🔴💣James Corbett : Il conflitto in Medio Oriente e la moneta digitale delle banche centrali

Wow, what a day! Now we go on. We arrive at the next parish. We focus on the conflict of the Middle East. We can ask our questions to another giant, who lives in Japan. He is interviewed by Dan, who is in the USA. We are here in Switzerland, Japan, USA. We have 15 hours difference between these two. We have 7 and 8 hours difference between them and us here in Switzerland. We look at the biography of James Corbett. We need you, James. James Corbett was born and raised in Canada. He graduated from Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, with a Master of Philosophy. After moving to Japan in 2007, he founded his website, The Corbett Report, as a platform for independent critical analysis on politics, society, history and economy. At the time, James Corbett managed the website in parallel to his work as an English teacher. About four years later, he became a full-time investigative journalist. Since then, he has received several awards for his journalistic work and has been a researcher at various universities, at TEDxGrueningen and in front of independent inquiry commissions, such as the National Citizens' Inquiry in Canada. Over the years, James Corbett has published many documentaries such as and Who is Bill Gates? His in-depth research is available publicly on his website and on numerous channels in hundreds of podcast episodes, interviews and other formats. Only on his social channels, he is already followed by over 300,000 subscribers. In 2018, he launched the annual negative award, Fake News Awards, in which he documents the most distorted news of the media. James Corbett intervenes today on the topic of the Middle East conflict and the digital currency of central banks, an absolute horror scenario. James Corbett, thank you for being here with us again. Today we will talk about the war in the Middle East and the CBDC. So, if you are ready and our listeners are ready, we will go straight to the point. Dear viewers, are you ready? So, let's start from here. You defined October 7 as the 11th of September in Israel. For what reason? What are these two events related to? Well, obviously, I am not the only one to have used this expression. In fact, the traditional media used this definition immediately after the October 7 attacks and obviously they use it in the context of a spectacular terrorist attack on a large scale that was not what was said to us and that justifies a war against terrorism in progress, probably without end. I use the comparison in a very different way, as those who know my work know. I have analyzed the false flag terrorist attacks of the 11th of September from many different points of view, including the analysis of the money trail and the war games that were going on on the 11th of September and also the analysis of some of the suspicions of the people who surrounded the 11th of September, the operators and the intelligence agencies that are actively working with the IAEA, such as Al-Chada, also known as Al-Qaeda, and that in many ways have created it. So, when I say that October 7 was the 11th of September in Israel, I mean it in this context as a false flag event staged, provoked and used as justification for a military and political agenda. Now, when you say that the war will never end, what I see is that Israel is interested in Gaza. Do you see a way to end this war in Gaza? Will it end? How will it end? In short, the infinite thing is that if they continue to have enemies around, they will continue to reach the treasury of the United States to keep the arms shipment going. But speaking of Gaza, do you foresee an end to this situation? Unfortunately, I can understand how it could end. And unfortunately, most of the alternatives are not pleasant. They involve the eradication of the Palestinian people in Gaza. To this end, numerous ministers of the Israeli parliament have alluded to the eradication of Gaza or the elimination of the Palestinian people. And unfortunately, obviously, these people are belittled as the extreme right wing, they do not represent the majority of the Israeli government, but it is interesting to note that Netanyahu's political coalition depends on these people. So the idea is not a marginal phenomenon so small in Israeli politics that it could actually end with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. And then, of course, there is the question of CISJORDANIA, where for years the open policy of a large part of the Israeli political class has been to continue to expand illegal settlements. This is what is happening in CISJORDANIA. Just last week, the International Court of Justice established in a preliminary sentence that the Israeli occupation of the occupied Palestinian territories is illegal. This once again confirms that it is an illegal occupation and that Israel must make every effort to put an end to what it is doing as soon as possible. But what does it mean? Unfortunately, as I said, I do not see many possibilities. I can think of many ways in which it could end, especially in Gaza, for example with the complete extermination of the Palestinian people or at least the expulsion of a sufficient number of people to make the survival of the Palestinians in Gaza unsustainable or at least to open new roads and new areas for Israeli settlements in Gaza. But everything that looks like a military prospect, for example that Hamas is really fighting in a war against the Israeli government and that there are really two forces fighting each other and that they could go from one side to the other, I think it is a false narrative that has been implanted. What is happening is not a war but a massacre. And if we want to extrapolate beyond Gaza and go to Cisjordania, we could say, you know, Jerusalem, the heights of the Golan, each of these places. So we could extrapolate and say that perhaps the goal is the eradication