yeah, we're moving ahead with our central bank digital currency plan. And every citizen of Europe's like, I'm not taking that. Absolutely not. Right. Like this used to work because they controlled all the media and you weren't finding out about a central bank digital currency until one day you were just told all of your dollars are gone. And now you have, you know, these e coupons or like you didn't have a fucking choice. They got to have the drop on you. They had the element of surprise every time. And without the element of surprise. None of this works. I mean how it's like the other trillion gay ops, they've tried to do that. By the time they try and roll out the gay op the Internet has already figured out what the gay up is and told everybody about it. So then they're like oh yeah, just kidding. We were just like that was, that was, that was just a, you know, that was a gag. Our bad. Like oh that was a joke. We didn't really plan on doing that. It's comical now because the system is more complex than these people's brains have the ability to understand. Literally nobody has the brains. The machine's too big.

[Philosopher]

I think the last thing they were able to successfully in quotes pull off was the implementation of the Eurozone.

[Stormy]

Everybody, if you want to hear, if you want to hear how that works and how it's going to come apart, check out my episode with myth of the 20th century. It's all on shadow banking and the offshore dollar market.

[Philosopher]

Yeah, I think that sort of reminds me of 911 where it's just there was not the media and Internet environment present to pick apart and criticize this. And there were still centralized control of media institutions but at this point now, I mean basically they are making moves that are being refuted in real time and also that all of their stupidly still putting out all of their decision making processes and policy papers out in the open too. Like they haven't learned this lesson. From what I can tell.

[Pete]

Guys, I got a wrap.

[Stormy]

Likewise, I've given all I have to give here.

[Pete]

Well I'll leave you with your white pill, Trump. Trump approves another 650 million to Israel. Congress approved it too. That makes 20 billion to Israel in under a year. And that doesn't include the 4 billion they already get.

[Stormy]

So what is that already total

[Pete]

this year the total comes out to 20 billion on top. But that's, that's in. In addition to the 3.8 billion they get for not going to call it

[Stormy]

20, 25 billion and he's got three more years. Four man, that's a 10x. Mary Adelson spent a hundred million for four years. She's getting 100 billion. That's a good trade.

[Pete]

That's some good interest right there.

[Philosopher]

We live in a time where a strong, competent person who has worked all like I don't know, I don't want to go all Caesarist but it's just like the, the critical nature of this time as far as changing course and seizing upon the City of London's Zionists all of their disadvantages. Moving on it sort of charting this national socialist frankly re industrialization style in this country. It's just such a perfect angle that so many people left and right are ready for.

[Stormy]

I just let them break it first. Oh, man, you don't have the power to break it. They have the power to break it.

[Philosopher]

Let them break it and it'll be spectacular. Spectacular to see it.

[Stormy]

They're, they're trying to break the Republican Party to kick out the, the guys like us. Okay, well, Pete and I, we couldn't, we could, we could never be able to break the Republican Party. Please don't throw me in the brier patch. Please.

[Pete]

All right, guys, I appreciate this one and let's do it again real soon.

[Stormy]

All right, man. Everybody have a good night.

[Pete]

Take care, man.

[Philosopher]

Thank you.

[Pete]

Bye. Thank you.