The idea of central control over an entire human race is just bad! - Interview with Nick Hudson in February 2022

11.03.2022 | www.kla.tv/21911

Interviewer: Nick Hudson thank you very much for joining us for the interview. Nick: Pleasure Dan, good to be with you. Interviewer: Okay, so we're all following the COVID news. I think we're a lot of us are focused on Ottawa and things are getting heavy they're they're they're jailing people now arresting people. They're they're stealing money that should have gone to the protesters. They're freezing bank accounts, it seems like the oligarchy is doubling down. Is this like a last gasp of people who have OVERPLAYED THEIR cards? Or is this just It's okay par for the course the oligarchy has everything in control, small hiccup, they're moving right along. Nick: Yeah, it's quite difficult to read. My sense is that they're losing control. And they're losing control of the narrative. There's been a pronounced shift I detect it out in public here in South Africa, and I detect it in the inbound correspondence that Panda receives. I think they know that they've overplayed their hand, I think they know that the vaccine narrative is collapsing. And there is a widespread kind of retrenchment going on, in a very haphazard fashion, it would be more organized and more coordinated, if the, if the if the oligarchy had had the upper hand and control. Interviewer: Speaking of them having control over things, just for fun, I looked up Klaus Schwab's book that he wrote, It was either in 2019, or 20. And it was it was all about the great reset. The top commenter, or the top reviewer had something like this to say, he said, I'm shocked that these guys weren't able to make this thing run smoother, like, Where have they gone wrong? Nick: Well, you're a brave man, because it's an unreadable book. I mean, intellectually shallow, and just full of really bad ideas that, you know, some anybody with the slightest knowledge of history or political science can see immediately what the problems are with those ideas. And it's what struck me and continues to strike me about the entire Davos narrative, is that one gets the impression of a bunch of people who've gotten together for too long, at the same sort of school camp. And they've told each other stories that really are quite fabricated and not connected in any way to the real world. And they're starting to believe those stories. Interviewer: And since they're just constantly reinforcing each other inside this bubble of agreement, a whole new false narrative forms in their own head? Is that what's happening? Nick: Yes, very much. So the document, I think that evidences it even more than Klaus Schwab's terrible book is the global risk report, which is pumped out annually. And I describe it as a list of fabricated crises, to which Davos only permits fabricated global solutions. You know, that, really, and I mean, that, in all seriousness, the problems that are raised, there, are not global problems, there's, there's no, many of them are not even problems. They're their complete and utter fabrications. And so, you know, for me, it's it's quite bizarre that they've spent decades building up this list and getting their CEO membership to fill in a report of some sort every year so that they can modify this report and change the graphics that they use. And to some extent, it's it's comical, you know, they have all these fancy charts, but they're meaningless. They're gobbly gook, you know, there will be like some cloud of ideas with almost conspiracy theory style lines, joining the dots, and there's no rhyme or reason for these dots to be joined only in their crazy minds are these concepts related. And so it has an air for me of completely insane people who've gone and convinced themselves that the world works in an entirely different way from what it really does. And they're disconnected, out of touch and dangerous as a result, because they're quite powerful. Interviewer: Would you say that applies to the whole lot of them (the entirety of them- the whole group) or is there is there a rule what would it so there's no like leadership at the very, very top who kind of knows what's going on? And it's just trying to pull the wool over everybody's eyes including the lower levels of the Davos crowd. Nick: Look, the first time Davos really came to my attention was 2005. And I had connections or inside my network, several people who had attended, attended it. And the thing that struck me was how starstruck they were. They didn't come back talking about ideas and debating the merits of propositions. They came back telling me who they sat with at dinner, Angela Merkel or whatever, you know. So I think there's a lot of members who are just not thinking. They're kind of really there for the hobnobbing and the sort of bragging rights. But, you know, and so maybe for those people, they're just students, and they have, they have not really applied their mind to anything or challenge any of the propositions. And in fact that that lack of challenge to the propositions, I believe, is basically formalized in the whole Davos approach, when they switched from the one program of global leadership development to the other than the one that we live with now, the young, young leaders, what does it Young Global Leader Leaders program? They I believe they stopped looking for intellectually competent people and started looking for compliant people who are not going to challenge Davos dogma. But yeah, it's it's quite special, really. And that even the very notion of Davos, in a way is a is an intellectual error, you know, that this whole notion that they have of, well, we're entering a new era, because there's more information. And therefore we we clever, people are going to be able to centrally manage the whole world, the whole planet, you know, that idea is so desperately immature, because it's not, for lack of information about systems that we battle, managing complexity. It's, it's for lack of explanations about how