All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2023 - Info Warrior - Jason Bermas
56:27
Bilderberg Exposed And Explained With Stuart J. Hooper
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hey everybody, Jason Bermas here.
It is Bilderberg weekend, Bilderberg 2023, and there are so many aspects to this that unfortunately we are not going to be able to crack because of the Chatham House rules that go on inside and the refusal of Last year, in stark contrast to recent previous years, there was almost no coverage, no mention whatsoever, even in passing, of the Bilderberg Group.
However, this year...
The big headline came out of CNBC and lo and behold actually did focus on the fact that AI is at the top of the agenda.
Sam Altman is in attendance, far from the only AI guy, but I mention Altman because this week what?
He was before Congress giving testimony, talking about the dangers of AI and regulation of AI. On top of his operation, DeepMind, Microsoft, other big tech names like Palantir, Karp, Teal, also there.
On top of that, Heavy on prime ministers.
Heavy on the NATO alliance.
No OPEC representatives.
No Chinese representatives.
No BRICS representatives.
And although they're usually not in full force there, there is some representation.
And then we have to talk about the very sparse alternative media that is there and doing
a great job.
Josh Friedman, Dan Dix, a gentleman with the last name Cavallo, who actually put out the
Lisbon Portugal information months ago.
And of course, really, comedy writer slash mainstream journalist turned into Bilderberg
aficionado Charlie Skelton, who just hours ago has put up his first article on the matter
at Bilderberg's big wig bash, two things are guaranteed, Kissinger and secrecy.
So I thought we would grab Stuart J. Hooper.
Who has done great work across the board on globalization, these types of organizations, the parapolitics or the deep politics that you're not hearing about in the mainstream.
And to start that off, Stuart, let's talk about the history of Bilderberg, how it was formed, its satellite organizations, and then why it's so important.
Then we'll move into this year.
Go ahead. Yeah, thanks a lot, Jason.
Really great to be back with you as always.
Always great to talk to your audience, which is useful because we both come at this from a very similar angle in seeing these problems as very real, very relevant.
And I know that you have spoken in the past with Peter Dale Scott, who of course coined This term deep state and deep politics which even unfortunately in academic circles now has just fallen into something that is automatically now associated with Donald Trump and therefore because Trump used this term surely it must be illegitimate, right? Surely there's nothing to it.
It must all just be some wild conspiracy theory out of nowhere.
But The unfortunate reality is that these are very real concepts, and if you take the time to think about how they work and how they operate, yeah, this has some very real impacts.
So in terms of the Bilderberg Group and what this has been throughout its history, it's really a meeting place for top politicians, corporate leaders, banking chiefs, prestigious academics, major Figures within the media sphere, even the legal sphere as well, the military, the CIA. It's a place where all of these different elites can come together.
And eventually, we'll get the emergence of other organizations like NATO, the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank.
And you will get individuals from these institutions also coming to Bilderberg and meeting with all of these other types of figures that I just discussed.
So the first meeting that they actually hold is in 1945.
And it's really trying to continue the development of what would be an Atlantic community.
Let me stop you there. Are you sure it's 45 or 54?
Oh yeah, 54. It took a little bit after the post-World War II era.
I do want to make sure people understand that because 45 is kind of on the cusp.
This is where the OSS starts to morph into the Central Intelligence Agency.
This is the time period where Born Classified becomes a reality post Manhattan Project and compartmentalization.
And the reason that I bring that up is Is because Bilderberg seems to be at the apex of those military industrial complex organizations that are kind of vying for power around that time.
And it seems that that group is formed kind of in response to this new, I would say, techno-fascistic way of running supposed quote-unquote democratic societies.
Mm-hmm. Yeah, absolutely.
But in this post-war world, we do have this group that finds themselves now in opposition to what's going to be the Soviet Union and Stalin and the issues that Stalin, of course, causes in the post-war world.
So what they're trying to do here, really, at Bilderberg is remove some of the causes of transatlantic friction, we could say, that have occurred Throughout the prior decades and of course led to two world wars to this point.
So what they're trying to do is create mutual confidence and mutual friendship amongst each other.
All of these different people from these different places, these different elements of society.
Something that immediately stands out Is that nearly all of the American Bilderbergers, at least, they are members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
So this is an interesting connection here.
What we have to consider, well, if the members of a group are all members of another group, well, what do these groups stand for?
That's ultimately what you have to try to analyze here.
What do these groups stand for?
Who is a member of these groups?
And therefore, what are they trying to push in wider society?
And not just domestic society, but across borders and really across the entire world.
Importantly, what you end up with then Is meetings that are very non-partisan.
They want to bring in absolutely everybody from all corners of the political spectrum because they want to co-opt all corners of the political spectrum.