of Palestinians from all of Israel, right? As I said, it is not an extrapolation or a theory, it is something that has been actively and openly discussed, at least by some members of the Israeli parliament. And when they do it, when these ministers come out to the open and make these statements, usually Netanyahu comes out to the open and releases a few statements. Either this is going too far or we do not support this idea. But as I said, the political coalition that keeps Netanyahu's government together depends on the ministers who make these kinds of statements, and there are many. I am documenting this aspect for a next episode of the podcast. I am examining these data and I can say that there are ample documented evidence of statements made by many Israeli politicians that invoke the extermination of the Palestinian people. So it is not a marginal idea that is expressed only by a few people, it is expressed by people who occupy positions of power and this, as I said, is at least a possibility. Yes, Netanyahu will resize his comments according to who listens to him. He could try to minimize the idea, but then another day he could equip the inhabitants of Gaza with MLECs that must be eliminated. Yes, and of course this has to do with Israeli internal politics and political cycles in Netanyahu's career. It is documented that he made more provocative statements about the most aggressive policies towards Palestinians during very contested political elections. In essence, he will court the votes of the right that will keep him in office, but there is also the risk that Netanyahu will be blamed for everything. He is certainly a dominant force in Israeli politics. And he has been for decades, but he is not the only force. We run the risk of thinking that if we could only bring to power the most balanced Israeli prime minister, like Naftali Bennett or Ehud Barak, who was a confidant of Jeffrey Epstein, or someone else, then everything would be fine. But I believe that this is a false narrative that has been inserted in this discussion. It is a fundamental issue that has been at the center of Israeli politics since the foundation of the Israeli state, through the terrorist attacks that led to the creation of the Israeli state. We are aware of this. Once again, it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a documented story. For example, the attack on the King David Hotel in 1946, which at the time was the largest terrorist attack in history, shook the consciousness of the whole world, killing tens, hundreds of people, and killing many more. It was an absolutely blatant attack, it was a targeted terrorist attack perpetrated by those who would later become the establishment of Israeli politics as part of their plan to expel the British from Palestine. Unfortunately, it was very successful. The foundations of the Israeli state were based on terrorism and violence against Palestinians from the beginning. Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the last 75 years. When he says that this terrorist group has become the political establishment, does he mean the Irgun? Are you referring to the Irgun? Yes, in fact, the name escapes me now, but I documented it in my recent episode of the podcast Encounter with Benjamin Netanyahu, war criminal. Specifically, the leader of the Irgun, responsible for the operation at the King David Hotel, was not only praised by Netanyahu as an example of the foundation of the Israeli state, he was one of the founders of the Israeli state, but even in 2006, on the 60th anniversary of that deadly attack, the Israeli government not only inaugurated a commemorative plaque, but the British ambassador said that it was absolutely extraordinary that a liberal, liberal and democratic state erected literally a monument to a terrible, deadly terrorist attack. But who was present to unveil the plaque and once again commemorate the Irgun and praise it for its role in the foundation of Israel in this deadly event? None other than Benjamin Netanyahu. Is the Netanyahu government somehow connected to Hamas? Yes, it is. Once again, I documented it in my work. A few months ago, I wrote an article entitled The Secret History of Hamas, which talks about the foundation of Hamas, what it is, where it comes from, and the wide ties of the Israeli government and the secret services between the Israeli government and Hamas. And I think it would be too easy to say that Hamas is just an invention or a puppet of the Israeli government. But has it been proven that it has been supported, financed and favored by the Israeli government in a meeting of the Likud party in 2019? Benjamin Netanyahu has even explicitly said that his strategy was to support Hamas to keep the Palestinians of Gaza politically and ideologically separated from the Palestinians of Cisjordania to ensure that they could never unite and could never represent a real threat by creating a solution in two states to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. So, once again, this is obvious, there is no need to speculate about it. James, since we are talking about the need to continue wars in general, I saw what I presume to be his last video and he quoted an article from the magazine Cover Action. I took a look at the magazine Cover Action and I don't know if I read the right article, but it was about a man who said that this was the operating model of the United States from the beginning, to continue wars. Would you say that in general it is like this in the Middle East, it is like this in Ukraine today, it is like this for the United States? I would say that this is the general operating model of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower identified when he left the position of President of the United States in 1960 and which is still in force today. This has been the operating model of the military-industrial complex since its inception. War is the health of the state, but war