those systems work. And those... such explanations are very evasive, because of the complexity of these systems. So you can collect as many data points as you want about the human body or about the climate, or about society or culture, the immune system, you know, an epidemic. And that doesn't give you automatically or in any way, explanations for how that system that you're looking at works. And so it's a complete intellectual error of a very basic epistemological nature that leads them to believe that simply collecting data adding to the Internet of Things, big data, will give us the ability to control things with good outcomes. It's a simply bad idea. Interviewer: Well, that's, that's good to hear. That sounds a little optimistic. I mean, so you don't think that this panopticon technocracy is actually even possible on a worldwide basis? Because it seems like it's possible in China, there's that 1.3 billion people there. Nick: It's entirely possible to launch a surveillance state and to implement controls over people, the part I challenge is whether there was... if there is any possibility even of good outcomes emanating from that, no matter how you define the outcomes, by the way, so if you decided that, you know, we want the highest survival rates for 45 year olds and lower survival rates for 85 year olds, you know, you, you'll battle achieving that out of a central system by... you know, this is the problem with the whole utilitarian approach. of trying to sort of manage culture and outcomes in society through a spreadsheet of sorts. It's it's, it's again, a very, very facile, very immature approach to the world. And the Soviet Union didn't fail because they didn't have enough information. They failed because the idea of central control is bad. And it's not less bad, because you've got information. And China is a very immature state in its current form. Its history 4000 year history is replete with examples of centralization followed by collapse, you know, and the collapse is usually followed by growth. Yeah, and so the growth, actually, what happens is the growth becomes too differentiated in the Chinese land mass, the coastal areas do really well, and the hinterland remains poor. And that leads to social instability. And a strong man emerges to shut it down, and centralizes everything and the growth stops, everybody goes poor again, you know, and they start off the same base. That's kind of the pattern, if you like, in a couple of sentences of China's history. And so there's not really anything to write home about (nothing to celebrate, to praise) in terms of this surveillance state of China's being at all successful. It's not this is not a generative country. They don't generate new knowledge in any fashion approaching that to be found in or formally found in western democracies. They largely pilfer that knowledge from the universities of the West, bring it home and implement it, there is not a culture of knowledge creation. And so if we were all to go down that road, the world would simply become static, there would be no new knowledge, no chance to solve problems. And this, this consistent and pronounced improvement in living standards and health and quality of life that has been witnessed in the last two or 300 years, would come to a grinding halt and be replaced, I believe, with a greater inequality, much more misery, and very little progress of any sort. Interviewer: If I can return to the situation in Canada, in Ottawa, I read something from the, let's see, the I think it's the deputy prime minister of Ottawa, and she was announcing what they're doing and what they can do in terms of freezing bank accounts and stuff like that. And she said, we have even managed to capture people's crypto wallets. Nick: Yes. That's very disturbing. And, you know, the important thing to see there is, is that you have there a peaceful protest. The protest is asking for engagement with government. Trudeau refuses, the government refuses, there's no engagement, and they proceed straight from there, they escalate it to this incredible, draconian set of responses, including labeling them as things that they aren't, you know, dangerous right wingers intent on committing violence in the capital and destruction in the capital. And including, as you say, confiscating their possessions and freezing their financial worlds. These are very unconstitutional things I believe, in Canada. I don't think you need to be an expert in the Canadian Charter to see that. And many people are, who are far more versed with Canadian law saying exactly the same thing as as, as I just said, so, you know, this is a very disturbing story. And the other thing that's really noteworthy is the lack of criticism, from leaders and other countries. Interviewer: Right. Well, I was going to ask you this, is the fact that, you know, the COVID narrative is proceeding in different ways, depending on which country you go to, is this proof that the oligarchy isn't as centralized as we think it is? Or are they just reacting differently to different populations? Like why in England have they dropped the mandates, but in Canada, the rest of the Commonwealth really, and other places they double down? So it's like, and when I see when I see Trudeau in the news, I think “Trudeau” with quotation marks, I don't think he's the central planner. Here. He's making the decisions themselves, but just like Biden, but are they making these decisions in Canada In Canada, or is it coming down from somewhere else do you think. Nick: So I think it's dangerous to assume that there is a single model in operation. I don't think it's necessarily the case that we have some kind of spooky Council, you know, an Illuminati, gathering together in a smoke filled room stroking their cats and plotting world domination. You know? I don't I don't think that that's the case. But there is a kind of culture or shared, shared worldview that animates a great many people. And those people, from time to time cooperate, and from time to