Fresh scandal with £4.3bn of Fraudulent Lockdown Loans (Rant)

Good morning, welcome to this latest conversation about the latest current affairs when it comes to all things pandemic. With a fresh scandal today, uh, $4.3 billion in fraudulent loans, uh, it's emerged the Prime Minister suffered another major blow this week after the Treasury Minister staged dramatic, uh, resignation over the government's decision to write off $4.3 £1.5 billion in fraudulent bounce-back loans, with estimates that overall losses will reach up to £30 billion. And this obviously follows further revelations, uh, the Prime Minister celebrating his birthday over the lockdown period. What does all of this mean for the Prime Minister? What does it mean for the pandemic response? Is it time for a full public inquiry? I'm joined today by serial entrepreneur Rob Moore to comment on this situation and discuss, uh, what can be done. So Rob, welcome to the show, it's great to have you here.

Thanks, Dan. Thanks for having me on. Wow, crazy times.

Well, it is crazy times. I mean, what's your take on this story?

Uh, well, we've got two breaking stories really. We've got the, um, fraudulent activity from the recipients of the bounce back loans, and we've got another party in Number 10. So where do you want me to start?

Well, let's start with the bounce back loans. Let's talk business for a little bit. So You know, these bounce-back loans were issued in 2020 to support businesses. And obviously you're very passionate about supporting businesses. So at the time, it seemed like an initiative that could actually give people a lifeline. Now, we also know that there was a lot of people, in fact, several million people who didn't qualify for any financial support. So it's quite shocking to find that 10% of those loans have now been written off and some of them even criminally written off.

Yeah, so I'm a bit divided on this, Dan, so I'm going to need to give you my honest dual-sided opinion. Um, I never thought we'd be getting furlough and bounce-back loans and all the support that we did when the initial news of the lockdown happened. So I actually thought at least the government are doing their best to support us through these times. Um, because, you know, that was obviously going to cost them tens of billions. And when I say them, I mean us, but at the time, then— so initially I thought the furlough and the CBILS and the bounce-back loans was a good move because I think it was absolutely vital that the small business was supported. And it seemed like there was support for small business. Because I had to go into my office when the announcement of the lockdown was made with a spreadsheet with nearly 100 staff names on it, and I had to sit there with my MD and co-founder and go, gotta let them go, gotta let them go, we'll keep them for a bit but we're not sure, gotta let them go. We had sort of like an A, B, and a C list. A, keep. B, on the fence. C, have to let go. And that was before we knew about furlough. And that was one of the hardest things I've ever done in business, Dan. So I think it's easy to, to criticize the government, um, when furlough and these CBILS and Bounce Backs, etc., did definitely keep some small businesses alive through the lockdown. However, then when there's billions spent on an app that doesn't work So in August, when we came back out of lockdown, the app had a ping. There was a pingdemic, if you remember, Dan. And 25 of my staff got sent home and had to self-isolate for 10 days. And they didn't have COVID. And the app didn't work. So the app didn't work. And it reduced productivity. And it reduced the ability for people to start work again. And so that— I felt billions being spent on an app that didn't work properly. I felt that that was— I felt really aggrieved by that. Then, then moving forward with the, um, now all these loans— well, I agree with you, Dan, that there was the marketing that these loans were available to anyone, but actually you had to be 5 foot 2 and a half age 73.6 and have a credit score of 113 and live in Outer Mongolia to apply for them. And actually, you know, um, you'd be able to get them. So the irony is people who didn't need them and shouldn't have got them got them. You know, I knew dentists and people like that who didn't need it and who just got it and then just went and spent it on property and wasted it. And then companies that actually did need it couldn't get it. That for me, there was an issue there. And now to have to write between $4 and $30-odd billion off because these loans have been misused, misplaced, and they can't even track how to get them paid back, to me is a kick in the teeth. Because who's going to be paying that for the next 10 years in massive inflation, in massive price increase in massive increase in taxation. It's all of us. So how do they, how do they manage to not account for what ultimately could be 30-odd billion in loans?

Yes, I mean, this is also just, you know, one, one— 30 billion is a lot of money, but it's one piece of the bill, to be quite frank. When you start to stack up the misspending over the course of the last 2 years, you know, we're going to be paying this for generations to come. I say again, we the public, but also the burden will also be felt amongst the business community. And we're at a time now going into 2022, we had obviously a little blip over Christmas where the kind of hysteria started raising again and people thought, oh no, here we go again. There was talk about if we go into lockdown, there'll be no furlough. Now fortunately, we never did go into lockdown, but we've kind of had, as business leaders, have had this hanging over us for over 2 years now. So, and we kind of want that predictability of being able to move forward. What's your view in terms of the prospects of 2022 for small business? Can they can they now start to accelerate? Can they now start to think forward? Can they start to recover? Or do you think there's a constant threat that they're going to be pulled back again?

So again, I'm split on this. Like, I'm an entrepreneur, and an entrepreneur takes risk in the hope of profit, and an entrepreneur solves meaningful problems that change the world. And so we are actually now in this reset, fertile opportunity for the new modern entrepreneur to stand up and do useful things and be very successful. You know, if you leverage online events, you know, you use Zoom. If you get into metaverse, Web 3.0, you know, being a, a commentator, a content creator, an influencer, an agency, and in AV and editing on content repurposing and all NFTs and cryptocurrencies, there's all these new industries that actually as a young disruptive entrepreneur, young of mind, not just young of age, there's really fertile opportunity because the field has been completely wiped out. And so that soil is fertile. And the thing is, you and I have been campaigning to support small businesses, and we have— let's be honest, we're pretty pissed off, and we've been shouting and screaming about it. But that doesn't make meaningful products and services that change the world. What makes meaningful products and services that change the world is for entrepreneurial people to go, here's the problems in the world, climate change, you know, not being able to do live events, etc., a hysteria and an anger and mental and physical health issues and problem, problem, problem, problem, and turn that into a solution that serves vast numbers of people. So I've been banging that drum because I'm an entrepreneur. But Dan, but if entrepreneurs are taxed 65, 70, 75 pence in the pound in what they earn and what they spend, and their, um, tax breaks and supports from the government are lessening and lessening and lessening, then one, how can we create these meaningful products and services that change the world? And two, why should we fucking take the risk? What, what's the point in in taking the risk and going bust and losing your house, which is what entrepreneurs do, they take the risk. If VAT is still 20%, corp tax has gone up from 19% to 25%, dividend tax is going up, income tax is 45%, National Insurance has gone up 12.5%, and then the increase in cost of living of fuel and electricity and the reduced supply chain. I'm telling you, Dan, I pay 70 pence in the pound in what I sell and what I earn and what I buy. And if that goes up, why should I even bother? So I'm torn because I've got to go and create useful products and services that change the world because that's what I do. But if I'm penalized and not rewarded and supported for doing that, why am I going to do that? I'm not going to do that. I'm just going to get out of this country and go for it, go to a country where they support entrepreneurs more. Now, I was talking to Nigel Farage a few days ago, Dan, and I said the same thing. I said to Nigel, why are they not supporting small businesses? 90% of the economy apparently is driven by small business. All the politicians get paid by small business. Small businesses produce, politicians consume. So why do they— why are they biting the hand that feeds them? Why aren't they feeding the hand that feeds them? And basically Nigel said, well, there's just a snobbery and a disdain for business and small business in the UK from the Etonian collective. That was his words. That's got to change. It has to change. What are your thoughts?

Well, no, I think this is— you're absolutely right. I mean, firstly, to comment on the taxation piece, we're seeing it. Everyone is going to feel this. You know, it's not just entrepreneurs and businesses. We are going— the reality is we have a huge bill to pay, and it's going to be levied upon all of us in different ways. and we'll see that slowly creeping up in different ways. We're always also seeing price inflation, so some of the people who are hardest hit already by the measures that we've seen over the last 2 years are now even harder hit because the cost of goods and services are growing up. So we're feeling this pressure which has kind of been masked in some ways by the furloughs for a long period of time, and we're kind of in this unknown territory really where people really don't know in this inflationary environment what's going to happen. Now usually in that type of environment you'd want to see growth measures that you've spoken about to incentivize innovation in order to kickstart the economy. So you make a very valid point asking the question, where is that and when is it going to come? Because entrepreneurs, true entrepreneurs, will find a way. We know that. We've worked with entrepreneurs for many years, and those who are willing and committed will find a way. But in order to grow your business, even if you don't need seed finance to get started, often to grow your business and to reach the next stage, there needs to be that level of growth finance. We're just not seeing that grassroots finance coming through. So I think we're in that sticky position, which makes it very challenging for entrepreneurs, for small businesses. But at the same time, at the same time that you've addressed it in a balanced way, it does also— when we're under pressure in that way, it gives us the opportunity to think creatively and think differently about how we can operate. And you're absolutely right. There's lots of tools and technologies that enable us to promote and market our businesses that we've never had before. Those are free at point of service. There's lots of opportunities. And I think the biggest message I've taken from the last 2 years full stop is don't rely on your government for support. You know, there has been support out there for some. There's been, you know, 3 million people who are left without support. You know, I think this is a shift in mindset for people to take personal responsibility and think about what can they do to take advantage of the, of this situation and find the opportunity. Now, that's easy for me to say. You know, you and I have come from a place of business. Um, we, we have a platform to grow from. For people just starting out, you know, it's a difficult point to start from. You know, we're all coming at it from different points of, uh, um, different starting lines. And there are people out there who have been heavily hit, as I mentioned, who, you know, are struggling to pay the bills. So, you know, it's all very well saying just go out there and get started, but some people are, you know, really struggling. So I think, what would your message be, Rob, to those who are perhaps feeling the pain they've suffered over the last couple of years and don't really know where to start? You know, you've written book on money, you know, the mindset of money. What can people— how can people change their thinking in order to move forward from this type of difficult situation?

