Thank you everyone, it really isn't a tech conference without some technical difficulties, so thank you for bearing with us today. So, as she mentioned, we'll be talking about how continuous delivery in DevOps really can make your IT transformation awesome. So, first, you know, Nick was hard, he wrote this article in Harvard Business Review 2003, and he didn't just say, IT doesn't matter, the title of the paper was, IT doesn't matter, so that's us, right? So many people kept thinking that just IT didn't matter, and the underlying principle and the underlying thought for the pieces of the paper was that IT was never going to help you make a difference in your business.  Well, it turns out time to change, things are totally different now, and if we do IT the right way, with the right practices, the right processes, the right technology, IT now even just matters, it will make things awesome. It will help you leap from all your competition, and one of those things that makes it awesome is continuous delivery. So, here's what we're going to talk about today. Again, times and IT have changed, DevOps is good for IT, DevOps is good for organizations. We'll talk about what drives that change. One of it is tooling and automation, and here's continuous delivery, so we'll dig into that a little bit. Another one is using lean manager practices, those practices and processes, also having a good culture. So, back when Nicholas Carr wrote this paper, it was back when IT was just a cost center, people would buy servers, they would put them in closets, they would put them in some really pretty up lighting, which was nice, but it just wasn't enough to have some server, or they could do really, really hard things, like buy ERP systems. You could throw consultants in a problem, but you know what, your competitors could do the exact same thing. It wasn't giving you something that was a competitive advantage, and it especially wasn't doing something that we call a sustained competitive advantage. It was giving you what we call a point of parity, but not a point of distinction. Well, then something came along, and people started realizing the tech that the things that we found out in the lean manufacturing movement, in the Toyota movement, could be applied to software development delivery process. And if we embraced these types of methodologies and these types of practices, we could make our software and our technology better and awesome. We started hearing some of these stories really early, starting in about 2009. We started hearing it in 2007, but really 2009 was kind of a groundbreaking moment at the Velocity Conference. All Spa, Heron, told the story about the Dev and Ops cooperation at Flickr, doing 10 deploys per day. We've seen those numbers skyrocket ever since, at places like Etsy, places like Amazon, places like Netflix, but I like stories. But I also really, really like data. My background is research. And, you know, I'm always the skeptic in the room. I'm the one that says, oh, that story is nice, but is it actually going to apply to me? And so I started working with some of my colleagues, Gene Kim, Jess Humboldt, who works at Public Labs, and we decided to dig in and really get some data to see if this is actually applicable. Does it work everywhere? Does it generalize? Or is it just a handful of little companies that find a way to do their special sauce or take the numbers and do special math to make it work in a place that just don't apply, right? Okay, so as we start digging in here and looking at what's going on, who here is on the Dev side of the house? Who here is Dev? Okay. Who here is Ops? Okay. Who here does like project management and Agile and... Okay. So as we start talking through this, think about how it applies to you and how we can use this as we're on our own journey. So just as a refresher, Dev Ops really kind of comprises three key things. Part of it really is the tooling automation. We need some kind of technological piece, although you can't just buy something and plug it in, okay? It's not just going to be the tech because you know what? HP LaserJet firmware was made awesome. Using firmware, okay? So you can do it on old tech. People who say if you just use legacy and they can't do Dev Ops, no, they're wrong. Dev Ops is also using good practices and processes. Harkening back to the new management discipline. It's also making sure you have a really good organizational culture, okay? TIFEA research shows that things drive IT performance and organizational performance. So I mentioned this started back at 2009 velocity. John Alsbaum, Paul Hammond, 10 deployments per day. At the time, this was sort of groundbreaking, revolutionary. People didn't think it was possible, or they thought it was super, super mean for the operations people in here, right? A lot of the time when we think about an employee coming, we're not super happy, right? This is painful. I come from an ops background. A deployment meant that developers were throwing something over that proverbial wall, sometimes Friday at 5 p.m., they were going to happy hour, and we were just gonna go back. But things went up from there. So Amazon, now some of their deployment stats that they released, I believe it's 2011, they're maximum deployments in a single hour. They're seeing an employee about every 11 and a half seconds. These numbers are amazing. On average, we're seeing 10,000 hosts receiving deployments, and they're on maximum 30,000 hosts. Although people say, he's never been cheating because Amazon has more folks than God. What do we see from other places like Etsy? Check out Etsy's stats. Now, Mike Britton gave a talk in 2013 and said what once required six to 14 hours in their deployment army. Now, in 2013, took 15 minutes and a single person, they were doing 30 deployments per day. So if we can get our technology wrapped up and our practices and process in a good culture, we can make our deployments mean, efficient. In March 2014, they were up to 50 deployments per day. In April 2014, they were up to 80 and 90 deployments per day. So your processes continue to iterate, they continue to improve. So once got to the chase, DevOps is good for organizations. A lot of the time, they're trying to convince bosses management that investments in technology, that investments in tooling, that investments in people and processes are actually worth it. Here you go. When we compare high-performing organizations and low-performing organizations, we see double. So high-performing organizations are twice as likely to exceed profitability, productivity, and market share. So this is great. This number is pulled from the literature. For the second number, this has a little access next to it because I was only able to do this analysis for people that volunteer as stock ticker symbol, and I did the analysis for those that were probably traded on the New York Stock Exchange. But for those, they showed a 50% higher market cap over the previous three-year period. So we're definitely showing real promise in direct contributions to the bottom line of the entire company. IT is making a real impact. It's not just something that you do to keep up anymore. We're driving real, real, real change. So let's take a step back and see how we're driving that change. We're driving it by contributing to IT. And IT performance, when we talk about this, is three key things. Deployment frequency. This isn't just delivery and release. This isn't necessarily going all the way through to your customers. This is the ability to push code. All the way through your pipeline and have it ready to push to your customers whenever you're ready. This makes it now a business decision to release all the way to customers and not a technology limitation. This is also a mean time to recover. How long does it take you to come back from any kind of incident? This is also a mean time for changes. So the time from code commit to code deploy. Notice the first and the third are throughput metrics. It's how fast you can get these changes to your system. And also mean time to recover the stability metric. Here's something to pay attention to that's really, really, really interesting here. For years, we've been told that you can only have one and not the other. And it's usually that we're told that we have to slow down. We have to tamp down on that speed in order to get stability. This is not true. I don't see it anywhere in the data and we don't see it for years. Throughput and stability go together. And it's really exciting and really fantastic. So, what does this mean? So when you look at hyperforming demoxins, they're more agile. They get higher throughput. They can make these changes faster. We see 30 times more frequent deployments. So they're pushing code through the system. But they can make good changes. They can get fast feedback. If something is small and if something breaks the building, that's exactly what it was. 200 times faster lead times when there appears code commit to code deploy. Those exciting new fun things that you find out for your customer, you can get all the way through that pipeline. If you have compliance or regulatory changes, you can push those through the pipeline. Hyperforming demoxins are also more reliable. So they have a better change success rate. I didn't mention this previously because when we do all the fancy stats, I already signed something. So when we do all the fancy stats, it isn't a classifier or a predictor of IT performance, but it is still statistically different and is significantly different between the high and low performers. So I mentioned it here. When you do introduce a change into your code, high performers and low performers, the change is much more likely to be successful for high performers than low performers. And then look at MTTR. If you do have any kind of incident, service segregation, anything unplanned, the high performers are much more likely to recover than that very, very quickly. So as I mentioned before, demox promises and delivers more throughput, more stability in tandem. And it's without the trade-offs that iTunes told us that we're going to have just have to deal with the plan on having to deal with the trade-offs. They just aren't there. So what does that mean for us? We talked about agility. When we think about these frequent deployments and faster lead times, for those of us in the crowd that were dev, project management, even ops, okay? Think about new content delivery. When we have new content delivery, when we need to deliver value for our business, how much faster can we get that through our customers? We can save these around AD testing. How do we know which things are actually good for our customers? When we can do AD testing, we can push that AD test through our pipeline. And then we can even push through the removal of features that are value-at. Talk about speed to market and opportunity costs, any compliance with regulatory changes, any security vulnerabilities we can push through. When we talk about things that are more reliable, what do we think about value savings around reliability and uptime? Also compliance and security. And even just the reputation about compliance and security. What happens when you're the guy on the block that gets hacked? Or you're the guy on the block that gets hacked like four times? Or what happens when you're the company on the block that does not get hacked and everyone else does? That's a lot that you can say about that because you were the one that was able to address all of those vulnerabilities. Speaking about AD testing, Roniko Harvey did this fantastic experiment at Microsoft. So when we think about adding features to our products and our services, we generally think we have a pretty good idea of how our customers want, right? Who here knows what their customers want? No hands. I'd like to reflect the record. There are no hands up. My hand is up. There are no hands up. But in theory, who here has business leaders who know what their customers want and they ask us to build things? Yeah, now we got hands up. So our business leaders know what our customers want and they ask us to build things. So Microsoft was in that position, right? They're like, we know our customers. We've been making office for years. We've been doing all of our products. We know exactly what our customers want. We don't need to do AD testing. And Roniko Harvey's like, I'm 50-50 at best. Finally convinced them that they should be doing AD testing. Turns out only about a third of very well thought out, very well designed, perfectly constructed ideas deliver value. One third, net, do nothing. And one third, cost you things. Either they cost you money, they make customers go away. It's a bad thing. So imagine what you do in that situation. If you implement every single one of those things, you could be at a net zero.  