World War 3 & The New World Order

Revolution, New World Order. Rob, are we on the precipice of World War III?

I think we're the closest to World War III that I can remember we've ever been. I do remember thinking when Trump was at his fever pitch, he, he seems to be losing control. I can't remember the last time we got this close to World War III. Now look, Dan, I'm not a doom monger. But I can tell you this, a lot of people I knew didn't think Brexit would happen. It did. No one predicted COVID. It happened. A lot of people said to me, Putin won't invade. He did. So one thing that springs to mind is we mustn't let hubris and complacency get in the way. Obviously, I'm a bit torn because I don't want to go live saying, oh, World War III could be here, but I believe you must plan for the worst as well as hope for the best.

Yeah, agreed. Um, interesting you mentioned Trump, the fears around this type of thing previously. Do you think this would have been happening if Trump was still in power? Is this, is this, you know, has the role of Biden played a play? Has he played a role in this, or is there, is there something more to this?

Well, if you follow Trump on social, if you can find him anywhere he's not been banned from, I follow his son, and his son puts a lot of his media out. Of course, he would tell you how he would have handled it differently. I mean, Donald Trump is a strong character, and he does embody the, you know, the Americans can't be bullied. But, but I just want everyone to know, I'm not a hater of all government, and I'm not a hater of all leaders. And it's easy for you and I to sit here in the studio and criticize them, but if you were Biden and I were Putin, you know Of course, we'd have a different view. What I will say is Biden tweeted publicly saying any NATO military intervention is World War III. And I was actually quite pleased he tweeted that because that is public accountability that NATO and America will have to do everything they can to not intervene in a military fashion, which I'm not a believer in war. Wars have to happen. If you go back through history, conflict does equal war. I accept that. But I was pleased that, um, the intervention is from, you know, blocking information, blocking, um, money, you know, sanctions as such. Um, so I'm not a massive critic of Biden. I don't think he's necessarily handled it badly because, you know, a lot of people on my lives, they go, oh, just get rid of Putin, just send the bombs in. That is, to me, you know, human life should be preserved. It should be a last action. So I was more of a fan of, you know, the sanctions of finances and blocking all the finance. And I actually think that was a good way to suffocate, um, you know, the advancements of Russia with all the sanctions that have happened. Um, I think Trump probably would have been more aggressive. I don't know if that is the answer. What do you think?

Well, I mean, some people are arguing that if Trump was still in power, he had a different relationship with Putin. Um, by the way, we're keeping a Putin count throughout this episode to see if, uh, you know, you reach a certain number and you get—

let's see if we can get canceled live.

Yeah, maybe we'll try and use the term Putin inappropriately just to see what happens. But we will be touching on cancel culture, but we'll come back to that. But I think there are people out there who think that if Trump had still been in power, he had a different relationship, it could have played out differently. But as you said, you know, the reality is not—

Trump does respect Putin and thinks he's a very smart person. So clearly they must have had some kind of relationship.

Yeah, well, I think all of this comes back down to the relationships that people have. Yeah. You know, diplomacy requires some form of relationship, but we've seen complete breakdown of diplomacy. Are we on the edge of World War III? Well, I think it's important to see the warning signs. I think people do need to take it seriously, but at the same time—

well, how's Putin getting out of this now?

Well, good question.

You know, people have been saying they need to let him save face. I remember a billionaire speaking to me, and I asked him what's the best advice he ever got. And he said, when you back a rat into a corner, always give it a hole to exit through. And I remember that. And if you push someone with a strong ego or dictatorial qualities into a corner, they're probably going to fight.

Yes.

You have to give them something to exit stage left. Yes, I do actually agree with that.

Well, that's also why it's important that we don't just bombard Russia, because you're absolutely going to trigger the beast. you know, at the precipice of World War III with nuclear potential, we don't really want to poke the bear so far that someone pulls that trigger because that is catastrophic loss of life. You know, that is a decision you can't come back from. So it's, it's a really complex situation. What's your take? Why do you think this— why is this happening now in the way that it is?

Well, I think if you look back through history, you see cycles of peace and war, and I think people think generally speaking, assuming we're all of reasonably good humanity, that war is bad and peace is good. But there are always cycles in history of peace and war. And we haven't had a war— well, we've had quite a few wars, but we haven't had a world war for, you know, not quite a century. But I bet if you go back through history, it's quite hard to find a century without a serious war. Now, of course, every war that's happened is serious. And there have been, of course, the Gulf War, and there's been many wars. But so cycles is one thing. Another thing I think is when people are upset and angry enough— and because I don't think there's just a war on the division of Russia and Ukraine, I think there's a war on freedom of speech. I think there's a war on council culture, a war on our ability to speak our mind without getting shadow banned or banned. A war— language is now used as a weapon, like, oh, that's misinformation. That's like me saying you're a— you know, so language is now being used as a weapon.

Yes.

And it reminds me that I think in cycles, you often have strong leadership comes out of hard times. Strong leadership then creates good times. Good times creates weak leadership. Weak leadership creates hard times. Hard times create strong leadership. Strong leadership creates good times. And you see this cycle going round. And I, I— it's not directly answered your question, but I think that cycles have a big part to play in it.

Well, I think it does directly answer the question on the basis— well, it was— it doesn't break down the complexities of the situation in Russia, Ukraine, all of that, you know, we could speculate over. But the cycles piece actually is probably the most important piece because we're so busy in the kind of present moment doing our thing that we rarely take that macro stock, look at what's going on in the world in terms of those cycles. But The reality is history does show us some level of predictability to what's happening in the world today. In fact, Ray Dalio, if you haven't seen it, he's done a fantastic 45-minute video on the last 500 years. And you could pretty much to a tee— and he recorded this prior to the Russian conflict— and you could see it on the charts that something like this was on its way. So it does become a predictor. But the big question is, is it also a predictor of the future? Because what we're seeing now in the UK, You know, we've just had the budget announcements. We're coming off the back of COVID where it's had huge economic ramifications. You know, how do we move forward from that?

Again, if you look at the cycle, well, they say bad luck, bad comes in threes. So Brexit, COVID, Putin, that's a pretty bad little run there.

Yeah, I hope someone's keeping count. I think that's 4 or 5 times I've had Putin. By the way, if you're watching this live now, I'm here at the Disruptor Studios. My name is Dan Astin Gregory, delighted to be here with Rob Moore today, unpacking some of these big picture stories, asking the question, are we on the precipice of revolution? Are we on the, the kind of tipping point of a World War III? These big picture conversations that I think many of us are having in our minds. We're witnessing what's happening in the world, trying to make sense of the situation in order to find our way through it. I think many of us probably watching this are, if not all of us, are pro-peace. You know, I can't make that assumption, but you know, I would personally, having been a new father, don't want to live in a world with conflict in the way that we're witnessing now.

But again, the problem is, and I hear you, but it's a utopic fantasy to believe we can exist in a non-conflict world. And that's because we all have a unique set of values. So I'm going to throw a solution straight out there right now. And this is naive and it's a fantasy. It's an ideology. And that can be a problem. But the only way I believe we'll ever be in a world where we don't have wars is one, by respecting and understanding each other's values. This is really important because what is a conflict? A conflict is I believe X and you believe Y.

Yes.

Therefore, you're wrong and I'm right. And therefore, I will fight to defend my values and I will fight against yours because yours are wrong and mine are right. You're a socialist. I'm a capitalist. You're extreme left. I'm right. So the only way we navigate conflict, we have to be open about what challenges our values, because what often happens in conflict is there's repression, repression, repression, and then there's too big of an expression. We've all held things in only for them to explode later. But also, I have to care enough about you to learn your values, to understand what motivates and drives you and who you are and what will challenge your values. And if I want to sell you on a vision, a dream, a product or service, the way I can most do that is understand your values and link my discussion, my debate, my offer to your values. And what happens is all conflict comes, I believe, from an opposition of values, whether it's on a family level, a local level, a county level, a country level, a continent level or, or a global level. So obviously in the world of politics and war, we have a big values difference between NATO and Russia, or America and Putin, or China and— or whatever else. So it's, it's ideological, yes, but you never resolve conflict by fighting it. If I fight you and I win, do you go 'Oh Rob, I'm really happy. Thanks for beating me.' No, you plan your next move and you come back bigger and stronger to fight me and defeat me back. And this is what we've been doing for tens of thousands of years. Now, we used to be barbarians. We don't need to be barbarians anymore. So we have to learn to appreciate each other's values, meet in the middle. And that's on a global level, that's called a treaty. You know, we need to meet on a level. And also, like, I have to allow you your freedom to disagree with me. And people don't do this. Like, I like you if you agree with me, but if you disagree with me, I'm going to ban you, cancel you, deplatform you, or bomb you.

Yes, this is wrong.

Yeah, but, and I, I'm frustrated because I think we surely should be more evolved as humanity. We understand our brain, the science that's available to us. Yet in many ways, I feel like we're devolving back. You know that famous image of the Neolithic man sort of going from a Neanderthal upwards into a human being, Homo erectus or whatever we are? Well, I feel like we're going back down. So anyway.

Well, evolution. I'll hold evolution because that's a really important point on this journey because actually you could argue we're on a pathway to either self-termination or self-transcendence. And, you know, I would argue for a pathway towards transcendence, but I'll come to that on the evolution. But on your point here around values and our ability to resolve conflict, what's really interesting mentioning Brexit, COVID, the war, all of these have been deeply polarizing subjects. You know, they've torn people apart, they've put people into camps. But what's really interesting from a social dynamics perspective is there's this, there's this theory called terror management. Theory. And basically, when we're in fear, when we're in conditions where we are fearful for our own mortality, or we're fearful of a widespread change, what tends to happen— so look at Brexit, you know, it put you straight into your identity position. Often, you know, people reflect back on those decisions were done on very micro levels rather than an assessment of the overall situation. Not speaking for everyone, but, you know, that's, that's some of the commentary. But then COVID, existential, perceived existential threat, particularly in the way that it was managed. Now war, you know, mortality. So the terror management theory suggests that when we're in fear in this way, we gravitate towards that worldview, that those identity polarities. And what that does is it makes us more likely to cling on to our pre-existing view. It makes us more likely to enter into conflict. So the fact that we've gone from Brexit, COVID, to war means that we're actually more likely to continue this journey of polarization. We're actually more likely to continue to fall out. But how we get to that point of recognition of diplomacy, understanding your point of view, understanding someone else's point of view. I mean, there'll be people watching this now who've got completely different opinions to Rob Moore and I. But if we were to sit in a room, we may not ever come to a conclusion that we all accept, but we can come to a shared understanding. But in the context of war, you know, quite clearly that ability to understand one another has broken down to the point where weapons are being fired. How do you, how do you, you know, what, what, what is going to mark the end of this? Where do you think this is going to go?

I'm no war expert. Oh, you know, I'm not.