They want all of the potential avenues for opposition, let's say, to fall in line with their overall grand scheme for what they see as a positive future for the world.
So there is...
Something that all of these individuals that are there in these meetings then really need.
They need to have at least a degree of sympathy towards the group's aims, meaning they have to agree that what this group is aiming for is A-OK. This is a good thing.
Otherwise, why would they let you in the group, right?
So then what they can do once you have a group of people that collectively agree that, hey, this is a problem or, hey, this is something that we want to do, It's going to be more likely they're going to be able to achieve that goal.
If you're just out there in the world as an individual trying to achieve some big widespread worldwide goal, it's going to be hard to do on your own.
But if you get a group of people together that all think alike and sound alike and agree that this is what we want to do, It's going to make it a bit easier for them to actually do that.
So what you end up creating then with Bilderberg over its history is what you could call a transnational network of elites.
Elites that specifically agree, for the most part, that globalization is the way to go, that a globalized world is beneficial for the most part.
Now, this doesn't mean that there aren't disagreements within Bilderberg itself, because of course there will be, but they're not really disagreements on the end goal, as opposed to disagreements of, well, how do we get to the end goal?
So it's more method disagreements as opposed to objective disagreements.
And not only that, but it's also set up as a power network to groom others in the public arena to kind of be a spokesperson or a mouthpiece for this agenda.
And last year, I highlighted the fact that Kyrsten Sinema was amongst the very few U.S. political figures there.
And that always seems the case.
When I say political figures, I'm talking about elected officials.
And not military personnel, for instance.
Right now we have, I believe it's Avril Haines, who's the Director of National Intelligence from the United States there, amongst other members of the military-industrial complex.
But once again, we see Stacey Abrams being promoted.
And this is not her first rodeo.
Of course, she's not a steering member.
There's only about 20 of those.
And usually those people are at the upper most echelons of the power structures within the I would say corporatized intelligence, a.k.a.
Alex Karp, Peter Thiel, Palantir.
And then you have somebody like Doffner, Matthias Doffner, who's Axel Springer Media Group, or the head of The Economist.
And those people... We're good to go.
I'm leaving the parties.
All the parties are bad. And the mainstream media coverage of her increased by five to tenfold over the last year.
That is not an accident.
This year, we have a multitude of prime ministers and their minions also in attendance, Stuart.
So speak to that aspect.
Yeah, absolutely.
So we can... Really speak then specifically to what is this doing as an entity?
What is it doing? Why are these people going there and what are they trying to achieve?
Well, if you want to boil it down to a simple phrase, this is a collective ideological effort to build consensus amongst these elites.
So they're trying to Create an unofficial position, let's say, that will then be filtered out down to the official agencies and the official countries of the world.
So that Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, similar organizations like this, these unofficial entities, which of course puts them in a very interesting gray area, especially when it comes to the academic world.
Well, they're just there meeting and they're just having informal discussions and what could possibly be going on.
Surely there's no big reason to be concerned with why you might have heads of major corporations meeting with heads of military forces and...
The heads of governments and the heads of banks and the heads of media from all different places.
It's just an informal meeting.
What could possibly happen at an informal meeting?
Well, what actually happens is you have a consensus that is formed, unofficially at least, and then slowly but surely, as you just mentioned, What you'll see is over the coming months and years, what has been discussed at the unofficial forum filters down into the official institutions.
The governments, the world banks, the IMFs, these official democratic institutions, things like this.
All of a sudden, they are all collectively, nearly simultaneously, pursuing the same process.
So this is a consensus-building institution among elites.
For Bilderberg specifically...
It's smaller and far more exclusive than something like the World Economic Forum, which is another one of these informal groupings.
But that doesn't make it any less important.
And by the way, it's important to point out that the WEF is very well represented here.
And one of their bigwigs is also at the meeting.
And oftentimes, really, the World Economic Forum is a public mouthpiece for what is occurring privately in these meetings, Stuart.
Yeah, absolutely correct.
But what, again, if you tend to look at, and this is beyond academia, academia, general, let's say, middle to upper classes in American society, people that think that they understand how the government works, they always vote, they always vote for their party, things like this.
These people generally engage in what some have called nation-state reductionism.
So you are reducing all of your understanding of politics and political power down to the nation-state.
Well, that may have worked...
Let's think probably pre-World War II. Pre-World War II, that would have made a lot of sense, to only just think about the world as a collection of individual countries like we see on the map behind me, and they're all out to do their own thing, and they can do whatever they want, and there's no real...
Well, that's no longer really the case.
Now we do have institutions that exist far above and beyond the nation state, such as these informal institutions, WEF, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, and even official institutions that now exist above and beyond the nation state.
