Interview with One Radio Network Host Patrick Timpone

This week I was interviewed by the host of the One Radio Network Patrick Timpone. During our conversation we covered a range of subjects including digital currencies and the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic.

I would like to thank Patrick for the opportunity and for the time he afforded to me. I am truly grateful for the recognition.

Below is a link to the interview for those who are interested.


  1. Good interview, the plan of the elites relates to this story in The Bible:
    This is the story of how Pharaoh acquired all the land of Egypt found in The Bible. Joseph had dreams about a coming famine so he bought all the grain stored it up, then people were forced to trade money for the grain, then when they ran out of grain…

    Genesis 47
    Joseph and the Famine
    13 There was no food, however, in the whole region because the famine was severe; both Egypt and Canaan wasted away because of the famine. 14 Joseph collected all the money that was to be found in Egypt and Canaan in payment for the grain they were buying, and he brought it to Pharaoh’s palace. 15 When the money of the people of Egypt and Canaan was gone, all Egypt came to Joseph and said, “Give us food. Why should we die before your eyes? Our money is all gone.”

    16 “Then bring your livestock,” said Joseph. “I will sell you food in exchange for your livestock, since your money is gone.” 17 So they brought their livestock to Joseph, and he gave them food in exchange for their horses, their sheep and goats, their cattle and donkeys. And he brought them through that year with food in exchange for all their livestock.

    18 When that year was over, they came to him the following year and said, “We cannot hide from our lord the fact that since our money is gone and our livestock belongs to you, there is nothing left for our lord except our bodies and our land. 19 Why should we perish before your eyes—we and our land as well? Buy us and our land in exchange for food, and we with our land will be in bondage to Pharaoh. Give us seed so that we may live and not die, and that the land may not become desolate.”

    20 So Joseph bought all the land in Egypt for Pharaoh. The Egyptians, one and all, sold their fields, because the famine was too severe for them. The land became Pharaoh’s, 21 and Joseph reduced the people to servitude,[c] from one end of Egypt to the other. 22 However, he did not buy the land of the priests, because they received a regular allotment from Pharaoh and had food enough from the allotment Pharaoh gave them. That is why they did not sell their land.

    23 Joseph said to the people, “Now that I have bought you and your land today for Pharaoh, here is seed for you so you can plant the ground. 24 But when the crop comes in, give a fifth of it to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths you may keep as seed for the fields and as food for yourselves and your households and your children.”


  2. Worth listening to just to hear liverpudlian again.

    What has my attention is the way the world reply to the virus is orchestrated. I don’t think anyone can deny this reality, the question being what is behind it.

    To start off, just about every single nation has been taking a common view on the threat posed by the virus. I have seen only one or two make independent appraisal and take independent action. It was very very obvious even to untrained people that this was not SARS, that without strict measures to contain China or to isolate own country, transmission and pandemic would be inevitable. Token efforts to this end don’t count, flight restrictions from only certain countries don’t count.

    It could be said that even with these measures, transmission to each country would also be inevitable. Maybe, but that was not the view being admitted to by any country. Instead transmission was “allowed” to occur, maybe on the hope that transmission would not occur. Once present in such a number of countries, in fact just about all, individual lockdowns of each country took place almost simultaneously. All very synchronised. It could be said that the interconnectedness of today’s world meant that once transmission was occuring outside China, most countries would host an epidemic almost simultaneously, however from the point of view of an individual country this only reinforces the need to take independent action.

    So, and I am well aware not only that countries were following the prompts of WHO, that they are also tied into lines of political and financial influence at different levels that are both coercive to their actions, I have to ask if really they just rallied around orders coming from somewhere else, following the herd on the world stage. That is to say either being played, if not actually subscribing to the increase in national authority the implementation of measures to deal with the virus would bring if for any reason “containment did not work in China”. It is striking that no leaders dared to risk their own reputation by protecting their countries early. The “global response” provided them with an excuse to hide behind for their later actions.

    If you asked me the true origin of this virus, that I had to use my own intuition, with all I have studied of it so far, and with whatever reply I gave having no significance or impact in any way, that it would not even imply blaming anyone…if I had to make that call now, not later… well I would say it was purposefully released 😦 . I don’t get uptight thinking this like some would, it just leaves me with a very uneasy feeling to see it that way, I would rather not see it that way in fact. I might well be wrong.

    Well, I only listened to a quarter of the interview so far because it is late, the rest will be tomorrow.

    Best regards.


    • To note, the “franchise” on money granted to the BoE is via law, ie. parliament. Parliament has the right to recind this if it so chooses, which is to say that in theory at least the current framework is property of parliament. This includes legal tender law and monopoly on creation of money.