Oh, so disappointed. You've come to the wrong place.

Sorry. Uh, the reason you and I are talking about this is because Every now and again, there's more important things than the things that we do.

Yes.

So I'm an entrepreneur and I help people start and scale their business and get better financial knowledge. But right now, with a fight on information, a fight on freedom of speech, a fight on, you know, your property rights, your liberty, and now of course a war, it's important that we use our platform to try and put out positive message. But I'm always very honest about where my limits are, and I'm not a study of war history. So where does this end? I do not know. But I do know that I will interrupt my content every single day to promote peace, not war, to promote treaties and negotiations and letting people save face and finding ways to end mass conflict and to encourage other people to do the same. So I hope it ends between those two nations. But how can it? Like, how can it?

Yes.

This is why I'm a bit worried about this being the closest to World War III, because Putin takes Ukraine. What's he going to stop there? Somehow he manages to retreat. I don't, I don't see how it ends. I don't know what everyone else thinks, but, um, what I do know is any military intervention, the US president has said, is World War III. So it probably ends by cutting off information and cutting off money supply, which they've been doing, and it ends in giving Putin some kind of exit which he's in some way satisfied with.

Yes.

But then here's something that people don't often admit. You only know what you know based on the research you can do, and some of your research has to come from mainstream media, and you're already skeptical about mainstream media.

Very much so.

So what you know has got to be at least 3 or 4 iterations away from the reality. The only way you'd really know what's going on is if you are Putin's right-hand man or you are the US president. So we all think we know more than we do.

Indeed.

And, you know, I've lost a lot of respect for the neutrality of sites like the BBC, which— that used to be a big thing about the Great British Broadcasting Corporation, the institution of balanced information. But no, they have their own fact-checking system, which is really, we don't agree with you.

Yes.

And so mainstream media is being disrupted, and the continued disruption of mainstream media, I think, is linked to where this could end, because that's where the propaganda comes through, that's where a lot of the misinformation comes through. Ironically, they accuse others of misinformation. Information. You know, they tried to cancel Joe Rogan. Now, when I said they, who knows? Some people say it's mainstream media. Who's puppet stringing mainstream media? Who knows? But there was a concerted effort to completely dethrone— because he is on a throne— Joe Rogan, to get his show shut down, pressuring Spotify. You know, these sort of older has-been singer celebrities that when you look who the investors are behind them, all link back to mainstream media, you know, blah blah blah. So preserving our freedom of speech, decentralizing media so it has less control and less power, so less ability for propaganda therefore a more balanced and diverse information flow. I think that's linked.

Yes, I agree. I mean, back to your point around how to resolve conflict, and it requires dialogue and understanding. How can you have understanding when half the conversation is being chopped off? How can you have— throughout the pandemic, we saw endless amounts of censorship, deplatforming, cancel culture across all big tech.

And big tech has replaced mainstream TV as the main media outlets. But yet, if, if an advertiser says, oh, I don't, I don't want David Icke, or I don't want COVID misinformation on channels where I'm giving you billions of pounds worth of ad spend, what are YouTube going to do? They're obviously going to go, oh, okay. And so, but then they have these AI bots. So I, I like to watch and I did a Facebook Live and I said the C-word, COVID, once.

Yes.

And then the COVID warning banner comes up at the bottom. I said the word once. When does the Putin warning button come up? Now, this opens up a lot of paradoxes. I'm really grateful to Facebook and I'm really grateful to YouTube because I've been able to build a profile on there. I'm not the sort of person that wants to come into your living room and take a piss on your rug in your living room and discredit your interior design taste in your living room. And the paradox is, big tech has given people like you and I a platform. So in many ways, it's good. But I just don't— this is where government are supposed to intervene.

Exactly.

So many free market capitalists would say government intervene too much. But I think government are just intervening wrong. So they're not intervening in giving big tech more accountability for canceling and deplatforming, and they're not intervening by reducing taxation and supporting business and economy. So I just, I feel like they're intervening in the wrong areas.

Yes. Well, I mean, yeah, the economics of free market has changed radically from the—

well, there is no free market.

No, but if you look at, you know, economics of Adam Smith and the idea that we have these goods that we just create demand for and people will buy them and it will create these conditions where the best providers will create the products to serve the needs of the market. That's completely transformed. So the free market is no longer the free market. We have to play by the rules of the systems we're operating in. There's no such thing as an inert—

Or hold them to account.

Or hold them to account. Exactly. And I think this is where we're at this kind of turning point. Because where social media began and where it is today is very different. And whether it's down to the government, whether it's its users, we've seen a complete lack of that kind of collective kind of bargaining of the social media platforms. Despite all of the censorship in the last 2 years, how much pushback has there been really, apart from people going on the very same platforms and saying this is unacceptable? How many legal challenges have there been? How many broad attempts to restore free speech has there been? My view is that we haven't gone far enough. I think we have to wrestle that back because you're absolutely right.

For example, I don't think Facebook should have been allowed to cancel Donald Trump. I don't think Twitter should have been allowed to cancel Donald Trump. I know that's contentious because a lot of people think that he incited violence, but come on. Did he really? And there's plenty of people who have social media accounts who do incite violence. You know, we won't mention any extremists, but there are. So yeah, but that's, you know, Nigel Farage says to me that governments were basically scared of big tech because the amount of power they have. So the government don't really intervene in instances like that. Whether you like Donald Trump or not, why should he get canceled and others not? What's the fair justification? Well, it's our platform. I don't— I didn't agree with that.

No. Well, did you? What, Trump getting—

Yeah.

No, no. I mean, I mean, we've seen it even in our own borders here in the United Kingdom. We've seen, you know, the idea of democracy. We've seen footage from the Houses of Parliament taken down from YouTube. I mean, how does democracy work when you can't even show the inner workings of it? Yeah. On social media. So whether it's Trump or—

And then, and then it fucks up the voting system.

Absolutely.

Because if big tech can cancel and ban and shadow and the algorithm hides that campaigner but boosts this campaigner.

Well, yeah, so let me paint a really simple example about how democracy works in the simple terms. You may remember this when you were a child. You get a tub of beans in a jar, a transparent jar. You can see how many beans are in the jar. You ask 100 people how many beans are in this jar. The principle of aggregation based across those 100 people, some will woefully underestimate, some will massively overestimate, but enough people will be closer to the actual number that they'll roundabout way guess how many beans are in the jar. But if you tell people before they guess that people generally overestimate, that's actually going to skew the way they actually vote on how many beans are in the jar. But essentially, this is what's happening on social media. They're skewing the way we see the world in order that when it does come to voting scenarios, we're not actually operating in a true democracy anymore. Not that we necessarily even were. I say anymore. When was the last time we actually were? But my point is technology has so much power that it is disrupting our ability as citizens to intervene. So on one hand, you mentioned the power of big tech. Well, we've got big tech over here amassing power. Big central—

which has also done a lot of good for the world, by the way.

Centralization brings efficiency.

Did we meet on social media? We probably did.

We probably did.

We met on Facebook and now we're bitching about Facebook.

Exactly. Sorry to interrupt, but we have this centralization part. But you're absolutely right. Again, this is the problem with the world we live in. We kind of start to demonize centralization as bad. Well, centralization does drive efficiency, economies of scale, all of that stuff that reduces prices for the consumer, all that stuff. But it does come with risks, particularly when it starts to intervene with the political system, which you would argue now it's more than intervened, and that the big tech do they have more power than governments right now? Do governments feel like they're under threat? I wonder.

Well, Nigel Farage said to me that, uh, our government, UK, is scared of the big tech companies, so he therefore must believe they have more power. He's pretty well into politics, so he knows more than me about that. I couldn't comment. Um, but they did nothing. The US government seemed to do nothing about Trump having his account shut down. Nothing. And here's the problem: if you don't fight for the freedom of speech, even with people you disagree with what they said, you're already losing. So let's say you— let's say you'd said something which was close to the line, which I didn't agree with, but you were getting you know, a barrage of cancel them, I would support you even if I didn't agree with you. Because I, I shouldn't be able to choose whether you're canceled or not, or whether you can speak your opinion or not. So I would support you even if I didn't agree with you. Now I've got to have faith in the government that they intervene at the right point. So governments, they are there to govern. They intervene, you know, when it moves into legality, criminality, safety, whatever else. Um, so it's a fine line, but I stood up hard for Joe Rogan, even if some of the guests were controversial. Because if anyone— if BlackRock, you know, if, if the firms behind who are pulling the strings, oh, we don't like Joe Rogan's narrative, cancelled, then you and I'll be next.

Yep.

And I don't think— I don't think there are a list of people in the moon, but I don't want David Icke cancelled because he's been proven right in some things, and he should have his right to speak freely as long as he's not inciting violence and death, etc. All the while, there are some extremist groups who use social media for terrorism who still have their accounts up. So it's a difficult one. And on the free market thing, as you know, I'm a believer in capitalism, big fan of it, but I'm actually not a big fan of an extreme free market. Government should at times intervene. For example, child labor was a thing, and government intervened to get rid of child labor, which at the time the capitalists didn't want because it was cheap labor. In that instance, I thought it was a good government intervention. So there is no such thing as a free market, but there, there should be, I believe, minimum amount of intervention to stop, to not stifle productivity, creativity, innovation. The problem right now is a lot of creativity, innovation, growth, manufacturing, and production is being completely stifled. COVID lockdowns, Brexits, and wars. And that's really the only way that they're going to kickstart the economy again. I can't remember what thread we were on.

Well, there's a lot intertwined here, you know, everything from polarization, uh, censorship, cancel culture, big tech, uh, power. You touched on the economy, you know, that's big news right now. We've just come off the back of a, you know, huge, um, economic event in COVID. And, and now as we try to recover from this, we face inflation.

So let me just quickly throw the question back on you before we move into increased cost of living, etc., which is crazy. You asked me how do I think this ends.

Yes.

How do you think this ends?

Well, I actually really like the way you say you need to get out, you know, in order— there has to, you know, there has to be some level of compromise within this. There has to be some level of, uh, agreement. And I, I do feel that some level of concession would have to be made.

Isn't that what a treaty is?

What is what a treaty is. Now, this is where the cycles and the macro picture gets even more interesting, because the fact that you're talking about Biden putting the sanctions on Russia, that's going to have an astronomical effect on Russia's economy and our economy. Absolutely. But also America's, which I'll touch upon. But also, here's the thing. When we look at the impact of the sanctions, they may or may not put an end to the war. What they will do is absolutely devastate the lives of citizens in Russia, which we're not allowed to talk about on social media. We're not allowed to say positive things about Russia anymore. We can't empathize with the civilians who are suffering because of the war. That's like a dominant position that's been accepted, which again, I find awful. They're still human beings just because they were born in a culture.

And not all of them want this war.