All of that work for nothing. But also, if you actually implement the things that give you nothing, you've now introduced all of this complexity and technology into your code. Now you have all of this extra work you have to support. But if you can do AD testing, you now know which one third of those features are the magic one or the making you money or giving you customer engagement or making your customers happy. But without the ability to easily introduce features and easily pull back, or undo all of those features, you just don't know. We also talked about the value of reliability and uptime. Netflix is a great example of this. Are you guys familiar with the story of when AWS crashed super hard several years ago? So AWS went down. Netflix was fine. There was a big conspiracy theory that maybe Netflix was fine because they were a special customer and so they had a special account with special servers just for Netflix. Not the case at all. We found out later that what happened was Netflix had been preparing for things to randomly die. They actually waited several, several hours. I think it was five hours before they even declared a step one. Turns out it's because they had a thing called chaos monkey. Are you familiar with chaos monkey? You don't choose chaos monkey.  They had been preparing for something like this. And so by the time something like this happened, they were totally prepared. They had a few services degraded, like maybe recommendations didn't work, maybe the ratings didn't work, but overall the service was still fine. By the way, chaos monkey is open source. So you can actually use it. So by building in these types of things, our own work gets better. And we thought that there were failures, right? It's like having an environment, just having an environment telling you, don't start fires. We want to have them practice on situations that are bad so that they can get better at putting out fires. We want to have our own engineers and our own systems practice on what happens when things go down so that if we have an incident or an outage or something that goes down, then it's fine. So there were a few key factors that correlated with each component. Notice that for MTTR and the time for changes deployment frequency, reverse control is pretty consistent throughout. We see monitoring is good. I mean, testing is good. Continuous delivery is important. Culture, job satisfaction kind of for learning. But I really wanted to be able to dig in here. So it was a quick, you know, mid-check. We know IT performance is comprised of throughput and stability, both are possible without trade-offs. IT performance contributes to org performance. When I say org performance, that means money, right? IT performance makes our companies better in health. It helps us make money. By the way, culture is a key predictor of both IT performance and organizational performance. We know that automation and tooling are important. But when we did the follow-on for the study in the second year or the next year when we were really kind of doing some solid science, we really wanted to figure out what drives IT organizational performance. So what we did as we dove in here, and we backed it up and we said continuous delivery. We know that continuous delivery is a good key piece, but what makes up continuous delivery? And so when we dig into the data, continuous delivery is comprised of these things, test deployment and automation, continuous integration, and all production artifacts are being converted to people. Now, in the data, what does this mean? So, for the first year of iteration, this is what we took a look at. What is test automation? Test automation are these things, okay? Developers primarily create and maintain acceptance tests. Your developers need to be doing this, not QA, not someone else. The people that are actually doing the development need to be creating and maintaining your acceptance tests. When your automated tests pass, your developers need to be confident that the software is releasable. Test failures actually need to indicate a real defect. These can be easy for developers to fix accepted test failures. Developers should share a common pool of test servers where you can use acceptance test failures. And developers should use their own development environment to reproduce accepted test failures. Those are some of the key things that really helped define what was test automation. When we looked at deployment automation, we asked what percentage of deployments were automated. When we looked at continuous integration, these were the things that were key here. Oh, sorry, that first one. That, sorry. I'll get back to you on that one. I have a copy and paste here. When we took it with inversion control, there's a key here in inversion control. And the key here is that it's inversion control for all of our production artifacts. So it's that our application code is an inversion control system, our system configurations, our application configurations, and our scripts for automating build configurations. So it's not just our application code. We need to have code for several things in all of our inversion control systems. What it does is it gives us the ability to replicate environments, to spin up environments. If we have something happen, we need to spin up an environment that allows us to do that. It also allows us to spin up environments, probably environments for dev and for test. Throughout that whole chain. Now, here's the exciting thing. So this is a structure equation model. Statsy. Where you see an arrow, impacts, drives. These are more than just correlations. These are predictions. So continuous delivery makes our work better. It drives lower change failure rates. It predicts IT performance. We see this great quote from Yahoo. We never had testability before. We have it now. We have this experience. We know stuff is working. It's working with controls. They were able to drastically gain efficiencies in deploying their infrastructure and improve their time on passing infrastructure. They can now pass their entire infrastructure within six hours of the path being made available. So it makes your work better. It also makes your work feel better. Which I think is just as important. So continuous delivery makes your work better. It also decreases feelings of burnout. Modern tech teams. And it decreases our deployment pain. The other awesome thing is going through to increase organizational performance. So it does still help our companies make money. Yes, it is worth the investment in continuous delivery. But what else drives IT performance? Name management. And these are the key practices here. With limits to drive improvement. Visualizations to monitor our work. And monitoring to make business decisions. Now, we'll go over these details really, really quickly. So with limits. As a team, we're good at limiting our work in process. We strive to look at our whip. And we have a process in place to do so. Our whip limits make obstacles to higher flow visible. At least to process improvement. And there is a way to increase throughput. This is actually one of those. With limits, by the way. One of those really interesting things that are leading indicators. Not just a lagging indicator. So it helps us predict what's about to come and what's really really good. It does a lot of really good things for our developers. What is visualizations to monitor work? We can use visual boards to share information. Sharks showing defect rates. We have a visual mode of organizing work. And we can have these on dashboards as well, right? It doesn't just have to be a physical board we can see. So this can work for distributed teams as well. But it needs to be readily available. It should be displayed at work stations. We need to be able to see what's actually happening on our teams. And then the last one. The key here is that it's monitoring. And it's not just monitoring at the page to wake us up in the middle of the night. That's not fun, right? Because then we're going to turn our pages off. Hide them across the house. So this is monitoring to make business decisions. We use data for monitoring tools to make business decisions daily. We use data to make infrastructure monitoring tools. And we also have a place to auto scale capacity. So the great thing here is that Lead Management drives IT performance. A good example here is Etsy. Etsy uses a lot of graphing tools to make decisions. Here the vertical line represents some kind of employer code push. If the graph drastically changes, the person knows who pushed the code. They know that they should go take a look back at their code. On the odd chance that I have done the work that I had time to do for the day, I can look at the graphs that exist. And if someone pushed code that didn't make an immediate change to a graph, but that changed the built-up layer, I can go take a look at a graph and prioritize work and decide what my next work task should be based on the visualizations that I have. Available to me. The other nice thing about Lead Management, it also makes work feel better. It decreases feelings of burnout and improves organizational culture. A great quote from Julia Wester who is a professor of broadcasting. She said, I was trying to figure out all my team was working themselves to death but not getting anything done. By implementing whip limits, we were able to focus on our work. Finishing work feels better than sprinting and feeling like a hero in the moment because that's only a moment. She actually found that by implementing whip limits, they were getting more things completed and delinquent instead of having a whole lot of things that were always in progress, making some investments in visualizations, some monitoring tools, setting whip limits, training your team in whip limits. It does pay off in the end. Now, I mentioned organizational culture. Take a minute and read through this a little bit. This comes from a researcher named Ron Westrom. When we did our study, we adapted this tool to become a measure for organizational culture. So as we read through this, who here works or has a friend who works in a pathological cultural organization? Who here has a friend who works in a bureaucratic organization? I've seen very few. Who here works or has a friend who works in a generative cultural organization? Who here has a friend that does not want to vote? I found this that about half the people work in a bureaucratic organization, about a third in generative, about 15% in pathological. We do find that a strong organizational culture, as is mentioned by this, prioritizes information flow, trust in health care and aviation outcomes, it tends to fix safety outcomes, but in technology, it does predict IT performance and organizational performance. It's very, very strong. High IT performers perform the best in this, but like I said, I'm just glad to start over quickly, but I think it's important. It predicts IT performance and organizational performance, because it does tend to highlight information flow and high trust organizations.  