is also the health of every industry, of every auxiliary agency, of every intelligence agency, of all the other organs of the widest deep state that actually determines politics. And so not only do they have an acquired interest, not only a hidden interest, but their interest is equal to the interest to wage war and to constantly create reasons for military action. So yes, this is certainly part of the strategy. I think this is more true in certain times and places for certain strategic reasons. We can look at it from the historical point of view. For example, in the 1980s, the explicit reason for financing was actually the biggest operation of the CIA, at least admittedly, in history. It was to finance the Taliban in Afghanistan in the 1980s as part of their war of jihad against the Soviets. Specifically and precisely because the deep state of the Carter administration decided, at the end of the 1970s, that the best way to bleed the Soviets was to put them in a mincemeat, giving them their own Vietnam. And this is what they explicitly did and tried to make this war last as long as possible. This was the basic strategy. I think the conflict in Ukraine is an exact parallel because in this case the goal is clearly Russia and the United States are happy to fight Russia until the last Ukraine available and will continue to send money, aid and weapons to maintain this conflict as long as possible to wipe out the Russians. Well, I think Trump recently said that he wants to end this war. If he stopped the war, he would also stop mincemeat. But I think he has other reasons to stop the war. We would like to know his thoughts on the current state of the war for NATO procurement in Ukraine. And let's take a look at the main people responsible for the beginning and continuation of the war against Russia. What do people like Victoria Nuland and Antony Blinked, US Secretary of State, want? What is their goal there? It's a good question. I think it's a question of how far back in geopolitical history we want to go. I certainly think that the strategy of the British Empire at the end of the 19th century and the American Empire of the 20th century has been for a long time to keep the Russians and the Germans apart and to keep them essentially at war with each other. Because if they joined, not even politically or economically, but even just having good relations with each other, it would be a serious threat to the ability, for example, of the British or the Americans to control the European continent. As it was established more than a century ago, since the times of Mackinder, Halford Mackinder, and the birth of geopolitics, as we know it today, this area is the heart of the so-called global chessboard. Every power that controls it has essentially the control of the planet. This has been understood for more than a century and it is precisely for this reason that there has always been the need to create a wedge between the Russians and the Germans, or Europeans in general, and I think this is still the case. Yes, I conducted an interview with the manager of the website www.antiwar.com. He does the great podcast against war, Orton, yes, Scott Orton, and he said that the last thing the West wants is the German-Russian unity, and he says that the worst thing would be if Germany and Russia went back to war with each other. And we saw what happens when this happens. Yes, this is true. Let's go back to Trump's statement that he wants to put an end to this war. What does his good friend Larry Fink, BlackRock's Delegate Administrator, know if he happens to have a consulting role in the reconstruction of Ukraine and if he is responsible for the Ukraine Development Fund? He is in charge of the development of Ukraine Yes, that's right. BlackRock, by chance, is the world's largest financial investor that owns most of the shares of all the largest 500 companies. In particular, Larry Fink, BlackRock's CEO, is interested in the reconstruction of Ukraine. This process has already been introduced, before this process, but it has been planned in this way. This is the perfect opportunity for the transformation of a government. This is exactly what they are trying to do. Obviously, this is a corrupt business in the form of billions of dollars, of euros, for those who have their noses and hands in this mess and can take the biggest pieces of the pie. They are like a vampire at the neck of humanity. While I was investigating Larry Fink's background and his involvement in Ukraine and his interference in that country, I came across a conference that took place in New York a few years ago. Have you ever heard of the Dealbook Summit sponsored by the New York Times? Yes, I've heard of it, but I haven't followed it. Well, I've read the headlines. It was written that at the Summit they would also talk about the appointed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, the CEO of Meta Mark Zuckerberg, the US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and the CEO of BlackRock Larry Fink. All these people together in a Summit in New York. What do you think? Yes, but I'm not surprised at all. Of course, every actor at this table has his own reasons for his presence at this table, but they can certainly agree on this agenda of sucking the blood of the Ukrainians in the battle against the Russians. It is something that certainly many different people at this table would gladly do at this time. Well, ok, James. You don't seem very optimistic about the possible outcomes of the Summit. What is the best scenario semi-reasonable for the end of the war in Ukraine without BlackRock taking control of the country? Yes, as I said, now it is extraordinarily difficult. I think everyone has played their cards to the point that it is difficult to imagine that there is a way to take a step back from this precipice, because I don't think that the Russians can withdraw now without having first reached at least some measure to