Well, how many of them actually do? There's a huge peace movement there. But also you have to argue in the cultures they live in, how easy is it to challenge the government when they do things like this? You know, no one expected them to attack Ukraine. They've shown that military might, but they've also shown that they'll inflict it on their own people. So it becomes a very tricky situation. Um, but the point I was making here is that this is a bigger picture, because now that America has put these sanctions in place, what they've also done in the same process is now weaken confidence in the dollar. Because in the same way we were just talking about if you're willing to cancel Joe Rogan, you and I could be next. People are now looking at America saying, well, you know what, if they're willing to go that hard on Russia, they might do that for us one day. And America has a history of conflict and sanctions that haven't done particularly well. And as a result, now, people are losing faith in America. They're losing faith in the dollar. The dollar is beginning to devalue. Their economy is now feeling the hit like we are. But China, meanwhile, are on the ascendancy. So when we look at the big cycles of economy, economics and political cycles, we know that America is on the decline side, but we also know that China is on the ascendancy, both politically, economically, and as a military power. So when we look at how is this end, a lot of, a lot of the weight I would say is on, on China's shoulders. And at the beginning, you know, we've already seen the meetings of Putin and Xi Jinping, the, the, the, the president of China, uh, Communist Party. And whether they support Russia or whether they support America, they're walking a fine line because they stand to gain no matter which way they turn because they are going to get oil and gas from Russia. Uh, but their economy is entirely dependent on America, Europe. You know, Amazon itself is basically a front door for China, really, if you look at where all the goods are coming from. So China is, is walking this fine line, and the decisions that China make, I think, will determine the future of the war. Um, but it will also, in the context of the title, determine the future of the New World Order. But what would that mean if China become the global superpower? They were pretty much there, you know, over the last 2 years, over the course of the pandemic. Their overseas investment, you know, more billionaires have been created in China than ever before. There's the speculation about where the virus came from, um, but, but China have been just growing, growing, and growing. But if they become the dominant power here, they could send the war either way. So I, I think, I think there is a, an active role in China both in ending the war, but also I think they will have a significant impact on the economic and political future of the rest of the world. But this is where it also gets really complicated for me, because we've talked about free speech, free markets, capitalism, these Western values, these long-held Western values. What's interesting when you go to Eastern cultures, some of these more what we deem oppressive regimes, which lack the freedom of speech, lack the human rights, but, you know, by the traditional measures of standard of living economically is improving. But again, there's huge wealth gaps there as well. It gets highly complex because what you and I— you and I might sit here and be in complete agreement about the Western values, but then we could have someone from the east of the world who sees the world completely differently, and we could be in conflict. But the reality is now we're seeing those polarities unfold here People think Ukraine is the pawn, which in many ways it is, but now Russia. Is Russia the pawn between the battle between America and China? That's where I'm looking at this, because that's where the real macro picture is that many of us have distorted. But even Biden and America, I think they've lost sight that their ability as a superpower is dwindling over this. To me, this is one of the most fascinating times to be alive. How will it end? I don't know. I have no idea. But it seems that Putin is intent on seeing a replacement of the leadership in Ukraine, someone that will categorically refuse to join NATO. That's, that's, that's what he is pursuing. How you get to that point, whether it's, you know, some peaceful agreement that says, okay, we won't join NATO for now, maybe that's the concession he's looking for.

So let me ask you this then, Dan. What is— where will the New World Order be? What is this New World Order? I mean, there's the New World Order that everyone thinks is linked to the WEF and own nothing and be happy and Klaus Schwab, and you know, you get all these sound bites that everyone puts on your, um, your feed on your lives. But there's also a New World Order of where we come out of this— for the UK, Brexit, COVID, and this war, and the massive increase in cost of living, it's unprecedented. The tax increases— we're not that far off where we were in the early '80s. The increased cost of living, is apparently at record high for something like 60-odd years. Inflation, if they tell you it's 7.9%, it's probably 12.5% because they don't include everything in inflation figures. So there's massive price pressure upwards. The supply chain is clearly still not fully flowed again, so there's a lack of production and manufacturing and probably a lack of innovation compared to a you know, a healthy economy. So we've got all of this pressure everywhere. Where, where is the New World Order?

Well, the fact that we've used the word New World Order is almost as controversial as using the term Putin several times. And I'm sure after we look at this, we'll see that. And I mentioned the word New World Order on Monday in my broadcast, and we got one of those little warnings on YouTube that talks about how the New World Order is a conspiracy.

Oh really?

Yeah, it said, it said that, uh, It was just like a Wikipedia link. It takes the top line from Wikipedia and says that it just defines New World Order to give you context. If you hadn't already got the context of the conversation, you can read the one-liner from Wikipedia that says a New World Order could just be evolution or revolution of where we go outside of this.

Absolutely crazy last few years. It doesn't have to be, you know, the WEF and 12 powerful men having meetings, you know, in their ivory towers, pressing buttons on what happens in the world and this global elite, that to me is a little bit more, um, sensationalist or conspiracy theory. Here's why. Because I asked you who's running the world, and I asked David Icke who's running the world, and a lot of people that say there are these globalists running the world, no one could mention anyone's name other than Schwab. No one could.

Yeah, and this is where, again, I think So whether social media has played a role in this— we live in this world which is really radically complex, uh, radically complex.

We— and then you get a nice soundbite.

Yeah, everything is down in New World Order. New World Order, quick, listen.

Yeah, own nothing, be happy.

Well, exactly.

But I can tell you, I'm, I'm not having that. I'm not having that.

But no, exactly.

Yeah. Um, uh, oh, the Rothschilds, that's another one.

That—

I mean, do you know how many Rothschilds there are? There are loads. I know it's a family that's on that, but no one has any proof of any of this. By the way, I'm not saying yay or nay, and I'm also not sitting on the fence, but no one can specifically say this man or this woman is doing this or this. They just use soundbites like the Rothschilds or Klaus Schwab. Well, sorry, carry on.

Let me speak into this one. So firstly, radical complexity. Simplicity. But we, we live in a world where we will criticize the fact that the mainstream media reduces down stories to the simplicity of Putin is evil, uh, as a simple story. And where it's quite clear whether he is or not is, is, is only a small part, a small strand of the kind of complex yarn ball of the kind of intricacies of the history, the economy, the politics, uh, the relationships between nations, all of it. There's so many variables, but we reduce it down to this simplicity. The same is happening on the other side though, but we don't hold ourselves to account. You know, the idea that there is just a small world government or, or pursuit towards a world government where single leaders control the world, I think is deeply flawed. However, it's quite clear that history has shown, yeah, what we can see for sure is that those who hold the greatest power and wealth generally determine the future of humanity. They, those who own the means of production, are the ones who have the greatest exertion of control and power. What's happened in the recent history, modern history, is that it's gone from the days of, you know, empires and monarchs to now, you know, the power is held in the glass towers of corporate business. And there's a big difference between capitalism and corporatism. And I think what we're witnessing now is the power and might of corporatism. So when we talk about New World Order and it's kind of reduced down to the WEF. The reality is, if you look at the WEF, it's a function of some— it's a, it's a think tank. It's a group of some of the wealthiest, most powerful individuals, but also companies. And the reality is they, they're not an organization that sits around the table and say, what innovation should we come up with for the next decade? The companies that belong to WEF are the ones that are already innovating. So all the things around surveillance tech that we've talked about, some of the things connected to these technocratic, uh, technological innovations that can actually compromise our freedoms. Isn't the World Economic Forum saying we're determining the future? It's actually a function of the individual businesses. However, when they come together and they witness the economic opportunity that comes from this, of course their interests start to align around the usual drivers, which is long-term, uh, productivity, long-term economic interests. Uh, so the reality is they have an enormous amount of power, but that I, I don't believe personally that Schwab that Rob Moore is the man pulling the strings, that he is determining what all of these different business leaders are doing. Plus, you just have to look at human behavior. You and I could be the two most powerful people in the world, but unless we see the world exactly the same, at some point we're going to fall out. Even during this conversation, we could fall out over something. So the idea that you can get 10, 100, 1,000 of the world's wealthiest people in a room all cooperating, doing the same thing for a prolonged period of time, to me, is just a flaw. I mean, how many people have been in a relationship with anyone that has not come down to a conflict at some point?

So are you saying there should be one world leader then?

No, absolutely not. No. But the reality is what we have here is this, this, this group, these groups, and you know, the World Economic Forum are just one of them, but these congregations of wealth and power have taken different forms over the years. But where we are seeing a very different form now is that, as we touched upon earlier today, the technology is now playing a major determining factor. The reality is these are unelected officials. They're innovators, they're entrepreneurs typically.

Which— let me just jump in on that one. The most valuable people in society probably should be the engineers and the tech people who move humanity forward the most. So as you said that, I almost thought, well, who would I rather have? An elected politician who's learned the political system, or Elon Musk, who's a billionaire who's created useful products and services? Who would I rather have dictating the evolution of the world? Like, for example, who would I rather have spend and invest $10 billion of taxpayers' money? The US government or Elon Musk? Elon Musk all day long. If you give Elon Musk $10 billion, let's say there's a choice where there's $10 billion of tax paid money, and you and I get to choose where it's given, and where it's given, they have to invest it wisely for the betterment of humanity. Stays in the government or goes to Elon Musk? Who are you giving it to? Who are you giving it to?

Well, who am I giving it to? I mean, that's a difficult question, but I think it comes down to what's your outcome? But this is what democracy is supposed to be, though.

Evolve humanity. Is that not the purpose of humanity?

Yes, but how do you define an evolved humanity if we're measuring it by simply— because at the moment, our standard of living is defined by two things.

One, see the political way you didn't answer that question. Let's ask everyone here.

Who would you vote for?

Who would you give $10 billion of taxpayers' money to assuming they were both tasked with the same thing, which is to better humanity, would you give it to Elon Musk or would you give it to the US government? Like, in the UK, who would I want to give $10 billion of taxpayer money to, Richard Branson or the UK government? Yes. Well, the UK government's too big, as is the US government. They've got too many staff. They're one of the They've had a pay rise through this and their terms are short. They're not incentivised for 10, 20-year plans, whereas entrepreneurs are because they want to leave a legacy. So I'm giving it to Branson or Musk all day long.

What about—

let's see what everyone else thinks. Someone said they'd give it to you, Dan. Dan wouldn't want it. You wouldn't want it. Anyways, I interrupted you, but you were politically answering the question.

For an important reason. And again, let's take it back to Brexit. Okay, so you've asked me, would I choose between the current American, British leader, a tech entrepreneur who's improving the world, or the government? Well, let me explain why I've partially dodged or temporarily dodged your question. So let's look at the incentives for both of those. So the entrepreneur's incentive in the current way that the world works is to advance economic outcomes. So to increase profits, usually for, in the current system, for the shareholders. Now, if those shareholders have a diversified set of interests—

not all of them, some of them want to create meaningful products and services to change the world and make a difference. Yeah, I think he is that.