The European Union, the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, NATO. These are official institutions that also are far above and beyond the individual nation state.
Well, then the question has to be, how does the average...
Do any individual have any chance of influencing any of these transnational institutions?
Well, you kind of don't.
You elect politicians, you elect individuals that represent you at the national level, but more and more decisions are being made at the transnational level, beyond the state, which is all the way down here.
So you're voting down here, but the decisions that matter are being made up here.
Where is your influence as a voter on that?
I would argue that it's practically non-existent.
And As a result of that, well, what do you get?
You get, slowly but surely, it's taken a while, but you get nationalist and populist opposition at the national level.
So then we're kind of in this strange situation where we have establishment politicians that want to complain and shout about individuals like Donald Trump, about movements like Brexit.
Perhaps if you hadn't offshored all of the political and economic and military power of your nation for the past 30-40 years, maybe these sorts of figures wouldn't have an audience.
Maybe these sorts of figures wouldn't have as much sway in domestic politics as they now do.
But I think this is a real key reason that...
It explains the rise of figures like Trump and why even on the left of that spectrum.
Bernie Sanders, for instance.
These figures have risen to prominence because they are arguing, we want to bring the power back to you at the national level.
They want to do it in different ways for different reasons, but that's what they're saying.
So if only...
Great elite leaders had not gone on this path.
Well, perhaps they wouldn't be facing all of these political disasters that they now see.
But I would say a lot of those are by design and especially when we look at this year.
There does seem to be a little bit of a polarization, whereas in the past, like I said before, you would get some representatives of the Asian markets, etc.
Some representatives, even before BRICS really got solidified, but it's been around over a decade, starting to make more mainstream press now.
And even in the field of artificial intelligence, I would argue that That it's very Anglo.
Like, if you look at Palantir, and obviously Microsoft is going to do business across the board, so is DeepMind and OpenMind, but we're talking about really westernized power structures that are supported by the military-industrial complex through contracts.
Palantir, in particular, we're talking Five Eyes, Alex Karp has talked about this, security clearances, etc.
What I found really interesting this year is that There are a couple supervillains that have come out, especially to the quote-unquote right-wing or conservative media, via the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset.
And of course, the two stars are Klaus Nutschwab and Yuval Noah Harari.
And Harari is really nothing more than...
An academic, a futurist, an author, but has been extremely candid about the fact that free will is about to be over.
AI is on the verge of taking over and that the general populace will no longer be needed by what I call the predator class and will be subdued probably by Video games and drugs.
And there are fact checks out there to try to get you not to think that way.
I mean, when I see this one fact check, for instance, this is a great one.
Yuval Noah Harari has a plan to control people with organism hacking.
That's not what we said. He talks about hackable animals.
He talks about this in the real sense of a future.
Not as his plan, but the natural evolution.
So why am I bringing up Harari?
He's not on the list. Oh, but they caught him at the Lisbon airport.
Sneaking in the back door.
And that's what people need to understand.
Even though, over the past 20 years, we have pushed the media into saying it doesn't exist or it's a golf club.
To an existing, to them putting out a list just before, and also an agenda that started with AI, banking system, China, energy transition.
But we have to understand there are other people that are there that are not on the list.
And I would go all the way back to 2008 in Chantilly, Virginia, where they were obviously meeting with both Barack star Obama, Barry Sotero and Hillary Clinton.
And this year, the only person that we know is there in secret is Yuval Noah Harari.
And when I look at his vision of the future, his writings and his speeches, this is alarming to me, Stuart.
Yeah, this is definitely something to keep an eye on.
I was going to say, I think we're heading into the age of AI. I think we're actually in the age of AI now, and there's probably not going to be much going back.
I saw something earlier about I think it's the Hollywood writers.
Part of their strike is that they want the major film studios to agree to not use artificial intelligence when it comes to writing scripts and things like this.
Well, that's That's an issue, and that's an issue for a specific segment of employees.
And like you were talking about with John Fitch the other day, it's actually coming for the white-collar workers before it's coming for the blue-collar workers, which is really interesting and could, in fact, bring about some strange, perhaps, methods of protest we might see coming forward.
But when we think about AI, the most important way to think about this right now, I think, is definitely from a techno-military level and consider what it means to have AI injected into the military-industrial complex, injected into military capabilities.
This past week, I'm not sure if you saw this, but the US came out and said that, oh, actually, we didn't drone strike an Al-Qaeda leader.
That was actually somebody else.
That was a mistake. And it turns out it was, again, just another farmer somewhere out there tending to the goats.
And, well, he's now obliterated thanks to just the drone up in the sky and some operator somewhere off in Nevada.