Alex, you just need to turn down Dan down a bit. Yeah, because there's just a bit of feedback. Thanks, Dan. Um, okay, so I want to summarize what you've said because I think we need to bang this drum. Inflation is super high right now. I mean, it could be in the— it could be 15%. Cost of living is going up dramatically. Energy and food and other prices are going up dramatically. Taxes are going up, not down. Incentives are going down, not up. This is what's going on in the world, um, and I'm going to keep campaigning, Dan, forever until we get taxes down and incentives and supports and subsidies up. Um, now there's two answers to that question. There's what can be done on a macro governmental policy level, and then what can be done on an individual entrepreneurial level. Well, on a wider level, reduce taxes, extend and delay people paying their taxes. They said, oh, well, look, we'll give you an extension for a month. On your tax return, but we'll still charge you interest, but we won't penalize you. Oh, thanks. Um, so they can waste all their money— but some of their money, that's not fair. Um, they can waste money, but we still have to pay all of our taxes. I've just paid my biggest personal— well, I'm about to pay my biggest personal tax bill I've ever paid. And probably in the last 6 months, I've paid more than I've definitely paid more than 7 figures in taxes. But what could I do with those 7 figures? I could reinvest into innovation, production, productivity, staffing, and resources. Now, the government have a quandary because if they tax us too much, there's a tax bell curve which has actually proven that their revenue will go down if they tax us too much. Because entrepreneurs just won't have it. Imagine if they gave us some incentives and some relaxations and allowed us to reinvest money back into staffing and resources and growth. What might that do to the economy? Because, you know, I've got, I've got 250 people on the payroll inside and outside in contracting and outsourcers and staff. And, you know, my business needs to fire up and do events again. And when we run events, We pay hotels, we pay staff, we pay food companies, we pay, of course, all the VAT on all the sales. So that kickstarts the economy. So there needs to be some relaxation in the penalties and the costs and the taxes for entrepreneurs, and give the entrepreneur the ability to reinvest some of that money back into the growth of the business. Because if I didn't have to pay the 7 figures in tax, I'm not just going to pocket it. As one big massive drawing or dividend. One, I can't because they're going to tax it a load. I'd almost be unselfish about this because I'd almost take a higher personal tax but a lower corporation tax if they got— if they knocked the VAT down and not the corp tax way down. So I've got money to reinvest back in to grow the business. I need about 14 staff right now. I'd quite like to be able to pump a few Tens of thousands into hiring those quicker. There's systems and software and processes that I need to build. So I'd actually take less personal money if I could fuel the growth of those resources and create productivity within my organisation. But the problem is we're getting taxed everywhere, corporately, personally.

Yes.

So step one, I think the government should give subsidies, grants, and delay taxations and allow us to reinvest in our own growth. Because when a small business grows, more staff— more staff is more taxation on the staff, way more. You know, you've got business rates, you've got National Insurance, you've got, you know, employees' tax, etc. Um, you're going to make more sales, you're going to fuel the economy again. Now, um, I don't understand why they're not doing this. Maybe it is because of the way that they look down on the small business. Now, we also have to change the culture, Dan, because there's this culture of, 'Oh, I just need to work from home and have some work-life balance.' Now, not everyone, but there's this big pervasive culture of what has been a very stressful time, and the solution is to work less and work from home and have good well-being, and companies should treat us better, and all this kind of stuff. Now, look, when times are good, I think try a 4-day work week. I think invest in the workplace for good balance and mental well-being. But imagine there was a war. Right, there's a war, there's national service, but we go, wait a minute, I want to do a 4-day war work week. I just, you know, my, my men— I want to, I want to do war from home. No, when there's a war, you're enlisted because you need to go and fight for your country. And what people are not understanding across this country, Dan, is the only way out of a 10-year depression is production. It's production. More food, more energy, more supply. Why are secondhand cars so expensive? Because there's a lack of production of new cars. So we need to get production of cars up, of energy up, of food up, of live events up, of restaurants, of hospitality, of retail, of travel, of leisure. That is the only way out of this— production— because it fuels the economy and it has this virtuous lifting effect. So, the culture of— a friend of mine, right, Dan, she had 2 people that went for a job interview in 1 day. And she said, they just said, well, I just want a work-life balance and I want to work from home. And then there's this call for a 4-day working week. How is that going to get us out of this situation? At the moment, we're not in prosperity. So, we can't act like we are because what an entrepreneur has to do is get up at 3 in the morning and work until 9 at night to keep their business going when the government aren't supporting them and the government are making it illegal to trade. Because my business, it was illegal to trade in March 2020. Couldn't trade. Illegal. Couldn't open an event. So it's illegal to trade and my livelihood is in threat and so is 250 of the people on my payroll. So what, am I just going to do a 4-day working week? And am I going to get work-life balance? And am I going to have my company, you know, hire me a therapist and do it? No, we have to work out of this and produce through this. It's the only way. So now on to the individual. You've got to try and create stuff. You've got to try and make stuff. You've got to try and produce stuff. You've got to try and work out what are the pains in the world right now. Mental health is a pain, um, you know, finding Um, uncensored information is a pain. Staying on platform and not being deplatformed is a pain. Information is a pain. And then solve that pain. Sorry for the rant, Dan, but that's what I feel.

No, it's, it's important.

I think, you know, it's kind of down a bit more now, so don't get any reverb.

There's lots of, um, you know, there's lots to unpack here. It's very interesting. I think, you know, we were talking offline before we started. I actually do think some of that production is now happening on a localized level. Yeah, I talk in terms of the de-industrial revolution because we're seeing this localization. People are looking to what's happened over the last 2 years. We've seen, we've seen the result of centralization of power, uh, uh, power and control on a global scale. It's been, it's been impossible to witness, uh, to not witness rather. And as a result, people are looking at how do we start to, uh, decentralize some of that power, starting politically. You know, there's new initiatives to localize government, but also more broadly than that, localizing business again. And, and it's amazing to see already, not, not a reversion to kind of market economy, small market economies, but we are now seeing, as we've seen the digital world, that, that niching and micro-niching, we're now seeing that again in the physical world with this new, new form of production, localized production, a desire to, you know, there's, there's entire industries being built on a localized level. Which is grassroots change, and it is also increasing that productivity. But it's a very different model. You know, people are trying to move away from what we've witnessed over the last 2 years with the excess centralization into this more decentralized model. So I think it's going to be fascinating, you know, decentralized currency and finance, cryptocurrency, etc. I mean, that's been on a roller coaster recent weeks. I've been watching that. Things are changing. The market is changing. The economies are changing. But again, with all of these things you mentioned, all of the technological advancements, we have to be able to plug into those changes to recognize them as they happen, because the world is changing around us. And I do believe we're in this unique opportunity with a blank slate in order to think, or a blank page, about how we move forward with this. We have to learn the lessons from the last 2 years. We have to hold the government to account for their failings. But we ultimately have to take responsibility for crafting the change we want to see. That's always been my message. And that's come through my entrepreneurial journey, because I do believe that entrepreneurial thinking. You don't even have to be in business. It's having that ability to say, here's a problem, I want to fix it. It's all very well talking about the problem, and we've done a lot of that on the podcast, but actually getting out there and fixing it, getting out there and changing it. And I think that's where, whether it's the injustices in the taxation system— you're absolutely right, right now people are feeling the pinch and people feel destabilized by that— or actually taking the initiative and saying, well, you know what, I've witnessed what's gone on the last 2 years, I'm going to do something differently and contribute to the change. I think that's So many people are now seeing that, and I think that will lead to a new wave of entrepreneurship. And I think we have to think creatively about how those are supported going forward, because if the government aren't there as a crutch, then we have to be our own crutch. You know, we have to find our own ways to finance and be creative, because there's money on the street. You know, there's private investors out there, there's people who want to plough money into changing things. So I think that again comes down to creative initiatives that can actually fund and start and scale new initiatives?

Yeah, Dan, it's a strange time because what we're finding right now, and this is common in volatile times, is we're getting this polarization of everything. Polarization of political partisanship, if that's the word for it. Polarization of globalization versus decentralization. Indeed, the entrepreneurial flair and spirit versus the public sector, certainly in the political landscape. So there is opportunity in those extreme polarized volatile marketplaces. So in some ways we're moving towards a socialist state, but in other ways we've got this more pure free market mini markets happening locally, like you said, Dan. Yes, um, because I believe really a free market is no intervention or manipulation from government. But we've got— we've had a bloody lot of that over the last 2 years. And by the way, I'm not necessarily saying some of their decisions are wrong. It's going to take us 5 to 10 years to find out. I thought it was a scandal that 4 scientists in, in the government got knighted I thought that was a scandal.

But why?

Not because they're wrong necessarily, but because we're not going to know if they were right for 10 years. Yes. Now I know you've got your strong views on it, but imagine if you or I were Prime Minister when this all kicked off. You're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. You make this decision, you upset half the population. You make this decision, you upset half the population. Definitely in the variant, it was obvious that was a cold. No one— I've had thousands of comments down, and by the way, I'm not just blurting this out. I have asked thousands of people on my Facebook Lives, and no one has known anyone who's died of the variant, and everyone has said it's a cold. Everyone. Yet they basically shut business down in December, the best month. Many businesses, they make most of their profit in December, and they were restricted basically constricted and suffocated from trade. That was fundamentally wrong. Lockdown 1.0, maybe it wasn't wrong. I'm on the fence about that. Let's look at the data for a few years to see the consequences, which, by the way, they didn't do any modeling on the consequences of lockdowns. But this whole thing about globalization, Dan, you know, a lot of people in our comments— by the way, I want to thank everyone for following us. A lot of people in our comments, Dan, talk about New World Order. They talk about Great Reset. They talk about own nothing and be happy. They talk about the banishing of the small business, you know, the banishing of the middle class. And everyone's got their own theories on that, whether it's the Freemasons or the Rothschilds or some lizard family going back thousands of years that puppet strings the four big tech companies? I think— I don't know, Dan, I don't know. But what I do know is there's a fight against it, and it is called decentralization.