Yeah, I agree.

I mean, yeah, he gave the technology of the battery to his competitors.

Yeah, I mean, he's doing things very differently.

He gave Ukraine Starlink internet.

So, yeah, but the point for me is, and this is why I use the Brexit piece, because in order to answer the question, you need to understand what you're voting for. So if I'm voting, if I had to choose between Musk on very limited information other than what I perceived him to do within business versus a politician with very limited information, how can I make a selection? The bigger question to me comes, what are we actually voting for? And that's why I asked, what's the outcome? Because if standard of living is only measured by increased productivity in the form of GDP per capita, output per individual, and length of life, what about quality of life? What about the joy de vivre? Because on one hand, we live in the most prosperous, technologically advanced, economically advanced— even in the fact that we've got this recession, there is more money in the world than history. But our mental health, our physical health is declining. So which of those individuals is going to look at the incentive structures and say, how do we balance economic progress with technological progress, with nature, with our own livelihoods, our joy, our interconnectedness, our freedoms, our liberties? I don't know without the information of studying those individuals who's going to be best suited to do that. And the fact is we live in a system where we are constantly presented with two choices, and we've been presented with some awful choices in the last decade, which is part of the problem.

But then when you have 132 choices, you can't make a choice. Well, that's true. And you haven't even yet given an answer.

No, I have. It's a paradox. Yeah. But so let me elaborate even further. So placing the emphasis on one person, I consider myself to be relatively widely read, but I'm a master of none, effectively. I have a wide range of understanding of— I have some mastery in some areas, I'll give myself that. But if I want to improve the economic situation, I would find someone, perhaps Musk, perhaps yourself, Rob, who has an understanding of how to improve the economic situation. But I wouldn't want them to be the only person making those decisions. I want to see, and this is where we need to look at how do we evolve the political system, because how do we move away from— and let's look at representative democracy. My MP in my area, think about your MP in your area. What is your MP actually an expert in? How are they supposed to improve the economy in your area? How are they supposed to improve the kind of livelihoods of individuals and the joy and well-being of individuals? How are they supposed to improve the local environment? If they have no knowledge of any of these things? We live in a system, but then I'm not advocating therefore for technocracy because technocracy is saying, well, you're a scientist, you're an economist, you make the decisions, you know best. We need to find a way to incorporate because the politicians should be a reflection of what the interests of humanity are. But the reality is, as history has shown us, entrepreneurs know this. If you'd ask people in the early 1900s, what do you want? They would have said, I want a faster horse, you know, a faster horse that can carry more luggage. And you know what, you could conjure up some new horse feed that makes them go that extra miles an hour faster, or you can build a car that enables you to. And again, then we go into an existential argument about what the car has done for the environment. There's always second-order consequences. I still haven't answered your question, but my point—

I'm just enjoying the show.

But my point is, this is complex. And this is the— I think we're at a point in history where we live amongst exponential technology, which, you know, we, in the context and the lens of war, we've—

Let me jump in here. Yeah. Sorry, Dan. I'm on one. Remember what you are about to say, because I need to address something. I think we have to go further and think about what is the purpose of humanity.

Good one.

Which isn't really talked about much. Now I'm going to put a theory out there that the purpose of humanity is not happiness. So the resistance to economic growth, technological advancement, or whatever is, well, quality of life and work-life balance and 4-day work week and let's be more happy and, you know, blah blah blah, more present. That's not— I'm going to discuss with you and I love your thoughts on this, that's not the purpose of life. Because if, imagine if we're all happy, we're not producing, we're not hustling, we're not striving, we're not struggling, we're not figuring stuff out. What are we doing? Chilling, relaxing. And I think if I have understood the universe right, everything is either growing or dying and nothing is standing still. And then energy just transfers into new forms. There's chaos and order. You know, there's death and life. There is no stasis. So we naively, I believe, all of us go into a fantasy of I want it to be easy, I want it to be fun, I want it to be nice, I want everyone to be happy, I want to, you know, have the quality of life. But part of the quality of life is the endurance and the overcoming of the struggle and the challenge and the hardship. And the struggle and the challenge and the hardship, I believe, is there to force you to grow. And why do you need to grow? Because you need to evolve as a human being to your ever-increasing challenging environment. That's my theory.

I'm so, so pleased you brought it to this because—

so you said joy to vive, but we need to produce. Yes, we need to evolve, we need to grow, and we need challenge and stress to do that.

Yes, but I'm— what I'm saying is though, I'm not saying we should ignore those metrics. They're part— yeah, that they are a reflection of that challenge, and we are facing some of the greatest challenges that we've ever faced.

Now, you could—

so to bring that purpose, evolution, let's look at those two pieces. Hold me to account to answering the question. Let's look at that then. So, okay, let's put fulfillment— where does fulfillment come from? You know, because happiness— I'm happy to be here with you today, Rob. I'm having a lovely time. After this, I'll jump in a taxi, get caught in traffic, you know, perhaps not have enough time to grab any food at the station, and all of a sudden my happiness has gone away.

But it's because Because happiness is a fantasy.

It's fleeting.

Yeah. Happiness is the reward. It's the chemical reward, the four kinds of chemicals. That's what happiness is. Fulfillment and happiness are very different.

Yes. But take that example. I get in a taxi. I have like 1 minute to spare. I managed to still find a way to get some food in me before I get on the train. That brings me happiness. It's like, boom, problem solved. So is the purpose of life then purely to adapt and survive? You know, that humans, humans have shown.

Yes, I would say that the purpose of humanity on a macro level is to survive. And how do we survive? We evolve through and react to our environment to overcome the challenges from the environment, whether it's other predators or, you know, the weather or the geology or whatever. That, I believe, is— I can't— I'm not going to sit here and say I know the purpose of life. I'm going to say I believe that's closer to the purpose of life than happiness is. What's happiness? It's the reward. We need a reward to go through the challenge and the struggle, otherwise we're not going to bother. But would you agree the harder the struggle, the greater the happiness reward you get at the end of it?

That's certainly been my experience. Yeah.

So, if you ran a marathon, you're going to feel better than, you know, if you jogged 20 meters, or at least afterwards, the euphoria and the feeling of I overcame something is going to be greater. So I believe chemically we're rewarded directly linked to the scale of the problem that we overcome.

Yes, yes.

And fulfillment is going through challenges to have high-level feelings of reward, to fill our voids. Fulfill is to fill our voids. Happiness is the fleeting reward we get because we need some kind of reward, otherwise we're not going to go through the struggle. So this is what I think a lot of people at the moment, oh, well, it's all about being happy and it's about work-life balance and it's about, you know, experiencing the joy of life and all of that kind of stuff. That, if you think that is the purpose of life, that is the outcome of life, that will create the biggest amount of unhappiness in your life because that is a naive fantasy. Yes, that's my theory.

Yes. Okay, so let's bring it back to two fundamentals then. So the reason we went on this track is because the equation of what is GDP per capita output as a measure of standard of living, that does not account for all of those things that go into that. It doesn't account for— well, it accounts for only man's or humankind's move towards economic prosperity. which may encompass some of that challenge, overcoming the challenge, but it doesn't account for some of the variables. So the fact that we're talking here today about cancel culture, freedom of speech, the reality is we now live in a world of exponential technology. What we're seeing with AI and all these different types of technologies that are growing, surveillance state, we could have, according to that metric of GDP, we could, in the age of automation and AI, we could radically transform production in terms of our output through those technologies. However, the human experience within that, you could take a culture where you could automate everything, you could cancel free speech. What quality of life would we have left? And that's the point we're at, this unique juncture in history, which I find that's why it's very hard for me to answer the question, Musk, Branson, or these, because these individuals are a function of what's gone before us. But we're at this precipice now where there's new types of technology. And talking about war, I want to put it in the context of the war because we opened it up with this. Off the back of World War II, we had mutually assured destruction, meaning you've got a nuclear weapon here in your office, I've got one in mine. If you press yours, I'll press mine, we're all dead. So it gave us a sense of peace. We came peace through the threat of destruction. But the reality is, with new forms of technology, is that is no longer restricted to nation states. Anyone can take a drone, load it up with explosives, and fly it into a building. So we've got a democratization of technology, some of which will have fantastic positive practical application, but we no longer live in a world where our, uh, safety and security from a perspective of that level of destruction is limited to nation states or individual leaders. That's the reality. So, we're at a point in history where the people we choose to govern the future from here need to have an understanding of the risks facing humanity as of today of those exponential technologies. Elon Musk, he's probably going to be closer to understanding what those are. But if his objective is to advance his own aims at the expense of other variables, how can I vote for that guy without knowing what his intentions are? But even in the world of politics, we know every single time you come to vote, we're going to do this, this, and this and this. In history, how many times does a politician actually follow through what they're going to say, what they said? It's complex, Rob. That's my message through all of this is we need to stop reducing—

So it's complex, and we can't reduce it into soundbites or binary decisions. I hear you. But each time you say things like that, for me, sometimes it's complex is a cop-out from making a decision. Because I think the more you understand something, the more you realize there is beneath it. And, you know, many people have said that the smarter they get, the more they realize they don't know. So if things are too complicated, we don't make any progress.

Agreed.

Because we just go on the 78 variables. I don't know.

Yes.

So Musk or the government?

Which government?

Well, we'll go Musk or US government. $10 billion. To progress humanity?

I would take Musk over Biden.

Yeah, okay. And then Branson or the UK government?

I would take Branson over the current UK government.

Because the things that entrepreneurs aren't often given credit for, whether the entrepreneur is, you know, still the main principal shareholder or whether there is a lot of other shareholders, is these are the people that have built the bridges. These are the people who've got rid of the diseases and wiped out many diseases that previously wiped out, um, you know, nations. The engineers are the people who have made this world more livable so that we can grow and evolve. And entrepreneurs often are engineer types who've learned to scale what they do, and they're often not given credit for that. You know, you have to be an engineer to get oil not, you know, not just a greedy capitalist. So actually, entrepreneurs are often engineers that are progressing humanity. You know, you've got to drive here nice and easily, um, and we can connect with each other, um, that we wouldn't be able to do if it wasn't for the faster horse, which was Henry Ford's Model T Ford. So why is it that governments, especially in Farage— now, Nigel Farage says to me, the government The UK government, they have no respect for entrepreneurs, none, no respect for small businesses. Do you think there's enough respect and support from the governments for entrepreneurs, creators, innovators, and change makers?

Well, right now, absolutely not, which is ridiculous because we've cut, you know, in terms of cycles, we're on the downward slope, we're on the downward slope. So what will happen? The government will print more money, or the central banks will print more money in order to try and drive investment, but unless it's targeted to actually transforming the economy, the reality is these inflationary pressures— but this also—

the government can help by creating the right subsidies and the right tax breaks to create the right innovation. Yes, this is what they've done in the past. If they need certain innovations or production, give entrepreneurs some subsidies and some tax breaks and some rewards to go and figure that out.