Well, what am I getting to with all of this?
And how do we bring that back to AI? Yeah.
Currently, human operators of these drones, they're never prosecuted for wrongdoing when this sort of thing happens.
I'm not sure if that's ever happened.
So if we're already not prosecuting human beings for these sorts of mistakes with weapon technology, what sort of situation are we going to have when the drone is actually making all of the decisions on its own?
What sort of world is that going to leave us with?
A frightening one.
And for... All of the defund the police protesters, well, good luck dealing with the robot police, which are going to be coming and knocking on door near you sooner rather than later.
Just go and see District 9 or I think any of Neil Blomkab's films and you'll see that.
You're muted, Jason, you're muted.
Thank you. District 9 is one of my favorites.
I think that, first of all, the way they presented it as kind of an alien invasion movie, right?
It's not really that.
There's just so much more going on socio and politically, and obviously there's supposed to be a parallel to illegal immigrants or migrants or whatever, like refugees, if you will, in that film.
But the best part about that film is it shows the apathetic I would say sociopathic, psychopathic nature of the bureaucracy from within.
And the story really revolves around a lower level bureaucrat who is a social climber who has married into a family of prominence where his wife's or his soon-to-be wife's father is somebody of importance in this military industrial complex.
And whenever I discuss that movie with people, they totally are lost on that.
And that's like the first half hour, hour of the movie laying it out.
And if you're paying attention, you're like, whoa, that movie's almost 15, what is it, 2009, 2010?
Almost 15 years at this point, Stuart.
Yeah, absolutely must-watch movie, I think, in terms of thinking through our current state of affairs.
Then, unfortunately, I think for perhaps where we're going, Elysium should be next on a lot of people's lists.
But when we think back to...
Bilderberg, though, and everything that has come from this, it's really important to make the point that, well, if you have a country, generally speaking, and you have all of these institutions of the state, it's fair to say that the institutions of the state are usually constrained by whatever class of people, whatever group of people within the given country is at the tip top of the power structure at any given moment.
So if you're in 2008 and the banking system is collapsing, yes, the bankers tend to have an outweighed say in what the government does and everybody else.
We are almost, I think, entering an era...
We'll probably thank Putin for some of this, invading Ukraine, making that terrible decision.
We're entering an era where the military is going to be back in a position of prominence within our individual nation-states.
If we live in a world of Putin's and Russia's and China's and real military threats that are evident in the world, well, there's going to be some move to try to push back against that, and it's going to come from the military-industrial What is the military-industrial complex?
Pushing right now all of this AI stuff.
All of this super advanced technological stuff.
And even aside from the The dangers of this on a human level of flesh and blood dangers.
What about the financial dangers of all of this?
There's a very interesting book called Baroque Technology by Mary Caldor.
I think she's a British academic.
Um, and she argues in that book that the technology just becomes more and more complex and more
and more extreme in this technological direction.
And eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns.
It cannot get any better or it gets so complex, um, that it can't even fulfill its original
mission anymore.
Um, well, all of that costs a hell of a lot of money.
The U S is now at $850 billion for its military budget.
And bear in mind...
That's not even the Black Ops budget, by the way.
That's just on the book's public budget.
And notoriously, the Black budget, again, because we have to speculate, could be anywhere from half that to two times that.
So let me repeat that for people.
Yeah, we've got $850 billion on the books, almost a trillion.
Then you have the Black Ops budget that is somewhere in the neighborhood of between...
$500 billion and $2 trillion that we never hear about and does not have to be accounted for.
That's a reality, Stuart. Yeah, there's a great book on that called Blank Check by Tim Weiner.
And he does his best to figure out precisely what that black budget is.
But as you mentioned, it's tough.
It's hard to do. So tough, in fact, that, again, many academics would just say, oh, well, you can't figure that out, so why bother worrying about it?
Let's go and measure something else.
Well, I don't know.
That might just be a problem.
Even today, Stuart, the breaking news is somehow they messed up on the books on what they gave to Ukraine, and they've got an extra $3 billion for Ukraine.
It's just $3 billion?
We made a little mistake.
Here's another $3 billion, and we're supposed to just accept that.
Yeah, absolutely. I know this is going out on RVM. I've never branded myself left or right.
I've never said I'm a liberal, never said I'm a conservative.
I kind of pick and choose on the individual issues.
The only thing I really care about is foreign policy, the military-industrial complex and stuff like this.
I would challenge all of you out there, on the left or the right, because this applies regardless.
If you think the military-industrial complex is a problem, Well, what else could we use that $850 billion for?
This is a country that apparently says it doesn't have enough money to provide health care to its citizens.
This is a country that is not near number one in the world for education.
