All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 7, 2022 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
01:00:09
Walker Walks On! Running Down The Run Off - Reality Rants With Jason Bermas
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in.
Machinery that gives abundance has left us in want.
We think too much and feel too little.
More than machinery, we need humanity.
We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad, worse than bad.
They're crazy. Silence!
The great and powerful Oz knows why you have come.
You gotta say, I'm a human being!
God damn it! My life has value!
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature!
Don't give yourselves to brutes, men who despise you, enslave you, who regiment your lives, tell you what to do, what to think, or what to feel, who drill you, diet you, treat you like cattle, use you as cannon fodder!
Don't give yourselves to these unnatural men.
Machine men with machine minds and machine hearts.
Yeah, thank you, you're beautiful.
I love you, yes.
You're beautiful.
Thank you.
It's showtime!
And now, Reality Rant with Jason Burmess.
And who loves you?
And who do you love?
And we are live.
Good morning, good morning.
It is Reality Rants. I am Jason Bermas, brought to you by Red Voice Media.
And let's just start with Walker, okay?
Okay. I believe that we now live in a post-truth world where when you acknowledge just the most basic of things that you can observe with your common sense and your sensory perceptions that are granted to you by God, nature, Let's just say your inherent intuition combined with the senses that you have acquired throughout the years.
When you constantly have to ignore that and just say, oh well, guess that's the truth.
You're living in a post-truth world.
You are adhering.
To a great narrative that is being utilized against the masses and then reinforced through a massive psychological warfare campaign that we are now seeing in unison across the board And promoted as the authoritative narrative via media and academia.
And really, none of this is new, but now it's gotten to an extreme level where you may not only no longer question elections, but there's no real way to audit them.
I have to believe, despite being a New Yorker and talking to a numerous amount of people who are not just in upstate New York, not just in Long Island, not just in the city, but broadly across, if I don't believe that Kelly Hochul was elected over another ghoul, in my opinion, Lee Zeldin, I'm not a Zeldin guy!
Did he get promoted to get his face out there?
Yeah, but at the end of the day, he's another establishment stooge.
It's a joke. But do I think that he lost to Kelly Hochul?
Let's just say I have a hard time believing it.
Hard time believing it.
In the second half of the broadcast, when we were talking about 2022 yesterday...
I played Carrie Lake's speech, officially leaving the mainstream media amidst the COVID-1984 Great Reset kickoff.
Where a great narrative was being pushed that she no longer wanted to participate in on any level because the copy, and just so everybody knows what copy is, it's a fancy schmancy term for essentially either something that will be published on paper or will be in a production where a talking head reads it.
That's why you get to see all these Sinclair videos, right?
All those videos where the same people are saying the same thing, same thing, same thing, same thing, over and over and over again in unison, the reading copy.
So I played that, and again, I have to believe the election that had all sorts of visual problems and were being reported on immediately as soon as it took off, That election, one in which Carrie Lake was on a popularity tour where she was constantly eviscerating the media who would talk to her.
In an election where her counterpart would not debate her.
Was already in power and had the political ties to essentially investigate whatever outcome was out there.
I have to believe that's a legitimate election now.
And I have to believe that Herschel Walker, an incredibly popular athlete, Maybe he's not the most well-spoken guy.
But he's a guy that had his entire life dragged out nationally.
Everything about it.
Family stuff. Real dirty.
Real dirty. And hey, you get into politics, you got that stuff in your background.
I'm not here to tell you I know who Herschel Walker is as a human being.
All I've ever seen about Herschel Walker is really politically...
And pre-politics, you know, I would see him posting his opinions.
And then I was never a big football guy, but some people don't know this.
Herschel Walker's got a couple MMA fights under his belt via Strikeforce.
And he's buddies with the guy who used to run Strikeforce, now runs Bellator.
So when I'd go see those fights, Walker would be in the building.
Always carried himself, you know, like a gentleman.
You know, always very nice to anybody I saw approach him.
I can tell you those things about his character.
Okay? And to act like, again, we had this election where Warnock, the opposition, on the night of, was just, we're going to hang in there.
Wasn't even confident it was going to come off.
Then you get the runoff, and now he's a loser.
And it seems like in all these big elections, alright, arguably sea elections, the person who seems to be the ghoul to the masses...
Ends up winning in all the important ones.
Right? And I have to sit back here and I have to act like the two-party system is a good system.
And I have to act like, well, get them next time!
Well, get them next time!
We got them! No.
So, first thing I want to do is I want to also acknowledge the viewpoint I saw by Zuby.
Okay? Because what I'm not going to say is every election is totally rigged.
That's not how it works. I don't want you to give up on voting or getting involved in your city council, in your local mayoral election, right?
