Hey, does it annoy you to see others get rich in crypto? If yes, it's natural to wish you could do the same, but probably looks too hard, you don't have the time, not to mention it's bloody boring. But if that's you, why not copy me? On my copy my crypto website, I share every crypto I own, which means you've just copied me. Here's how Richard Carlo, who's made over 800 grand as a member, describes the site. It's like having a big brother who knows what he's doing. I don't need to know a thing about crypto as I just copied James. I'm James McMann, and I run the Crypto with James' YouTube channel with over 65,000 subscribers. In mid-2020, my viewers watched me buy 26 cryptos. Had you put 100 bucks into each one, it went on to be worth 123 grand. One of the cryptos, Phantom, went up 692 times in price and retired a number of people. Remember this is public record, go to YouTube and verify this yourself. So to join other 3,700 members who copy me, go to the link on screen. You not only find proof of everything I've said, but as one of David's viewers, you get full access for just a dollar. Guys, it's only a recommendation, but I suggest you go there now. The offer expires soon, and after that, I'm not an option. A completely separate topic, this is something I was thinking of earlier when you were talking about the people in positions of power to do with this third world war conflict. In the educated way of talking, with Trump almost certainly going to win in November, and that image that's portrayed of him is that he's going to come in and sort it out, him and Putin get on, him and Starmer won't get on, that kind of thing. Do you see a potential for like a Pearl Harbor type event where he did ideal, I've got elected, I don't want to go into that war, but then this happened, I have no choice. Is that potentially a way they get around that Trump election and him being elected on the premise of I'll end it in a day? But then something happens, and I can't do that now. Well, that's always a possibility because problem reaction solution is one of the greatest weapons of the sexual manipulation for people I've come across it, Franklin Delano Roosevelt came to power, which went into wartime years, Second World War, saying, "I tell you, mothers of America, your sons are not going to fight in that war in Europe," he knows, he knows they are, and so along comes Pearl Harbor, which was allowed to happen again, see Gaza. And as a result of that, when all the major part of the fleet was at sea, so it wasn't there to be destroyed, and Roosevelt then said, "Look, I know I said we weren't going to fight in this war in Europe, but now this has happened, we've got no choice. That's how it works." So something like that is possible. But we'll have to see if Biden does get replaced, which quite clearly, that's what they want, and who comes in, and then we'll see who they really want. It certainly indicates they want Trump now, but we'll see. Yeah, at the moment, it feels very much like it was in the lead up to the election here. You know there was an election coming up, and in the opposition, you had three prime ministers in six months or whatever, creating chaos. So if someone replaced Biden now, and it's not like, unless I'm missing something, it's not like there's a very popular Democrat out there who people would look to and go, "Well, that's exactly who you're going to replace them with," and that will get us to vote. Yeah, well they're talking about Michelle Obama or Bobby Newsom in California, who has destroyed the state of California, and not least the fascists imposed during COVID, while he was ignoring them, all the restrictions. And you're right, there's not a popular one, but what I have to wait and see, it certainly looks at the moment, but they want Trump. Because the way they turned on Biden, yeah, is such an indicator, because all the people that were ignoring his senility before to get him elected, and then in his early years in office, all those people, whether it's media, politicians, whatever, they're all now turning on him, and they're turning on him really fast. They say, "Oh, it's because of his performance in the debate," but hold on a minute. I mean, he's been doing that all the way through, and it's got worse, and we've talked about it in the dot connector, where suddenly, media organizations that would never have run these clips, were now suddenly running clips of clearly seen our Biden. So obviously, there's been a change, and I've read things and watched things of so-called alternative media stars of the Mam, the mainstream alternative media, it's not alternative at all. And they've said, "Oh, well, what's happened is the media have had to acknowledge now that Biden's seen now because of the evidence." So the evidence was there before. Yeah, it was, yeah. It's not going to do with, "Oh, well, no, we've got to acknowledge and tell the truth." No, no, it was those that own the media were saying, "You protect him. You defend him, right, because we want him in office in these years, right? We want rid of him now." So you exposed the fact that he's seen now, even though you knew it all along, you now exposed it. That's what's happened. And I saw this clip this week, which really kind of encapsulates it because it's on CNN, right? Now, CNN has defended Biden, there's been vehemently anti-Trump because that's what they were told to be. And yet now, and you'll see in this clip, they are just as vehemently seeking to undermine Biden. Why? I'm telling them the script has changed. I'm going to look at this. The elites have been forced to reckon with it after the debate just 11 days ago. Look at my career, I've not had many of those nights with a terrible night, and I really regret it happened. But the fact of the matter is, how can you assure you're going to be out on, you know, fake back and intervene on your way to go to work tomorrow, age, age