So there's just two big social problems exactly that maybe you could address.
So if you really want to figure out some solutions here, maybe that But that's if you want an informed and active populace.
And as you alluded to before, this AI thing, hey, they talked about the kiosks at fast food places.
They've talked about the robot pizza makers and hamburger flippers and the coffee shops.
They talk about all that and the driverless trucks.
And by the way, the driverless trucks are not coming for a while until they put up even more of the 5G infrastructure.
That's another five to ten years out.
What isn't...
Is AI that's going to get rid of your job in HR. That's going to get rid of your job in communications.
And as you said, is going to get rid of your job in Hollyweird.
That's nowhere. That's in almost no headline, especially in the United States.
They don't realize that the big strike is the fact that they're going to be worked out through AI. There's really no way to stop it.
Because even as an individual writer in the Screen Actors Guild, right, the Writers Guild...
You can use AI at home.
And who is going to know? All it's going to take is a VPN, an anonymous account.
You could be putting scripts together.
So doing it on an individual level, there really isn't a way to work that out.
And Hollywood is moving right now in rapid fashion not to pay out royalties to people.
There's a story today that Disney Plus...
Is getting rid of some 50 shows and films from their Disney and Hulu operations, including some really new ones such as the Willow reboot.
They're just getting rid of it because they don't want to pay the royalties.
They literally don't want to pay the royalties, so they're calling it a cost-saving measure.
Well, I got news for people.
These people in the screen...
Or in the Writers Guild.
Yeah, some of them are wealthy.
Most of them are not. They're not quite paycheck to paycheck.
But I guarantee you, 6 to 18 months down the line, they're not going to be able to afford their LA loft.
Okay? They're not going to be able to afford to live there.
So if there is not a solution for these people, this is going to be the further erosion of that arm of the entertainment industry.
And I would argue a purposeful one, Stuart.
Yeah, it's all heading in a very worrying direction with all of the AI stuff.
And perhaps we actually should have seen this because just when you think about it, it's far easier to create software to do these super complex tasks than it is to create hardware, robotics and machinery to do them.
It's also far more expensive to do the robotics and machinery as well.
So that inherently is going to delay The fast food, the service workers, this sort of stuff, is going to delay their automation for a while because not only have you got to develop all of these robotics, but you've also then got to pay for the investment to bring them in everywhere.
So that will come, but it's, like you said, not coming as fast as possible.
The white collar jobs have been going in.
I don't know if you want to return to maybe thinking about some other things that came out of the building.
Well, one of the things I do want to return to, you know, you were talking about globalization.
You were talking about the fact that we have this conflict with Ukraine.
Russia and China and India are on the official list.
So is Ukraine, okay?
Ukraine, Russia, NATO, India, Europe, and China, okay?
Now, transnational threats, that's in there.
U.S. leadership. We're the one bankrolling this conflict, very much so.
You have Jen Stolenberg, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in the House.
All sorts of intelligence agencies, all sorts of prime ministers...
And I would argue, unfortunately, the people in there are talking to themselves.
In other words, there is no counter argument to what is actually happening via the conflict in Ukraine.
And as we have discussed previously in the show, although the media isn't reporting on it, and even a lot of people in the alternative are not I think paying attention and giving this the rightful level of threat that it deserves, we are on the verge of a very possible World War III and the possibility, and I hope it's not a probability, of a nuclear conflict that we could not imagine in this country or the world, Stuart.
And it just seems like these people on the inside, there is no real opposition to that thought process.
No, absolutely not.
And this has been the traditional method of madness for the Bilderberg Group really since its inception.
So we've had these transnationalists in the economic and the political spheres that came together originally, and they slowly but surely brought in the academics, the media, the The military elites as well.
And you see that what really ends up dominating is this, let's say, globalization-focused group.
And globalization, of course, has been of benefit really to whom?
Well, the Western world, the global north, whatever term you want to use to call it.
But there is never...
At the Bilderberg Group, been any opposition to any of their positions.
So we have never seen throughout the Cold War, there were never communists, there were never socialists included at the Bilderberg Group, and there were also never nationalists and there were never populists either.
So it's always been a closed conversation.
They have not wanted opposition from the left or the right.
They only want their own echo chamber.
The thing they're repeating is their end goal.
What they disagree on is how to get to that end goal.
But the problem here is that Bilderberg has then created or been responsible for being really the The incubator, let's say, for some of the most important shifts in global politics.
We get the European Community, which becomes the European Union that emerges from the Bilderberg Group as a result of some problems in Europe in the 50s and the 60s, and it emerges as their chosen solution.
Well, Let's just formally bring some of this power offshore.