Indeed.

DeFi, decentralization of finance, decentralization of social media. For every big Facebook or Instagram or YouTube, you also have Clubhouse, Fireside, Green Room. You have Um, Zion, you know, you have Rumble, you have all these broken up decentralized social media platforms that are promoting freedom of speech and access and owning your own data. So actually there's a great opportunity because we've almost got Roman Empire-esque potential situations here where if there's enough decentralization some of these big powers can be taken down. Here's the challenge: you and I can shout and scream all day long about the government reducing taxes and increasing subsidy and supporting small business. I think we should spend 45 minutes a day doing it, and then we've got to bury our head in our work on creating useful products and services that change the world.

Well, absolutely. I mean, this is always the argument. The Buckmaster Fuller would say there's no point resisting the old, it's about building the new. And I do agree with that sentiment. I've also come to know some very successful entrepreneurs and business leaders who have spent their lives building new systems and structures, but actually find that the old system finds its way of clawing back and trying to intervene in the way they're doing. So I think there's always a balance. To me, it's a bit like yin and yang. We need both. We need some resistance and activism. But if we only do resist only in the space of campaigning and activism, we may overcome individual policies and create some micro change. But in order to create grand change and macro change, we need to then do into creativity. It's about reimagining and reinventing. And I think that's where our opportunity is. I think that is where the golden opportunity is right now. Is to look for your place and how you can create the change you want to see in the world. Because a lot of people have lots of strong feelings and it's about how we direct those feelings into positive change. There's room for those who are in the activism space as always, but now I think there is that rebuild opportunity where we can think creatively and that's where you actually see the change. And there's people out there right now doing it. There's people out there, you and I will chew the fat and we'll campaign and we'll go and create. There's some people out there just head down. They've paid no attention to what's gone on the last 2 years and they're just building. And I think that's just fascinating to see because you're absolutely right. We've got to get that balance right because if we spend all our time shouting from the rooftops, we might change some things, but actually it's better to actually build something better, to build, build, build it. And that's the challenge. Even with the political challenges we've talked about, we can campaign for the change, but we've still got the same system. You know, we've still got the same politicians, or maybe we'll touch on that to wrap up because, uh, you know, obviously the other, the other prevailing headline was Boris and his latest parties.

But, um, Dan, let's come to that in a minute. I just want to add one thing. I completely agree with everything you said. I feel like we need to go back to a more free market and more true pure capitalism. Now, I know capitalism has its flaws because human beings can be greedy and corrupt and powerful. And by the way, often socialism and communism, you, you see, see that in the extreme, but just from less people. But if we intervene less in productivity and production and we incentivize more productivity and production, I cannot see a better suggestion for getting ourselves out of a potential 10-year or a longer depression. Someone tell me what is a better solution than incentivising entrepreneurs to start and scale useful and meaningful problem products and services that solve problems for the masses. Get out of their way, let them do it, let free market and fair competition create fair pricing, and innovation, and then reward and incentivise them for growth. What could be better than that? But we— like, the Conservatives are supposed to be capitalist, but they're not. And, you know, we've got so much intervention and so much penalty from pure free market. So Why can't we align the selfish and the selfless motive, which is the free market? I do something useful, I get paid a lot. When I do that useful thing and get paid a lot, lots of people get utility. That is the selfish-selfless balance. And we're out. We're out of balance. So back to a free market, less intervention, more free capitalists, more rewards and incentives and subsidies for innovation, less penalties. Get out of the entrepreneur's way, let them create productivity and production, get the supply chain back up, therefore get inflation down. For me, that's where it's at.

I mean, it's fascinating. I mean, I agree with you on a lot of things here. I think that certainly around grassroots entrepreneurship, I think this is where there's so many chains that bind on small businesses and entrepreneurship. What's interesting over the last 2 years for me personally, at least, Rob, this is— I mean, I was always, you know, I've been in business the last 10 years, always a free market advocate. That was my position. Uh, things have changed very slightly over the last few years in the sense that what I've witnessed at the other end of the scale, um, with where, where we've witnessed what we've seen in the last two years, we've seen the role of the, what I call the pharmaceutical industrial complex. When you get big business intervening in public life in ways that we've never seen before. So, you know, you might think these are political decisions, but, but where are these political decisions being driven from? I mean, there's, there's very clear evidence that the the pharmaceutical, what we call the pharmaceutical industrial complex, has a significant role in, in what we've experienced here. And that's, that's come from the—

that's, that's where the government should intervene and stop monopolistic tendencies.

Indeed. So I think that's where the two extremes—

some of these big tech codes get so powerful that they have political influence, and so they can essentially create a monopoly because Facebook and YouTube, they have monopolies, but there's no— so when I— when they should intervene, they don't, and when they shouldn't intervene, they do.

Yes, exactly.

Because in any free market, you have anti-monopoly policy.

I haven't heard anti-monopoly policy being talked about since the '80s.

Well, that's the point. That's the point. I mean, told me that he thinks He thinks the politicians are scared of Facebook, scared of big tech.

Yeah, I mean, but it's not just monopoly on industry, it's actually monopoly on conversation as we've seen. You mentioned the deplatforming censorship, we've witnessed that at scale, at scale, you know, that it's the public discourse that these technical— I mean, that's a whole different subject, but it's, you know, it's a different type of monopoly, you know, it's not just intervention. I mean, I could go on about this piece because, you know, in America, you know, some of the largest political lobbying funds You know, the pharmaceutical industry have donated record amounts to political campaigns in the last two years. I mean, it's just, it's plain to see. That's the hard thing. But so you're absolutely right. I think that's the piece is that antitrust, it's the monopolistic piece. But on the small business grassroots change, I entirely agree with you. That's why we've got to be catalysts. We've got to remove the chains that bind and allow people to prosper and not penalize them for taking the risks. It does come with great risk. I mean, I felt it personally in my first three years in business. Stress, struggle, sacrifice, some of the hardest years of my life. The last thing I need to be is penalized for going through that. At the same time, but a lot of people will go through that. Starting a business is risky. It takes time, effort to find your market and to get traction. There's people out there, obviously, like yourself, who can support with shortcutting that journey. But nonetheless, it's a risk that you take. And what we've been talking about here is is the challenges that come when the government intervenes. I mean, I was talking to a restaurant owner in Bristol here. Their business was decimated over Christmas. There wasn't even a lockdown. It was the threat of one. Cancellations left, right, and center completely decimated what's usually their best month of the year. And this is excess government intervention. It's no other way to frame it. So in 2022, I really do hope we move away from that and actually do start to incentivize But we shouldn't wait, my viewers. We shouldn't wait for that. We've just got to take the bull by the horns and start moving, start moving forward, because the opportunities are there right now. You know, where there's hungry markets everywhere, there's a lot of frustration, there's a lot of anxiety in the world. And where there is, uh, where is that frustration? There is, there are solutions to those problems. That's my view.

Dan, let me address a couple of things you said. We could go on here forever. Um, we still haven't talked about the, the new fresh scandal of Number 10, which we probably should. Um, but again, we've got this polarized situation on, um, narrative in the world, because you're right, in some regards, the big tech companies, um, puppet-strung by their massive sponsors and donors and advertisers, are obviously controlling narrative. Now, on the one hand it's their platform. I wouldn't want someone to come and shit on my own platform. So on the one hand, but yes, there is a strong big tech or mainstream media controlling of narrative, Dan, but that's happened over the history of time. It's called propaganda, and this is not new. However, Dan, however, and I'm Dan, you went viral in the lockdown from your stance. You're not mainstream media. So even though you've had to fight deplatforming and cancel culture and everything else, you have had to fight that. You have gone viral through this, and you're an individual, you're an entrepreneur. Do you know who the biggest media company is on the influence index by a factor of 6? Times as big as the second highest media company? Joe Rogan. Joe Rogan is not CNN, HBO, BBC, or Sky. He's a podcaster. So do you know the top 10 highest grossing YouTube channels are not media? They're MrBeast and a kid who unboxes toys and Jake Paul. So Dan, there is this massive decentralization fight. There's a decentralization of media, there's a decentralization of narrative. People get their news from people like you and me now. People say to me, Rob, I like getting the news from you and not the BBC because you're more entertaining, and they tune into me to get the news, which is crazy. So actually there is positive signs, Dan, and were the world not so Fucked. There wouldn't be this fight against the empire. So there are seeds of enthusiasm and opportunity if you're prepared to stand up and speak out.

Yes. Well, the other part, you've mentioned polarization a couple of times. I actually believe that's a fundamental part of the problem as well, you know, because it creates an us and them culture at every level. It creates a sense of disempowerment because it's always, we end up in the victim, the drama triangle as the victim. Of circumstance rather than our own volition. And this traces back through the media for the decades. If you start to read about the dawn of advertising, the early ages of media, they found out very early on that sensationalistic, dramatic headlines that polarize get eyeballs. It generates attention.

Dan, we might have done it on our headline.

Yeah, 4.3. I know your face straight away. Boom, scandal. Quick, what's happening?

Cortisol.