They decided to take in the teams. They're theory, when they started looking at this, was that they would find the perfect algorithm to define the team based on skills. They'd take like a no jazz programmer or an R programmer, and a person with a certain sense of skills, not at all. What comes down to making the perfect high functioning team is dynamics. And the number one thing is psychological safety. Can I trust my team? Can I take risks around my team? The next one is dependability. Can I depend on those of my team to get things done? Structure and clarity. Do I know what my work is? Meaning, is my work meaningful to me? And an impact. Is the work that I do impactful to the business? And will it actually create a change? So culture is important. The founder of Intuit has said by installing Rapid Innovation Culture, we perform 165 experiments in the peak three months of tax season. Our business result according to the website is up 50%. So that's money right there. Employee result, everyone loves it because their new ideas can make it to market. Which I think is really, really exciting. And I love the thought that founder pointed out not only that he's making money and it makes customers happy, but also that the employees are happy and excited about it as well. That's really important. I really love this quote from Great Lyndon. So Great Lyndon wrote the recommender software at Amazon. You can check out. It brings up recommenders. It recommends things that you might want to buy. He walked into his senior vice president's office with his great idea. He had prototyped it out. He had coded it. Because as we go to the grocery store, you know, there's always things that you can buy at checkout. And who here has bought something on their way out of the store? They really had a plan on buying. It happens to me all the time. So he's like, this is a great idea. The SVP is like, no, absolutely not. Because in a store physically, we can't escape. We can't run away without walking past the register, without having to pay for something online. I could just close the web browser. I could get distracted. I could go somewhere else. So he walked out of this SVP's office, coded up an AV test, and pushed it into broad. He made it live. What? Went back a few weeks later and showed that it made a measurable impact on revenue. He didn't do that. And not build his hands. And not get fired. Right? But he says, I think building this culture is the key to innovation. Creativity must flow from everywhere. Whether you're a summer intern or the CTO, any good idea must be able to seek an objective test, preferably a test that exposes the idea to real customers. Everyone must be able to experiment, learn, and iterate. So his SVP, probably as a thrill, was like, you're right. You made a lot of money. Let's push it in. Let's absolutely implement this. Okay. Really quickly. Job satisfaction is the number one critical of organization performance. We've known it for years in other literature. For some reason, not everyone's convinced that this would be true in technology. Shocker. Totally true. Job satisfaction is important. So just to wrap this up. IT does matter. The value, we create not just competitive advantage, but sustainable competitive advantage now. If we do the right mix of technology, process, and strong culture to tie that together. Because remember, now suddenly we're working with more than just the IT team that hangs out in a corner somewhere. We're working with the entire volume strength. So, if you'd like to learn more and receive exclusive invite to a DevOps benchmarking tool, there's a chance for a personalized analysis of your results with me, Gene Kim and Jess Hummel. A copy of this presentation and a copy of a metrics guidance white paper from the DevOps forum. You can send an email to NicoleFB at centerslides.com subject as DevOps. Again, if you want an invite to the benchmarking tool that I'm developing with Gene Kim and Jess Hummel, copy of the presentation and a copy of a metrics guidance white paper, you can send an email to NicoleFB at centerslides.com. Thank you so much for your time this morning. And I hope you enjoy the rest of the conference. Okay, turn to your questions. And there is a mic or if you want to yell, I can... Thank you, Nicole. Great talk. I'm wondering if you can give some advice to organizations that would like to go to continuous delivery and are not sure which thing they should do first. If there's one thing they could start doing right away, put them on that path. You see several different paths to success and every company point would be different.  Definitely having a strong culture is going to be really important because you're going to be including so many different people in that analysis or in that conversation rather. Making sure you have good coding practices, making sure you have things in version control, I would say is definitely a strong first step because it's so important and so predictive of so many different things across the value chain. And I say version control, make sure you have everything in version control. So not just your application code, your scripts, everything else. And then maybe the next step that I tend to see that ends up being really important is a good, strong automated test suite because then you can start integrating more things early on and you have a pretty good... You can feel pretty good that as you start integrating more and more things you have a pretty good, more successful as you start integrating more and really get that back. Myself Pushan here, this was a very good presentation. My query is on... Yeah, DevOps really works for e-commerce kind of a business and how actually we can link that to a highly regulated industry like an aerospace industry like aerospace industries? So the question is, this appears like it works for Web properties, how can we automate... how can we regulate industries like aerospace and the pharmaceuticals and all the gas industries? How exactly this works? So we actually do see this working quite well in highly regulated industries like aerospace. I was just chatting with CISO of American Airlines the other day so aerospace uses this quite a bit. It actually works really, really well for them because by using things in code, by putting things like regulatory changes in code, compliance in code, infrastructure in code it makes a lot of their work much easier because their auditing processes are much more straightforward now. They can see everything in code. It makes so much of their work more straightforward and very transparent instead of things being hidden in books or in papers or in PDFs or in people's heads. It kind of surfaces a lot of the process and it makes it much more consistent, reliable and really increases the value of the function of what they're doing and it makes things like security and patch management much faster and much more it helps you kind of roll it out to your entire infrastructure a lot faster and we're seeing that quite a bit right now particularly in the financial industry which is also highly regulated. Yes. I just have a reply to that as well because I'm just humble to be making a lot of these practices. To send a service in the US government line, there's over 4,000 pages of regulation you have to read in order to be able to comply that that service can be sent live and what they're doing at the moment is actually creating a set of automated scripts that you can run to validate those compliance regulations that are actually implemented by the service so the ability to actually take these regulations and turn them into tests that you can run against your systems is very, very powerful and they may be able to cut down times to go live to get this authorization from nine months to days basically by including a lot of these ideas. So it's actually very, very powerful particularly in areas where you have high performance. We're also seeing people implement it or automate certain things if you're in a highly regulated environment where people are really, really worried about this we're seeing people roll it out with a high risk profile. So sometimes that can be one really good way to start introducing this is is introducing automation for things that have a really low risk profile and then start increasing it to things with a higher risk profile as you go although in some ways you may argue that for automation where there's a higher risk profile because then people who chat live, she or constantly are involved but you can also do things based on risk profiles. I have a question about devops and delivery. The question is do we need to bring it up front with any practices like even testing and if organization is embarking towards continuous integration and delivery and devops culture how should we face or should we start up front with any practices like automation and testing and run the devops culture or progress in parallel or we can face it out in two phases like in practices earlier and then go for the integration and delivery aspect. So you're asking if you should do the tooling piece first or the practices piece first? Again I see what I tend to see is companies do the tooling piece first because you just buy it that seems to be easier I would say I'm looking at a lot of people because that's what I tend to see is like you just buy the thing and do it but generally when you start implementing a new tool I would also take that as an opportunity to start implementing one or two like agile practices or lean practices at the same time because you're going to get that sea change and that excitement and that culture change at the same time and I would take advantage of getting everyone excited doing not every single thing all at once but take one or two things. Thank you.


