All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 24, 2020 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:33:27
Patrick M Wood
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I am bouncing up and down with excitement.
You can see me literally bouncing up and down.
Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James DellingPod.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I am bouncing up and down with excitement.
You can see me literally bouncing up and down.
I have tracked down none other than Patrick Wood, who I think probably is the guy who knows more than anyone else in the world about the really terrifying subject on all our minds at the moment – Technocracy and the Great Reset.
Am I right Patrick?
It's your area of expertise.
It is and if it's not an area of PhD quality scholarship today.
Here's one thing that I have that most people don't and that's that I've been immersed in this and totally immersed in this for about 45 years.
So I've seen and I've been an eyewitness to a lot of things that have happened over the course of time.
And at this point, this is the perspective, I think, that people really need to have if they want to understand it.
You can't just look at a point in time and take a Polaroid picture and say, oh, I get it.
You kind of have to understand the broader historical perspective.
Yeah, that's I was I was shocked.
I was trying to decide which of your books to read.
I think Technocracy Rising probably has the better title.
I chose the more recent one, Technocracy, The Hard Road to World Order, which, I mean, if people are going to start out, which book should they read first?
Well, I flip-flop back and forth on this.
If you have the time and you want to really get the whole picture initially, start with the first book.
It's more foundational.
The second book is a little bit more taking the current situation and kind of connecting the dots together with what we see.
But there's enough overlap in the content, in the context of it, that people will understand technocracy pretty well if they read the second book.
Right.
The point I was going to make was I was very shocked.
when I was reading your book and I have to say I read it sort of with my fingers half over my eyes because it's not comfortable I tend to read in bed and it's not comfortable bedtime reading it's it you you read it and you think oh my god it's even it's not even worse than I thought it's so much worse than I thought and when I got to the bit where you said you've been writing about this for 45 years and I just thought Oh my god.
Um, this is so entrenched now.
How are we going to get out of it?
We can come to the, we can come, if there is any upside, we'll come to that at the end.
Maybe you can offer me some crumbs of hope so I don't kill myself.
But take me back to the origins of technocracy first.
Because it was, it started out as a crazy cult, didn't it, in the 1930s.
Well it did, and it wasn't so much a cult in the sense that it was devised by very prominent engineers and scientists at Columbia University in New York City.
And Columbia, by the way, is one of our most liberal progressive colleges ever for universities.
You have a couple like it in Great Britain.
I know that nothing much good has ever come out of Columbia University.
But anyway, they were kind of the name, the go-to progressive scholarship, etc.
And during the heat of the Great Depression, These scientists and engineers got together and they thought, you know, we've got a problem here.
Capitalism looks like it's dead.
Soup lines, you know, really societal upheaval.
And they figured that this was an engineering problem.
So they set about creating an alternative economic system that wasn't a price-based economic system, not based on free market economics.
It was based on resource allocation, resource administration, and it was to be controlled by energy.
In other words, whereas in a price-based economic system, money is the fluid, the lifeblood of the economic system.
To their system, they propose that energy would be the lifeblood of the system.
It would be the monetary accounting system, if you will.
But it wasn't price-based.
They simply wanted to allocate goods and services according to the amount of energy that went into them and that it consumed.
It was called technocracy.
And it got kicked out of Columbia University after about a year.
And the original leaders, founders, whatever, they set out on their own, created an organization called Technocracy Incorporated.
It was a membership organization and they found popularity all across North America, especially in the West, in the United States, but also in Canada.
It was huge in Canada.
Every province had its own leader of the technocracy movement, and then there was one overlord in Canada that kind of oversaw the entire thing, and in Canada, during World War II, there was enough confusion over what this organization was that the Canadian government banned
"Technocracy, Inc." in Canada, because it looked too much like the Nazi party in Germany that was rising up at the time.
So they had a two year cool off period where in Canada they had to kind of go underground.
They originally, ultimately got that lifted and went back to operation again.
We'll get back to the Canadian movement a little bit later maybe.
But that's kind of where this started.
It was an economic system to replace capitalism and free enterprise.
And I hasten to add that there had never in the history of the world There's never been another alternative economic system that was created like this.
There's nothing.
You can go back and search and look and ask historians.
They'll say, no, there's never, there's been different flavors of price-based, you know, even down to barter, but there's never been anything like this that was created from scratch.
And they felt, these engineers and scientists felt that there was no need for politicians in such a system.
That they were expendable.
They said, get rid of the politicians.
We don't need any of them.
We can control the whole kit and caboodle from an economic point of view.
And if we do that, then you'll have no need for any politicians.
And a perfect example to look at this, by the way, I'm sure you're up on this already.