You're absolutely right. And I try and catch myself being— because there's a whole new wave of sense-making now. There's almost like a new philosophy of understanding the world that's trying to make sense of this and that and saying, okay, is there a middle ground we can walk down? I even had a conversation with— and I can't say who, but within one of the major medical journals, they're trying to make sense of what's happened to science and how has it become so polarized. What happened to objective truth? And I mean, there's a whole philosophy here, but it's how to punctuate amongst what's deliberately designed to polarize and actually come back to conscious awareness and kind of make sense of the world in a way that has shared meaning so that we can have disagreements, we can see different perspectives. I know in this conversation, if I read the comments after, I can see that there'll be lots of people agree with you or disagree in the same way with me. And that's the beauty of life. And it's the texture of the tapestry of all these different perspectives and views. But what we've lost the ability is to have that kind of public square where it's just like, that's interesting, Rob Moore, I don't agree with you on that, but actually really, really fascinating point, without saying, right, that's it, deplatform. And I saw it during the pandemic, someone can go from being a hero of the cause, makes a single decision, and all of a sudden they're out. It's this polarization, I think we've got to try and punctuate that to try and find a heightened level of sense-making. Aubrey Marcus calls it united polarity, where we find this better way to actually find like a shared reverence for humanity and respect all these different perspectives without falling out with each other. Because how many relationships have been lost over the COVID situation? It's shocking. People on my team have been— two people on my team went through divorce because they were so polarized by the situation. But this isn't limited to a small number of people. People have fallen out. So there's polarization. I know we've gone on a complete track from the fresh scandal, but it's actually true because the title is, is the example. But what's your, you know, how do we heal that divide? How do we, how do we, how do we have more open, uh, conversation?

Um, I completely agree with you, Dan. Like, the amount of people that judge you whether you got vaccinated or not, for me, is shocking. Like, to the point where if someone asks me have I been vaxxed or not, I think there's a high likelihood they're going to judge me when I answer. I'm not going to judge anyone if they choose to vaccinate or not. I'm not going to judge— I wouldn't judge them if they took Lemsip for a cold or not. I wouldn't judge them if they wanted the flu jab or not. Why would I judge them on whether they chose to vaccinate or not? But what— where I think this stems from, Dan, is propaganda fear in the media. Because look, there'll be other sources, but basically we're, as a global society, a greater pandemic, I believe, than the actual virus is the pandemic of fear. And that's been created by media, and it may have sometimes been warranted, Dan, and sometimes not. Because let's be, let's be sensitive here. If your family died of COVID version 1, then I would be quite, um, arrogant and ignorant to dismiss that it's real. So, you know, what happens is through real or imagined fear, which is obviously propagated by the government or the, the media the PR machine, the propaganda. We've had the level of global fear, you know, the human consciousness of fear is much higher. And the higher the fear, the more triggerable we are, the more in cortisol and continually jacked. So everyone's freaking ready for a fight. You've got a ginger beer, you're going down, you know, like So this, I think, is where it stems from. Then you've got social media and the almost— it's okay to be a troll and a hater because you're behind a screen. It's like you're in a car, you're quite happy to be angry with someone, but if you had to get out of the car, we've lost that 'I look into your eyes.' Because, Dan, Some of your haters and some of my haters would not be as angry and as hurtful and as vitriolic if they were in a room with us. So we've got media propaganda, we've got a global consciousness of fear, we've got this isolated social media courage of the keyboard warrior, and all these things are making us way more triggered. And we're easily triggerable. And then there's the 'I have to be right and you have to be wrong.' So I think these are 4 components. Now, I know when I have a discussion, I know I learn. And, you know, I feel strongly about campaigning to save small businesses, but I would listen to Rishi on my podcast or Boris on my podcast, because I'd learn things from them, because I'm not in government and it must be hard for them. So I think having your own opinion, doing your own research, having a cause to fight for, but then being open to someone else's point of view and existing where I can believe in supporting small businesses, you can believe in increasing tax is we're going to debate like shit, but I'm not going to judge you or criticize you or try and bring you down, and I'm not going to deplatform and cancel you because you don't agree with me. That's the environment that we need to get in. That's why Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson and Dan Gregory, and maybe a little bit of Rob Moore as well— that's why we've become more popular, because we don't shoot people down hardcore if they have a differing of opinion. And we try and have some, you know, balanced debate, but we're passionate about some kind of cause. They're my thoughts.

Yeah, I mean, I see it. I described this to a friend of mine the other day. It's, it's, we're all on the same team, is my view. We're human beings living a life, you know, we're all on the same team. But it's like sport, you know, if you're a Manchester City fan, you know, sorry for those who aren't football fans, if you're a Man City fan and your best mate's a Man United fan, you might be best mates before the game. During the game, you'll yell at each other, call each other, you know, but you take the side. But then you come out of the game and you're best mates again. And, you know, that's hard for people to get in the mindset of when there's such vitriol and anger and frustration. But if we try and chunk it without getting into too much of a spiritual dimension, if we chunk up to the idea that we're all on the same team, just having a human experience, then, you know, we can start to see it in that way. So I can on Saturday be at the protest raise fists, yelling and saying this isn't right, whatever the mantra is, but then come back and be able to have a conversation. I would willingly have a conversation with any politician on the show and have an open conversation to hear their perspective. I may not agree with it, but at least I can hear it and learn. And you're absolutely right. There was a really polarizing moment in 2020. A best friend, one of my good friends, he was really disagreeing with what I was saying. So we ended up having an hour-long phone call. I listened to him for half an hour, he listened to me, and by the end of it, we were better informed and neither of us felt angry about the situation anymore. And it's just that ability to learn. We still don't have to agree. To me, that's just basic empathy. And I, you know, from the early days of personal development, reading Stephen Covey's books, seek first to understand before being understood. You know, it's such a positive message, but it's very difficult to come back to that present moment kind of understanding when it's just constant, and the algorithm is pushing you into us and them, you know, it's playing a role. But I think it's a challenge, you know, the business challenge is one challenge, the human challenge is the other challenge that will never go away.

Well, I think, Dan, you made some great points there. Seek first to understand. I think also try not to buy into the global pandemic of fear, and it's difficult, because definitely when lockdown 1.0 happened, I bought into the global pandemic of fear because I was with the clear threat that two of my main businesses could be wiped out. But once I got my head around, okay, I'm an entrepreneur and this is where I get to step up and this is where I get to change my service and do useful things, I was able to transcend the fear a bit more. And we don't make great decisions when we're triggered with fear. So if we control our own triggering— we're all allowed to get triggered, we're human, like you said— but if we control our own triggering— because everyone wants everyone else to change, but no one changes until you change. So if everyone changed themselves, the world would change. But we expect everyone else to change. No. So if we control our own triggering, don't buy into the pandemic of fear, and manage our emotions, and have balanced discussion and debate, Man, we're going to change the world again. But it's difficult when you've got the pandemic of fear and you've got the propaganda of media and the algorithms. I'm glad you raised that. Do you want to know a sad irony? If I write 'How to Start a Business in 5 Steps' as a title, or 'How to Build an Enterprise That Changes the World' I'll get 3, 5, 7,000 views on a Facebook Live. If I write World Health Organization warning, I'll get half a million views. So like, I, I want to get reach because I think this is the, this is the quandary. And Dan, I was the one that called us out on our own sensationalist title. Yes, you know, we've got to be able to look in the mirror and know our own paradoxes.

But my point is, we were talking about, you know, reach, and because I've been looking at this, and actually to reflect, when I came across this, this, you know, I realized I was part of the problem of polarization, and I, I started to process that and think, how do I break free from that? And actually, some of our titles, if you look at them, they've become so, so neutral. But as a result, some of our reach— there you go.

So what do you do? Do you go, scandalous title, hello? That's what you do. So, I want to get reach because I want to change the world because my mission is to help people start and scale their business and get better financial knowledge. The algorithms won't let me teach my audience directly with how-to titles. So, I have to play the game of pattern interrupting and sensationalism but then bring everyone in and say, right, here's how we make a difference. It is a paradox.

But then, Rob, we're all doing that from the polarisation position. So, you've got this person polarising over there, scandalous titles. This person over here going scandal. Your point about vaccination, if you get vaccinated or you don't, you're going to be judged by someone no matter what your choice is. You know, it's just brought down to this point that we're all contributing to it. I remember being in Boca Raton in the US, and there's this real kind of celebrity glitzy culture. And I ended up on this party. We were talking to some of the there was a lot of kind of models there. We were talking to them. Lizzie was interested as a personal trainer as well. And they all seemed to dislike the way they projected themselves, but they all felt like they had to because everyone else was doing it. And it's kind of like we're all doing that. We're all like, we need to get eyeballs on our content 'cause we know we've got good intent to help, but then that also plays a role. But then how do you shift human culture? So the how-to title becomes, but there was a time when the how-to titles were a thing. That would work. But nowadays, you're absolutely right. It's all rigged to have us in that cortisol environment because it's what gets our attention. It shifts our emotion and it engages us. And that's been learned by marketers and utilized to get our attention. But in order to change it, we have to change the human condition, which goes back to your point, which you made very well. In order to transform the world, we have to transform ourselves. We can't expect Boris to transform himself and co. It's down to us. You know, be the change you want to see, the old line. And, you know, if you shift in yourself and people can see the shift in you, you lead the way for others. So maybe I'll need to change the title after this.

Look, at the end of the day, I'm prepared to put a couple of racy titles out there to get my mission out to the masses because I believe in it. So this is another thing we haven't mentioned. And then should we finish on Boris? But I think if all this energy, all this fear, all this pent-up frustration that we're all feeling, I think the best way to hone that is to transmute it into a meaningful mission.

Indeed.