save themselves the face in the Donbass in terms of alleged geopolitical objectives. But at the same time, Ukraine is now firmly driven towards Western integration, including NATO adhesion. At the recent NATO conference, it was ensured that the path of Ukraine towards NATO adhesion is possible. It won't happen tomorrow, but it will happen. This, of course, is the red line that the Russians have been tracing for a long, long time, even before Putin. The idea of NATO in Ukraine was that red line. So it is difficult to imagine a possible face-saving measure at this moment that is not at least, as you say, even if the conflict the acquisition by BlackRock, Palantir and other companies that are entering this game. At the moment, it is difficult to imagine that they can be chased by a Kiev government. Ok, well, James, let's move on to the second topic, ECBDC. And I would like to open the topic with a small news, I think, from last weekend, I think it started already on Thursday. I didn't even think to do research or look at my messages on Twitter. So I didn't know much about this CrowdStrike thing. In fact, I didn't even know what CrowdStrike was until today someone answered me that it is a software security company. But on Friday something happened and for some reason I couldn't access any digital document of my bank. And then my friend said yes, it could very well be because of CrowdStrike. He talked about hundreds of canceled flights, that YouTube this morning didn't work for three hours and that banks were closed and so on. And my thought was, since we are talking about ECBDC, that this should be a bad blow for the idea of ​​passing everything to the digital. And that's what I'm trying to introduce. I'm glad you put this discussion in this context because right now there are tens of thousands of people, maybe more, whose trips have been canceled, whose bank accounts are closed, etc. Why has this event of the century arrived, this terrible disturbance that has just spread? But at least people should now think in a priority way, if it is a good idea to make our entire life, our economic existence depend on this digital technology that is at least vulnerable to casual glitches and false updates, not to mention real and proper attacks carried out by real and proper attacks in a way perhaps only because of greater force. We know this, the electromagnetic fields, the solar radiations, the Carrington event. We know the kind of things that can destroy or at least interrupt our electronic life as we know it in a blink of an eye. In a certain sense it was almost regrettable that things could not be printed electronically, QR codes could not be used, they were literally compiled by hand and it makes you think of how much we are immersed in this digital matrix that is shocking to see a boarding paper written by hand nowadays. But yes, once things were written with paper and pen. Why did we stop? I think that we can apply to many things for which there is a new solution and the first question we should ask is what is wrong in what we have here? For example, with the old G-network I had a good reception at least when I was in Japan. Why do we need 4 or 5G? And I keep spreading it telling us that it is absolutely movie in 19 seconds instead of 53 seconds. The author has analyzed this aspect in an excellent way and I think it is even more relevant today than when he held that speech three decades ago. Interesting. James, I know we have discussed this topic in the last interview, but we have many new viewers who are watching this AZK conference. And I think some still want to know what is the difference between CBDC and, for example, Apple Pay or other digital payment systems, and why 93% of all central banks are actively involved in the development of these CBDCs. But the idea is that today, in most countries, there is a two-sided monetary system. One is the monetary system in bulk, which concerns the banks themselves, the commercial banks, which have reserve accounts with the central bank, whether this is the European Central Bank or the Bank of Japan or the Federal Reserve in the United States, these commercial banks keep the reserves and operate among themselves within the bulk circuit. We, you, me, whoever else is listening, we have our funds in these commercial banks and this is the circuit in detail. They are two completely different things. The money that banks use in the bulk circuit is technically different from the money we use in our daily lives. So when we pay with Apple Pay or something similar, we are using the money in the bulk circuit. It is money created by the bank in detail. The commercial banking system in general. Most of the money is created by the debt that is due to commercial banks. These, thanks to the magic of their banking contract, have the right to create this money by lending it to us. So they don't go into the vault of the bank and pull out a bunch of accounts every time they lend you money, but they create the money that you then have to, including the interests. A wonderful idea if you are a banker. In any case, the CBDC is the idea that for the first time we will have direct access to the money of the central bank. Of course, already today there is money issued by the central bank. If you extract a banknote, regardless of the country you live in, if you extract a banknote of paper, if you have one in your wallet, because most people pay without cash, there will be something like, here in Japan, the Bank of Japan, in the United States, the Federal Reserve Banknote, because it is the expression of the responsibility of the central bank. This banknote is actually issued by the central bank itself. This is the only way the central bank has to inject money directly into the economy and it is only a fraction of the economy. However, in the CBDC universe, they will be able to bring their expression of responsibility of the central bank directly into your digital