And even in the big ones, the governor, the Congress, Senate, no.
That's not what I'm saying. And basically, he said, you know, for all you people out there, That are saying everything is rigged.
Well, how did Trump get in there in the first place?
How do your ideas contend with that?
And I would say this. All elections on a mass level like that.
On really a national level of decisions.
In other words, they're going to Washington.
Have varying degrees of corruption in them.
Totally. And I think what happened with Trump...
There was no way to anticipate how actually popular this guy was.
And despite all of their best efforts to manipulate or fortify the elections via their systems of, say, I don't know, voting machines and fractional votings and magical dick-a-dick-a-do's, There was too much what?
Oversight. There's too many exit polls and he was just too damn popular and whatever algorithms they had run in those places weren't going to hold up to a real audit.
And remember, they tried for like days.
First they didn't want to call it.
And then all of a sudden you heard about a hacked election.
This is before even, you know, they act like Russian disinformation.
But at first they gave you the illusion that somehow the Russians had gotten into the voting machines.
All false. All false.
So now you get to the COVID world where you've fortified them further with mail-in ballots and then less oversight and more machines.
Okay? And then demonizing anybody that points out, hey, we didn't fix the problems we had back in 2016 and 2012.
In 2008, and really all the way back to that second Bush election with John Kerry, where it appears John Kerry won.
Okay? And a lot of people don't want to say that on the quote-unquote right or in the conservative arena.
It would do you well to study history and realize they put in a ringer against Bush, another extremely unpopular president, especially in his second term.
To sit there and argue the vast majority of the country didn't want him in office is also, to me, ludicrous.
You had to be so damn hardcore not to see what was going down via the war of terror at that point.
Masses! Masses of people protesting that guy.
And George Bush didn't run the country.
He's a puppet. He's a figurehead.
The administration behind him did.
And... For me to even say that, whoa!
Whoa! Visually, however, it's leaps and bounds of what, you know, Biden or whatever administration.
Like, I don't think anybody in Biden's administration is anything but somebody that reads something, someone in the background is telling them to do.
Mayorkas? Get out of here.
These people are jokes.
Kamala embarrassed? They're jokes.
Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney, they were serious people.
But again, I had to be gaslit into believing that his distant cousin, I think it's second or third on one side, and eighth or ninth on the other, on both sides, his Yale buddy, John Kerry, didn't throw that election.
Somebody, again, who wasn't popular.
Nobody's like, wow, that John Kerry's got great ideas, want to get behind him.
And then when people had just had enough, their little great narrative gave you a rock star.
The Barack star.
Okay? And again, you had to believe that there wasn't really even a Ron Paul revolution at that point.
So to get back to what I was saying about Zuby, I think they've had different levels of gaslighting and rigging.
And sometimes you just can't do it.
Because again, I have to believe in this post-truth world That Joe Biden is the most popular president of all time.
He has his facilities.
81 million votes.
The guy's as sharp as a damn tack.
Alright? I have to believe he beat Big Pharma.
And that the Inflation Reduction Act is going to reduce inflation?
And it's not about the green agenda.
Even though he actually said it's a climate bill.
And about the Green New Deal.
On camera. The Global Fund speech, where he tells everybody there, as they cheer, that they're going to have a 31 to 1 return on this green agenda that is what?
Artificially shutting us out of our energy and food supplies.
What? It's a post-truth world.
And speaking of that post-truth world...
I want to talk a little bit about Trojan horse civilian systems.
I want to talk about utilizing those Trojan horse civilian systems, the double-edged sword of technology, and how that came into play from yesterday to today.
Also, I'm going to play this clip of Edward Bernays shortly.
I got a bunch of clips. We'll see how far we go.
I'm on a rant.
That's why it's Reality Rants, right?
Just went off for 13 minutes.
So, again... I'm going to say it.
I don't believe Herschel Walker actually lost even the first time before the runoff in a legitimate election.
That's all I'm going to say.
Will I be kicked off of platforms for saying my belief?
Not bringing on whistleblowers?
Okay? Telling you about a corrupt system that's been there for a very long time.
Now, Twitter.
That double-edged sword.
I hate that Twitter has to constantly...
Encompass the conversation, but here is a technology empowering humanity.
So on the second half of the broadcast I played a clip of the CEO of Parler on Tucker Carlson talking about this Faustian bargain that has been made with big tech and Governments to promote these great narratives that I'm talking about these agendas and censor anything there and basically she talks about how well The government is enforcing their policy of censorship by allowing these companies to do what they want with impunity and protecting them from lawsuits as long as they go along with their moderation techniques and great narrative.
She gets that. And she's spot on about that.