Mae gynhyrchu yma. Margaret McDougall. Fyllteid yw lieth, Ms McDougall. I apologise. To ask the Scottish Government what progress it's making in setting up the public consultation on fracking. Minister, Fergus Ewing. Ministers have been meeting with representatives from community, environmental and industry groups to discuss the consultation and our pre-consultation preparations. amser hynny yn ei cyffredinol i gwaith i'r gwaith i'r Fynau Llywodraeth y Llywodraeth a gydych chi'n gweld iawn ar y gynghorliau, ac mae yn g teulu cofnwyr yn gwylliant yn gwylliant. Mark afinig ddigil. I thank the minister for that answer. The issue of underground coal gasification was not included in the temporary moratorium on shale gas and coal bed methane. I asked the minister to clarify whether the Scottish Government supports the process of underground gasification and so there are no doubts on this issue and if they do not support it then why is it not included in the temporary moratorium and will the minister now commit the Scottish Government to including underground coal gasification in the moratorium until proper and robust evidence is collected and the public consultation has been completed. I'm happy to reassure the member that the Scottish Government take environmental protection as of paramount importance. Of course, the moratorium, which I announced on I believe the 28th of January, was specifically about onshore technologies involving hydraulic fracturing and coal bed methane. It is correct to point out that underground coal gasification employs a different technology and is not covered by the moratorium. Can the minister tell us on what extent the consultation will be evidence-based, given that the Scottish Government's own independent scientific panel, which reported last July, concluded that fracking could be conducted safely in Scotland if properly regulated? I'm pleased to confirm to Murdo Fraser that our approach with regard to this whole policy area is that we take a cautious evidence-based approach. I think that his own party called for a previous policy document, so we will continue to take that approach. That is why the public have welcomed the fact that we have put in place a moratorium. I hope that all parties support the moratorium, incidentally, but we are still waiting for confirmation of whether that is or is not the situation. However, we will continue to take an evidence-based approach, and the group that he referred to specifically identified some gaps that need to be filled. Therefore, it is appropriate that we consider further evidence in areas such as the potential or possible impacts on public health, on the environment in respect of the hydraulic fraction process and what that entails, but also areas such as the impact on traffic and transport. As I pointed out frequently, Scotland is not North Dakota. The central belt where deposits are believed to be situated is densely populated. We must therefore consider carefully and take the time to do so all of these important matters that, quite rightly and understandably, are of considerable importance to the general public. Lewis MacDonald Thank you very much. The minister will recall that I tabled a question 12 weeks ago and wrote to him personally six weeks ago to ask whether his moratorium covered the drilling of conventional boreholes with a view to doing flacking later. Can he today answer that question? Does it cover exploratory drilling or not? I announced the moratorium on 28 January, and that announcement was very clear in its terms. I am aware that Mr MacDonald, Presiding Officer, has raised a number of questions, and to that end I actually am myself with the reply that I wrote to him on 20 April, stating that these matters are all receiving very careful attention. I think that it is reasonable to point out that Mr MacDonald did ask a very large number of questions, and therefore in order to make sure that the questions are correct and, indeed, evidence-based, we will take proper time to consider all of the many issues, including the one that he has singled out today, and to make sure that they are answered fully in due course. To ask the Scottish Government whether it will provide an update on its position on the recommendations of the Smith commission. Presiding Officer, the recommendations of the Smith commission offer an opportunity to provide the Scottish Parliament with further powers to improve the lives of the people of Scotland, although many of the key levers to boost growth and promote fairness will remain reserved to Westminster. The draft clause is published by the United Kingdom Government in January for short of the Smith recommendations in a number of areas, and the Scottish Government is continuing to engage with the UK Government to secure improvements before the proposed Scotland Bill is introduced in the House of Commons. I thank the cabinet secretary for that answer. It is quite clear that the Smith commission is not the last word on the question of more powers for this Parliament. Indeed, the Daily Telegraph, the House Journal of Conservatives on Saturday in its editorial, indicated that proposed powers may not be enough. Can the cabinet secretary assure us that the Scottish Government will continue to press the case for additional powers as robustly as possible? Let me confirm two points to Mr Campbell. The first is that the Government will continue in its efforts to ensure that the recommendations made by the Smith commission are actually effectively legislated for. I take this opportunity to welcome the report of the devolution for the powers committee of the Parliament that was published this morning, which had all-party agreement, which on what I thought was a thoroughly, dispassionately and considered wording of the report, set out a number of deficiencies in the wording of the draft Scotland Bill clauses that we have set out. I look forward to pursuing those issues with the United Kingdom Government with the assistance of the very carefully worded report of the committee, which has been supported unanimously by all parties and all members. Secondly, I assure Mr Campbell that the Government will continue to raise and to argue for there to be additional powers. That was what the Scottish National Party fought the election in May about. We set out the arguments for additional powers and we will take every opportunity to advance that argument. As the First Minister confirmed to Parliament yesterday, we expect to have such an opportunity when the First Minister meets with the Prime Minister in early course. May I ask the Scottish Government if it intends to seek evidence and engage in civic consultation in relation to its Smith Plus proposals? I think that that would be advantageous and beneficial. I think that one of the, despite the efforts of Lord Smith to engage widely with the stakeholder community in Scotland, I would have to say that, as a participant in the Smith commission, this is my view. I appreciate that Ms Barnas Goldie was on that commission with me and she will have her view, but, in my opinion, we were not able to sufficiently engage with wider body politic of Scotland on many of those questions. Yes, it would be my position on that question. I think that it is essential that the views of the wider community in Scotland are considered very closely to the decision-making that we make on all of those questions. To ask the Scottish Government when the next meeting of the Joint Exchequer Committee will take place and what will be discussed. The date of the next meeting of the Joint Exchequer Committee has not been set. Lord Smith recommended that the intergovernmental machinery between the Scottish and United Kingdom Governments needed urgent reform. We need to put in place appropriate governance arrangements that will support the implementation of the Smith commission's financial provisions. That is something that I want to discuss with the new United Kingdom Government at the earliest opportunity. I thank the cabinet secretary for his answer and, in fact, in much of what he said is pre-empted in my supplementary. Although there are other intergovernmental bodies such as the Joint Ministerial Committee, the Joint Exchequer Committee has not met for more than two years. Does the cabinet secretary agree that additional powers are to be devolved effectively such intergovernmental bodies must meet regularly and on a transparent footing to allow effective scrutiny by this Parliament? I agree with Mr Gibson's points. I think that one of the issues that has affected the meeting programme of the Joint Exchequer Committee and the fact that Mr Gibson is absolutely correct that it has not met for two years is the fact that we have been unable to reach agreement on some of the elementary arrangements about the implementation of even the Kalman commission proposals. Part of that could be ascribed to the fact that there is an unwillingness to consider some of the alternative perspective that is put forward by the Scottish Government to counter some of the requirements and the positions put forward by Her Majesty's Treasury. If intergovernmental machinery is to work effectively, we have to work on the basis of respect between different Governments of the United Kingdom. I welcome what the Prime Minister said on Friday that he intended to govern by respect, and I hope that we will see some of those sentiments evidenced in the implementation of the intergovernmental machinery, such as the Joint Exchequer Committee. Can I agree with much of what the cabinet secretary has said about effective intergovernmental machinery? Whether it is through the Joint Exchequer Committee or another intergovernmental