wallet, because now you have an account. Depending on how they configure it, but in one way or another, you will have an account with the central bank itself. The central bank will be able not only to verify and control your transactions, but also to look at your transactions and potentially, as has been underlined by many, including politicians of the UK and other countries, who are very enthusiastic about this possibility, will be able to schedule what may or may not happen with that account. And it will be an automatic thing that will not be managed by you if they decide to implement it in this way. Or any other restriction that comes to mind could be implemented in real time by pressing a digital switch, which represents an absolutely huge amount of control over the economy directly by the central bankers. Yes, and you just answered my next question, which was, what do you think would be the most attractive thing for the State? I would say that the ability to monitor our goods and our expenses closely and, if necessary, to control their use. Absolutely yes, and I should make a distinction because, as I said, because of how the banking system currently exists, commercial banks are interposed between the central bank and us. So commercial banks are an important part and, of course, they exercise an incredible control over the economy at the moment. They will not easily give up this control. We can therefore imagine many ways in which the CBDC system will be structured. One of these could be that the central bank delegates its ability to hold and verify accounts to commercial banks or at least to verified financial institutions. The latter will therefore also act as intermediaries. In this way, the central banks would be at least, in appearance, one step away from the process. Or, we do not control all this, this is done by commercial banks. Given the political and economic reality of how the banking system is structured, the question arises spontaneously about who regulates these commercial banks and tells them what they can or cannot do. They are the regulators of the central banks and the governments. We have seen how this power has been abused in the past. For example, under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice ordered commercial banks in the United States to freeze the accounts of people who provided perfectly legal services, even if unspeakable, such as porn stars, ammunition dispensers, moneylenders and other people who operated in commercial sectors in which the government did not agree. The government asked the banks to withdraw these clients from circulation. The banks themselves had to adapt. They were the ones who blocked the accounts of these clients, but they did it because the FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, one of the regulators of the banking system of the United States, said we will not protect your deposits, we will be able to remove you from the list if you do not satisfy our requests to get rid of these people. From this example, we can see how this type of system can be set. Also in this case, it will not be exactly like the scenario of the incubation of central bankers. Yes, I can imagine how they will try to make it appetizing for us. This is one of those situations when they went to get the communists. First they came for the users of Skid Row. Well, we don't like these people. We don't even like porn stars. They will make it attractive. How close are we to a CBDC system? And does this mean the end of the account? They can certainly coexist, and they will probably do so for a while. It does not necessarily mean that the account will no longer exist. However, we have already seen how society has developed without accounts and with what speed. In Japan we are at the point where the economy is still largely based on the account, even if the situation is changing. I remember participating in a conference in England last year and it was really shocking, even if I am aware of it. I did research and talked about this topic. It was really shocking to enter numerous bars, restaurants and retail shops that did not literally accept the accounts. It was literally all without accounts. It was a shock also for my system, but it is already a reality. So you can imagine that there will be a period of coexistence when CBDCs will be introduced. Yes, but you could very well imagine that, due to some false financial event or some other justification of emergency, the account could be abolished and most people today would probably not care. Exactly. Well, when you go to a local supermarket, how many people want to use the iPhone, credit card, bank card or similar instead of accounts? I mean, isn't it quite common? Unfortunately, yes. I say unfortunately because I have not been very happy about the fact that Japan still has an economy largely based on accounts, to the point that you can buy a car with an account and it is not even something out of the ordinary. But things are changing, and very quickly, because payment systems without accounts are not only introduced here, but they are actively promoted more and more. And unfortunately today it is much more common to pay with your cell phone or card than in the past. Even here in Japan, which was one of the few exceptions in the industrialized world, as an economy based on accounts, the situation is changing. And I can imagine that in a few years we will reach the point where payments without accounts will be more common than those without accounts. But what can we do besides... What can we do besides paying without accounts as often as possible? What else do we have in our pockets? Well, I would say that it is a great starting point, and I believe that this is one of those problems that is clearly a social problem that no one can solve on their own, but we all have to do our part. Our role is to boycott and make conscious purchase decisions, and not only to avoid shops that do