And actually, if you watch this clip that the good people at Red Voice Media clipped out, and you should, please go retweet this.
I want Amy not only to check it out, but I want to get her on the show.
She noticed this and she said, you know, I said basically her analysis is spot on.
She almost goes all the way.
And she responded, hey, it's Amy.
Good to see you, Amy. I'm glad.
You know, she didn't actually watch it.
She just read this. She goes, what would going all the way have meant?
Because I am, after all, an extremist smiley face.
Thank you for the smiley face, Amy.
I'm not an emoji man, but that's not an emoji, so I'll take it.
I said, Amy, glad you watched.
Going all the way would acknowledge these are Trojan horse civilian systems.
Developed and infiltrated via the military-industrial complex and managed via the signature reduction program, among others.
So I sent her an archive to this document, which talks about psychological warfare, talks about these Trojan horse civilian systems.
I'm going to show you that in a moment. From 2001, also has CNN syndrome in it.
Really, again, I bring it up all the time because this is the blueprint.
This is the Jack Daniels on the rocks in your face wake up call that these people are on time with their agenda on time in fact let's just hit it trojan horse civilian systems very inexpensive for them and it says also on the same page what information internet and psychological warfare on the cheap On the cheap.
You know, forget about the UAVs and the cruise missiles and the UUVs.
Those are the ones underwater. Or the blast wave accelerators that we've talked about via space warfare, etc.
Or even the binary biologics into the food supply.
The zeros and ones.
The nanotech. Forget about all that.
No big deal.
By the way, Tom Dedimore, thank you so much for that tipsy and hutch.
We do appreciate it. It says, what's up?
Just living that early morning Iowa lifestyle.
I know you're doing it, friend.
I know you're doing it. So, I need her to understand that the vast majority of these platforms, even if they're not initially created by the military-industrial complex, they are completely infiltrated by them.
And in many cases, they're seed funding them.
When I say they, you look at something like Google, and it's In-Q-Tel, the investment arm of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Or if you look at Tesla and a various array of government subsidies, once SpaceX is created and NASA is a partnership, now SpaceX is the number one for-profit military-industrial complex vendor.
Trojan horse civilian systems, techno-fascism together, Amy.
And It's beyond a Faustian bargain when you look at the signature reduction program.
Okay? Which...
Again, if you check that out, this is the military secret undercover army that's way bigger than the CIA, that is online and in person, that has different personas, and have infiltrated the vast majority of these companies.
Now, outwardly, you have networks involving people like, let's say someone's not in the government, even though we now have the Biden Ministry of Truth, we know that was getting together, and that's...
Just, you know, us talking about it.
But these jobs seem to be interchangeable between these companies and their moderation groups and what?
Government agencies or pseudo-government agencies.
Signature reduction is huge.
We don't know the scope of it.
And signature reduction comes out of the programs post-war of terror, post-Patriot Act, NDAA, right?
Homeland Security, right?
Fusion Centers, and now this.
And all of it, especially when we're talking about moderation of content now, Amy, is based in Bernaysian talking points and psychology.
So, I want to play this clip.
I've got this Huxley interview, man.
And I think that might be the majority of the first hour where he's with Mike Wallace, 1958, just talks it up about social engineering and how people can be trained to love their servitude.
But before that, since I'm constantly using that term Bernaysian, Bernaysian, Bernaysian, Edward Bernays, for those that do not know, is the father of the term propaganda, invented it, wrote it, the book, Propaganda.
And Propaganda, in actuality, can be benign, much like technology.
In other words, you can use truth to propagandize a situation and actually believe in it.
I believe I actually do do that.
But then when you get to the other level of propaganda, It's the type of thing where you obviously personify a certain image based on the perceived positives, but there's an ulterior motive behind that that you are not espousing, that you're not shouting from the rooftops.
And in fact, you're kind of putting into the shadows.
That's why when I talk about NASA or DARPA, right?
You know, you talk about these Trojan horse civilian systems in themselves.
One could argue even the internet is a large-scale Trojan horse civilian system because ARPA is...
The ARPANET was created by these people, okay?
And that's the original internet.
It wasn't a series of tubes by Al Gore.
Just saying. Bernays a little long-winded here because he's older, but I want people to understand how significant this is.
Because the talking points that you heard throughout the COVID-1984 nightmare, like alone together and especially safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.
Those were Bernaysian talking points.
And here he is as an old man, very proud of his work.
Discussing how he was able to change society in a manner where women would now smoke cigarettes and they would move on from, I guess, the traditional associations and more surrounding smoking and basically having it be a sign of masculinity and manhood.
Okay? And espousing a certain significance, right?
Style, class, if you will.
To one in which women were encouraged.