mechanism, I am sure that the cabinet secretary will want to pursue his policy of full fiscal responsibility. Given that that is the case, could he perhaps outline the timetable for achieving that? I think that those issues—as I gave a respondent answer to Barnas Gold a moment ago—are essentially now to be taken forward in the dialogue that we have directly with UK ministers. We expect a discussion with the Prime Minister to take place relatively soon, which will enable some of those issues to begin to be explored. The timetable for any implementation will be dependent on reaching agreement in the discussion. I also say to Jackie Baill and reiterate the point that I made to Barnas Goldie that the approach that the Scottish Government will want to take will be one to engage with and to consult with the wider community within Scotland. That cannot quite simply be a Government-to-Government discussion. There are perfectly appropriate Government-to-Government discussions to happen, but it is essential that we have discussions with the wider community within Scotland to ensure that our proposals are taken forward in a fashion that commands support within Scotland. To ask the Scottish Government what assistance it is providing to increase affordable housing in rural and remote areas. The Scottish Government is committed to the provision of affordable housing across Scotland. We know that the housing system is different in remote and rural areas and our resource allocation and subsidy system both recognise that. We are currently working with a range of rural stakeholders to develop a rural housing initiative. That will complement the excellent work that local authorities and housing associations are doing and will aim, in particular, to support the work of community groups to increase housing availability in remote and rural areas. Mike McKenzie I thank the minister for that answer. Following the lifting of the moratorium on rural school closures, we have seen a number of local authorities across the Highlands and Islands rush to close rural schools. Does she agree with me that local planning departments need to take a more proactive approach towards maintaining the sustainability of rural communities and take a more enlightened approach towards delivering housing in those areas? I reassure the member that we well recognise that small numbers of houses in rural areas can make a real difference to the sustainability of that area. I visited a number of projects seeing that for myself. The Scottish Government supports sustainable economic growth for all of our communities. Our national planning framework sets out a vision for vibrant rural areas with growing sustainable communities supported by new opportunities and employment for employment and education. The vision is further supported by Scottish planning policy, which sets out clearly the expectation that in all rural and island areas the planning system should encourage rural development that supports prosperous and sustainable communities and businesses while protecting and enhancing environmental quality. Question 5, Sarah Boyack. I know that Ms Boyack is not on the seat to ask her question. Can I just say that I deplore the fact that no prior information has been given to me as to why she is not here? I would expect an explanation from Ms Boyack by the end of the session. Question 6, in the name of Patricia Ferguson, has not been lodged. The member has provided an explanation. Question 7, Neil Bibby. To ask the Scottish Government when it last met NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde and what issues were discussed. Cabinet Secretary, Shona Robison. Ministers and Government officials regularly meet with representatives of all health boards, including NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, to discuss matters of importance to local people. Neil Bibby. I am sure that the Cabinet Secretary will want to join me in paying tribute to the staff at the RAH in Paisley for their continued efforts to reduce waiting times for patients. However, many of the staff members are telling us that there are not enough beds or staff at the hospital. So, in light of her new A&E action plan announced this week, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary what concrete steps she will take to increase staff in bed numbers at the RAH to ensure we avoid the repeat of the crisis that we saw at the hospital last winter? First of all, I would want to join with Neil Bibby in congratulating the staff at the RAH, not least at the performance in A&E on the most recent figures ending 3 May, showing that those who were treated within the four-hour target were 89.6 per cent, a substantial improvement from the 75 per cent recorded at the end of February. I absolutely want to put on record my thanks to the staff there. Of course, that was supported by the improvement team who have been working very closely with staff at the RAH and other hospitals to make those improvements. The resource, the £9 million that I announced yesterday, was part of a £50 million unscheduled care package to increase the number of A&E consultants, which, of course, have gone up by 178 per cent under this Government—a substantial increase indeed. Of course, that resource will help to ensure that the resilience within our hospitals is increased as we make preparations towards this winter. I can absolutely assure Neil Bibby that I will do absolutely everything to ensure that our hospitals are staffed and prepared for the winter pressures that will emerge this winter. I am very confident that we are in a good place to do that. Question 8, in the name of Cara Hylton, has not been lodged. The member has provided me with an explanation that I do not consider acceptable. Question 9, Paul Martin. Thank you, Presiding Officer. To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to ensure that communities are protected from dangerous dogs. Minister Paul Wheelhouse. The Scottish Government is committed to policies that will help to make our communities safer from out-of-control and dangerous dogs. We are pleased that the latest figures show that local authorities are making good use of their powers under the Control of Dogs Scotland Act 2010. Initial figures show that, in the year 2014 to February 2015, local authorities issued 261 dog control notices relating to out-of-control dogs. The number of dog control notices issued is the highest in a single year since the act came into force in February 2011, and that excludes four local authorities who have yet to provide the information for the latest year. We want to work with the local authorities and Police Scotland in helping to use the existing powers wisely relating to dogs. We are involved in work to develop a national protocol between local authorities, Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure that there is clarity relating to powers to deal with control of dogs. In addition, the Scottish Government has recently announced that it will introduce mandatory microchipping in April 2016. That will assist primarily in the welfare of the dogs, for example, making it easier to reunite owners with their dogs, but it should also assist in the control of dogs in our communities. I welcome the legislation that has been proposed by the Government particularly in relation to the compulsory microchipping of dogs. The minister will recall the debate that I led in Parliament in connection with the serious attack on Brogan McWague. Is the minister seriously advising me that the compulsory microchipping of dogs will go a significant step towards ensuring that such attacks do not take place in the future? Mr Martin is perhaps misreading the answer that I just gave him. We are working closely with local authorities to develop potential strengthening of the 2010 act so that this is not in isolation, but certainly microchipping will play a part in ensuring that we can find dogs' owners if they are left off the leash, obviously running around and be able to track down the owners. It is obviously the irresponsible ownership of the dog that is partly to blame for incidents that were dog attacks took place. I am certainly aware of the attack on Brogan McWague and it is obviously a very distesting and harrowing attack that it was. I am happy to work with Mr Martin on tackling any deficiencies in the law. As the minister knows, I piloted the control of the Dogs Act, which seeks to bring early intervention to dogs that are deemed to be causing anxiety before they may become dangerous. It is notwithstanding what the minister has said about co-ordination between police and local authorities, my experience is that the public and many professionals are unaware of the legislation. Can I ask for the umpteenth time if the Government may publicise that act, which is a member that I cannot do? I should choose my chairs more carefully in future with the supplementaries. First, I thank Christine Grahame for her work in putting through the control of the Dogs Act. It has certainly been enormously helpful to us. The fact that the rising number of use of dog control notices is an indication of and growing awareness among local authorities. I am happy to work with the member if there is any specific proposal that she has to increase the publicity, and I will choose to do so in a time suiting to her. I thank Christine Grahame again for her work on the act. I look forward to working with her in the future. Thank you Minister for that. Before we move to next site of business, members will wish to join me and welcome to the gallery Professor Manuel Hasasian, the head of the Palestinian mission in London. We now move to First Minister's Questions.