wasn't, you know, the idea is not too old. The fact of the matter is, how can you assure you're going to be out on, you know, on your way to go, you know, work tomorrow, age, age wasn't, you know, the idea that I'm too old? Keep in mind that somebody is supposed to be reassuring to those Democratic supporters who have gone wobbly. Did you ever watch the debate afterwards? I don't think I did now. He doesn't think he did. He called into a couple of black radio stations where he said, among other things, this. Well, I'm proud to be, as I said, the first vice president, the first black woman, served with a black president, proud to have won the first black woman in the Supreme Court. There's just so much that we can do because together we, there's nothing but the United States America. The first, he's proud to be the first black woman, not coherent. And even then, we later found out later from the radio host that the Biden campaign had given her a list of questions to ask President Biden, that is a huge no-no in journalism and the host was fired for it, but remains quite telling that in the Biden campaign's efforts to show that the president has not missed a step, his campaign felt the need to feed questions to the hosts for a call-in radio interview. Yeah, it's just a flick of the switch, it's a change of the script. Well, you've always said if something changes instantly, someone's pressed the button and it's obviously the whole direction of travel has changed. Yeah. And it is another clip indicated against CNN. A guy called David Axelrod was he's a mechanic about it. He oversaw the election of Barack Obama, two elections. He was the fixer. He was the election fixer. He was the senior adviser in the White House. Right. A Zionist. Can I say Zionist? Is that right? You're sorry. This is an on-face. And his handler was Rahm Immanuel, another ultra-ultra Zionist from a family whose father was a terrorist with Ergum, helped to bomb Israel into existence in 1948, and they controlled Obama. And so Axelrod is a big insider. And of course, it was like, oh, no, Biden this, Biden that, because Biden was the vice president while Axelrod was senior adviser to Obama. And now, suddenly, Axelrod has switched. Right. Axelrod has taken a U-turn and here it is this week on CNN describing how, well, I think on balance, Joe will stand out, who you do, stuck in there. The one person that no one can outrun his father, Tom Brady won a Super Bowl three years ago and he's out of football. Okay. Why? It doesn't detract from his greatness or what he's done. It's just there are certain immutable facts of life. And those were painfully obvious on that debate stage. And the president just doesn't seem to come to, he hasn't come to grips with it. He's not winning this race. He's more likely if you just look at the data and talk to people around the country, political people around the country, it's more likely that he'll lose by a landslide than win narrowly this race. And if the stakes are as large as he says, and I believe they are, then he really needs to consider what the right thing to do here in. Yeah. And it just shows there you've got the, you know, people in behind the Democrats, behind the Republicans are the same people and that's just proving that because, you know, he supported Democrats under Obama and now he's thrown him under the bus because he wants, he knows the plan is probably for Trump to win, so say what he needs to say. It's real simple and, you know, so much of the new hijacked alternative media doesn't obviously may have got a grasp it or doesn't want to political parties. Same end. Absolutely. Same end. That's where the power is. That's the illusion of power. Well, hopefully this week has highlighted to more people that we're not going to borrow our way out. So therefore it's going to require more of a change of perception and a change of self and view of self. The answers don't mind the political realm and hopefully with the illusion of an election here, the illusion of election in France, that's been highlighted to more people with that illusion of the election in the Netherlands, which has ended up with a Dutch head of Dutch intelligence as the unelected prime minister. This is where it needs to go and just just finally know something that I was thinking about this week. The plan is to have technocratic government. Technocratic government is people who are not elected, not politicians as we would call them, that they are appointed, they are bureaucrats, they are engineers, they are technocrats, they are quote medical experts and all these people who are just appointed. And people think, "Oh, technocratic governments will go out and they will never pull that off." Well, they've pulled it off in a big step to pulling it off in the Netherlands with technocrats involved in the government like this Dutch intelligence chief. We already have, with the Starmer government, people being given a peerage so that they unelected enter the House of Lords, the second chamber in Britain. And as a result, can serve in the government. By balance. Yeah, like balance, Mr. COVID. But this is what occurs to me. America is already a technocracy. It's just that people haven't seen it. Okay, you elect the president, at least in theory in terms of Biden, you elect the president and what does the president then do? I point every other position. Does he have to go to Capitol Hill to get elected people to be his secretary of state, his head of the Treasury, his head of Homeland Security, his secretary of state, his attorney general, national security advisor, all of which are Jewish by the way, well, actually, I would say Sabatine, but no, you theoretically elect the president and all the positions of state are appointed non-elected people to run the fricking country. America is already a technocracy, you know, I hear people say, oh, you know, America's got to