And he specifically talks about how he used psychoanalytics and the media to do this.
So this is Edward Bernays as an old man talking about how this works.
One day, Mr.
George Hill, president of the American Tobacco Company, or the largest, maybe the largest tobacco company extent at that time, called me in and said, we're losing half of our market.
And I said, why, Mr.
Hill? He said, there's a taboo of men, there's a taboo by men that does not permit women to smoke.
Either in public or even at home.
What can we do about breaking down that taboo?
I said, have I your permission to see a psychoanalyst?
He said, what'll it cost?
I said, let me ask.
So I called up Dr.
Brill, who is one of the great disciples of my uncle Sigmund Freud, said, what'll it cost?
Dr. Brill, for me to have a little conference with you on a question that is of importance to the people whom I'm working with.
Now, I do want to point out, you heard what you just said, right?
His uncle, Sigmund Freud.
And I only point that out because even with Huxley, okay, there's Aldis and then there's Julian.
And these circles of people are very much intertwined.
They are related.
And that's why with the predator class and the academia in which they adhere to is very socially Darwinist in nature.
It's very nepotistic.
It's generational. Just had to point that out.
And he said $125, which at today's purchasing power would be about 20 times that.
So I went to Dr.
Brill and I asked him what cigarettes meant to women.
And let me say in parenthesis that cigarettes at that time were not regarded as dangerous to your health.
Because that had not been found out yet.
In fact, they were regarded as symbols of manhood.
Little boys smoked them to prove that they were older than they were.
And they were regarded as symbols of importance in the society, giving pleasure and so on.
So, I went to Dr.
Brill and asked him What cigarettes meant to women and he answered very quickly, cigarettes are torches of freedom to women.
They want to smoke to dramatize man's taboo against women.
Torches of freedom.
Torches of freedom. So how do we associate these torches of freedom with Americana, with the culture, with the milieu?
By not permitting them to smoke.
And that's why they want to smoke.
And then he added as an afterthought, and they titillate the erogenous zones of the lips.
Here I had...
My $125 worth of knowledge.
What could I do with that information?
I decided that there were two days of freedom in the United States.
One was July 4th, political freedom, but that was no good because people were in the country using firecrackers to celebrate the day.
They were permitted at that time.
This was some 50 years ago.
The other day was Freedom of the Spirit Easter Sunday, and it occurred to me that any young
debutante who was aware of the times and of herself as a woman being discriminated against
would be delighted to walk in the Easter parade with her beau to dramatize the idea that cigarettes
were indeed torches of freedom and to invalidate the taboo against women smoking.
Look at the pleasure in his face.
I know he's older, I know he's slow, but he's still very sharp.
And he took great pleasure in his work.
And this type of work, in my opinion, is deceptive and in many ways soulless, almost anti-human.
So I called up a Debbie's own friend of mine, asked her to get another friend and two young men whom they liked.
And I also instructed them on how to give information about what they did To the newsreels, weekly newsreels, to the newspapers, to the three important press associations.
See, I'm like bobbing his head.
I also gave them the way to infiltrate the media and amplify the message.
How cool is that?
I'm Edward Mother Truckin' Bernays, bitches!
The AP, the United Press and International News Service And to walk from 34th Street to 57th and back and forth lighting torches of freedom to protest man's inhumanity to women by a taboo against smoking.
Next morning there wasn't a newspaper in the United States.
Even the New York Times had a front page story, debutantes light torches of freedom To protest man's inhumanity to women by a taboo against smoking.
He's so happy with himself.
And when I watched this this morning before...
I played it here. It reminded me of the conversation that I was having with Dan Dix of Press for Truth.
If you haven't watched that, it's a very lengthy interview.
The second half of it ended up being released last week, just like we'll have the second hour from last week now released free.
Redvoicemedia.com slash Jason.
Redvoicemedia.com slash Uncensored.
And he was telling a story.
About covering one of these large-scale Davos-style events and being with the press corps.
And he essentially said, you know, they would come up to you and, you know, you're well-fed, everybody's really nice to you, and they'll even give you the clips, the B-roll, that's pre-packaged so you can run your story.
You don't have to do much.
And that's the system.
It's a continuation of the same system that you're hearing from Edward Bernays right now and how to manipulate the media.
Lighting cigarettes in their walk.
The interesting thing to me was that within three days, the newspapers, without any intercession on my part, published accounts That women were smoking in Union Square in San Francisco, in Union Square in Denver, and on the Boston Commons.
And to my surprise, within six weeks, on their own, without any intercession on my part, the League of Theatres, which had a ban on women smoking, In the smoking rooms under the orchestras of every good theater in New York, lifted the ban and women were allowed to smoke.