Yep. Where are they?

There aren't any. The government only know— and I asked you the question, but you've thrown it back at me. In my opinion, the government know one way to generate revenue, and that is to increase tax. Do they not know that there's another way? And that's called create incentives for increased production, output, industry, innovation, et cetera. I mean, have you, have you ever heard of the— I think it's now called the Ansari X Prize, I think. But basically entrepreneurs will go, there's a problem I need solving, million-pound prize for anyone who can solve this problem, that can build this piece of innovation. This is what entrepreneurs do. The governments could do that. I mean, it's been done in the past. Whatever the government need fixing, Give some rewards for entrepreneurs. Say, right, entrepreneurs, come and sort this out and that out and this out and that out. Make this faster. Make this better. That's what entrepreneurs do. But there seems to be this divide between entrepreneurs and government. I'm an entrepreneur and I know a lot of entrepreneurs. And nearly every entrepreneur I know fucking hates the government because they feel like they're thieves. They're getting their guaranteed pay They know nothing about business, and they are systematically ruining our ability to trade freely and fairly. Now, I don't mind paying tax, but there's a, a limit which over it feels really penal, and we're way over that now. If I do more work and create more revenue and more products and more services and more innovation At the moment, 70% of it goes to the government. And then what do they do with it? What do they do with it?

Well, I mean, this is where I think the question of revolution— the reality is, let's look at the economic cycle right now. We're on a decline. The question is, where is the investment in the future? It's absent. What we are witnessing And what we will see— and this is a predictable pattern, every economic cycle shows it— we will see an increase in taxation on those who have the most assets. Now, there are people—

those people are the ones that create and produce and fuel up the GDP.

So yeah, there's a time and place to tax wealth. It's not when you're in a deflationary cycle. But it's a challenge because you've got— the government needs to increase revenue in order to spend more. But it can't continue to print money because it drives inflation, devalues the currency.

So it's this.

But this is why at the end of the economic order, which we're coming towards, we see that discrepancy. Because what will simultaneously happen— and you'll notice it now, this, you know, talking about America and China earlier on— watch now how the world's elite, the wealthiest companies, the wealthiest individuals, will start sympathizing with China. Why? Because that is likely to be the next global economic power. They can't be seen to be adverse to China's, uh, pursuits, because what will happen is that it will cost them. Because the moment national governments start taxing the wealthiest individuals in their nation, the wealthiest companies, they move. They move their assets, they offshore them, which then eventually harms the, the economy. But all the while the wealth gap still continues to grow within the domestic economy, which means that you get a group of people whose standard of living suffers. We're already seeing that almost overnight. They will blame the upper echelons of society, and this cycle will perpetuate. It will just keep going. So when it comes back to this conversation of evolution, your example earlier on saying, are we going back to kind of Neanderthals? I don't think we are. I think we're moving forward, but it is our greatest challenge at this moment in time. We either will collapse in the chaos, or we will transcend and we'll adapt and survive. But we're in a unique terrain. That's why I keep coming back to this is a very different time economically, politically, so many similarities to history. It's predictable. History will show that we could argue that history isn't a predictor of the future. The only way we can prove that incorrect is by learning from history today and evolving tomorrow. Because the reality is, if we don't change something now, we're just going to continue in the same pattern.

What needs to change then?

Well, I think it's our own consciousness. It comes back down to our own individual ability to make sense of the world. Technology in the economy has progressed so fast that human consciousness has not adapted with it. The Age of Enlightenment, where we saw the separation of religion and science. People search for meaning. The, the man's search for meaning, it is, is transformed. That's why now we see whatever the latest social media cause is, it doesn't matter what's the flavor of the week. Yesterday it's vaccines, today it's Ukraine, what's tomorrow? Whatever the flavor of the week is, we're externalizing our sense of meaning. It takes us to bring that back inside to really understand those big questions that we've been asking. What is our meaning and purpose. We have to evolve our way to think. We have to evolve the way we look at today's problems. It may take entrepreneurs, but it may also take other people to start to look at these systemic threats and understand how do we create an antifragile environment that is not so vulnerable to what we're witnessing right now. Because we started by talking about polarization. Right now, social media, there'll be people watching this who are like, yeah, yeah, agree with you. Already there were people who have definitely disagreed with our decisions about who we would have voted for. We could fall out about that. Someone could have been following either one of us for years, decades, because of one thing we said. All of a sudden it's changed. That's the reality of the world we live in right now. We simplify things so much.

And we're always so triggerable. Triggered. And we want to be offended and we want to be noticed. We want to be angry with everyone else. Yeah, I do think this. I hadn't really thought that consciousness was the answer. I said earlier that I thought maybe an understanding of each other's values would be the answer, but actually managing our own emotions and having a balanced view of every situation, I would argue that that could be a way towards progress. Everything we've talked about today, Dan, you and I, if I tasked you of creating an upside of a 4-day workweek and me a downside of a 4-day workweek, because that's one of the things in proposal at the moment, which I'm quite frankly against. I would say that. I've got a load of stuff up there. We could create an upside or a downside, but the problem with humanity is because we're emotional and we get triggered. If it's upside, it's good. If it's downside, it's bad. If I like it, it's good. If I don't like it, it's bad. If I like you, it's good. If I don't like you, it's bad. If I agree with you, it's good. If I disagree with you, it's bad. But people who I think have transcended, whether it's enlightenment or self-mastery, or they've made a lot of money, they understand neutrality and balance, you know, where everything has a polar opposite but always fighting to bring us back into balance. So if everyone stopped getting triggered on social media, for example, and everyone went, oh, you made an interesting point, I didn't I don't necessarily agree with. Let me do some research on that. You may or may not be wrong, but I'm going to go and research that and come back to you. If everyone reacted like that to a challenge, imagine how much better the world would be. But I think we're so much highly more triggerable now because we're stuck to this device. And it's like, fuck you, you know, you're this, you're that, you're addicted to this device. But this device that you and I met on, that we're now friends on. And we can share Pantera songs on.

Yeah, yeah.

So I think understanding that everything has an upside and a downside and being able to move into neutrality and not always be triggered and not getting your significance and your importance from being triggered, I wonder if that might move us towards a solution.

Well, I think that's an incredible part of it, Rob, because, uh, and Aubrey Marcus, uh, calls this united polarity. It's the recognition that we can hold different perspectives, we can have different polarities but we can still hold ourselves in reverence of one another. We can still respect each other as humans. And actually, part of the reason why I'm coming back to complexity, whilst you're absolutely right, it still requires us to make important decisions. And in fact, right now, the metaphor right now is the idea that we're in the Arctic, we're on a barge, we can see we're heading for an iceberg. We can pontificate about how to avoid the iceberg, but by the time we figure it out, it's too late. Someone has to grab the wheel now and turn it, because if we don't, we're going to hit the iceberg. That's the reality of it. So I recognize the importance of being able to make decisive decisions, but we similarly need to be able to assess where we are in the terrain. If it's a dark night and we think that's an iceberg in front of us, are we misreading where we are? We need to know where we are and what our challenges are. The reality is we're so caught up in the micro details of COVID Brexit. We're missing the big picture. So many, even some of the world's greatest investors have missed the big picture, the big economic cycles, because we're so zoomed in on the micro. We've got to zoom out and then zoom in. But be able to hold that space and say, I see you say this and you say that, and recognize and hold it without judging. That's where it comes into that spirituality piece as well, because the religious texts of old will say, you know, that it's a sin to judge in that way. Yeah, we're doing it all the time, and it's easy through a screen. You can say anything you like about Rob and I on social media.

Go on, bring it, let's have it.

Half of you commenting won't even have like your face shown on your profile picture.

Someone said this was a man bag and this was a gun holster. I saw that earlier.

I can verify that it's not. Um, but, but this is the point. We need to be able to get to the point where we can— transcendence is the word. Because we—

David has said they're critical thinking as well.

Critical thinking. Learning how to evaluate the situation that we're facing requires us to be able to seek multiple perspectives. In fact, innovation, creativity, the best companies, the best innovations come in the world because we connect with people who think differently to us. If we all felt the same, we would see the same thing from the same angle. And by the way, if we do that, We just live in this world where there is no uniqueness. Part of the thing that makes us magical as human beings is the fact that we are so different. That's the beauty, the rich tapestry of what makes us unique. But we just need to bring that respect back. Human values is a certain point. Love, respect, kindness, compassion. How do we get that? We've got the technology. There's the old moral debate of whether a gun is inert. If we manufacture a gun, we put it there— take it out of your gun holster— and we put it there, what purposes does that gun have?

That gun has no purpose. That gun has no consciousness. That gun is inert. That gun is a tool that is created by humanity. A hammer is the same, and money is the same. That gun only becomes a thing. The money only becomes a thing. The hammer only becomes a thing when the intention, the consciousness of the human being uses the tool. Now, you could use a gun to defend yourself, um, protect yourself, or you could use a gun to murder. You could use a hammer to hammer in a nail. It's pretty good lever, isn't it, a hammer? I mean, would you rather hammer in a nail with your hand or with a hammer? Would you rather pull a nail out with your own fingernails or a hammer? If I could take that hammer and I could smash your head in and murder you in cold blood. But here's the thing, we don't try the hammer for murder. You know, that hammer doesn't go on trial. It's the human being that used the tool for nefarious means. That's the gun. The gun has no consciousness, it's inert, it's a tool. But here's the thing, money is the root of all evil. No, it's not. Money is a tool, like the hammer and like a gun. We put a gun and a hammer and some money on this table, this table that isn't also a thing until we make it a thing. It doesn't exist until there's intention and energy from us put into it. That's my view of the gun.

Interesting. So, and I agree with you, but I also want to add a different perspective and challenge. So the gun here, you're absolutely right, it can just sit there. We could just see it as an ornament. If you like. It's a fancy piece of metal. But where was the— where does the intent begin? Did it begin in the, in the process? Why would you manufacture a gun if it wasn't to attack or defend in the way that you decided?

Well, yeah, you— it could have been created for a different function. I, I don't actually know the history. I did watch the Smith Wesson documentary, but no, I can't remember why the gun was created. But you're assuming is either to defend or attack. But it might not have been, because penicillin was an accident and Post-it note was an accident.

Fair challenge.

So I, I don't know, it's a fair challenge.

It's an original intent, but my point—

yeah, but it could have had neither of those intents.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, it could be an accident, it could have been the crash, but, but the, the fact that they discovered this way to—

could have been used to start a, um, race.

It may have been.

There you go. It probably wasn't used to start a race.

Was— we deem it to be inert, it doesn't have consciousness. In the manufacturing process, we embed possible intent. It's like potential, human potential. In itself, it's inert, but if it's utilized, it comes to life.