      So what happens is that the government devises spending, and borrows ahead of the taxation used to repay, and that debt is taken onto the balance sheet of the central bank according to its discernment of market conditions. That is to say that if yields are high and it wants to lower them then it will indirectly “buy” sovereign debt from the market, creating reserves for banks to use in their business or lending. Central bank reserves cannot be used directly by a bank, but they earn interest and equalise the interbank market. Removing sovereign debt from the market increases its price so lowers its yield.

      So this is a form of accommodation between government and finance, where the BoE acts by mandate to normalise say inflation or resolve market upsets, and where the government is complicit in that by the way it spends and borrows, and supposedly according to public will (there are few who reject government spending going their way no doubt). It is not a very good framework, there are worse also.

      If you place control of money directly into the hands of government, they will do what they do best – they will simply “print and spend themselves to success and popularity”, as other governments have tried. Any law you introduce to limit that will be overturned eventually, because that is the nature of apparently free supply. The checks that existed in UK, the ability of budget veto by the lords for example early last century , have been chipped away steadily. Therefore this talk of government or bank control of money is something of a false dichotomy because the process is mutual , and a reason some people still insist on a gold standard as more honest, because it limits creative accounting practice.

      This brings us on to the monopoly or distribution of money. From the early 19th century onwards the centralisation of banking under BoE has been taking place, legal tender law then granting effective monopoly of the currency in use (by reasons I will not repeat here). With the end of a gold standard and the start of sovereign debt backed currency we are fully into fiat. Early money was metallic, the unit was weight of metal, the obligation to certain national coinage has a long and varied history, from reliability of content through to seignorage and so on, sometimes purely political rejection of foreign coined metal. Often varied coinage of whatever nation was understood and accepted also.There was no monopoly per se, there was historic or traditional monopoly or hierarchy of wider ownership of say land, or of taxation. With finance arose the possibility of manipulation of accounts, from issuing more gold receipts than gold in store through to fractional reserve practice. Into this mixed world finance became powerful, because it allowed forward spending by inventing debt as money , and so could buy influence via credit. Central banking was part created to contain, read own, the rather chaotic and competitive scene that had arisen. With the gold standard credit and debt were limited by possibility of demand of physical withdrawal, which obliged a caution in lending practice. Still, finance was becoming more centralised all the same during that time in British history, and monopoly of money supply apparent due to that. An argument against the gold standard is the possibility of monopoly of supply (ownership) being used as leverage, I am not sure this is truly possible, obviously if confiscation were chosen to rectify then it would be self fulfilling though.

      With the move towards fiat and government debt backed currency, the monopoly of creation and ownership of money passed fully to the central banks, in conjunction with a place of debt provider made of government. The bank notes and currency are property of the bank, we are only allowed their use. This monopoly was balanced by the facility to government of endless spending, and the fractional lending system of near endless finance, all framed within a price inflation mandate.

      The public distribution/redistribution of money via government spending and welfare were matched by private finance and its money creation via debt, they both interact at various levels, a sort of marriage of state and finance, of society and politics, of votes and popularity with projections of national direction. At other levels government debt might be used to accomodate via government spending a poor private financial economic setting, read banking , or government bussiness interact with both forms of finance in public private partnerships.

      At some point, or at this point, we start to realise that we are subject to outright management, where “our” money is no longer ours, or even accessible, where its value is predetermined or changeable to whatever degree. Where there is no truly private ownership or activity possible. This is a new paradigm, especially when combined with digital central bank policy and modern geopolitics and values.

      The turning point for this has to be where a form of money was obliged, whether by legal tender or other law. There is a large and varied history to this, going back to ancient times. In say Roman times the setting was not the paradox of rich finance versus welfare, of “socialism and welfare” versus “capitalist greed”, and all the associated social and political themes adjunct, but was maybe instead divine right versus production, or possibly organised might versus subjection by previous conquest, all mixed with whatever religious or social frameworks were in existence at the time. Same theme though, but slightly different method of framework and setting.

      Now we are almost voluntary participants in the new direction this is all taking, the steady lowering of rates to “support asset values” towards a global zero and no price discovery, the endless purchase of national debt and open market acquisitions of stocks by central banks to “save the system” or cushion society to say the likes of the current virus, and eventually the elimination of cash, all point in the same direction.

      What I wonder though, is if there is actually a way out of ever greater centralisation of this kind. Maybe it is more of an illusion than reality that is easily brushed away in practice but insistent all the same, or maybe people will reach the point where it becomes the only acceptable reality they are willing to choose.


      But I only reached the thirty minute mark before writing this, I didn’t get round to listening to all of the broadcast yet, and “tomorrow” often means “when possible” in some countries, which is excuse enough for the delay 🙂 .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.