So you've got a meaningful mission. And I want to help as many people on this planet start and scale their business and get better financial education. My foundation helps young and underprivileged people start meaningful businesses that change the world. So I've, I've been jumping up and down like the Tasmanian devil on definitely lockdown 2.0, 3.0, and variants. And but the focus of 90% of that is on save and support the small business so we can all start meaningful products and services that change the world and increase production and increase the economy. So that's, I think, a way to hone these crazy algorithms. And this crazy— because like when everyone's shouting, you're not going to get heard if you whisper. So I'm prepared to shout to get heard and then come in and do something useful and meaningful and have that mission and vision. So that's, I think, a good way to handle it. So let me now ask you, Dan, a question. Thank you for leading this, by the way. Um, so it's just come out that apparently there was another party I think it was for Boris's birthday. What are your thoughts on these continual revelations of parties while we're in lockdown?

Well, that's a great— thank you for asking that. So this— so again, I'll give two responses to this. So the first instance, and those who have been following the Pandemic Podcast will know that I've assessed and looked at what the data and the evidence around lockdowns, full stop. And as a result, I fundamentally disagree with them as a, uh, as a, as a method of, of, um, controlling the virus. I do think there's things that we could do to— you know, I'm not simply saying we ignore the problem, but I think lockdowns are fundamentally damaging. The long-term ramifications are going to be severe. So the fact that someone was doing something during a lockdown— I, I, I firstly don't agree with lockdowns. So the fact— I think we should all be celebrating our birthday if it fell within the lockdown, because I don't actually think it's the right thing to have lockdowns. But the sec— the other side to this is if you are part of an organization, a government organization, that levies rules and responsibilities on others, then you have a civic duty to uphold them. So, so on one hand, you know, this happened before, you know, as the other ministers had broken the rules. I said, I disagree with the rules, we should all be breaking the rules. But on the other hand, if the government are the ones setting the rules, they have that duty. So I think, you know, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it is a scandal in that sense because of everything they put people through, because those who have out of good faith followed the rules, you know, we are as a human nature, I think it's a wonderful characteristic that we, we, we, you know, we, we go along to get along. It's not always the right thing to do. We do have to be bold to, to use our voice, as you said, Rob, to stand against things that aren't quite right. Um, but it's, it's certainly not acceptable for any of the politicians to be flouting the rules when many of the citizens in good faith are following along and at great cost, as we've heard, certainly on the business side. And, you know, I could talk at length about the cost that's been inflicted upon society, people's mental health, and the long-term ramifications for young people and old. So it's a difficult one. You know, I was someone that was repeatedly breaking the rules, so it would be hypocritical of me to say it's wrong to break the rules. But on the basis that they're the ones setting the rules, it's just not acceptable. So it's, um, yeah, complex.

I've got another question for you. You would probably know and I don't. Were all the politicians paid their full salary through the lockdowns?

That's a very good question. I actually don't know the answer to that, but it wouldn't be surprising if business as usual continued. But I wouldn't be able to comment with certainty. But it's a very important question, again, with people being eligible for certain support and others not. It's important, you know, because again, that's the hypocritical situation if there's no if there's no change. I think there was, I think there was a campaign for reduced salary, actually. I think there was a campaign for politicians. There must have been something, but yeah, I'd have to look into that. But thanks for asking.

Um, another thing, Dan, my wife said last night, um, so because my wife is very balanced and she always manages to point out something, and I, you know, there's literally a breaking scandal every week now around Boris and Number 10 and, you know, parties and, um discrimination and things like that. And my wife said, there's clearly a smear campaign going on against him. Some people are trying to get him out. Why are all these stories emerging at the same time? So in the interest of balance, do you think there's some behind-the-scenes stuff going on of some other political posturizing to try and get him out?

Well, I think this— let's look, I call it Common Sense Corner on the podcast. So That footage from the parties that took place in 2020 was obviously taken in 2020. They didn't just CGI it now. This is footage that media entities have had for a period of time and done nothing with it. So why all of a sudden do all of these stories, all this media footage that they've held, all come out in one go? It comes down to— and if you look at the— I mean, there's entire documentaries on the media through the pandemic. You'll see the same story using the exact same words broadcast in multiple countries around the world, um, in syndicated news. So there is enormous amount of coordination across the media. So for some reason, there is this coordinated attack on Boris, um, in particular. Um, there's a lot— I mean, we could unpack that for another hour, but which we won't have time to do. But it's just because the, the political ramifications of, of a leadership challenge right now, or a new party coming in, um, you know, I think there's— the people feel very strongly about what the alternatives could look like if there was a change. It's a difficult predicament. But as a result of that, we're obviously now seeing Britain charging ahead, unlike many of our European counterparts and other parts around the world who are kind of holding on to the COVID story. Seemingly, we're driving forward. And again, I know there's lots of skepticism about what the true intent here, but I think there is a— as with everything, pandemics— one of the biggest lessons I've learned is that pandemics and politics do not mix. You know, it's all about popular opinion rather than doing the right thing. And, and, you know, It's no surprise that Britain made this kind of sudden trajectory change off the back of this news where Boris is trying to win back popular opinion, right?

So Dan, you're saying it's as much a PR move to, um, move us out of lockdown as it is a scientific-based decision? That being said, I understand that I think it's a scientific-based decision.

The same logic they used to, to put us into lockdown is now used to the same logic to get us out of it. You know, it's, it's, it's the science is not playing a role here.

Right. I understand, Dan, that, you know, most of the Conservatives are not pro-lockdown anyway. So if that's the case, why were we locked down that amount of times?

Well, you know, again, it's, it's this, I mean, there's so many, that's a big question. But there's so many, I mean, if you look at the beginning of 2020, over 400,000 people in the United Kingdom signed a petition telling the government to lock us down. You know, throughout this, on a simple level, to give you one dynamic on this, the politicians have responded to pressure from the public, from the unions. Unions have played a big role. There's the international domain here as well, where there's a kind of domino effect of international policy. It's a very complex question, that one, the one that we're actually unpacking a lot at the moment. But You know, what we do know is that it's not based upon a holistic assessment of costs and benefits and understanding the ramifications, and it's not even looking at, you know, the utility of the, uh, the, the, the, the mode of choice. Because if you look in other parts of the world who haven't followed the same path, who have actually had more favorable circumstances, it can't purely be down to the science, you know, even if, even if you reduce it down to science and cases, which is what's generally happened. So, you know, it's a complex situation, but, you know, ultimately pandemics and politics don't mix. You shouldn't be making public health decisions based upon public opinion or opinions of your MPs. But then on the same token, I've argued against technocracy and the role of the expert in, you know, because if you get your corporate experts in charge who have, you know, and if you take the UK SAGE group, 16 of the 20 SAGE group members had outside influences that may or may not have played a role. I can't say for certain that it did, but you know, it puts you in a predicament. So it's, you know, uh, it's a very complex web, the one that I could talk about for a long time.

Okay, Dan, another one. I'm enjoying this.

Yeah, fire away.

Why was there not the same scientific modeling of the consequences of lockdowns versus, you know, not having lockdowns?

Well, the politicians will argue that we're in a crisis. This is what will happen and this is going to happen. I can already see the talking head documentaries in 5 years' time or even sooner saying we were just in a crisis. Everything was happening so fast. We did the best we could. That argument will be made and that may be true for the individuals, but there is plenty of people out in the world, organizations, individuals, myself. I happen to be scrutinizing it since February 2020. For a set of personal circumstances where I was flying out into Asia. I'd heard about this thing and I wanted to make sure I wasn't putting my family at risk or otherwise. So I've been looking at it for a long time, as have many other organizations who did do the cost-benefit analysis, who were screaming from the rooftops that this is going to decimate the economy, it's going to decimate people's mental health, it's going to ruin public healthcare. I mean, you've got hospital waiting lists over 6 million people, you know, huge amounts of consequential deaths as a result of missed healthcare. This is all predictable. So to say that we were in a crisis and we didn't have the time, or, or we weren't able to look at the cost-benefit, is just not an acceptable excuse. Because there are people who were doing that. They were getting deplatformed, they were getting ignored, they were getting smeared. They were trying to present information. Even those that did have access to politicians weren't able to get the message across. And it goes back to exactly what we're talking about here, the pandemic of fear, because in that pandemic of fear. And even I, when I started doing my videos, I was thinking long and hard, what if I get something wrong to the point that it leads to someone becoming sick? You know, I was— I couldn't put myself in a position where someone else suffered as a result of my actions. So I thought long and hard. You magnify that under the fact that you're managing a global pandemic, the fear level must have been astronomical. And as a result, they felt like they had to do something to curb the public the public's fear. But actually, you know, as Professor Frank Furedi said at the lockdown summit, you know, how many people felt more safe during the lockdown? No one put their hand up, you know, when he asked that question in front of a live seminar room. So yeah, I don't think it actually achieved the result of making people feel safe, and I don't think it achieved the result of actually curbing the impact of the virus based upon some of the impact studies we've looked at. But what is for certain, it has cost us hard, and it will continue to cost us hard. And that's why We're having conversations like this, campaigning for about how we build the future and how we can get things moving again. I like this.

Dan, I got another one. I'm enjoying this too much. Okay, why could you hardly find in the media— well, I couldn't, so I can't speak for everyone— but all these protests that were going on in London that you were at and David Icke was at and yada yada, why was it so hard to find them in the media?