Here's the thing, all tools that aid or devolve humanity were created by humanity. So it's just a manifestation of humanity.

Agreed. I do.

And it has no values, no consciousness, no emotion. It has no intent. Money is made by machines that are made by man. So I know you use the gun analogy, but I love to use the money analogy because, by the way, the money can create the gun. This is how else you make a gun without money to buy it, or money get profit for making it.

Well, my question was this: is the intent some way embedded in its manufacturing? And the reason I use the gun is because it's primarily used for attack or defense. Yes, it might be a paperweight, you know, whatever artistic thing. But if in its design, its function, in its manufacturing, the use case is predetermined in many ways, let's contrast that which came from the intent of humanity, which could have evolved from a different intent. It still comes from—

let's just jump in this real quick. Sorry, I just want— we need to say— Jazz has said, Rob, money is root of all evil. Well, it's put with context, but then you can't say money is root of all evil with context. That's a paradox. How can you say the root of all of something but with context? Money is not the root of all evil. It is— it is not the root of all evil because money is neutral and money is inert. What's the root of all evil? Is evil. I could— I've got any money? I could give you $100, or I could steal $100 from you. I could take $100 and give them to a load of kids in the developing world to eat and drink. You could take $100 and buy a magazine of bullets and go and shoot those same kids. It wasn't money. Yes, money is not the root of all evil. I'm sorry, but religion was wrong. Money is not the root of all evil. The root of all evil is humanity, but the root of all good is humanity. Indeed, the root of all good is money if the root of all evil is money. But money isn't evil. Money is a tool, a conduit of evil, and the evil comes from the person. So people, when they say money is the root of all evil, make the wrong assumption that anyone rich is evil. Because anyone who says here money is the root of all evil, you are saying all rich people are evil. That is an outrageous thing to say. That's like saying all— if I said all women are evil, I'd get lambasted on social media. Yeah. What was it that was said in the Bible? Something like this: more likelihood of a camel going through the eye of a needle than a rich man going to the kingdom of God. That is wrong. That is fear-based fiction. Anyway, sorry, I just wanted to show it.

So I used the example of the gun, but I would even argue that my— and I agree, you know, I think— so what I'm trying to get at is I think there's the human consciousness and our intent, but I also believe that the intent is baked into it. The gun is built to attack or defend.

Yeah, because the intent created the form to do the thing. Therefore, the form has the function of the thing.

Exactly. But so the same is with money.

I just believe that's a moot point in that whether the intent is within the embodiment, like the intent of this watch is to tell time, but human beings created time.

Yes, I agree. So let's take money. So money is a mode of transaction. Its intent is to transact. It's transacting.

It doesn't have any intent. It is neutral. It doesn't have any intent without human beings.

Well, we give it meaning. We give it meaning.

We give it meaning.

We give it meaning, but we produce it. It has no intent until we give it the meaning of it's a means of exchange. It could— exactly, until we put energy into it to use as a shared understanding of what that meaning is. Because if you and I had two banknotes and you said, no, this is absolutely not for spending, this is a unique note from the first ever print press. It would have no mode of exchange today. I couldn't take it to a shop in the city. It's a completely different meaning. We have a different meaning. But I think we have to recognize that some of that meaning, once it's manufactured, its use case, its function. So let's take Facebook. Facebook's goal is to get our attention in order to serve us advertising. It's its business model. But also, if we look at that, How we use Facebook is down to us. You're right. But what happens? People who agree with you and I, Rob, will see more content like this because the purpose of Facebook is to get your attention. But you could make the same argument that Facebook is inert, but the algorithm is not.

I wouldn't make the same assumption that Facebook is inert.

Well, it's just a piece of technology.

No, but it's a tool that's actually working right now. It's like, to compare it to the gun, the gun would have to be fired because Facebook is actually working right now. It's just not sitting there and no one's logged in.

Very interesting. So we're getting deep here. This is philosophy 101.

Let's jump in on something else here. So I'm getting corrected, and I'm really glad I'm getting corrected here. Oh, Rob, it's not that money is the root of all evil. The love of money is the root of all evil. I'm sorry, but that is also wrong. By the way, I respect your opinion and your view, and we're even reading the comments and sharing them back, and I'm not going to cancel you or deplatform you or ban you. But if I believe you are wrong, or you've been indoctrined to believe something that I believe isn't right, I will tell you. The love of money is not the root of all evil. Evil is the root of all evil. I love money. I'm not evil. You have to now say yes or no to this. Don't give me a political answer. Do you love money more than you hate money? Yes Yes. So you love money, therefore you're evil. I love money, therefore I'm evil, because the love of money is the root of all evil. Many of you on this live who say the love of money is the root of all evil, at times you love money. When your money buys you your house or your car or your food, you love money. But when someone takes some money to buy a gun and point it in your face, you don't love money. The love of money is not the root of all evil. Evil is the root of all evil. And where does evil come from? It comes from humanity. So humanity— because when you say money and the love of money is the root of all evil, what do you do? You move humanity's responsibility for the actions and you say, well, it's money's fault, it's billionaires' fault. No, it's not.

Well, this is— we're on the right track here, in my view. So this is— it's about understanding responsibility, it's about understanding meaning. But this also links back to evolution. Are we on an upward trend? If you look through history from where we've come from, where we were living off the land, we were cave, living in cave dwellings, you had to have families of 10, 20, 30 children to survive. We've come so far, we've made so much progress, but we're at a fork in the road now in terms of where we go.

Oh, look what you just did there, you just created an A or B scenario, the thing you're telling people not to do. I reckon there's a lot of forks in the road.

Well, there are lots of forks in the road.

Go on, tell us what this fork in the road is.

It's the choice between self-termination, becoming the victims of our own ingenuity, or whether we transcend. We're on this cycle right now. The world is changing. We have the technology that can simultaneously save the world, and we have the technology that can simultaneously destroy it. And now it's all in our own hands. It's in the hands of the user. This is why it's so different from any time in history.

So you think we are in some ways then democratized and decentralized?

In some ways. In some ways. We've got a long way to go, I think. But it's, it's, it's the tools of change are there as much as the tools of destruction. But again, it comes down to the choice that we make. But the important thing is we must get into the zone of being willing to make a choice because we can stand back. But also in your discussion there, you know, and here's the interesting point. You came to a point of disagreement with someone in conversation. What happens is, what happens when someone disagrees with us? We go and we tend to go deeper into our own perspective. We hold on more tightly. But we think, you know, by saying our point of view, it's going to change someone's mind. The opposite usually happens. It usually drives us into our polarities. But the polarities are fine as long as we can hold them with reverence.

Unless someone's open-minded to learn.

Well, absolutely.

By the way, I've had the debate on money being the root of of all evil and the love of money being the root of all evil for 15 years. It's not like it's first time. And if someone challenged me and I thought, oh, you might be right, I would listen. I do read a lot of the comments. I do listen. But in this one, I've had this discussion for 15 years. And like anything that takes the responsibility away from human beings, I think we become a cause, not effect And we go blame rather than responsibility. And I believe change only comes from responsibility, not blame, from cause, not effect. They're my fundamental beliefs. And they may be wrong, but I know I can change the way I respond to a situation. I have at times tried to change a situation. I've done visualization, meditation, and incantations. I remember doing Tony Robbins saying, I want to change this situation. Go saying to Mark, there won't be a recession of 2008, I'm positive. And it freaking happened. And Mark was like, ah, your personal development seminars didn't get rid of that recession. So there's external events you cannot control. But what people do is, oh, the love of money is the root of all evil. That's an external factor. So I believe personal responsibility and cause and you Changing or being responsible for the way you perceive something, I believe that is within our power.

Agreed.

And I believe if people make comments that are outside of their power, you know, people say tax billionaires more. No, you start a business and be an entrepreneur and earn a load more because one, that will help the economy. Two, you'll make more money. And three, you just saying taxing billionaires more in your pants at home, you know, eating crisps, it's not going to fucking change anything. So I'm all about taking personal responsibility and understanding the difference between what you can control and what you can't control. So that's where, where I come from. Let me ask you something, because we didn't go there yet.

Yeah, sure.

I don't know how long we've done, but you might need a hotel for the night.

You were planning to go back today.

Um, we didn't yet talk about globalization versus decentralization, and we nearly raised it there. So, um, there is actually a war on globalization right now. There's people talking about the New World Order and the Rothschilds and Schwab and this world elite, and they control everything and own nothing and be happy, and, you know, blah blah, they will get rid of the middle class, and, you know, blah blah. But decentralization— you could be a podcaster, you can be a YouTuber, you can use big tech to get hundreds or thousands or millions of fans. Cryptos and finance, DeFi is a thing, and decentralization of Banking, what do you think about the decentralization movement? Because I think that that's quite a positive move at the moment.

It's a massive— this is— it's a massive opportunity to me. It's—

here's—

well, here's where it gets interesting from a cycle's point of view. This is a classic— it's cause and effect. So we, we swing in pendulums. So we're now too far extended on the centralization. We recognize it, so we're swinging back the other way. Decentralization comes with its own problems. Of course, I believe it is part of the solution of today. But the reality is we need some level of coordination. You need some level of leadership. You need some level of efficiency. But decentralization right now gives the power back to the people.

But you only get a decentralization movement when you had too much centralization.

It becomes leverage.

It gives you triggers. Against central banks, for example, or, yeah, you know, globalization of one great world government.

So it's a response. It's become a response to what's going on. But it also comes back to that notion of responsibility, because right now we can— and this is, this is part of my frustration with all of these conversations about whether it's New World Order— it's easy to point the finger at the government. It's easy to say, oh, it's Klaus Schwab, WEF, the war in Ukraine. It's easy to externalize and put the locus of control, our ability to change things outside ourselves. Decentralization is something that's going to transform. It has the potential to redistribute power, control, money, etc. And the opportunity is in everyone's hands. But if we're stuck pointing fingers saying it's us and them— and by the way, if we stay in us and them, we're not evolving our consciousness, we're not entering into that united polarity. We're not having harmony and respect for others and love for money. I've never known— the only, the only love that's going to cause harm is the love of evil. You know, that's, that's, that's the reality. Decentralization right now offers some of the greatest opportunities. It has the seeds of change in it, but it also has the seeds of the, the next advancement of human, uh, adaptation and survival. The seeds of where we need to go as a planet that will prevent us going from the the collapse through chaos into that transcendence, I believe, is, is there within decentralized technology, whether it's decentralization of media, finance, education, food production. There is, there is infinite benefits. But the reality is right now, guess who the people are who are looking to utilize decentralization?

Big tech.

Big tech. The ones who already hold the power. Because we're too busy blaming those who created the problems in the world to sit down and say, how do we become active participants in change? The biggest message I can possibly share on my own podcast is become an active participant in change. Yeah.