Let's just formally create this transnational institution above and beyond the nation states of Europe and let's create this European entity, this European wide entity.
We also have the Trilateral Commission, which is launched within Bilderberg by David Rockefeller in 1972.
Now, what Rockefeller is trying to do there, he's trying to not only expand American hegemony at the time, but also bring in the Japanese into the system.
This is really an attempt to co-opt a potential opponent to US hegemony during the Cold War.
So Rockefeller becomes a very key figure in the development of not only Bilderberg and its direction, but also the Trilateral Commission, which focuses a bit more exclusively on the economic and the political stuff.
Not so much military, not so much media there, but it becomes very unique.
And David Rockefeller ends up being personally responsible for recruiting the initial members of the Trilateral Commission.
Another thing that comes out of Bilderberg, which is really important and helps to shape the current world that we live in today, is the Institute of Strategic Studies.
This is founded actually in the first ever Bilderberg meeting in 1954.
It ends up being funded by the Ford Foundation with over $150,000 for its first three years, which is a lot of money back in the 1950s.
It's based in London, and the Institute of Strategic Studies does two key things which shape the world that we currently live in today.
It pushes, first of all, a pro-NATO stance.
So it's pushing NATO as the solution to the Cold War and all of the world's military problems.
And it's also pushing a pro-nuclear stance.
So nuclear weapons are not only...
Something that should be looked at and perhaps pursued as an option.
They are the option.
These are the things that we need and we need to get more of them as many as possible.
We need to get more than the Soviet Union and then we need to have them all aimed at the Soviet Union for decades and decades and we need to put them in B-52s and fly them very close to Soviet borders constantly for decades and decades and decades.
This, for your audience, this is the time, if you have not seen it, to go and watch Dr.
Strangelove. If you have not seen this movie...
Fantastic film!
My favorite, Peter Sellers' Murders.
For those that don't know, Peter Sellers plays a multitude of different characters, including Dr.
Strangelove himself.
And, I mean, there are just so many things going on in that black-and-white film that I believe now is on the cusp of being about 70 years old.
Mm-hmm. Yeah, it's right there.
And this is now the current world that we live in.
We are unfortunately back in a nuclear age.
Now, for everyone that's my age, that means that, well, this is probably brand new for you.
I was born in 1991.
Which means I was born at the end of the Cold War.
I grew up in a world where nuclear weapons were not an issue.
I always found it very interesting because I've always been interested in history and international politics, so I've always kept an eye on it.
But if you ask anyone my age, well, what do you think about nuclear weapons?
Are they a threat? Are they a problem?
If you'd have asked them prior to Russia's invasion, they would have said...
What do you mean nuclear weapons?
What's the point of these things anymore?
Does anyone even have nuclear weapons anymore?
I think there's just general ignorance on this as a concept and an issue.
And unless you've been paying attention, unless you've been thinking through international politics and global history since the end of World War II, yeah, nuclear weapons have probably been off your radar.
I remember growing up Back in England, the schools in England in the 90s, they were all focused really on Africa and ending poverty and development and things like this.
There was a whole new set of global issues.
So we have a whole generation, millennials, that have grown up not in a nuclear world.
So I don't think this is a good starting point because when you...
Then want to make the argument, as I have been making on my YouTube channel since the very start of this conflict, that, hey, this is dangerous.
Most people can't even comprehend what kind of danger we're currently facing because it's so alien.
It's so foreign. It's so removed from where we've been as...
Really members of the global community, right?
We've all been in a world of the war on terror and people in caves.
And these are the people that threaten us.
And it's people of a certain skin color.
That's the racist undertones of all of it.
Well, now what are we back to?
Pure and simple power politics.
And power politics, which if gets out of control, means the end of the world.
As I mentioned in the video that you retweeted, I think...
If any nuclear weapon is detonated today, the world will change so dramatically overnight, it will make what happened post 9-11 look like a picnic.
Or during COVID-1984, over the last three plus years, nothing.
I mean, the infrastructure that they put into place will probably be utilized via QR codes, digital slavery, biometrics, where they can get it, movement from above via drones.
The dogs. And when I say drones, I'm talking about...
You've got to remember, again, during the COVID-1984 nightmare, in this country, they flew just the little drones out there and said, Hey, go back inside.
What are you doing here?
And in Singapore, remember, it wasn't six feet.
It was three feet to stay away to social distance.
Why? Not the science, but because they had the DARPA dogs at the park...
Looking at people and yelling at them for being closer than three feet.
Nothing to do with actual science.
Everything to do with your servitude and slavery, Stuart.
Yeah, absolutely.
I think you'll see the institution of a police state unlike...
Really, you could ever imagine if any nuclear event happens.