Go read Aldous Huxley's famous book that was written in 1932, by the way, the same year that Columbia University popped out technocracy.
Brave New World.
This was looking into the face of technocracy at that time.
And you'll find in Brave New World there's no political system.
It's all run by the engineers and scientists and everything is run automatically.
I would say by algorithm, but they didn't have the fancy computers back then that they had today.
But you won't find any political system in 1932.
And this is where we're driving towards today.
Can I just ask you a bit more about the Canadian technocrats and this idea that they were too similar to the Nazis?
What were the similarities?
I mean, I can sort of guess this sort of state allocation of things and the sort of slightly cultish nature of it, but what else?
Well, in the United States, at least, this is where this started, of course, there was a gentleman, not much known about him, unfortunately.
His name was William Knight, K-N-I-G-H-T, and he had had some association with the Nazi party in Germany.
Not really strong, but you have to remember there were lots of people in the United States that sympathized with Nazi Germany in the early days.
He was one.
And he came into the technocracy movement.
He had some official position.
It was like, you know, not a vice president, but something up there.
He's a mucky muck.
And he decided that it would be a good idea to have some type of visual identification for the party, for the movement.
And so he adopted this, this gray suit, three piece, very nice looking suit, actually the three piece suit for men.
And two or three-piece suit for women with a skirt, of course.
And they had a little pin, a technocracy pin, that they wore in the lapel.
And they had a dark blue tie, necktie, and everybody dressed the same.
This charcoal gray suit.
Well, it's a little bit lighter in charcoal gray, but it looks suspiciously like the SS in Germany.
Which is quite a smart look, as you say.
Yeah, they're marching around, you know, going to rallies, and everybody shows up in their gray suits, and the women in their gray thing, and they even had gray cars!
You could go to any dealership in America and order a car and say, I want Technocracy Gray.
And they'd go, sure, no problem, they sell you a car.
And they would even paint the hubcaps on these cars orange, which is their alternative color.
And this was kind of an institutionalized movement in North America.
In the United States at one point, there was at least 500,000 card-carrying, dues-paying members of Technocracy Incorporated.
And as I said, it was even more popular in Canada for some reason.
Canada didn't have the population that we had in the United States, still doesn't, but percentage-wise, okay, it caught on.
More readily in Canada than it did in the United States, probably.
And what sort of people did this movement attract?
A lot of engineers and scientists, for sure, that, you know, they could kind of understand what they were talking about.
But other than that, I mean, it wasn't a bunch of dope smoking hippies, you know, like we had in the 60s and early 70s.
Most of these people were very kind of prominent, middle class, certainly.
They were idealists that were looking for something brand new that had never been done before.
This was the progressive mentality, of course, and it was very prominent back then.
There were different expressions of progressivism, including communism and some other isms that were back there.
But the technocrats hated communists, by the way.
I need to bring that out early here.
They had no use for communism, Marxism, socialism, because they believed that those other isms continued to be rooted in a price-based economic system, that money was still there.
It was controlled.
It was managed.
But it wasn't radical enough for them.
They wanted to get rid of currency altogether, get rid of anything that's a fact of price-based economics, and institute a purely energy-based economic system.
So, this was new, it was progressive, people initially didn't understand how crackpot it was, and so it was kind of easy to get your arms around initially.
But it did peter out.
At the end of the 30s, early 40s, World War T came along, capitalism wasn't dead, the economy revived, stock market revived, people's attitudes went up, and life went on, and technocracy just kind of got left behind, ultimately.
But it was very attractive to a lot of people during that period.
Revived and how did it take the form that it takes today?
Because I mean, I think I'm right in thinking aren't I that the great reset and?
United Nations agenda 2030.
I think it's now called it was called agenda 21 There are all manifestations of of technocracy Yes, and this is where the plot thickens.
This is what most people completely missed and When I was working with another Brit, by the way, Professor Antony Sutton, back in the late 1970s, he had come over to the United States and he was a professor of economics at UCLA and then he moved up to Stanford University and was a research fellow at Stanford at the Hoover Institution for War, Peace and Revolution.
The guy was a first-class scholar, for sure.
Well, he got kicked out of Stanford because he was studying this group known as the Trilateral Commission, and he didn't really think about it, but the president of Stanford University, David Packard, of Hewlett Packard fame, was a member of the Trilateral Commission himself, and basically said, you're looking in the wrong place, Bob.
And you're not going to quit either, so you're out of here.
And they basically drop kicked him out of the academic community.
I ran into Tony Sutton down at a gold conference in New Orleans shortly thereafter.
I had also been studying the Trilateral Commission from a different angle.
I was in the finance world at the time.