time, are competitors of each other, jostling for power. So Pfizer and j&j are both interested in vaccinating the whole planet. But they're also interested in taking each other's market share and smearing each other's campaigns and products. And, you know, the the central bankers have one set of interests; the pharmaceutical firms have another set of interests; the tech firms have another set of interests, and they may be aligned in many regards with respect to the Coronavirus crisis, and the Coronavirus narrative, but they will be misaligned in other ways. And then, of course, being human, (they) will be making entirely different intellectual blunders and mistakes along the way as well. So I think it's a bit of the desire to tell a simple story is a very human one. But as you will understand, based on my opening comments, I think the idea of trying to centrally manage the oligarchal problem as a mistake and also to try and describe it using overly simplistic models. That's a mistake. So we do need to understand it better. You know, sitting in South Africa, I can tell you that our own government has admitted that its own attempts to draw back from the Coronavirus narrative have been have met fierce resistance from outside stakeholders. Now, it doesn't tell us who those stakeholders are. And it's important to study the problem and to investigate it and to understand, we can see some of them. So the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donates material funding to every single significant public health institution in the country, to every single academic institution that has a role in the support and crafting of the Coronavirus narrative and policy response. So they clearly are extremely influential. And they're quite transparent about their, at least in their propaganda. It's clear for everybody to see and I think their political agenda shines through. So to with the World Economic Forum, you know, the person who's being touted as the next president of the country, is a board member of the WEF. And when you look, for example, at the noisiest and most pronounced Covidian cult, among our universities, University of Cape Town has no fewer than 800 contributors to the World Economic Forum agenda. And the prolific contributors are all these public health people who've been, you know, rushing around screaming about the need to lock down and test more people and to go bananas with the vaccination of two months olds and whatever, you know, they're they're completely... these people behave in a completely psychotic, almost demonic fashion. And all of those people who are the noisiest are agenda contributors in the WTF. So there's clearly an influence there. But I think behind the scenes, there are influences from these meetings of central bankers. There was a very creepy one in December in Israel, where the central bankers of many countries got together and started discussing the coming financial calamity where they sort of wargame this financial crisis, supposedly caused by a cyber attack. And they all just looked at each other and agreed, well, of course, what we'll have to do is invoke the central bank digital currencies and you know, maybe they should be programmable and linked to a de-anonymized internet so that we can see who everybody is and prevent disnformation. Oh, yeah, we've heard this somewhere before. So it's the so that I think there are a lot of these influential organizations and you'd have to include all of the Geneva organizations, the Bretton Woods organizations. And then some of the more spooky ones are harder to read because they don't say as much as in public. Organizations like the Atlantic Council and the Trilateral Commission. All of these organizations if you really trying to understand the politics of COVID need to be understood. Interviewer: Right. Um, I heard a I read a tweet by Senator, I think it's Senator Johnson. That's the one that has been doing the hearings. And he says, Will these will these leaders in the COVID in the COVID narrative be held to account someday, and I think of these crazy people you're talking about, and it also reminds me of an interview I heard on Unherd the other day, and he's interviewing a trucker. And he says, So what what do you guys really want? I mean, what's, what's the end goal here? And the truckers is like, “well, we just want to be free.” And he says, so if you if you get the mandates lifted, and you don't have to have a pass, and so forth, everything's okay. And the trucker. This guy said, Yeah, we just want to be able to drive and be free. But really, it needs to go beyond that. Right, Nick? It needs there needs to be a reckoning, and there needs to be justice. But will these people if there is a general awareness that the vaccines are bad that the measures we've taken did not work, and were counterproductive, murderous really, will these people you're talking about these 800 people at the universities? Will they repent? Or will they? Will they will they not? Will they forever think they were right in this? Can we do that? Can we? Nick: So again, I think it's not a one size fits all story and know if the COVID crisis has taught us one thing, it's that we should all be very wary of one size fits all solutions, right? There are clearly some need for reckoning is there and you've got a range of people, I believe there are architects who knowingly went down this road, it may be that they are inspired by ideology, I don't think that makes a difference. They know, they knew that they were lying that they were, you know, misrepresenting both the epidemic and the success of the policy response. And they carried on doing it despite knowing that and those people are as guilty as can be. And there needs to be some kind of reckoning for them further down the chains of commands. I think there are people who honestly believe that, you know, they have been basically brainwashed into supporting and going along with these measures, they were probably terrified at first, you know, they would