Look at that, look at that smile.
By the way, my brother's in the chat there and he's right, you know, the shaking is prevalent probably because it's the last stage of his life in Parkinson's.
But the joy on his face is impossible to ignore.
And it's through this Bernaysian propaganda and these campaigns and working with the media and psychoanalytics and all these methodologies that they were able to bring about change as what?
Not only in the culture, but in the legal system.
And that's where we're moving now.
And speaking of legal systems, I want to play this clip right here.
We're John Bolton, another demon in my opinion.
Hopefully I can have those opinions that Walrus Mustache, the warmonger, is a verifiable demon.
Okay? If they exist.
I mean, hell on earth guy.
This is a guy.
And he's on Piers Morgan recently via satellite while Piers Morgan has Julian Assange's wife in
studio. All right. And I wish this clip was longer because I want to see how Bolton reacts
to her total evisceration of the position that somehow Julian Assange being extradited
to the United States, he's allowed a free trial or a fair trial.
How can he have a fair trial when the charges aren't real?
When he doesn't get his day in court as an American citizen and isn't able to present evidence.
And the court you're putting him in has a 100% conviction rate, John.
Tell me that.
Of course, that's not ever discussed via the media.
He's a Russian asset.
I mean, he might as well be Hitler.
So, here's Bolton getting schooled by Assange's wife.
Guess what she's worried about is a fair trial, because it's pretty clear what the attitude towards him is from a large number of Americans.
That's fine. Let her say Julian Assange cannot get a fair trial in America.
Let her say it. Let her say it?
John Bolton, you're a punk, man.
And this was a big, big problem with me via the Trump administration when they put this guy in power.
In fact, I know I interviewed Roger Stone.
That's now also free over on...
Redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored.
I also put that out on my YouTube, etc.
The first time I ever got to talk to Roger Stone was via the Union of the Unwanted.
They had him on and the question I asked him was in regards to bringing John Bolton on board because Bolton was also a poker buddy of Roger Stone and Stone espoused him.
This guy's a bad news brown.
Let her say it.
Anybody with common sense knows that if you extradite a journalist for a military tribunal under the Espionage Act for publishing documentation that was factual 100% of the time, he ain't getting a fair trial, John.
Okay. Well, he cannot get a fair trial in America because he is being prosecuted under the Espionage Act, and he cannot bring a public interest defense.
He cannot say, I published this information because it was in the public interest, precisely because it is under the Espionage Act, and it is the first time that a publisher has ever been prosecuted under this act.
Something that constitutional lawyers in the United States have been warning could happen for the past 50 years.
And the New York Times and the Washington Post say this prosecution strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.
And I don't like those publications at all.
And to have Bolton sitting there shaking his head like anything she said was wrong is ludicrous.
She's spot on.
But again, that's the great narrative.
That's the gaslighting.
And this guy gets to go on these mainstream media outlets constantly and promote his bullshit.
And he has for decades.
He's fear-mongered against North Korea and Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan.
This is the guy.
Alright? Permanent Washington, right there.
He's got his talking points.
He gets his sit-downs to promote his books on MSNBC. The Walrus Man.
And he had a spot in that administration.
By the way, we're not quite at 200 people over on YouTube, but can we get 100 thumbs up?
Can we bring it up? Can we bring it on up?
So, man, I'm debating.
Do we save Huxley?
We have been talking about societal change and Bernaysian propaganda and great narratives.
Do we do Huxley now or do we do DARPA and one of their 2018 videos where they're openly talking about merging man with machine?
I mean, I guess that we do Huxley.
Huxley fits a little better right now.
Huxley who I had down the line anyway.
So this is Mike Wallace.
And Aldous Huxley, the author of Brave New World, there he is right there, in an interview from 1958.
You've got to remember, in Brave New World, you had the biomimetics, the genetic modification of humanity, the social engineering, the drugging of the populace, and a lot of narratives out there.
Great narratives that you couldn't push back against.
In some ways, similar to 1984 and Orwell and others, very much more in line with the mass formation psychosis, if you will, that we've seen demonstrated in our society, and also how our society has chosen to accept this massive pharma state of medication.
Aldous Huxley, a man haunted by a vision of hell on earth.
A searing social critic, Mr.
Huxley, 27 years ago, wrote Brave New World, a novel that predicted that someday the entire world would live under a frightful dictatorship.
Today, Mr. Huxley says that his fictional world of horror is probably just around the corner for all of us.
We'll find out why in a moment.
The Mike Wallace interview, presented by the American Broadcasting Company, in association with the Fund for the Republic, brings you a special television series discussing the problems of survival and freedom in America.
Good evening, I'm Mike Wallace.