and no bear of burdens bears the burden of another." According to our teachers, this statement is referring to the Akhira. In this world, we suffer the consequences of the sins of those who came. Before us, this happens all the time. This is happening now.  They are innocent of my sin, but their lives in this dunya will be turned upside down. If political leadership or people in positions of power or influence or even just individuals make bad decisions, innocent people could end up suffering and dying. This is simply what happens in the dunya. Allah SWT warns us in the Quran, believers should not take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever does so has nothing to do with Allah. How much have the Palestinians suffered for the injustices committed by others?


In this video, we present the solution to question number 11 from the practice midterm exam number three for Math 2270, in which case we're asked to compute the following determinant. It's four by four determinant we see right here, and we're asked to show all the steps. We can't just throw it in our calculator and just write the right answer and expect this to be correct. Such a solution would give you no credit whatsoever. We need to show all the subsequent steps. Now there's a couple of approaches we could take. We could just cofactor expand across our favorite row or column, in which case if that was the approach I would probably take the first row, because it does have a number one and it has a zero. Zeroes are very nice in that regard. But it turns out using row reduction can help us out a little bit better, right? Because with our row operations, we can simplify the matrix to get into something triangular, probably upper triangular, and then it would be a lot easier to compute the determinant from there. So what we're going to do is taking our first pivot position, we want to get ones below the one in that situation. So I'm going to take row two, and I'm going to add to it two times row one. I'm going to take row three and add to it negative three times row one, and then I'm going to take row four and subtract from it row one. So we're going to get a plus, a plus two, a plus six. You add zero and then you're going to get a plus four right there. For the next one, we're going to get minus three, minus nine, zero, and then minus six. And then for the last one, we're going to go minus one, minus three, minus zero, and minus two. Now, when you do replacement row operations, that is when you just when you replace a row with that with its row plus a multiple of the row, the replacement row operation doesn't change the determinant. So the term is going to equal what it was before, but we have a much simpler matrix this time. So we're going to get zero. You're going to get six minus five, which is one, you're going to get seven and you're going to four plus four, which is eight. For the next row, you're going to get zero. You're going to get five minus nine, which is a negative four.  For the third row, you're going to get zero. You're going to get a negative four. You're going to get a two and then you're going to get a negative five like so for which then since we have these all these zeros right here, a couple of things we could do. We could just postpone any calculation of the the determinant at this moment. If we wanted to, we could cofactor expand the first row. We'll get one times the minor, which you see right here and then zeros everywhere else. So that's kind of what you can do. You could you can cofactor expand along the way or you can just wait until the end. So the next thing to do normally would be to just look at the next pivot position and start row reducing right here. But the reason I say normal is because I'm going to take a different approach here, I'm I notice right here that my third and fourth row are identical to each other. Kind of like the Weasley twins there were identical. If you take the fourth row and you subtract from it, the third row, you're going to get a row of zeros in your matrix one, three, zero, two, zero, one, seven and eight, zero, negative four, two and negative five. And then the fourth row becomes zero, zero, zero, zero, which now if we were to cofactor expand across that row, we're going to get zeros times all the minors and we see that the determinant turns out to be zero in this situation. So our original matrix was a singular matrix and we discovered these this row of zeros along the way that gives us a determinant of zero.


If the removal in the targeting process of the protections built in and designed to protect civilians, if the removal of those protections is such as to effectively undermine international humanitarian law, then yes they may arise to violations of international humanitarian law and in certain cases provided the necessary intent is there to war crimes as well. There are three main areas of concern. The first is obviously the hostilities themselves, the conduct of hostilities, and that is not just the coalition airstrikes. It is also the fighting in for example Taiz, where there is extensive shelling being carried out by the Houthis against the civilian population there. The second area of serious concern is the restrictions imposed by the coalition on the accessibility of the Yemeni population to vital supplies, food, medicine, fuel, etc. And the third area which is of I think considerable concern is detention. We have found that all parties appear to be carrying out what we believe to be arbitrary detention. Yemeni people deserve better. They are a proud people with a long civilised history and we owe it to them to do everything we can to ensure that their plight is relieved as soon as possible. It is also important to carry out the war crimes in Yemen, and it is also important for the team of experts to have a reason to believe that there is a difference between the Yemeni government and the coalition because there is no such thing as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. And also, in the current situation, these people may have been forced to fight the international law. And the concern in this issue is a strange evidence of the attempts of any of the parties in the country to defend and strengthen civilized lives.


sound beautiful and some smell maybe you will taste that's what we mean by the okay the musical company matter of detail and that's what they talked about the wind or anything else and it's another


So I'm gonna give you probably maybe this should have come first because this is gonna be kind of an aerial view of what all this is about and But I'll start by addressing the elephant in the room Isn't this simply a conspiracy theory concocted by right-wing extremists like us? According to the New York Times and the Anti-Defamation League the Great Reset has no basis in fact Or as the BBC claims the Great Reset is a benign effort on the part of Leading thinkers to bring about a fairer greener future Based on a reset of capitalism Meanwhile Time Magazine devoted an entire issue to the Great Reset Effectively hailing it as the solution to all our problems post-COVID Now Klaus Schwab The founder and chair executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, which is the WF suggests that the Great Reset is merely an attempt To address the weaknesses of capitalism exposed by the COVID crisis as well as the looming Catastrophes posed by unmitigated climate change and environmental degradation I don't mean to suggest that there's some sort of median point between conspiracy theory and Denial actually, I just want to make clear what this great reset is and to To fair it out from the you know the implications from what these people actually say But on the note of conspiracy theory, I believe that the WF and Its partners actually generate conspiracy theories on purpose in order to discredit all discredit all of the Critics of this project in advance. It's a preemptive move like Klaus Schwab says at his last annual meeting What we have on the agenda is another virus and we go what and With the future is not just happening. The future is made by you here in this room Okay, I I should have told you I would I would do a few Klaus Schwab limitations But a brief history of the Great Reset tells us that there was a book published in 2010 Called the Great Reset by a guy named Richard Florida, but had nothing to do with Schwab's great reset he picked up the idea and He ran with it and and then in 2014 Schwab declared what we want to do in Davos this year is to push this reset the button By this he referred to an imaginary reset button on the global economic system of neoliberal capitalism and that's the Weasel word that they use neoliberalism to describe what we would call free enterprise a Graphic depiction of the reset button appeared shortly thereafter And then very strange things began to happen. There were two simulations that ran Previous to COVID-19 taking place one of them Was called clade X it was organized by Johns Hopkins University and The World Economic Forum and it simulated the breakout of a novel parallel influenza virus This according to Homeland Preparedness news the clade X simulation demonstrated quote that the lack of a both a protective vaccine and a proactive worldwide plan for tackling the spread of a catastrophic global pandemic Resulted in the death of 150 million people across the earth and quote. This is in 2018 Clearly preparation for a global pandemic was in order Then a little after a year later on October in October 2019 The WF uncanny prescience Was again on display only this time with greater precision Along with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation the WF teamed up with the John Hopkins University again to stage another Pandemic exercise called event 201 event 201 simulated the international response to the outbreak novel coronavirus two months before COVID-19 The COVID-19 outbreak became international news and a few months before it would be declared a pandemic The John Hopkins Center for Health and Security summary of the exercise closely resembles in fact mirrors exactly The actual COVID-19 scenario including apparent foreknowledge of so-called asymptomatic spread Etc. The clade X and co event 201 simulations anticipated every aspect of the COVID crisis Notably the responses by government's health agencies conventional media social media and elements of the public the simulated Responses and their effects included worldwide lockdowns. This is in advance a simulation the collapse of businesses and industry The adoption of biometric surveillance technologies and emphasis on social media censorship to combat misinformation and disinformation The