have been called into the room and told by their bosses, “look, there's a deadly new virus.” And we expect a quarter of a billion people to die in a matter of months or something in that order. And we're gonna have to do some things that have never been done before, you know, and from that moment, they were terrified. And then it was easy to control them. And there became almost sycophantic supporters of every element of the policy response. I've had interaction with many of these people. And it's most peculiar. You know, there they are. They have a list of positions, which they state as scientific facts, never providing any evidence for them. And anything that vaguely threatens those narratives, they just reflexively react against, often in a very personal way and not in a fact-based data-based way. They just make a claim and call you a name and go away to come back another day when you when you say something else that irritates them. But I think those people are largely brainwashed and sycophantic people. They also you know, need to be we need to make some kind of reckoning there. But it's important, I believe, to look at what happened in the wake of other great genocides and humanitarian crises. And there's one good example in South Africa, we had a commission the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in the wake of apartheid. And many people are of the opinion that that was not a bad way of working through and disclosing what had happened and bolting some of those facts and perspectives into the national psyche in a way that probably prevented a more violent reckoning. But certainly, as far as the the kingpins of the story go, they're in a really difficult position because their promotion, adherence and lying is sprinkled all over the internet for for everybody to see. It's on all the way back machines, they can't walk it back very easily. And I think that will drive many of them to go to their graves muttering you know, “masks work. Lockdowns work. The vaccines that are going to end the pandemic”. They'll be saying these things until they get into their graves because it's almost, I just don't know what steps one would take if you were in that position to deal with the dissonance that comes from needing to acknowledge that you are wrong. And For that reason, I am a little bit concerned that some of them will behave like Justin Trudeau is in such an extreme fashion that the only likely place for them to end up is on a lamppost, you know? Interviewer: Well, my first thought is for them to not have to come to that realization or admit it, they're really trying. I mean, did you see what happened with the, I think it was the US military. How they showed the increase in? Was it myocarditis, pericarditis, all this that hit hard when the vaccines came out? And so the response from the establishment was to adjust all of the figures five years previous to that. Nick: Yes, it's ludicrous. Interviewer: So, the Wayback Machine you talked about I there's a there's a memory hole going on right now. Nick: Yes, I mean, that situation was truly absurd, you know, that. So what they're claiming is that some significant problem that was present for five years undetected by anybody was suddenly detected and solved overnight. And the solution produces a set of numbers that suggests that the American military has had a six year health crisis that nobody noticed, you know? So it's quite, it's quite absurd. I mean, you're talking, I forget the exact numbers, but there was on order of 20 million, you know, reports of, of codes for for a military that has some, a couple of million in it in the extended sort of family of that are covered by that database. And so you're flagging 10 Problems per person, really, you know. Now, they could be repeat flags in there, you know, somebody who has hepatic cancer, does 10 visits in a year and it gets flagged 10 times? I don't know how that database is structured. But even if that's the case, come on, you know that there's something serious that's been going wrong, then for six years. So I don't believe that explanation for a single minute. It is so dodgy. And it's so obvious that there is a lot of lying going on there. Interviewer: Right? Um, you've been critical of the SDG SDGs, right? Nick: Yes. Interviewer: When I, when I exit my train station downtown, there's this big open space. And then there's this large mascot of the city. And of course, he's got a mask over his face the mascot itself. And next to him is this giant sign with all the different SDGs on it. And and I heard you in a recent article, you're critical about the SDGs? Why exactly. Nick: Yeah, look, as statements of good intent. The and this is the problem with them. As statements of good intent they read okay (they seem fine). I mean, who wouldn't be in favor of more literacy and better education for children, you know, so at some level, you can't disagree with him. But the idea that there's a project out there that should be administered centrally at a global level is again, the mistake, it's the same error as being committed in the global risk report. And by all the... these insane creatures who run around Davos. And I believe it can only lead to bad outcomes. And we see it, you know, in the these incredibly arcane and elaborate systems of rulemaking that are emerging such as ESG. And they're, they're incredibly poorly thought out constructs. Nobody looks at the the metrics that are being used and says, Well, okay, well, how do we evaluate the trade offs here? We do have trade offs, you know, they're... in real life. there are always trade offs. And so ... Interviewer: What is ESG? By the way … Nick: Oh, Economic, social and governance. Yeah. Guidelines. And so it's become a whole class of investing and investing rulemaking. And yeah, if you're, if you run money, you now need to fill in these elaborate reports, and you have to have a whole ESG team is going to fill in these reports and report to the investors what you're doing on environmental...uh did