Well, even, even to this day, Rob, I was at a protest in London this week and the BBC— there's footage of the BBC saying there's hundreds of footage, hundreds of people there, hundreds of people. And I was there saying at the time, live streaming, saying, just look around you. I was showing around, saying, look around you, for when the BBC does say there's only hundreds of people here, you can see that there's tens of thousands of people here for yourself. You know, be your own witness. As to why, um, as to why, um, you know, there's lots of complicated, uh, strands to this. We've obviously seen a very coordinated media approach around the, the, um, the virus. We also know from looking at pandemic response simulations and, and preparation that, uh, the, the World Health Organization and various other central bodies liaise with media to control the narrative to some degree. We also saw the Ofcom regulations early on basically place strict rules on just any dissenting narrative. We still have that now. There's still things within social media, as you say, whilst they're public, they're platform, you know, it's their platform, I agree with. But actually they're also regulated by Section 230, which is the International Internet Communication Act, which means that they're a platform, not a publisher. So actually, by virtue of censoring, they're acting as a publisher because they're saying what they can and cannot on their platform. So they've had the liberty of being a platform for 10 years Uh, now it's suddenly changed. So I, I did— I didn't pick it up at the time, but I disagree with that point. Um, but we've got the situation here where, you know, that there's this coordinated media— this is coordinated media story— the dissent was, was, was, uh, you know, dissent was not permitted and protests were a sign of dissent. So, uh, and you'll see now even still they're smeared as anti-vax, you know. And again, I was into— I was interviewing all kinds of people at the weekend military barristers in uniform who were there, doctors and nurses, you know, people on the street. So many different people, uh, that just don't represent what's, what's shown in the media. So it's, again, it's, it's a means of discrediting any dissenting voices. But ironically, piece by piece, the media is now covering in small chunks many of the things that were, uh, were the critique that was levied at the beginning of the pandemic. And it's now coming to light, you know, it's yesterday's misinformation is today's fact. Act. So it's, um, time will tell, but it's, yeah, it's a complex situation. Um, you know, there's lots of, there's lots of theories about why the media behave the way they do. Are they controlled? Uh, possibly. They certainly have, you know, they've been funded by politics. You know, have millions been spent on advertising? Are you going to bite off the hand that feeds? Probably not. Again, the educational institutions are heavily funded by Pharmaceutical industry, it's the pharmaceutical industrial complex again. So again, same situation. Are you going to be publishing scientific information that contravenes your sponsors? Probably not. We've seen that firsthand, uh, from, from some of the professors we've had on the podcast. So it all comes down to the financial and controlling interests dominating the narrative. But that, as we'll see with Boris and other things, that narrative is beginning to collapse, and all of a sudden it becomes more profitable to, to take on the counter-narrative. So in the same way that they prevented dissident voices, watch over the months, the coming months, how that shifts and the narrative will turn, because all of a sudden it's more profitable to be— to unpick this thing, because it's all there. It's all the evidence is there to, to reveal. So it'd be very interesting to see how quickly the narrative collapses in the coming months.

Dan, what's your take on people like David Icke who Um, you know, is kind of very popular in his, what you might deem as very extreme, let's call it, views. That's obviously a very limiting word. Is he doing the campaign for balanced media and narrative and discussion and debate? Is he doing that cause good or harm? And obviously he's getting deplatformed pretty much everywhere, and anyone who's interviewing him— we've still got a strike on our YouTube channel, hopefully it's lifting soon, because of an interview I did with David Icke. Um, what are your thoughts on someone like David Icke who might have more extreme views, who's getting canceled and deplatformed? But if those views are extreme, is that a form of propaganda in itself? What are your thoughts?

Well, firstly, I've met David several times. I think he's a lovely man, very nice chap, and I think he's got a lot of interesting things to say. That said, I'm not really that able to comment on what he speaks about. I haven't consumed, quite frankly, I haven't consumed a lot of David's content. I know he's positioned in a certain way in the mainstream media. His position, you know, his history follows him, I think, and I think that's, that's a risk of the world that we live in right now where, you know, what you published 10 years ago will catch you today. Um, but I, I honestly don't know. I, I couldn't comment on David's content, but I think what I do can comment on is that he should have the right, like any one of us, to share his perspectives on the situation, as I do. And, um, in terms of bringing balanced debate, is he going to bring balanced debate? Probably not. He's going to bring his, his take on the situation. But if you, if you eliminate one side of the debate, then there is no debate. It's, it's, um, it's just, it's just an echo chamber of what the dominant narrative is, which leads off the back of your previous point around the controlled media interest of what the, what the governing story is. So if you don't allow the space for someone to challenge that, then we don't live in a free society. We don't live in a free society. So, you know, I, I'm very interested to learn more about David's views, of course, um, but I, I honestly have had the time really to consume any of his content. We've been so—

I'll give you one example because I interviewed him. I've interviewed him twice. I know him, and yeah, he's definitely not what he is judged when you're with him. But obviously his views are— quite many of them have come to light, like you said, but some of them are very extreme. So I'm going to get the wording wrong because I can't remember the exact wording, but he told me to my face that the vaccine is essentially a biological weapon.

Well, yeah, that's— that can be his view. I think it's one of the— it's one of these— there's, there's so many— there's so much power to language and semantics.

And he didn't use the word weapon, he used some kind of developing agent that can be triggered and controlled to manipulate Right, well, I, I don't believe that's true of this current vaccine, but the reality is that technology is being developed, you know, that's no, that's no secret, you know.

The fact that, um, you know, it's a conspiracy theory in 2020 that, uh, there would be injectable, um, biometric IDs— Sweden, you're already using injectable biometric IDs happening, you know, it's, it's the world of the technology we live in. So If you haven't heard of the technology that now exists, you can dismiss it as conspiracy theory. You can. But if you just take 5 minutes to go and research the latest trends in wearable technology, it's in the same category, but it's actually human augmentation. It's an industry that is very much in existence. So whilst I don't think it's correct that these current set of products have that. They are being tested and developed for future medical use. So, you know, yeah, I, I could be wrong about the current set. I think, I think it should be relatively easy to prove if you, if you take it into a lab. But nonetheless, the technology is being developed. You know, this, this is also a symbol. It's a symbol of the trajectory of the type of technologies that are being developed, which are in this surveillance, digital medical surveillance state. And again, We'd be naive if we ignored that. It's easy to dismiss as conspiracy, but it's a fact that, that surveillance-led medical surveillance technologies are being built under the guise of being for the greater good, of course, you know, to help you for your health. But actually, what's the consequences of being able to track people's medical status? We've seen in the last 2 years how, how that can divide and segregate society. And that's, you know, the ethics, the ethics of these types of technologies just aren't being assessed. And so after the fact.

Okay, Dan, let's do two more. I'm loving this and the numbers keep going up, so maybe we should have done a 24-hour live stream. See, I've turned the tables of the questions. I bet you weren't ready for this.

I wasn't ready, but I was always happy to ask.

You're always ready, Dan, that's the thing, right? So there's so many people all over my channels talking about the New World Order, the Global Reset, own nothing and be happy. Klaus Schwab, um, destruction of the middle class, destruction of small business, the 2030 Agenda. So what is all this stuff, and have you got any evidence or thoughts that there might be a greater agenda of this New World Order?

We should have your schedule 24 hours because this is— yeah, I could unpack this at scale. So, well, firstly, you know, number one, you can buy the book The Great Reset. Go and read it, 300 pages. I mean, if you're not— if you've never read an economic textbook before, get ready yourself, get ready for a very boring read. Um, but, but the reality is The Great Reset is a proposition that's been underdeveloped by the World Economic Forum for, for many years. And what we've witnessed in the last two years is very opportunistic bringing forward of this concept. And it's, you know, they've now gone on to develop The Great Narrative. I mean, if you want, if you want, if you want, if you want to trigger people, call, call your latest proposition The Great Narrative, which is his latest book. The reality is what we have is, um, and Russell Brand speaks about this, is, is, you know, it's, it's, it's the small number of people who Russell says, uh, occupy the bejeweled bus. You know, it's the small handful of people who have more more money and power than the majority of the people on Earth, who have now, as we alluded to in previous parts of this conversation, have an undue level of power and political influence. And it's no secret the Davos Man, as they refer to, that the World Economic Forum have their annual retreats, and there are other institutions that do the same thing, which comment upon the future agenda for humanity. Now, you may, you know, people may disagree with me on this, They may have reasonable intent in their activities, but questionable means. And that's the key piece, the questionable means. Because what we're witnessing— and by the way, I'm not endorsing what they do, just to be very clear— because what we're witnessing is a very technocratic, which means expert-led, which transforms the relationship between the state and the private sector and the individual. And we've seen this very paternalistic approach in 2020 where the politicians are the adults, although they don't in any way behave like it, and we're the naughty children that need to be kept at home because we might cause some harm. But this trend, this trend of authoritarian governance, this trend of track and trace and surveil is very much a trend that is stemming from that type of think tank on the basis that they feel it's easier to solve the world's problems by taking away autonomy from the people who are creating the problems. So it's a very tricky situation. In terms of one world government, this type of idea, I've been around enough people who have strong, you know, and you've got to be careful that you're not making conflating arguments because what, I mean, I was saying this to someone yesterday, someone was talking about depopulation. So you can talk about depopulation, but you can't talk about depopulation in the same conversation that you're having that minimizes excess mortality. If you're saying that excess mortality in the last 2 years is, is one of the lowest points it's been in the last 50 years, you can't then say there's a depopulation agenda because they're, they're conflicting arguments, for instance. So because otherwise you'd expect to see excess mortality growing. And that's not to say that there aren't risks with the current situation that could escalate mortality. That's absolutely another issue. But this point here around New World Order, you can't then say Bill Gates and, uh, Mark Zuckerberg have this megalomania, uh, complex, God complex, where they feel that they could transform, you know, and alter the trajectory of the world, and then say— because that behavior type is not a collaborative behavior type— you can't then say that that behavior type is, is in cahoots. But absolutely, people with that level of control and that type of ethos do feel like they can solve the world's problems with technology. And as a result, they accumulate even greater money and power. So we have to be able to see through the veil of the interests that are there. My view is that we have to be able to see— Bill Gates calls it creative capitalism, is the way he calls it, creative capitalism, which is essentially about marketing your activities as good for the world, even if it's not. Yes, it's, it's, it's, and we've seen that throughout the, you know, it's, it's easy to project something, uh, being for the social good even if it causes social harm, um, uh, for profit. So it's a very complex web. I have a lot of, I have a lot to say on all of that, and it comes back to the centralization of power, you know, these unelected kings, so to speak, who, who, who have—

let me jump in there because there's a lot of people that— not a lot Enough to it be a collection that say the world is controlled by these self-elected kings, these families that go back through thousands of generational years. And of course there's the family names that always pop up, like the Rothschilds and etc. I just want to know what the deal is. I asked David Icke directly, who are these families, and he couldn't answer it. Dan, who are these self-elected kings? Who are these families? Who is controlling the world?