flooding of social and legacy media with authoritative sources widespread riots Remember the summer of love and mass unemployment Of course, all of these things took place with the COVID crisis these pre-monitory Exercises and other COVID curiosities have contributed to the pandemic narrative I'm not saying I hold this but this mean this is out there this exists this Pandemic narrative which is speculation that the COVID crisis may have been staged by global elites To a senator round the WF and the UN as an alibi for instituting the great reset in addition to these exercises just referenced Swiss policy Research points to the WF's role in promoting digital biometric surveillance identity systems Thresting its young global leaders into major roles In the management of the COVID crisis and the advocating of vaccine Vaccination of children as an entry point for digital identification This is all on the agenda of the WF So they had this agenda in advance then they had these exercises then COVID happened So then in 2019 as I mentioned during the Q&A here The WF signed a contract or an agreement a partnership agreement with the UN to advance Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals The WF promised to finance the UN's climate change agenda The framework also commits the WF to helping the UN meet the needs of the fourth industrial revolution Which I'll talk about but part of that is Involves what they're calling digital governance and this is Governmentalities government Governmentalism that is increasingly outsourced to algorithms to to AI and This is government by robots Okay Soft bots though, maybe some hard bots too in the police. They already instituted those in New York So Then there was the actual forum They met the 51st annual meeting at World Economic Forum delayed and refocused due to the COVID crisis That was in June of 2020 then a few months after the the launch of the Great Reset in June 2020 Which was formally announced by now King Charles by the way Who's a nutcase but Then the book came out the great recovered 19 the great reset and that this led The timing of this book led this one Academic to actually say something of value. He said although not impossible The speed at which this book on this particular topic proposing these thesis was produced Does play into the conspiratorial aesthetic that the book has since induced Even though the authors are transparent about writing and publishing the book within the month's time This neither confirms the veracity of such claims nor dispels suspicion from those who question its expediency Academic doubles speak for saying how the hell they write this book so quick after this crisis That's not the only thing that's fed this conspiratorial aesthetic in the book Swab in his co-author say repeatedly what what an opportunity COVID has presented Wow This is just a wonderful 24 times. They refer to COVID as this wonderful opportunity and there are a few of them So that's the history the prehistory of all this Except there's a deeper history it goes back to these roundtable groups that formed beginning in 1920 like the Royal Institute of International Affairs the Council on Foreign Relations The Bilderberg group the Club of Rome then the World Economic Forum then the trilateral Commission These are all roundtable groups based on Alfred Milner's roundtables And this is really where these these are all globalist organizations that have been pushing a global agenda for over a hundred years So this reset it has a it's a it's a reset of everything This is just an outline of the kind of things they want to reset. It's a all the all domains of human life economic environmental geopolitical governmental industrial technological social and individual and Then the great reset the the economic system that they want to usher in is called stakeholder capitalism now stakeholder capitalism is a euphemism and double-speak for this kind of a collusion between the government and the state and the corporate world and this kind of a cartel Shared monopoly scheme that it establishes and I'll talk about that in a minute So we talked about and somebody's mentioned already Some of the strategic partners. This is really where the some people will say well the World Economic Forum They're just a bunch of ineffectual buffoons what they don't have any power They they can't do anything these low these globalists are just talking they go to meetings and nothing happens. That's absolutely untrue They have signed on 1000 of the world's top corporations and you know in all the major sectors of the economy and they're all firmly behind this agenda BlackRock Inc. Is one of the major ones Larry Fink is the CEO. He sits on the the board of trustees of the World Economic Forum and he is firmly behind the stakeholder capitalism regime which has as its main mechanism the ESG score and he declared in 2021 in a letter to CEOs climate risk is investment risk and then he effectively said We have long believed that our clients as shareholders in your company will benefit if you can create enduring Sustainable value for all of your stakeholders as More and more investors choose to tilt their investments towards sustainability focused companies The tectonic shift we are seeing will accelerate further and because this will have such a dramatic impact on how Capital is allocated every management team and board will need to consider how this will impact their company stock Translation if you don't get on board with the sustainability ESG Stakeholder regime you're gonna be starved of capital and die on the vine. That's the translation And this is merely a translation also of Schwab's own admonitions where he says Every country from the United States to China must participate in every industry from oil gas to tech must be transformed I mean, so we have to make fun of these people This is a part of resistance And the ESG as we've already have kind of I'll just sort of fly there's Schwab's remarks and there he is Liking to dr. Evil And this has been there was a GM commercial that featured Dr. Evil And I swear to God they were playing on this swab character entirely That wasn't the Super Bowl not this past one with the one before So I'm gonna sort of skim some of this this is Larry Fink's This is the assets under management by black rock. They held 10 trillion dollars under management They're the largest asset manager in the world and this guy is this it's the tip of the spear driving ESG So it's not like Schwab is like a quarterback on the field Okay, he's just executing the plays that are being called down from the booth and people like Like Larry Fink. They're kind of like the the offensive coordinator Okay, and then there might be a layer above him who are calling the shots altogether I'll tell you why I don't care who they are later This is the executive order that Biden signed into That's he signed into effect Which basically said the climate related risk is you know financial risk and then he signed another 12 Eos related to these issues and his first veto was exercised in vetoing the Bill that would take ESG out of investments of pensions that was his verse first veto in office Which just happened recently So what is this economic system? They want to establish what they call stakeholder capitalism I've written about this from Isis Institute. I have a whole series on this which was the germ of my book And I thank them for that And then I want to say that social even socialists say that stakeholder capitalism is a form of socialism This is a socialist who wrote a paper called toward or less Should be toward okay. There's no word towards toward a less irrelevant socialism sharing Stakeholding as a reform of the capitalist economy and So basically in this paper, he's arguing that stakeholder capitalism is a form of socialism It is a kind of socialism. Here's the kind of socialism it is It is what I call well, what's been called corporate socialism and what is corporate socialism? This is the late great Anthony see Anthony see Sutton Hoover Institute scholar who wrote About corporate socialism. He said old J. John D. Rockefeller in his 19th century Fellow capitalist were convinced of one absolute truth that no great monetary wealth could be accumulated under the impartial rules of a competitive laissez-faire society The only short road that the acquisition of math of wealth was monopoly Drive your competitors out of business reduce competition eliminate laissez-faire and above all get state protection for your industry through compliant politicians and government regulation this Avenue yields a legal monopoly and legal monopoly always leads to wealth Then he goes on this Robert Barron scheme is the socialist plan The difference between a corporate and state monopoly and a socialist state monopoly is essentially only the identity of the group Controlling the power structure. We call this phenomenon of corporate legal monopoly and market control Acquired by using political influence by the name of corporate socialism So that's what you say to people when they say this isn't socialism.  