And what we're really testing right now in Ukraine is the nuclear taboo.
And this is an academic idea, and it basically says that, well, if anyone were to use nuclear weapons, the result would be so negative, you would immediately become super Hitler, right?
That no one then would therefore do it.
Well... How far do you want to test that idea?
How far do you want to test the idea of someone being afraid of being called the new Hitler?
How far do you want to push this boundary?
Because while it hasn't snapped and it has held strong since 1945, meaning we've never had a nuclear detonation in combat since then, Well, is it going to hold strong forever?
We've not yet hit 100 years on that nuclear taboo.
We may not hit 100 years if we keep heading in this really dangerous direction.
We now have the Biden administration changing its nuclear policy for more public displays of nuclear submarines.
So they actually want American nuclear submarines to show up and be photographed and be seen more often than usual because they're trying to really demonstrate what you can really say is a nuclear flex, trying to flex on Russia and China.
Hey, look, we've got nuclear weapons.
Let's just say Russia and China's nuclear flex might not be as cold.
Perhaps it might be a hot nuclear flex.
And then when that happens, all cards are going to be on the table.
The table, in fact, probably won't even exist.
The table will be flipped over, and we're now in a whole new game.
A whole new game that nobody's going to really know how to navigate through.
Well, you know, you talked about the lack of any kind of opposition at Bilderberg.
It's only going to be 70 next year.
We just talked about Dr.
Strangelove. It's going to be 70 next year.
And somebody that has been in attendance, I believe, at all 69 conferences, believe it or not, is Henry Kissinger.
And oddly enough, in the last 6 to 12 months, Kissinger has almost been the voice of reason when it comes to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, saying, hey, we need to pull back.
This could get serious.
This coming from a legitimate, outed, globalist war criminal.
So do you think that he's almost just kind of got an honorary seat at the table right now because he's been there for so long?
Or do you believe some of the other members may actually listen to Kissinger on this one issue?
Yeah, Kissinger's interesting.
His view of the world is...
I'm not necessarily sure it'd be...
Globalism as opposed to regionalism.
And he thinks of certain regions as being important and certain regions that you should focus on instead of the entire world.
So such as when he was with Nixon, what region did they focus on?
China. China was their focus.
So yeah, he's really making the case that, well, what's going on in Ukraine?
Well, this is now a region that's Probably gonna have some problems going forward unless we're very careful about what we do next.
So because he actually becomes so favorable domestically within the US, again back in the...
The late 60s and into the 70s.
This makes him somewhat of an enemy initially of the people in the Bilderberg group because he's seen us so tied to the US whereas they're trying to go above and beyond the US. But What you see with Kissinger, I think, is somebody that has seen enough to know when you are pushing boundaries a little bit too far.
This is probably similar to a reaction of what you could probably find if some former Cold War presidents were around, perhaps if Fidel Castro was still around.
Anyone that has been on the brink of...
Global catastrophe can see what this really is.
So when you bring Kissinger into these systems and into these structures, yeah, this is a very old voice.
But I think it can, at least sometimes, be a voice of wisdom.
So we've hit on a lot of the infrastructure of Bilderberg, and what I'd like to wrap up with is the media and academia aspect of Bilderberg.
So we've got representatives from The Economist, from The Atlantic, and Applebaum seems to be this new name that's there all the time.
Then you have a couple from Stanford University, Neil Ferguson, who allegedly, at least he says, is the Bilderberg's historian out of Oxford.
So what role do you feel like they're playing this year?
You know, Charlie Skelton often jokes about it, but there are significantly more media representatives and media moguls on the inside of Bilderberg 2023 than reporting on it, Stuart.
Yeah, that's honestly, I think, probably the most disturbing aspect of all of this.
Especially because, again, if you ask any mainland academic, any middle-upper-class citizen, well, what do you think of the Financial Times?
What do you think of the New York Times?
What do you think of the Washington Post?
Well, they're probably going to say at least one of those institutions is responsible.
I trust what they say, things like this.
Well, here we have a clear reason to perhaps not trust what they say.
To actually think through, what does it mean to have the heads of major media companies In bed with the heads of nations, of major institutions, of major corporations, of major military organizations.
Well, probably nothing good if we again look back throughout history.
What we are seeing is the joining of the, let's say, the official state institutions with media institutions.
When this happens, that means that you, the citizen, are not going to be told the truth anytime soon.
This means that we are really, I think it would be fair to say that what they're doing is setting the boundaries of conversation.
What can and cannot be discussed?
What topics are going to be off limits?
And specifically, how should we cover What the plan of action is for the next six months or next 12 months, whatever it may be.
How should we cover it in the media?
What sort of spin should we put on this?