I say? I might have said economic instead of environmental. Environmental, social, and governance matters. And it's, it's all a bunch of bureaucratic hooey (nonsense). The systems don't, you know, provide even the vaguest of suggestion as to how you would trade these things off. And that's, that's their, that's a major failing, but the first failing is, again, just the epistemological one of setting up these sort of centralist patterns of running things. I alost want to pinch myself that they are are so naive and immature and yet they have taken such a grip and infiltrated the minds of leaders of large corporations. Now, of course, there is a conflict of interest in all of this, because all of these global rule systems favor the large corporation over the small corporation and the medium Corporation, medium enterprise. And so there is a terrible conflict at the heart of it, but I think most CEOs generally haven't given it much thought as to whether the whole system makes sense. And they're not actually out to, to punish entrepreneurs or, you know, make the playing field and level for medium sized countries, but that is the... medium sized companies (he's correcting himself). But that is the result of their actions. And, you know, again, from a societal point of view, this is abysmal, because large corporations have never been the source of job creation, new idea creation, economic growth. That has always taken place in small companies that then go on sometimes to sell themselves to, you know, the entrepreneurs and founders will sell their businesses to the Googles and the Apples, who will then promptly make a hash (make a mess of it). Interviewer: Destroy. Nick: Yeah, basically destroy them. Make a hash of the potential for those entities to continue innovating and, and solving the problems of mankind. Interviewer: Right? Destroy them, or take out what's best about them. Like, unintelligible. Nick : Yeah, they kind of just take what's being created and then milk it until it's surpassed by the technologies. That's the pattern. I mean, you know, I'm a private equity investor, and the best game in town is to buy a division out of a listed company. It's, it's like shooting … Interviewer: Sorry, what's the best game in town? It's to buy ... Nick: To buy a division out of a listed company, a company that's on a stock exchange, it's like shooting a fish, like shooting fish in a barrel. Because you know that what you get is going to be inefficient, plagued by enormous principal agent problems, filled with people who have never had an opportunity to eat their own cooking, and to make decisions whose lives are continually frustrated by bureaucratic overlords. And so you can almost buy anything out of a listed company. And as long as you don't repeat the errors of that listed company, which is not too difficult, you will, you will make a lot of money in the process and have a lot of fun, because the people who, who are afforded the opportunity to become masters of their own time and energy, enjoy it and appreciate it, and it becomes a very fecund and creative environment. So I love what I do, you know, the small and medium enterprise private equity, there's this, you can't have more fun with your clothes on, you know. So it's, it's very much something that's consistent with this worldview that I've been articulating, and gives me an enormous sense of purpose and meaning and centeredness. I'm kind of living my political philosophy in, in my career. Interviewer: So you're, you're talking not just about investing in such a company, you're talking about taking it over and rearranging? Nick: Yes, that's how private equity works. You buy entire businesses that are not listed on a stock exchange. And that's what we do. Yeah. Interviewer: You said, you were talking about the idea of stasis. So speaking of SDGs, to quote from you, you said words like sustainability are codes for stop, and stasis. Could you elaborate on that just a bit? Nick: Yes, I refer to them as Malthusianism in drag. Malthus, Malthus was the the guy who figured that you drew a graph of growing population exponentially growing population, and said, but you know, the food supply only increases in a straight line and therefore we are going to run out and everybody's going to starve. And of course, what he was ignoring was the potential for knowledge creation to create a world of abundance that that would feed the people and so these continuing predictions of doom, which kind of resurface in every generation, there's in every generation has its Malthusians, so you get carried away and predict some kind of catastrophe that never emerges. And in fact, the whole notion of, of sustainability, sustainable development, this kind of it's really it's not really paying much attention to sustainability in the conventional meaning of the word. What it really involves is shutting down growth, shutting down energy consumption, for example. Now in my mind, we want, you improve things and you solve more and more problems by bringing to bear more energy. Energy is kind of almost it's best thought of as a metaphor for knowledge. And by sequestering more and more energy, you solve more and more problems. And there's more and more human flourishing. And, some people tend to tie this together in a strange way with a completely different stream of thought, which is conservation, which I'm also a fan of, you know, I'm, I'm a great outdoors person, and I love wild places. And so I'm a conservationist at heart. But what history has taught us is that it's the rich nations that are really able to conserve, it's a luxury good. Being able to have a game reserve that's well looked after, and where you're able to control poaching, for example, or expand it, by territory to expand it. Those are luxury goods. And when countries get poorer, their game reserves go down the tubes. So you know, I don't see any inconsistency with the idea of infinite growth, continuous growth and conservation.

from dw.

Sources/Links: www.pandata.org