not use accounts, but also to support shops, companies, retailers or people you know who are willing to offer services not only in exchange for accounts, but also of precious metals, crypto currencies, exchange rings or other versions of community currencies, whatever it is. I'm not here to judge what you should use. I think you should use everything except CBDC. And this is one of the aspects, as long as we exercise these muscles and continue to build a community that is at least supportive in the case of this transition, so that when the adoption of cashless happens and more and more people choose that path, there are still people willing to make a deviation, to bear an inconvenience if necessary, to pay with cash or precious metals or something else, then at least this economy can continue. Certainly most people will adapt to cashless to move forward, but the opportunity for people to support this community will be there. But if we don't exercise these muscles, but we limit ourselves to saying, oh, this is a bit uncomfortable, I just want to go to the supermarket and buy this thing. I guess this time I'll have to go cashless. The more we do this, the more we are conquered by the world of cashless. In the end, it's about our system of habits and we have to get used to accepting the unpleasant to support the world we want, to avoid the world we don't want. In order to avoid the world we don't want. I'm James. We are approaching the end of the time at our disposal. I like to insert something personal that concerns me and that slightly deviates from the script. I would like to describe to you a hypothetical situation, James, and find out how you would react in this situation. I know there is a lot of talk about this topic and there are dilapidated speculations and that in a certain sense it bothers you when we get out of the binary and enter the den of the rabbits. But I have to ask you about the alleged attempted murder of July 13th. Is that okay? So, let's say you are presiding over a conference and the alleged attempted murder of July 13th comes up. People get agitated, they make all sorts of speculations about what really happened and somehow they get out of the binary. You hit them with your hammer to silence them. What do you do to keep people focused and on the right track in a situation like this? What would you say? I think that when people express interest in the matter it is too late to hammer the situation. I would never have the presumption of telling people what they should think or what they should devote their time to or their attention. Not even to tell them what they should not devote their time to or their attention. Or this or that. And even if I did, would they listen to me? And why? However, I could certainly comment that the meaning of such an event, for me as a person who does not believe in the political system and in the process that has been given to us with the box of suggestions on slavery that comes at intervals of four years, is not relevant without the general issues of digital currencies, central banks and the conflict of Israel and Ukraine and other things that we have talked about today. The true meaning of all this has nothing to do with this or that political candidate. It is about what people who control this system want us to believe has happened and why they want us to believe it. So if I could say something in an imaginary situation like this I would simply say that it could be more useful to look at what this event means, why we are guided to think, to talk about this event in a certain way, to those who are interested. If we accept this narrative as it is, it is imposed. Where does it lead us and what is the result? And if there is no other reason, maybe just to drag us back into the political discussion to make sure that everyone concentrates again on which side of this controlled prey on the left and right they want to support politically. Even just to bring people back to this barrack circus. This could be the true meaning of an event like this. For this I would at least put it into discussion. Very good, very good. Ok, last question James, last question. Were you surprised by the release of Julian Assange? I think so. Even if only for the long-term narrative like in the conflict in Ukraine or in Afghanistan or elsewhere, it seems that at a certain point it becomes the real objective to leave him in this endless process, in this status. I'm not saying that it would have been interesting to see how it would have turned out in court, but I'm not sure that I would have wanted to see how it would have turned out in court. In any case, it surprised me, I didn't expect it. I don't see it as a great victory for freedom of speech, if not because everything that has been decided has been. Yes, guilty, I am guilty, now let me out. And this does not help to solve the fundamental problem. A precedent has been created according to which the normal journalistic practices are illegal. And this is essentially what has been established here. Fortunately, because it could have gone even worse. There could have been a real court sentence that would have established that what he did was illegal. Which would have created a worse precedent, but it could have gone better. Because it would have been much better to declare someone innocent who was just doing a journalistic job. Absolutely, absolutely. We could say that maybe we should celebrate his release, but our celebrations should be a little crumpled, since it was possible thanks to a plea deal. We should, as always, continue to underline the facts and the issues, rather than focus on the personalities of the people involved. I agree, absolutely right. Well, dear participants at the AZK conference, what do you think of a round of applause for James Corbett? Thank you, excellent. Thank you very much. You have really brought something important to light. Thank you, Dan, for conducting the interview.