That's why it is socialist. What is socialism if not a monopoly system? These are monopolists who want to monopolize the economy they use the ESG as a demarcation device in order to drive out all the competition and exclude them from the marketplace and retain complete and total control over the rest of the economy and It does this to the detriment speaking of what it does to small business. It's it's aimed at destroying it So it leaves a two-tiered economy a kind of Well, I'll also call it this but it's a kind of Actually existing socialism on the ground and a corporate oligarchy on top or also I've called it capitalism with Chinese characteristics, which is a play on the Chinese Communist Party's Description of their own economy as socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is a piece of rhetorical gymnastics like nothing you've ever heard why because what it is is it's it was the CCP's way of rationalizing for-profit production while they maintain the socialist ideological political structure and So they called it socialism with Chinese characteristics, which is ludicrous. I Call it this system. So what they're doing is they're these globalists. They want to basically establish Socialism or capitalism with Chinese characteristics globally. This is my contention and The Chinese system is the model for the great reset. They're looking at China and they go look we got You got all these you still have for-profit production by these oligarchs You have total control over the population you have this great surveillance structure and you know and you have you still get generated wealth for the for the few and And they've even said this for example Klaus Schwab's mentor one of his mentors and one of the mentors is Henry Kissinger, but another one is Maurice Strong Who was an environmentalist and United Nations under secretary? former director of the United Nations Environment Program the first and the WF WF board member Foundation board member He said to the Guardian We know that capitalism had pure capitalism hasn't worked In China they have used their system which they call a socialist market economy quite well to achieve their objectives They have learned how to use the methods of capitalism to meet their own goals of socialism That's what he said. So this is what they want They've been modeling China and Schwab recently in an interview with Chinese TV With official state Chinese TV said China's the model for the world Effectively said China make a good model for all nations. Yes started speaking Chinese a little bit there He he was kind of like influenced by that environment. You know it is So, you know the one way to understand this is that This is one of the other things about this is this brings up what he calls what they call public private partnerships Which draws these corporations? So here's the very tricky thing for anti-status like us What they're doing is drawing corporations into the state and making them state apparatuses We see this going on all over the place. You saw it with Twitter. You're seeing it with Google They're they these are not private companies per se They were first of all established by Incutel, which is the CIA's own funding agency Secondly, they operate as state apparatuses and controlling opinion and narratives and and even canceling people from the public sphere so anyway, but What this represents not all is not only sort of what left us will say is the privatization of the government What they what really is going on here is the governmentalization of private industry Turning private industry into governmental agents. Here's the breath. This represents Incutel and who they funded for example Of course, they're CIA They're a CIA operation. They funded Nokia Microsoft Oracle Google and Facebook and IBM In the case of Google was their startup funding same with Facebook through Greylock partners But you know, that's how they do things they try to have some intermediaries. So it's hard to track So there's then there's this fourth industrial revolution What is this about? I'm just gonna cut to the chase. This is high-tech surveillance and control They they promise it on they promise this like transhumanism like you'll you'll have complete access to all Knowledge of all the world on at the at the tips of your neurons without even going on the web You'll have So much power and you'll be able to use AI. It'll be connected to your own brain You'll become a supercomputer yourself all this kind of stuff But it is not really going to be used that way. These are going to be used to control the population at large and this technological 4i are really represents like a dystopic fun. It's like a dystopic fine science fiction novel Basically The applications include ubiquitous internet the internet of things the internet of bodies autonomous vehicles smart cities robots nanotechnology digital identity central bank digital currency genetic engineering and So forth I Won't talk about that too much because it's very difficult to get into but One of the things about this great reset is that it in In terms of the social order what it promises is kind of what they're calling inclusion But it's an inclusion in a shared destiny But this conclusion represents the subordination of netizens which would be us that's what they call us netizens a Total political and economic disenfranchisement and a hyper vigilance over the self and others or what? Hannah a rent called organized loneliness and This is really what this is great. Why it's great that we're meeting because this is what they want is organized loneliness They even said so during COVID in the In the age of COVID the organized loneliness manifested itself in lockdowns masking and social distancing and the exclusion of the Unvaccinated the alone together public service announcement produced and circulated by the ad council in March of 2020 Represented this organized loneliness succinctly. They actually ran a night on ad called alone together Together we're alone basically I don't want to make you feel hopeless and helpless and hapless in the face of all this so I have a nine-point plan to stop it and I paint one of the panelists said basically The sort of sentiment that's behind this. I call this the grand refusal. They want to call it the great reset By the way, everything great that has ever been Proposed by by these kinds of people like the great leap forward the great purge The great society they've always been dismal failure So it's ironic that they would continue to use terms like great with reference to this project So there's nine points that we should under there's a nine-point plan and it's not it's it's kind of a principal sense of principles the main premise of the nine-point plan is that We need to cut the global puppet strings from ourselves We cannot control necessarily what these people try to do, but we can can we can cut the strings from our bodies and minds And that's the premise So the nine-point plan includes refusing the CBDC Because it is the closing of the totalitarian circle if you have to beg borrow and steal and trade and barter and Use other currency to avoid the CBDC do so Refuse the internet of bodies where they're going to try to install Technology on your body and in your body as a way of monitoring your organs and organ systems sounds crazy It's all on the table Refuse digital identity, which is This is basically a database that will follow you from Cradle to grave not exactly for all of us, but the idea is a complete record of all of your activities including vaccination status Probably a political profile, etc digital identity is a disaster and must refuse it Inclusion they'll sell it under the terms inclusion but inclusion means totalitarianism When there's no outside of a system, that's totalitarianism. So that's what they are and Then of course we have to practice the free market in all our affairs and that is to say We must keep the free market alive somebody mentioned remnant. I think it was Alan I Think that may be all we are as a remnant We may not be able to reverse the global agenda ourselves, but we can remain a remnant that will push put That will pass on to the future a legacy of individual freedom and the principles of the free market and Self-determination that's the very least we can do we can do better But that's the very least we must do Then of course a divest from any ESG stocks Electronically in their in their asset managers Remove money from ESG reporting banks and that includes like Bank of America Brian Moynihan is a major Pusher of this ESG stakeholder regime So check out and see if your bank is actually participating in this and they probably are And there we need to make We need to make a tectonic shift in the other direction Taking our money away from this beast Because it is a monopoly scheme that's meant to crush and destroy large segments of the economy and well-being And then you know legislation We saw the first attempt at legislation to curb ESG stricken struck down by Biden So it's it's very difficult to I don't put much hope in legislators to do anything and Unfortunately, they're very much infiltrated and but We can still pressure them to divest for example we fund the world economic forum The United States funds it. I mean, this is just unbelievable. This has to stop And I would say to go further. We should stop funding the UN and the World Health Organization as well And you know encourage them like these 19 states that signed a letter to Larry Fink saying we're not going along with this and Other states are pulling out like Florida will not go into ESG indexing for their pensions We need to put pressure on legislators to get pensions and other funds out of the ESG index market and Away from those asset managers. It's so easy to identify who you know the marks are all over the beast and I think we also need to encourage defection from the elite. There are some possible elite defectors I don't know about the status of Elon Musk He's an ambiguous figure in my mind, but I like to keep hope alive that he may actually represent some possibility at least in Getting some victories He does operate this company neural link, which is really Late brain cloud interfacing effectively it could be brain cloud interfacing. That's means your brain will be on the web but He's also sort of Like-minded about ESG. He called it a scam and he is also At least Nominally in favor of free-to-free speech. So we'll see but in any case there have to be other elites out there, too Who might defect from this insanity? Because it will be a disaster I go into the in the book the agricultural disaster it represents the kind of famine it could actually Exile of produce and so on and so forth so check that out but all the all in all I'm calling these steps part of the Grand Refusal and This is my iconic character to represent the Grand Refusal some of you will recognize the this figure Harold Howard Beale And from the movie network Although he delivered his message through the television This newscaster gone rogue encouraged his viewers to turn off their televisions to thrust open their windows and to scream I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore and Although his viewers were framed By their rectangular boxes of the of their windows which resembled TVs and thus replicated the TV itself Beals individual and collective viewers nevertheless issued a clarion call to each other and to the elites and I think we need to issue a clarion call. We are not going to take this anymore This isn't a call. This is not a call for revolution. This is a call for counter revolution against these and revolutionary Subversive elites that are wrecking our society and all together these what I call subversive elites Who have nothing but the subversion of a social body in there in there as their objective? so I Would just leave it that this isn't a drill We're not trying to achieve another utopia We have realistic ideas. We want we don't look for perfection We look for sanity and we look for the continuity of our species So we are not insane, but they're going to call us that they're gonna call us everything in the book But we must not allow them the elite and their minions to deter us with such epithets We have a world to save. Thank you