So actually, this is why I do this, and I think this is one of the reasons we have this discussion. Like, I'm not a fighter. There's no point giving me a gun. I can't go and stand on the border between Russia and Ukraine. That's not how I can help. I'm not a war expert. And I'm not a tech expert. But I used to think, oh well, I can't make a difference then. So I'll just crack on running my business and doing my thing and being me. But I have learned through doing a few videos on things like COVID and then on Putin and the war, actually, I've gained millions of views. I've had thousands of shares per video. And I can do my bit. And I think if every one of us, instead of going, The billionaires should do that. The government should do that, which, by the way, I've said the government should do that, but at least I'm campaigning for what I think is positive change. But actually, if all of us just posted things on social media that were of these worldviews with the view to creating a productive outcome, whatever we believe that to be— so for you and I, it's hopefully awareness and education and decision and responsibility and linking it to business and entrepreneurship and creation and productivity, etc. But I now know I can make a difference by speaking up instead of hiding, standing up instead of standing back, taking some risks. We both risk every day being canceled. We know that day could come. So I would just say to everyone watching, what you strongly believe that's good for you and good for the world and right for the people, you can make a difference. And what we used to do is sign petitions. That really does fuck all. But a million views on every video does a lot more than 10 or 100,000 signatures. So we can all do our bit.

Well, to me, I agree. And it's the platforms right now may not be fit for purpose for what we need the world to, in order to evolve to the next stage, but it can help the conversation.

And the internet wasn't when it was designed. And now look at it.

Exactly. But so it creates a platform for us to have the conversation about the things that can enable us to enter into that new phase of transcendence. The reality is the old adage of be the change you want to see, to me, is the most powerful conversation. If you are someone who wants to experience freedom, peace, love, joy, then if you're waiting for someone else to bring you freedom, peace, love, and joy, you may be waiting a lifetime. There's an idea that our inner world is a reflection— our outer world is a reflection of our inner world. If we become free, if we become peaceful, if we become joyful, if we become prosperous, then one by one, as individuals, we get to create that shift in the world. Because after all, society, organizations, companies, institutions, governments, they are individuals. But we dehumanize it. That's why he said, who runs the world? No one's got a name. Because we're so quick to say, oh, it's the WEF or it's this institution, giving away our power to an external source. That's why I get so mad when people say, Dan, why do you talk about this? Why do you talk about that? Because all it does is take away your personal power. And all I want for you is to be empowered so that you can move towards whatever your values are, whether that's freedom, peace. For me, it's freedom, peace, love, joy, growth, prosperity. You know, if I can find them in me and create the space through content like this, to other people to ponder, what are my values and how do I meet those? And then how do I become a ripple effect in the world? Well, then we do create change. If each one of us decides that we want to find inner peace, and the reality is it wouldn't take too long for us to find greater peace in the world, but we've got to make that decision. We can't sit back watching and saying, so it's down to the billionaires to bring me peace.

Well, what's that saying? I think he passed away recently, but there is no way to happiness. Happiness is the way. There is no way to change. Change is the way. There is no way to a solution. The solution is the way. So instead of looking for something external to happen, start creating the change within yourself. Um, someone who's clearly a fan of yours, Dan, and not mine, said I look like a poster boy for motivational speaking that people roll their eyes at. But this brings me to another important point: energy. I think that energy— there he goes, he said, 'This dude is like a walking motivational poster people roll their eyes at.' I've never seen a walking motivational poster, but that's one of my favorite critics' comments of the week. I actually really like that, so thank you, Talking Out Loud. Um, But let's talk about this point— energy. Would you agree there's been a collective reduction in energy and vibration?

Yes.

And would you agree that if we could increase that energy and vibration, i.e., maybe it coming from ourselves, being productive and positive as well as being realistic and, you know, looking to inspire and motivate people to change, would you agree the world needs that?

100%. This is, to me, is where transcendence comes from, Rob. It comes from within. You know, historically, again, it's going back to that piece of enlightenment versus religion versus science. It's almost like they got divorced and you could have one or the other. And how much of our culture is binary like that? It's this or that. An abundant mind does not ever say this or that. Yeah, we can have faith in science, but you can, if you wish, have a faith in God. I have a spiritual path. I don't have a religious path. But either way, if we find something within ourselves, our own energy, that source within us, and we bring a greater positive energy to the world and we take responsibility for the way we show up, that for me is part of the change. Someone asked me during the G7 meeting in Cornwall, what's the one thing we could do to transform the future of the world if G7 are responsible? And I said, lace the water with psychedelics and watch. Because— and I only— Have you had ayahuasca?

Ayahuasca then?

No, I've not had ayahuasca.

DMT?

No, I've not had DMT. Oh, okay. I'm definitely, definitely curious.

Some of the mushrooms that are high up on the list in Holland?

Yes. Yeah.

So what, you were being flippant there, but are you saying that we've been serious? Can—

no, I'm being serious. So not in the terms of—

are you talking about connecting, getting rid of ego, opening up the third eye, all of this sort of stuff?

I'm talking about, yes, transcending our sense of self, seeing something that we are here for a higher purpose. We're here for something beyond ourselves, even if that's just adapting and survival. Whatever it is, is to get beyond ourself because this is a function of all the arguments and wars. It's our ability to cling on to our own sense of identity. And identity has been fragmented into a million pieces. You and I, you could dissect our identity just on this conversation. Already we've seen people say, you know, that people are showing up in their comments rejecting part of who you are. We reject, we reject people based upon our sense of what their identity is. We need to get beyond that egoic mind where it's, it's, it's as simple— we live in this reductionist, simplistic, uh, way of living. Our ability to—

how does an ego drive progress? Like, you— I listened, sorry, I know you haven't finished, but we've done that a lot to each other. But I was thinking there, um, If we just transcend all identity, we wouldn't— you and I love Pantera. Well, Phil Anselmo was an angry, angry man. Still probably still is. And were he to lose his identity of anger, we wouldn't have had Pantera. So we wouldn't have had Will Smith if he didn't have his identity of always wanting to please people and being that person that always wanted to avoid conflict because of the mild abuse he had from his dad. So I hear transcending identity because in a way I like that because it gives me the ability to solve problems. Like I was thinking today, what if my wife had an affair? And I know it sounds like a morbid thought, but I thought, why would that be a bad thing? Why does it have to be a bad thing? Why does it have to be against me? Why would it mean that I'm not a significant enough male human being who can't please a woman? And I don't know why I was thinking that. I think it's because she's been out a lot lately and hasn't told me where she was, and my brain started doing that. But why do I have to have the identity of that? Why couldn't I liberate and free that? And why does that matter? And if she did, is it just part of the journey? So in that regard, it can be good to lose the identity of a proud male husband who's a good entrepreneur, raw. But I really want Phil Anselmo to be an angry guy so I can listen to Pantera. So if we don't have any identity, we don't have specialists. What do you think about that?

You want Phil Anselmo to be Phil Anselmo. It doesn't matter what may— what led to him being Phil Anselmo. He needs an idea.

If he loses his identity, he starts playing folk music.

Well, he might do.

We don't want that shit.

We don't want the best folk music in the world. But that point, are we actually— I believe who we are is much more than our choice in music, the labels we put upon ourselves. But we just live in this reductionist world. The reality is—

What's a reductionist world in a sentence?

It's just taking the complexity of life and just simplifying it to Yeah, I get it. Beyond all—

like a Jew.

Yeah, yeah, reducing it down to just a very small— but the thing is, I personally find joy in the belonging of not belonging. I don't want to fit into the crowd. I don't want to conform with whatever other people's expectations are for me. I spent my lifetime conforming what other people— we have our own beliefs about ourselves that kind of determine the kind of actions we take and how we see ourselves in the world around us. But we also have expectations of how we think other people, in the context of your wife, you're starting to project what is someone else thinking of me? And we live up to those expectations of how we think other people see us. So we're trapped. We're never truly free when we're living in that sense of identity. To me, freedom in many ways is to liberate ourselves from the fear of being judged, relinquish that. So I find the joy of belonging and not belonging. And I've got a friend who chooses to to eat a vegan diet, but she will not call herself a vegan or enter in vegan circles because she has to feel like she has to conform to the norms of the group. Because we're pack animals, we have this herd kind of identity, group identity. But the problem is, when you exist in silos, you do everything you possibly can to validate your existing biases, your existing worldview, and you reject all else. You create us and them situations. You create enemies. If we transcend that ego, We've gone beyond that and say, cool, I choose not to do— you make your choices, you make yours. I may not agree with your choices. Either way, I respect them and I don't judge you for them. It takes relinquishing the ego to do that. So many ways, I think what we're on the precipice of in terms of the revolution, I think we will see in the next 12 months something that was very much akin to—

I feel like we've got a prediction. I'm getting excited. History shows us the way. You think? You think something, a bomb's going?

Well, there's plenty of bombs going off right now. But I think the situation in Ukraine will get worse. We'll see civil unrest in United Kingdom, US, Western economies. People are going to feel the pinch of the standard of living. Already, they're seeing it. This week, my energy bills went up double. My phone bill's gone up 10%. I went to get some fuel for the car. I'm like, are you kidding me? It's all going up. How many people's wages are going up in alignment with that inflation?

There's going to be so much anger. And normally, you get a revolution after.

There's two ways that will unfold— with violence, with peace. What happened in the 1960s— and I've made this comparison with my audience so many times. The similarities are unprecedented. You've got war, pandemic, global unrest. Identity crisis, pursuit for breaking down systems of power. All the symptoms are the same. I think we'll see something that was very much akin to the Summer of Love. And what, what happened with the Summer of Love? Psychedelics. That's why I made that reference, because it takes, it takes us outside of ourselves. It wouldn't surprise—

are you committing on here to take ayahuasca?

I will take ayahuasca, yeah.

Should we do a live interview on it.

Yes.

I don't think we should do it in the studio though, Rob.

I don't think we'll have any professional—

In the Amazon. Take a few cameras to the Amazon.

Yeah, take a few cameras to the Amazon. I'll join you on that trip.

That scares me, by the way.

That scares the heck out of me, to be quite frank. But there are different ways that we can get outside of ourselves, whether it's breathing techniques, mindfulness, Participatory experiences. We hosted a drum circle, a virtual drum circle within our community. Everyone's playing in sync. It creates harmony. It creates rhythm. But people are present. It gets us out of our thinking mind and it gets us into this moment so we can truly experience where we are and what we're doing. We need to be permeated. We need to break out of this kind of— I'm on a total rant here, but we need to get out of this kind of like us and them mentality, the trigger alert, cause and effect. It's what leads to wars. We need to come back to ourselves. We can still enjoy all the joys of life. We can still enjoy all the technology, but it's the way in which we operate, our sense of meaning, our relationship with the world, the relationship with each other, our relationship with ourselves is to me what transcendence is about. And we need to find ways to encourage people to find that point of transcendence so they can find personal responsibility. To me, it's about personal empowerment. It's about personal responsibility. It's about self-determination. It's about higher consciousness. Yes, it's about decentralization, but we do need a counterculture revolution. We need it this summer. I think we'll see the greatest shifts in human consciousness at the same time as the greatest shifts in political social dynamics.