Tonight's guest, Aldous Huxley, is a man of letters, as disturbing as he is distinguished.
I mean, talk about smoking and distinguished.
You know, again, getting back to that...
Bernays clip. Take a look at it.
This is 1958 news broadcast and Wallace is just smoking them up.
Smoke them if you got them.
Born in England, now a resident of California, Mr.
Huxley has written some of the most electric novels and social criticism of this century.
He's just finished a series of essays called Enemies of Freedom, in which he outlines and defines...
Some of the threats to our freedom in the United States.
And Mr. Huxley, right off the bat, let me ask you this.
As you see it, who and what are the enemies of freedom here in the United States?
Well, I don't think you can say who in the United States.
I don't think there are any sinister persons deliberately trying to rob people of their freedom.
I would disagree, even then.
But I do think, first of all, that there are a number of impersonal forces which are pushing in the direction of less and less freedom, and I also think that there are a number of technological devices which anybody who wishes to use can use, To accelerate this process of going away from freedom, of imposing control.
What are these? So again, technology is benign.
And although he's not saying any specific individuals, obviously individuals would have to utilize this technology as a means to an end for this type of societal control.
That he is saying could possibly be negative in the way of a free humanity.
...forces and these devices.
I should say that there are two main impersonal forces.
The first of them is not exceedingly important in the United States at the present time, though very important in other countries.
This is the force which in general terms can be called overpopulation.
The mounting pressure of population pressing upon existing resources.
This, of course, is an extraordinary thing.
Something is happening which has never happened in the world's history before.
I mean, let's just take a simple fact that between the time of the birth of Christ and the landing of the Mayflower, the population of the Earth doubled.
It rose from 250 million to probably 500 million.
Today, the population of the Earth is rising at such a rate that it will double in half a century.
Well, why should overpopulation work to diminish our freedoms?
Well, in a number of ways.
I mean, the experts in the field, like Harrison Brown, for example, pointed out that in the underdeveloped countries, actually the standard of living is at present falling, that people have less to eat and less goods per capita than they had 50 years ago.
And as the position of these countries, the economic position becomes more and more precarious, obviously the central government has to take over more and more responsibility for keeping the ship of state on an even keel.
So again, you look at something like overpopulation, which we talk about constantly here.
And in 1958, the regard is managing the people.
And really, that is at the heart of the issue.
That's what overpopulation is truly about.
It's not being harmonious with nature.
It's not that we have a lack of resources.
Yeah, you have to produce more resources.
There's more to do. There's more to manage.
There's more challenge.
To the infrastructural power system that's been built.
That's why they really fear overpopulation.
But in order to utilize it for their great narratives, for their great reset agenda, for their quote-unquote new world order, they have to exploit it.
And they often do that through psychological warfare of the masses.
That's real. Slicey sent me five bucks over on the Rockfin livestream.
Thank you so much. I want to let you know Burmese Brigade is with you, Jason.
Merry Xmas to you and your family.
Stay... Being you, mate.
Thank you so much. And every little bit helps.
You don't have to say it's not much.
I really do appreciate all the support that we get here.
Let's get back to Huxley, the management of people, an overpopulation.
Remember, Huxley is very much a part of the establishment and academia at the time.
And then, of course, you're likely to get social unrest under such conditions with, again, an intervention of the central government.
So I think... One sees here a pattern which seems to be pushing very strongly towards a totalitarian regime, and unfortunately, as in all these underdeveloped countries, the only highly organized political party is the Communist Party, it looks rather as though they will be the heirs to this unfortunate process, that they will step into the power So he's basically talking about the management of people and masses of people will move towards what?
Collectivism and totalitarianism under a communist model.
That's what we'll see globally.
And we have seen that more and more and more, except there's an inversion of truth, there's Bernaysian talking points about freedom and democracy constantly.
Then, ironically enough, one of the greatest forces against communism in the world, the Catholic Church, according to your thesis, would seem to be pushing us directly into the hands of the communists because they are against birth control.
Well, I think this strange paradox probably is true.
There is a...
It's an extraordinary situation, actually.
I mean, one has to look at it, of course, from a biological point of view, The whole essence of biological life on Earth is a question of balance, and what we have done is to practice death control in a most intensive manner without balancing this with birth control at the other end.
Consequently, the birth rates remain as high as they were, and death rates have fallen substantially.
Now again, you see this is a problem.
And this is a problem he's putting out there.
Think about that.
And now all of a sudden birth rates aren't so high because of not only societal changes, but I would also argue what?
Chemical changes in the environment around us massively.
Food, water, land, air, everything.
These are purposeful.
So much for the time being anyway, for overpopulation, another force that is diminishing our freedoms.