Well, yeah, yeah, I mean, this is an important point. It's an important point. And even when— take it to a campaign level, you know, when you're campaigning an institution, you need to be, you need to be able to individualize it because it's, it's the key. But there's a couple of things to unpack here. So firstly, we— the Rothschilds is an example, you know, there, there are many wealthy— the Murdochs— there are many very, very wealthy families who have a lot of influence control over some of the, or many of the, uh, industries that we've touched upon— media, pharmaceuticals, technology. When you have a controlling interest in such a breadth of, uh, sectors, you, you can only expect that, that, you know, their intent will, will filter through in some, some, some way. Uh, so again, this comes back to the idea that I think we need to look at decentralization of power. But the prob— the problem I have full stop with this whole mentality of someone else is controlling the world is that it— what it does, not only does it polarize, but it puts you back into a different form of fear. You can be afraid of the virus, or you can be afraid of the New World Order and totalitarianism. Either way, you're in fear, and you put yourself in the drama triangle, which says, I'm a victim. It creates us and them. You become disempowered, and therefore you say, well, there's nothing we can do. And that's— I don't buy into— I won't play into that. I get called all kinds of names from shield to controlled opposition, to ignore me for not leaning into that, because I fundamentally don't agree with putting things out in the world that create people a sense of disempowerment. Because we know that there's people out there that have an enormous amount of control and power over the direction of the world. But that takes the power outside of you in order to change it. And I believe in exactly what we talked about today, that in order to transform the world, we have to transform ourselves and we have to become empowered. We have to become empowered in order to start to create the change. And if we're spending our lifetime worrying about who's running the world, well, we're not running our own world. We're not creating the change. We're not leading by example. So for me, I don't care what people call me. I believe in personal empowerment, and I believe in regardless of how the world around me looks and is set up, we have to change it. It begins with us. So don't fall into the fear trap. You know, this, this entire Telegram groups that I, that I'm part of, which is this very dark energy about how the world has been controlled. And I'm not saying it's something that's not true. There, we know that. I take it as a given that the major institutions and individuals have a controlling power of the world, but I, I can't change it by just talking about it. You know, I have, I have to go and do something different. And, and that's, that's the key for me, is about becoming, uh, self-empowered. You know, I mean, willingly, I, I would gladly take all the criticism in the world for not being somebody who spends my entire time trying to dissect the controlling interests. I have an awareness. Knowing the problem is one thing, finding the solution is the next.

So Dan, this narrative is where I try and focus 90% of my time, focus, and energy. I would love to know who owns the world. I would love to know the truth of the New World Order and the Great Reset and own nothing and be happy. I would love to know all that, but But if I spend 90% of my time trying to find that, all I'm going to do is go in these BitChute, Telegram rabbit holes that I'm never going to come out of. And I'm going to end— you know, if you sit in darkness long enough, there is no light. So I think where we're trying to change the narrative as much as we can is what can you control? How can you change the world? How can you change yourself? What useful and meaningful products and services and narrative and content can you put out and try and fight mainstream so that you can make a valuable difference in the world. And then hopefully you can profit. And then when you can profit, you can start your own foundation and you can start your own campaigns for good and change. And too many people get sucked into victim mode, and that's what we're trying to do differently. Now, Dan, I want to address something real quick. Um, uh, sorry that your 8:30, uh, your 9:30 meeting's gone. I hope it wasn't Rishi. Or Boris. Um, no, but quite a few people, Dan, interestingly, accused me of sitting on the fence, and, um, I want to address that. So I don't know that I sit on the fence. What I do know is there's so much that I don't know, and I think arrogance, and even almost you could argue reverse propaganda, is we're saying this is wrong, this is right, I campaign against this, when you don't have the knowledge. Like, I think I have the knowledge of what this massive taxation will do, and I think I have the knowledge that the lack of support and subsidy will do, because I've been an entrepreneur for nearly 20 years, and I am it now, and I feel it. But until I've interviewed Rishi and Boris and the people behind them and yada yada, I don't have a balanced view. So that's— I'm not sitting on the fence. I am acknowledging what I don't know.

Yes.

And not enough people do that. They, they do a bit of research, i.e., they watch a YouTube video, and then they think they know everything. So that's number one reason why I am balanced or dual-sided, or I'm careful not to say certain things. That's reason number one. And I think that we need more of that. Reason number two is I don't want to get deplatformed, and I want to have a voice, and I don't want— I was saying to you, Dan, about a big deal we've got going on right now, like tens of millions. So I don't want to be silenced. So if it means I can't say certain words and I just have to dance a little bit That's what I have to do because I can't change the world in a dark room, you know. And people are talking about BitChute and Telegram, that's fine, but you ain't changing the world on BitChute and Telegram. You're changing the world getting out to the masses. So occasionally I am careful with what I say. What's fucking wrong with that? Well, Rob, yeah, final quick point, then I'm gonna go over to you, is what is wrong with looking at both sides? Why do we have to say, I believe that I'm right and you're wrong? Like, I do believe taxes are too high. I do believe not enough subsidy and support for small business. I do strongly believe that. But I do also want to look at both sides. What's wrong with that? Anyway, what are your thoughts, Dan?

This is what we call the epistemic crisis, which is a knowledge crisis. Um, it's, uh, This is a term that, you know, you'll hear me talking more about here because it's— you've made so many— there's so many dynamics to what you've just shared, and it's really, really important to recognize those things. So number one, seeking balance and seeking to, seeking to understand different perspectives is so important. I remember early on I interviewed this— I interviewed someone from the Sage Group and I interviewed someone from the independent Sage Group, and they had contrasting opinions to the kind of overarching framework of conversation that we'd had up until that point. But people were nasty in the comments and I saw them. I did another broadcast afterwards because I spent an hour with one of the Sage advisors and they spoke how hard they'd worked. I won't say who it was. He broke down in tears. He'd been working so hard to try and prevent the schools from closing down in 2020. He could see the damage. He was, you know, again, going to power dynamics. His work, he put hours and weeks into it to try and prevent it happening. It was just ignored, you know. So we— but he was slammed. So I came back online afterwards and I said, look, I've just had a heartfelt conversation. This guy, the things people have been saying about this human being, going back to the point we're on the same team, you know, it's not useful for us to tear people down and dehumanize each other. It's not an elevated consciousness. It's not an empowering way to live. We can disagree, but let's respectfully disagree. I, I mean, so I think that's firstly important to be able to do that. But secondly, within the epistemic crisis, we've got an uneven battlefield of debate. So you can have a debate based around rationality and logic, which is the, the facts, the figures, the data, the science. But if the contrasting argument is in an ideological perspective based based upon the emotion of it all, and it's not a level playing field. And, you know, there was a philosopher who spoke about if you're going to engage in the debate, you need to agree the terms of the debate before you begin. Are we on the rational ground, or are we arguing on an ideological basis? Because if you're going to argue on an ideological basis, you need to be both coming at it from an ideological perspective, because logic and reason will never prosper over ideology. It's— you're simply talking at different terms. So all of this is part of that crisis. I think it's really important that we do find balance and open up the conversation, and actually we can learn from each other and respectively agree, disagree. But I also feel that that's part of the solution, because actually many of the issues that we're campaigning about would actually— I think they would come to greater understanding if we were able to have public dialogue about it face to face and actually talk about these things. Because what happens is when you take a position, you polarize, and when you polarize, you actually Psychology shows it's more likely that someone who has the opposite view to you won't pay attention to you if you're pushing too hard in the other direction. So it actually has the opposite effect. So in many ways, it's about understanding the principles of communication and influence. And this is what I struggled with with my audience, is trying to understand that we need to communicate in a way that opens up the doorway to having a conversation with more people. So speaking in a way that gets me deplatformed is going to limit my audience. Because actually, whilst I do support decentralized platforms, the reality is 90% plus, if not more than 99% plus, are still on the mainstream platform. So if I'm trying to reach the people who aren't in the echo chamber that I've created around this topic, then I need to be able to speak into that space. So getting deplatformed and speaking in a way that's going to polarize those people is just not going to be useful. So it's about the art of communication. It's How to Win Friends and Influence People, the old book. So I totally agree with you. But the other important point is here, we should not feel restrained. We should not be in an environment where what we can and cannot say is determined in the way that it's become in the last 2 years. So I think when we're dumbing down what we want to say because we don't want to get deplatformed, then we have an issue. And that is happening. I'm doing that. There's certain words that we can't say. We make a joke about it on the podcast, but this is wrong. This is why we should campaign against that. Now, of course, it's again going into an ideological debate. Free speech, censorship, deplatforming. Where are the bounds? If we were to sit around a table of 10 people and try and agree what is not acceptable to speak about, what is harmful, what is hateful, what is hurtful, we probably wouldn't come to a consensus. So does free speech have bounds? Does freedom of expression have bounds? Should it have bounds? How do we bring ethics and care and understanding and compassion to it? It's such a complex web, but it ultimately comes back full circle right to how do we become the best versions of ourselves? To take it into a spiritual place, I've got a whole range of personal development books and spiritual material over here. What would my divine self do? And I caught myself doing this on Twitter the other day. I was about to go on a rant. I was like, what would my divine self say? I better turn Twitter off because my divine self would not enter into that argument because it's only going to upset someone. Now, it doesn't mean we don't speak up and speak our mind because we are afraid of— because that's part of what the cancel culture has come from, is about this fear of offending people. We shouldn't be in that space. Again, it comes back to the human condition. Maybe we've gone through such— I'm on a rant here— anxiety and trauma that we can't actually accept criticism. We can't actually accept someone else's point of view. It's so complex. But to simply kind of bring it to a conclusion, I think it's really important that we do have debate. What we haven't had though, Rob, is we haven't had balanced debate for 2 years. We haven't. There has been polarization. There has been a competing narrative, but it's not been able to have the space when it comes to the pandemic. And that's just fundamentally wrong in my view. And it's really important that we cultivate the ability to build bridges now. Building bridges amongst humanity is probably one of the greatest things we can do in 2020. Heal the divide, heal the wounds, and stop trying to pick a side and realize we're all on the same team.