That sounds like the perfect end. What do you reckon?

I think so. We started with the title Revolution.

Did you get all your stuff covered?

Did we? Are we on the precipice of revolution? I suppose you asked me that. Let me ask you the same. Are we on the precipice of revolution? Precipice of a revolution?

I think we are, yeah. I think there's a lot of things that seem to be at some kind of fever pitch, whether it's our emotion seems to be at fever pitch, the markets seem to be at fever pitch. By the way, not necessarily positive, but, you know, at a point of some kind of bubble bursting, if you like. I think that there's a lot of unrest and anger with government and dictatorship and totalitarianism. I think the prices are so high, there's going to be anger and outrage with the, the cost of living because we're getting hit every which way. Inflation is way up, but interest rates are really low. Um, so your cash is getting eroded, but you can't earn on it. Like, hiring people is really hard, but wages are higher, but cost of living is going up much higher. Fuel prices, food prices, energy prices, taxes. Is where it's all against us and nothing's for us. So yeah, I think we are building towards a pressure cooker effect where something has to give. Now, I can't make a bullish prediction on what I think that will be. I do think the markets will have to correct at some time because I think asset prices are high. They've been pushed up through inflation, QE, lack of, um, you know, the reduction of the supply chain because of the lockdowns lockdowns. And of course, if you get market corrections, you're going to get fear into the market, you're going to get people selling assets on the cheap, you're going to have companies go bust and things all— you know, there'll be blood on the streets there. But yes, financially, something's got to correct. Emotionally, something's got to correct. From an information and a freedom point of view, something's got to correct. I just don't know what that correction is. If it's one thing, it might be a few little things. They're my thoughts.

I'll ask you a final question because I think there's so much happening in the world right now. Getting the balance between remaining informed, but not only informed in a way that we just default to our trusted sources that confirm our biases, remaining informed in a way that actually gives us a breadth of understanding. Today we've explored a number of perspectives. This. We've danced around the ideas, and we've been able to do that. How would you suggest to people that they can remain informed but remain productive? Because right now, you can feel pressure on the economy. You can feel the weight of that on your shoulders, which is, for many people, it's put you into fear. How, you know, we need to get people out of fear and into abundance in order that they can then act.

Okay. So a few things. I think number one is You've got to find out what your purpose and mission is because imagine if you don't really know what you're supposed to do with your life but you're full of all this energy and angst. That's obviously going to leak out in unproductive and possibly self-destructive ways. So if you have a calling, if you have a vision and a mission, so I always lean back on being an entrepreneur and doing what I do because it's sort of therapy for me, it's focus for me, it's where I can channel my energy when I'm pissed off about the world or the government. I could put it into production and creativity and innovation. So it really is, it's a physical outlet, but it's a very therapeutic outlet. So I'd say for stage 1 for everyone, how can you turn this energy and this angst and this frustration you've got into productivity? Now I'm not necessarily saying build a manufacturing plant or design a pattern. But for you, some people put it into football, some people put it into martial arts. That would, for me, if we're all putting this angst and this energy into productive and unique areas, that's going to serve humanity. So that's definitely probably the first and the main thing we do. The next thing is what you strongly believe, you probably have got to go and learn as much as you can about that subject. So, you know, I do believe ultimately capitalism is the best system of the ones that have been tested. I also understand that we don't really have pure capitalism anymore. We certainly don't have a pure free market. And people talk about Keynesian, or they talk about Milton, they talk about Adam Smith. But really, now we have this hybrid of hybrids of not enough intervention sometimes when I like not much intervention, and then too much in others. So I am a capitalist, I suppose, if I had to identify with the system, but I don't really think there's a system. The more I can learn about that, that's the second thing. But then what I've got to do is I've got to anti-learn myself, which means I've got to learn the other side. So I'm currently listening to a book which argues 23 failings of capitalism. And it's actually making some good arguments. And at first, when I bought that, I thought initially, that's not my kind of thing. But then I thought, if I want to be critical and balanced, and I want to think about progress and not just ego, I should study that too. You know, the thing about— did I say it here about child labor?

Was it here?

Yeah, I did. So, you know, child labor is obviously not a thing I think is good. And it was government intervention that stopped manufacturers and producers and the old-day entrepreneurs from doing child labor.

As a result of public pressure, though.

Yeah, maybe.

See, taking responsibility. If there's something in the world you want to see changed, speak up about it. Speak up. Don't wait for someone else to speak up and say, yes, I follow that person.

Yeah.

Become the leader you want to see.

Yeah. So unchallenging your own beliefs. Like, I wrote the book Money. I wrote the book on it. But I learned as much as I could about socialism and communism, even though I was writing a book that's really more pro Capitalism. Like every time I talk to my wife, I learn something. And a lot of the times when I talk to my wife, I want to tell her something, which is I want to talk. When my wife comes to me, she wants to talk. But, you know, my wife has a very different view of the world than me. And I learn so much from her as long as I'm not overly trying to project my values onto her. So being around people. So this is the fourth thing. Now, what does everyone say in the world of personal development? Hang around with winners. You know, your 5 people, your circle, you've got to hang around. I would actually challenge that. I think, yeah, you've got to hang around people who want to support you, but also people who challenge you.

Yes.

You want to hang around with entrepreneurs and millionaires and billionaires if you want to be one, but you also should hang around with people on benefits and people who are broke and people who are hard up to learn what the world is to them and have a balanced view through the people you hang around with. So they're probably the 4 things.

Yes, I think that's so important as we have these limited lenses of the world, and having, having that exposure to different people gives us a rich understanding, which ultimately is what we've been talking about for today. So we started out talking about polarization and tribalization, how we've been divided about Brexit, COVID, and war. We asked ourselves, are we at the precipice of war? We unpacked some of that. We looked at the war on information, cancel culture, shadow banning. We talked about big tech, whether big tech have power over individuals and governments. We talked about the NWO. We talked about the challenges in the economy. We talked about human evolution. We talked about transcendence. We asked ourselves, are we at the precipice of revolution? We've been going live now for over 1 hour and 48 minutes.

What quote are you going to finish on, Dan? What's your quote?

Well, I think I've already shared my quote, which is, I seek meaning I, I love the belonging of not belonging. I, I love the belonging of not belonging because that gives me ultimate freedom. I get to be who I am and I get to connect with others and relate with others, but I don't have to conform with others. And to me, that is a sense of freedom that comes from the freedom of not being afraid to be judged by others because I'm in tune with myself. So I appreciate that's more than a quote, all right, but it's, it's a sentiment I'd like I'd like to share. How about yourself?

There's two. One is fear screams loudest when it's dying. Another billionaire I probably got that from because I interview a lot of billionaires and very wealthy people. Fear screams loudest when it's dying. I think there's a lot of fear in the world and it's trying to hold on to itself before it dies. Mainstream media trying to hold on to itself before it dies. And so that's one. And then the other one is what I finish all of my content on, which is if you don't risk anything you risk everything.

Absolutely. On that note, we're over and out. Thanks so much for tuning in today, Rob. For those who have been watching from my audience that perhaps haven't come across your work before, tell us a little bit about where people can find out more about your podcast and the work that you do.

So I'm the author of the book Money. You can also find my podcast Money on all social medias. My name is Rob Moore, so I'm very active on all social media. My Facebook Lives get millions of views, so you might want to follow me on Facebook, but my name is Rob Moore. And Dan, for my audience, what about you, Dan Gregory? Where can we find you? Where are you ranting?

Well, I'm ranting at the moment within the confines of Facebook, YouTube, where I'm currently permitted to rant. So yeah, you'll find my podcast on my Facebook profile that you've been watching on today, Dan Aston Gregory. You'll see us on YouTube again under Dan Aston Gregory. We also have the platform called Elevate Network, where you'll find that at wearelevate.org.

Before we finish, Dan, and we've got to do this one more from Tracy Jane: should we be taking our money out of the bank? Hmm, here's my thoughts on this. You should not have more money in the bank than the bank will guarantee. Uh, inflation is very high, quantitative easing and the printing of money is very high, both of which lead to your money being worth less every every year. But your bank is a good way to save money, and you need a bank account to pay your expenses. So I recommend that you have a bank account for all of your main expenses, and you just feed that with enough. Then you have your savings account, but your goal should be to get an amount that you can invest as quick as possible, and then you get it out of the bank and you get it into crypto, or you get it into property or real estate, or you get it into buying websites and domain names, or starting a business, or creating an NFT, or investing in an NFT, or into the stock market, or wherever. So that's my long-winded way of saying you need bank accounts, because there are a lot of people who are so crypto-based they don't want any fiat currency. That's kind of not possible.

It's a little ahead of the game.

Yeah, exactly. It's too far ahead. Um, but if you don't invest your savings, you're probably— it's a difference of at least 15% a year right now. 10% minimum inflation, 5% return on a standard return on cash. So leaving money in a bank minimum is losing you 15% a year. They're my thoughts on should you leave the money in the bank and should you take it out? You got anything to add?

Yeah, I mean, I think that's pertinent advice. I think under these conditions, this— we've talked throughout this episode about cycles, market cycles. I would invest time understanding the economic and political cycles in terms of where we are today, because it's shows predictable patterns about where we're likely to go in the future on an economic basis. And there are always winners and losers under these types of conditions. And there are certain behaviors and actions that those take that not only protect their money, but find ways to use it meaningfully and productively to grow it. So look to history, you know, look at, look at where we are in the market cycle. There's plenty of education out there on that and act accordingly. But I think under these types of conditions, yeah, banks may not be the safest place, but that there are guarantees in place. So you learn about those guarantees. There's a maximum amount in the UK at least that you'd want to put in any individual bank from a safety point of view that is government-backed. So, you know, unless the government— I mean, are we at the point of collapse of central banks and government? I don't think we're only there, but again, look to history for clues.

Because warning, all these people who say you shouldn't have any money in the bank, cash is trash, get it out, put it in crypto. Well, crypto is far more risky and far more volatile. So I'm not saying you shouldn't have crypto, but I think you should be aware of that as a risk, and you should only probably have risk capital and capital you can afford to lose until you understand a lot about it. Thanks for tuning in, everyone.

Thank you.

Oh, by the way, make sure you share this as well.

Yes.

Yeah, I don't know if we'll break the internet doing a 2-hour video.

And if anyone wants to keep in count, let us know how many times you said Putin, and we'll find out out afterwards if, uh, if we've matched that limit or not. We seem to be still here, so thank you so much for being with us. Please do share this, and really appreciate all of you, uh, sharing and engaging throughout this episode.

My man Dan Gregory.

My man Rob Moore.