Well, another force which I think is very strongly operative in this country is the force of what may be called over-organization.
As technology becomes more and more complicated, it becomes necessary to have more and more elaborate organizations, more hierarchical organizations.
And incidentally, the advance of technology has been accompanied by an advance in the science of organization.
It's now possible to make organizations on a larger scale than it was ever possible before.
And so that you have more and more people living their lives out as subordinates in these hierarchical systems controlled by bureaucracies, either And think about this.
I think here that he's spot on.
So essentially the problem he talked about earlier about overpopulation gives rise to these organizations with subordinates, with people just taking orders, a lot of NGOs, a lot of what?
Global governance-type institutions that are erected and empowered during this time period.
The United Nations being one of them later on.
The World Economic Forum being another.
But certainly, you know, this is 1958.
I believe Bilderberg is 54, just before this.
Later on, you'll have things like the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, these roundtable groups.
Where it's a top-down agenda and you do have these bureaucracies that are deciding things.
World Health Organization is a great example right now.
The bureaucracies of big business or the bureaucracies of big government.
And they merge. Now, the devices that you were talking about, are there specific devices or methods of communication which diminish our freedoms in addition to overpopulation and overorganization?
Well, there are certainly devices which can be used in this way.
I mean, let us take a piece of very recent and very painful history, is the propaganda used by Hitler, which was incredibly effective.
I mean, what were Hitler's methods?
Hitler used terror on the one kind, brute force on the one hand, Which I would say is reflected right now in our society, whether we realize it or not.
The population has been massively terrorized with an abundance of narratives over the last two decades.
The war on terror probably being the most visual in our minds, especially because of the instant trauma of something like 9-11.
However, the COVID-1984 nightmare is possibly the longest-running one that directly affected the most lives, a different type of trauma, a combo pack, if you will.
But he also used a very efficient form of propaganda, which he was using every modern device at that time.
He didn't have TV, but he had the The radio, which he used to the fullest extent, and was able to impose his will on an immense mass of people.
I mean, the Germans were a highly educated people.
Well, we're aware of all this, but how do you equate Hitler's use of propaganda with the way that propaganda, if you will, is used, let us say, here in the United States?
Are you suggesting that there is a parallel?
Needless to say, it's not being used in this way now.
But the point is, it seems to me, that there are methods at present available, methods superior in some respects to Hitler's methods, which could be used in a bad situation.
And by the way, I feel we're being used at that time period.
We now know, but we really don't know.
We only know a small portion of what went down post-World War II with Operation Paperclip.
And other military industrial complex programs underground.
But we know that the Nazi ideology and people that had worked within that ideology, within that system, were absorbed into our system.
And our system had recently, in many ways, perfected the system of compartmentalization via the Manhattan Project.
And then expanded on the system with their knowledge of what they figured out from the Nazis when they were over in Europe and they found these massive underground facilities built by the Nazis.
Okay? So when he's talking about Nazi propaganda, that's one side of the story.
That's one part of it. But the idea that that was not absorbed into American culture while Wallace sits there puffing on cigarettes letting you know how cool it is.
And that the Bernaysian tools of that propaganda weren't utilized, that's just false.
That's naivety.
At the very least, that's naivety.
What I feel very strongly is that we mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology.
This has happened again and again in history.
Technology has advanced and this changes social conditions.
And suddenly people have found themselves in a situation which they didn't foresee and doing all sorts of things they didn't really want to do.
What does that sound like?
Oh, we're in a situation that we didn't foresee and doing stuff we didn't want to do and it's being basically promoted by the technology of the day?
Doesn't sound familiar at all, Mr.
Huxley. What do you mean?
Do you mean that we develop our television, but we don't know how to use it correctly?
Is that the point that you're making?
Well, at present, the television, I think, is being used quite harmlessly.
It's being used, I think.
I would feel it's being used too much to distract everybody all the time.
But, I mean, imagine, which must be the situation in all communist countries, where the television, where it exists, is always saying the same thing the whole time.
It's always driving along.
It's not It's creating a wide front of distraction.
It's creating a one-pointed drumming in of a single idea all the time.
Gee, I wonder where I can go with that.
We're talking about great narratives.
We're talking about a post-truth world.
Earlier today, we were talking about the narratives that you saw being read on copy via media outlets throughout the country that are localized.
And Huxley's talking about all these things, again, back in 1958.
A direct message.
So, a Trojan horse civilian system then would have absolutely been television.
Absolutely been film.
In fact, we often talk about the OSS and Hollyweird.
We did a whole broadcast on it.