become a technocracy, you're not careful, you already are. Just not notice. With the executive order, they can call anything without Congress approval coming. Executive order is something that does not go through Capitol Hill, does not go through elected people. It's just signed by the president. And during the Clinton administration, one of his advisors said how wonderful executive orders were because it's swish of the pen, the law of the land, and that's technocracy. And we already have it in America, but that's what they plan for right across the world. Yeah. And obviously this election here in Britain has brought about a conversation about the electoral system, which, you know, they're obviously going to provide an alternative, which is probably much more like that system they want in them. Well, when you have, and I think this time it's really dawned on people in Britain. I've dawned on a lot of people in Britain that we're supposed to have a democracy. We don't have a democracy at all. I mean, even rule by the majority is a tyranny. We should have a situation where all people are treated, all views are treated in with the same respect. And you do that. If you have an electoral system, not that I think it's got to, you know, the political system, they're going to change anything, it's there to stop sharing, but for the better. But if you want a system that works in terms of alleged democracy, then when you vote, that must have some impact on the government. Yeah. You know, they have this thing, propulsion representation stuff, which would have given reform about 90 seats instead of five and would not have given kierstama a majority had we had a situation where the number of votes each party was reflected in the number of MPs in parliament, because we have first passed the post. We have a tyranny now in government on something like 34, 35% of the vote. And if you add to that the people that didn't vote because they couldn't be bothered or thought, well, what's the point, then the vast over one majority of British people did not vote for starma, but he's got a massive majority, thus total power. And I think it's dawned on a lot of people in this election that the idea of democracy is an illusion, because if you look at governments over the years in Britain, how many have got more than 50% of the vote they've had total power. And this is something that seriously needs to be addressed. What I'm saying is kierstama on the basis of this has no mandate. I think it was Rachel Reeves, the chancellor now, who said in a speech this week, we have the mandate. You don't have the mandate. You do not have the mandate. You do not have a democratic mandate. And as a result of that, we should not be submitted to what they seek to impose upon us, because when the vast majority of people didn't vote for them, they have no legitimacy as a government. And the final point is two things that would change. Firstly, with PR, people wouldn't vote tactically. People would vote for who they thought. So the numbers of people that voted for the various parties, it's probably quite skewed of what they would have voted potentially had it been at PR. And secondly, forget who you vote for. When they're sworn in, they pledge allegiance to the bloody king. I swear by Almighty God, or I swear by whatever the other one was under oath, that I will pledge allegiance to the king of Charles and his whatever he called heirs, while it's in law. Yeah. It's unbelievable. The thing is, Jay, that the control system is all around us. But it's not that familiarity only breeds contempt. Familiarity stops you seeing what's before your eyes. And I have to say, we've been watching the England football team in the European Football Championship, and got to the finalists we speak. And every time they play, they play the national anthems, right? They play the national anthems before the game starts. And you've got the England football team, they're lined up with a camera going along the line, and they're singing vociferously, the national anthem, all the crowd, you know, many of whom have been screwed by the whole system, are beaming out, blasting out this national anthem. A national anthem that says, God save our gracious king, long live our noble king. God save the king, send him victorious, happy and glorious, long to reign over us. Yeah. It's demanding that they are rained over. Yeah. Look in the dictionary definition of rained over. And it means you are demanding to be a subordinate of a man who is in the star-malade of vacuous and in the star-malade of arrogant. And they're demanding it. The national anthem demands it. What are they doing? What are we doing having a national anthem if you go down that road? That is a eulogy to one bloke or one woman. Doesn't even mention the country's name? Not even mention the country. That's telling you. And I understand, I mean, I don't understand Dutch, but Christiana was saying, watching the game, that the Dutch national anthem, the England played in the semi-final, also mentions the Dutch royal family. I mean, what are we doing? But we do it because it's like, well, I hadn't thought of that. Well, it's about telling me good enough, it's enough, it's like that. I'm supposed to be a nutter. These gats and squirrely ones, Alex Jones is way more reliable than David. You know, people have called you a linear, it's been written. I've been researching this stuff for 20 years. How can you research? I've been to more than 20 countries doing it. Which is funny, really, because why would they ban someone who is not with it, doesn't know what they're talking about? In nearly 30 European countries in the Schengen border group. Why would they ban him from Australia? Why would he be banned from the mainstream media, and even banned from a swathe of the alternative media? Why would that be? I'm crazy, right? The reveal, out on September the 1st. [BLANK_AUDIO]