Amen. I can hear Michael Jackson's Heal the World music playing as you say that, and I think that's a great way to end, Dan, because we did way longer than we were planning to do initially. You started asking me questions and I've turned the tables on you. I'll summarize where I'm at, Dan, and then I'd love a little summary from you. I believe that all the mismanagement of all these loans and the repayment of loans in the billions is going to increase taxes and hurt us. And I think it's really poor management of money that a lot of people gamed the system and scammed the loan system. And shame on them, by the way, because that's not the government's fault. Necessarily. But all the people that would— a lot of people who were probably rightly due these loans and subsidies couldn't get them. So that's an unfair system, and it's going to increase taxes, I think, probably. I think that the government should reduce VAT, reduce corp tax, reduce income tax, freeze any other tax increases like and, for example, dividend tax. Incentivize, encourage, reward, and subsidize small businesses to grow and give them, um, breaks and incentives to reinvest back into innovation, employment, and resources. Then what will happen is we'll fire up the supply chain, we'll fire up production, because I think we need to get into production quick. I think we need to have a bit of a cultural pushback on work from home and take it easy because it's been really hard on my mental health, and understand that in, you know, we're not in prosperity, so therefore we need to work our way out of this and create a graft and craft culture to get out of this, um, situation and not enter into depression. Therefore, we also need a more free market with less government intervention other than intervening with monopolies, and allow us to fully and fairly and freely trade, and allow fair and free market competition to fully come into play. That's my summary of what I would love to see happen. What's yours, Dan?

Great summary, Robin. That actually speaks into the very subject of the subject that we spoke for about 5 minutes on, but before going on a kind of philosophical rant about what's going on. So on the business side, firstly, I think there's obviously mistakes that have been made with the bounce-back situation. I do also recognize there'll be people in there who perhaps probably wouldn't have qualified for the loans but were desperate. And again, that speaks to that point that what support should have been there for those who are struggling and suffering. But the reality is people are struggling and suffering now, and it's really important that we start to think about solutions. That's the ultimate message. There's two fundamental messages here One is that we can't change what's gone before us. We can hold public inquiries, we can look to make sure these things don't happen again, and if there was things that could be done differently, the accountability put in place. But ultimately, right now we're in a position where the economy is suffering. We've got an inflationary market condition, and in order to actually change that, we need to go into that mode of prosperity. That means we need creativity, we need entrepreneurship, we need innovation. And ultimately, for me, it comes back to everything we've talked about in a roundabout way is personal responsibility and actually looking at what role do we want to play in the world in front of us. We've talked about lots of the different problems that the world is facing right now, who controls the world, who owns the world, how it's run, all of the flaws and injustices that may follow with that. Ultimately, it won't change by its own accord. So number one, we can be part of the change by starting new initiatives, new companies, new grassroots change initiatives on one hand, build new businesses, stimulate the economy that way. But also we get to do things differently forward. It's a time to review and reflect the systems and structures that have gone before us and actually say, how do we tweak these? How do we find greater balance? Because again, There's a great book called Recapture the Rapture by Jamie Wheal who talks about how we tend to fall into this mindset of saying we want a blank slate upon which to build the world, but actually in many ways that's demonizing everything that's gone before us. We're actually, with some tweaks, you know, they call it the 2mm difference. You know, you're a golfing man, Rob Moore, you know, if you hit the ball 2mm out, you know, it's the difference between getting on the fairway and getting it in the water or get it in the hole. So that 2mm shift that we can make in the way that the world is operating can actually create a profound effect down the line. And I think we should be looking for those 2mm shifts in the world around us and start to create change. So I think it's about becoming empowered, becoming the best versions of ourselves. And for those people who have been kind of— their eyes have been open to the world over the last 2 years and they want to play a part in changing it, this is a really good time to evaluate what role you want to play in how the future unfolds from here forth, because there is opportunities everywhere. There is, there's problems, there's pain, there's suffering. And within us, I believe we have the answers and the solutions in order to heal, heal, heal the problems we've seen, but also to speak to our previous point, heal the divide. It's time, it's time to mend the relationships. It's time to be able to recognize that we're on the same team. You know, we are, we're all human. We have a limited lifespan. Goodness me, let's make the best of it. Let's get living again.

Dan, that was absolutely fantastic. I would now like to encourage every single person listening and watching to hit the share button, because Dan and I have both, in a parallel universe, been campaigning to support, well, many areas, but let's just focus now on the support of the small business, which is why we started this episode. So I don't believe that there's enough subsidy, enough support I believe that taxes are too high, prices are too high, and too many things are being intervened to, um, that get in the way of being able to run a small business effectively. Um, there are quotes of up to 90% of the economy is driven through the small business. It is the driver of the most of the private sector, which pays for most of the public sector. So here's what we'd like you to do. Number 1, please share this on every social media channel. Jenny has just done it. Thank you so much, Jenny. Um, so that we can get the message out to support small businesses. Now, by the way, I am practicing what I preach here, Dan, and I, I'll tell you why. Anybody can promote their small business in any of my comments on social media. Anne has just shared as well. Thanks, Anne, appreciate that. So a lot of people don't want you selling and pitching and putting links links in comments, not me. If you have a small business, pitch it in the comments. Tell us what you do. Share a link, share your Facebook page, share your website, because if you can gain a client or business from Dan and I, then we're not just talking, we're doing. Chris has just shared as well. Next thing I'd ask you to do is please tag in any small businesses you know. Do you know hairdressers, gym owners, restaurateurs, hoteliers, people in travel, retail, etc. All these businesses that have been decimated in lockdown 1 and 2 and 2.2 and whatever, 17.0. Belinda has shared, Jason is putting his link in there. So let me just say that again. David has just shared. One, please share the video. Carla, thank you for sharing. Number 2, tag in a small business owner that you know, or friends or family and people who are trying to run a business. Monica has shared. Simon has shared. And then number 3, pitch your business in the comments. Because, you know, look, we could get 10,000 signatures, that's going to do nothing. But if 10,000 of you put your small business in here and share this content, and 10,000 small businesses see it, and you all gain a client or two, well, you know, we are starting to be the change we want to see in the world. You can go on every live video I've done on Facebook and put in a link to your business and tag in other small business owners. Please do that right now. Dan, Dan has the Pandemic Podcast. For all my viewers and listeners, make sure you go and follow Dan Gregory, or Dan Astin Gregory as his profiles are also known, and go and subscribe to the Pandemic Podcast. Mine is called Disruptors, so, um, go and subscribe to Disruptors Disruptors podcast, and also you can find me @RobMoore or @RobMooreProgressive. Dan, I just intended to put this on Facebook, but I think I'm going to publish this on Disruptors. Um, I think I'll get the guys to clean up the audio a bit, and I think I'm going to publish it across all the channels because I think it's been a fantastic conversation. Any last words?

Uh, last words? Yes. No, I think it's We've covered a lot of bases. I think it's, you know, we've made a good summary of the situation. I think the closing message of taking action is always the important one. You know, this is about now, you know, if we are on the same team supporting each other in business, doing exactly what you've just shared, helping those businesses that are out there trying to make a difference. Let's share them, let's help them grow, because, you know, that's how we start to really make a difference. And I will say finally, We are just in the process of launching our own Elevate private platform for conversations like these. We'd love to invite your tribe to come and check that out. We're launching that next week. We've got it, we've got a beta, we're in beta this week, but these types of conversations are going to be paramount, and we're also going to look at how we can even more broadly support those businesses that are out there doing really positive empowering things. Look out for that in the near future. And please do, if you haven't, as Rob said, please do subscribe to the Pandemic Podcast. You can do that at danjgregory.com/pandemic, and we can send you all of our content. We've done over 500 episodes talking about this thing, and we won't stop until this is done.

So, Dan, I always tune out with a phrase: if you don't risk anything, you risk everything. And I think that's become more and more relevant in these disruptive times. So finally, please hit the share button, tag in a small business owner that you know and want to support, and tell us what your business is and share a link so that we can all start using each other. You know, people say support the small business and don't shop just on Amazon. Well, now's our time to do it together. Thanks everyone. I think we should get out of here because I think it's tomorrow because I think we started this yesterday. 1 hour and 42 minutes.

Yes. All right, thanks so much everyone. Tune out.