People like Bob Hope and others.
and the utilization of walt disney for a military message that's all reality that's not conspiracy theory obviously an immensely powerful instrument so you're talking about the potential misuse of the instrument exactly we have a close all technology is in itself morally neutral these are just powers which can either be used well or ill it's the same thing with atomic energy we can either use it to blow ourselves up or we can use it And again, it's now what?
2022? And that narrative then was, you know, we're running out!
We're running out! Just like the UN, we're running out!
We're running out! But what he does get correct here is that technology is benign, and once again, atomic energy, we can blow ourselves up, or we can power things with it.
A house... It can be built with a hammer.
A head can be bashed in with the same exact hammer.
...even written about the use of drugs in this life.
Well, now, this is a very interesting subject.
I mean, in this book that you mentioned, this book of mine, Brave New World, I postulated a substance called soma, which was a very versatile drug.
It would make people feel happy in small doses.
It would make them see visions in medium doses, and it would send them to sleep in large doses.
Well, I don't think such a drug exists now, nor do I think it will ever exist, but we
do have.
Really?
You don't think it'll ever exist, Aldous?
Hmm. The pharmacological revolution which has taken place, that we have now powerful mind-changing drugs, which, physiologically speaking, are almost costless.
I mean, they are not like opium or like cocaine, which do change the state of mind, but leave terrible results physiologically and morally.
Well, I would say morally.
These drugs have extremely hazardous results.
I would also argue, Aldis, that physiologically, when you look at brain scans of people that have been on SSRIs or psychotropics for generations, it's no bueno.
But he's at least telling you then that this is a possibility for the future.
We're going to be going premium in about five minutes, folks.
That's five minutes. So if you haven't done it yet, I do want to remind everybody, redvoicemedia.com.
Slash Jason. Sign up for a buck today or do the first month for a 10 spot.
Really, lock it in for a year.
$100 should get $20 off.
It's not just myself, but it's other great shows such as Self-Defense Warrior.
And then my girlfriend Alicia Powell doing great work there as well.
Numerous others.
And we're doing it Monday through Thursday.
8am to 10am Eastern Time.
Early morning show.
Having some great guests on as well.
So come on over.
We've got a lot more to go over.
We're going to be playing the rest of this Aldous Huxley clip.
But I also have this DARPA Homo at Machina clip.
Maybe I'll save that for tomorrow.
Because I've got so much other stuff up there, like blockchain people, which we've watched a lot, but still needs to be there.
Maybe brain chips aimed to revolutionize tech by merging humans and computers.
That's the next part of this revolution.
Maybe some Bill Gates.
But we're going to continue with Huxley for five more minutes, so thumbs it up, subscribe, and share if you're not already.
And remember, you can listen to the whole thing over on Podbean Live.
We're going to be shifting there, theinfowarrior.podbean.com.
Mr. Huxley, in your new essays, you state that these various enemies of freedom are pushing us toward a real-life, brave new world, and you say that it's awaiting us just around the corner.
First of all, can you detail for us what life in this brave new world which you fear so much, what life might be like?
Well, to start with, I think this kind of the dictatorship of the future, I think, will be very unlike the dictatorship's Which we've been familiar with in the immediate past.
I mean, take another book prophesying the future, which was a very remarkable book, George Orwell's 1984.
Well, this book was written at the height of the Stalinist regime and just after the Hitler regime, and there he foresaw a dictatorship using entirely the methods of terror, the methods of physical violence.
Now, I think what is going to happen in the future The dictators will find, as the old saying goes, that you can do everything with bernits except sit on them.
That if you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled.
And this they will do, partly by drugs, as I foresaw in Brave New World, partly by these new techniques of propaganda.
They will do it by bypassing the sort of rational side of man, And appealing to his subconscious and his deeper emotions.
Manufactured consent through emotional manipulation.
And how much of our society right now, how much of this great narrative is part of irrationality in a post-truth world?
In playing off the hysterics and the emotions that you draw upon primally.
The real dog whistling out there, okay?
The real BF Skinner package where you're trained to have a horrid, rapid, over-the-top emotional response, okay, to if someone dares to say that biologically there are only men and women.
What? Trained to just go off the rails on something like that.
Trained to decide who's a bigot.
Trained on what to believe.
Brings us back to that first thing we were talking about.
That you can no longer question things.
Or you will be attacked by these methods.
So with that being said...
We're wrapping up the first hour over here.
I'm going to give my cue to my producers so we can start making that transition.
And one by one, we are going to sign off.
Remember, thumbs it up, subscribe, share.
I'm a documentary filmmaker.
Loose Change, Final Cut, Fabled Enemies, Invisible Empire, A New World Order Defined, and Shade the Motion Picture are free right here, right now, on every platform.
Get them, watch them, share them.
Okay? That helps support the broadcast.
▲
Export Selection