Now this is of course then dangerous because it means that what you're getting in terms of a voice through the media is not a critical voice, is not an insightful voice.
It's just repeating the official line that they have been given from the very top.
This is why alternative media is so important.
I think this also goes to explain why lots of alternative media figures have been banned or shadow banned or slowly but surely removed from social media outlets is because what they have done is they have helped to break the consensus on some of the official positions.
I actually had an academic journalist This article published late last year on Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Central argument of that article.
Why is Assange and WikiLeaks persecuted so heavily by the American government?
Well, because what they did as individuals and institutions is they helped to break the consensus on American foreign policy.
So when you do that, you find yourself in the target of the state or of the consensus creators, let's say.
The consensus creators that are, again, so far removed from you as a voter that you have no way of influencing them whatsoever.
And when we talk about the media and them basically just parroting lines, what they act as is kind of a Bernaysian public relations mechanism for this group, for this agenda, which is one of a quote-unquote new world order and consolidation of power.
And when you have Academia there, when you have the military industrial complex there, when you have the media there, and the talking points and mantra is misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, and now criminalizing that activity and allowing AI to decide what is true or not.
These are the final steps, in my opinion, on an idea that the Nazis and Adolf Hitler had.
The regimentation of all human beings.
And to me, that is their ultimate goal, Stuart.
Yeah, and that's also what...
A Marxist thinker as well, Antonio Gramsci, who is really important.
His writings on consensus and ideology and the fact that the construction of an ideology, of a way of thinking about the world, that can be used to enforce regimentation.
So it can come, again, from the left or the right, which is why your voice on this is so important, because you don't come at it from the left or the right.
You come at it from the perspective of, hey, there are important, powerful people out there.
They're on all sides, and they call themselves all sorts of things.
National socialists, communists, whatever you want to call yourself.
And guess what? They are all sending you down a path of destruction and a path of regimentation and a path of Your society coming to a disastrous end.
So yeah, we need to break out of these bounds of left and right.
And I think ultimately we probably need to start forming some real degree of organized...
It's something that could actually properly challenge the two-party structure.
I don't see how, unless you're doing that, anything is really going to change, unless there's a big shift in consensus.
I know there are now more registered independents in the US than ever before, but...
Often people register independent, but they still only vote one way.
So I'm not sure the degrees which that's going to pan out.
But I think there needs to be some big shift in how we think about politics in the world.
Whether that's maybe adding more seats to Congress, or whether that's changing how elections work in the US Congress, where you go to more of a Proportional system as opposed to first past the post.
But guess what? If you did either of those things, if you increase the number of seats in Congress or if you went to a proportional system, what are you going to do?
Dilute the power of those that are already in Congress.
So are those already in Congress going to vote for these changes?
Absolutely not. So we're somewhat stuck.
Stuart, it is always a pleasure.
You can find him at Stuart J. Hooper on Twitter or YouTube.com slash Stuart J. Hooper.
What do you have coming up?
I am going to continue to focus on the war in Ukraine.
It appears today that Bakhmut has finally fallen to the Russians.
There were lots of really...
Let's say disturbing pictures of an aerial incendiary attack on Bakhmut last night, which may have done the job in destroying the last remnants of Ukrainian resistance.
So this generally is what I'm going to be focusing on, the threat of World War III and where we're going now.
Perhaps post-Ukraine, if there is going to be a post-Ukraine, because I think we may be in a situation where this is the new forever war.
And I think something I also really want to cover is I think Zelensky has become dangerously...
Let's say, dangerously obsessed with military technologies.
He thinks that just getting F-16s is going to be the fix to the problem.
This isn't going to work.
Just look at the US and its implementation of military technologies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It was always a disaster.
Never went how they wanted it to go.
So yeah, this needs a political solution.
That's been what I've been calling for since day one.
Russians should never have invaded.
NATO probably should never have expanded.
So there's wrong on all sides.
Let's just come to the table and let's figure this out.
Absolutely, 100%.
I want to thank my audience out there that are RVM Premium and watch this entire interview.
If you just happen to tune in to the YouTube and got like a 10-minute sample, consider coming on over.
It's redvoicemedia.com slash uncensored.
Try it out for a buck now.
It's only a dollar for the first week.
That means you're going to get my six exclusive interviews that are already out there, although two go free because we want the information out there after two weeks.
So maybe you're watching this whole thing two weeks later.
You want to support the broadcast.
Ten bucks a month.
Lock it in for a hundred on the year.
I'm not going anywhere.
Stuart J. Hooper is going to be one of our best analysts.
I can promise you that.
Stuart, I love you.
I love my audience.
Thanks for joining me. It's not about left or right.
It's always about right and wrong.
▲
Export Selection