"The Red Dot" — Interview with Richard Vobes
Sometimes the seeming defect is the most important piece of content
I was particularly impressed by the interview of William Keyte by Richard Vobes on the English constitution, and how we are being denied our constitutional right as jurors to judge fact and law as well as guilt. As an artist and creator, I also appreciated Richard’s interview style and presentational aesthetic. So I reached out, and offered to send Richard a copy of my banned book, Open Your Mind to Change. He asked to interview me, and I made one of my rare choices to say “yes”.
Richard has an open mind, so is not interested in pushing his own angle, and lets people tell their tale and perspective, which is refreshing. He is still working his way through the tangled morass of lies and corruption — as are we all — so represents a bridge between those who have been “awake” to the lies for many years, and a wider audience of “recovering normies” who have realised something is seriously amiss and want to learn more. On a long drive yesterday evening I had an opportunity to reflect on the interview, and there are a few nuggets of insight to share.
I take it for granted that we are at war, and have been for a long time. That nature of this fifth-generation war is covert, based on infiltration over invasion, and silent weapons — AI, nanotech, genetics, pharmaceuticals, propaganda, biowarfare, psychotronics, EMF, and more. The people I am around all understand we are at war, because we are actively fighting it as part of a military-civilian alliance. It was only on reflection that I realised that Richard may not yet see it this way, and his audience is likely to be unaware that we are at war, albeit one that is unrecognisable to those raised on WW2 movies and Vietnam, Gulf War, or Iraq TV coverage.
One several occasions I have told the story in public of how my mother and her family were (and still are) Jehovah’s Witnesses, while my father was (and still is) outside of that cult. As the first born I was left to resolve their misalignment, and the power imbalance caused by my uncle getting my mother to break her marriage promise to my father to raise their children as Church of England (which has its own problems, too, of course). I belatedly realised yesterday that this story is about spiritual abuse, which is more subtle than sexual, psychological, emotional, or physical abuse, but causes real damage and leaves lasting scars.
My own spiritual abuse makes me extremely sensitive to cult-like movements pushing “authoritative” narratives with forceful sincerity with unity of belief and absence of dissent. You will not find me in a “revival” church with my arms raised in group worship — it would totally freak me out to lose myself in such a crowd, or feel coerced or shamed for standing still and quietly observing what happens around me. My interview with Richard touched on spiritual matters, and acknowledged that many of us are recovering from abuse from the religious world. There is nothing more egotistical than “rescuing” others in the name of the holy!
There is one tiny moment in the middle of the video that felt like a defect that the time, but on reflection is perhaps the most important part. Richard had said that he was beginning the recording after our initial “off air” chitchat, but I realised that i had not seen the message in Zoom that recording had been turned on, and there was no “red dot” for the session being recorded. So I stopped to ask if Richard was actually recording it, as there was no point in going on if not. He reassured me that he was, as it wasn’t being recorded using Zoom itself.
We unpacked this a little once the call was over. I have done quite a lot of interviews over the years using Zoom, whereas Richard always uses a separate video capture for all his interviews, so he can switch camera perspectives in a way Zoom does not support. Therefore when I paused the interview to check if he was recording, it was a little discombobulating for him as he lacked the same context and perspective. Only afterwards could I help him see where I was coming from and why.
At the time I felt a little awkward and embarrassed, especially as I had lost my train of thought regarding the actual question he had just asked. But on deeper reflection I realised that this moment is actually the “gem” in this interview. My expectation of a “red dot” to indicate recording was misaligned to his experience that “red dots don’t exist”. It is symbolic of the wider struggle we have over aligning our contexts (interviewer who controls tech vs interviewee who does not) so that we don’t have those jarring moments when different senses of what is “real” collide.
Bringing together our being at war, my spiritual abuse, and the “red dot” incident we can see the wider challenge: to have a shared understanding via common assumptions, language, and perspective. The temptation is to focus everything on the “substance” of the content, attempting to inform and persuade, and we end up missing these matters of disjoint framing. When I mentioned the “Q drops” I just took it for granted that everyone intelligent and with an open mind already knows about them. It was a surprise to me in the moment that Richard was unaware of them, but now I can see we all have our own learning journeys.
Jiddu Krishnamurti said that “truth is a pathless land”, and that we each arrive at it in our own way. My expectation of a “red dot” and Richard’s expectation of “no red dot” were equally valid takes on the same underlying reality. Much of the vehement and even violent discussion that goes on about world affairs is an attempt to force your own perspective onto the other. But the real challenge is to surface the limitations of our own isolated context, and build a wider framing that encompasses all. Growth of understanding comes from alignment via synthesis of a wider vision, not domination from damnation of the other’s perspective.
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.