And I was just very struck by all the domination of these people in the United States and the Jimmy Carter administration.
from 76 to 80, or yeah, 76 to 80.
And I was too young to know what I was looking at and what, you know, what the significance was.
But when I met Sutton, he said, he filled in all the pieces for me.
He said, this is what's going on here.
I said, wow, now I get it.
It took me about 10 minutes once he started telling me.
And after we had met, we knew we had to write about this.
So we started writing a newsletter, ultimately produced two books called Trilaterals Over Washington.
Now, having given that history, let me back up just to the Trilateral Commission itself.
This is a group that was founded by David Rockefeller, the big money man of the 19th century, 20th century.
And Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was a brilliant political scientist, I know with hindsight now that this book was all about technocracy.
that's just a little coincidence there I'm sure I say that facetiously but Brzezinski had written a book around 1970 called Between Two Ages America's Role in the Technotronic Era.
I know with hindsight now that this book was all about technocracy we didn't really understand it back then but all over the literature of the Trilateral Commission and they had an international membership by the way Europe Japan and the United States of actually North America but mostly United States. - They had as their mission to create a new international economic order.
That was their phrase.
That was their buzz phrase.
A new international economic order.
And Sutton and I wrote extensively about this back then.
What does that mean?
A new international economic order.
And we discovered a lot of things by reading their own literature, etc.
But we never really grasped the concept of technocracy at that time.
Even though Brzezinski's book, The Technotronic Era, that was basically a knockoff of technocracy, the term.
Here's what Rockefeller liked about Brzezinski and why they teamed up together.
I know this now just as certain as I am sitting here.
Brzezinski had this new idea for how a new international economic order could be established.
Rockefeller was a guy who wanted everything he knew.
That eventually the fiat monetary system is going to fizzle and collapse.
The handwriting was on the wall even back then.
And so he was maneuvering to take his fortunes, his billions, and trust funds and so on, and pivot those into something new That would allow them to perpetuate beyond the currency collapse that would ultimately come and the evaporation of paper money, fiat money.
And this is what he centered, this is what he focused on and why he did.
The idea of a resource-based economic system made perfect sense to him.
He had all the money, they understood big oil, they were big in the oil business throughout the 1900s.
And they understood real estate and stuff like that, but they'd always been focused on money.
Rockefeller figured, okay, I've got to change my thinking here.
Let's go directly for the resources themselves.
And don't worry about whatever monetary system might be in place, because if we own all the resources, it doesn't matter.
We own everything.
It's kind of like neo-feudalism in a way.
Rockefeller loved this idea.
Resource-based economic system?
Yeah, with me owning the resources.
So, let's go for it.
The next year, in 1974, the United Nations issued a general resolution from their plenary session, oddly enough, that was called the Establishment of a New International Economic Order.
Same phrase!
Nobody noticed it back then.
It's the exact same phrase.
So they fed this to the United Nations lock, stock and barrel by the time 1992 came around with the Rio de Janeiro conference that produced the original Agenda 21 document.
The United Nations had a multi-year run to get this right and the Rockefeller crowd fed this to them.
to create a global contagion, because Rockefeller never had that before.
He was a US guy, primarily.
So now he had a way to spread it to the entire planet.
If I'm not getting ahead of myself, now we've got it on the entire planet right now, with capitalism and free enterprise on the chopping block, and this technocratic system rising up out of the ashes, if you will.
You can just And this, by the way, this is exactly what the Great Reset talks about today, that there will be a new system being rebuilt.
That phraseology just boggles my mind, because why do you rebuild anything unless it got torn down in the first place?
If your house burns down, you rebuild, right?
If your business collapses, You rebuild.
You don't rebuild on top of something that's already there.
It predisposes there has to be something missing in order to rebuild, and this is what's happening today.
There's lots of other pieces that I'm not even mentioning in this, James.
Probably the first one is the study group that the United Nations set up in advance of Rio de Janeiro in 1992.
That study group was called the Brundtland Commission and it ran for several years and produced a book at the end of it called Our Common Future.
Everybody in the United Nations especially has written openly that that book was singularly the doctrinal book that produced Agenda 21.
The executive chairman or the head of that Brundtland Commission was a European lady By the name of Gru Harlem Bruntland, I'm sure you're familiar with her more than we are in the United States.
Yes.
And Bruntland was the principal author of the book and just, oh, just by coincidence again, she was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
You can't make this up.
She created the doctrine that got fed into Agenda 21, a resource-based economic system.
It looked exactly like technocracy from the 1930s, with some of the names changed.
That's all.
Not to protect the innocent, but you understand.
The names were changed for the sake of marketing, because they couldn't sell technocracy to anybody.
So, they called it Sustainable Development, they called it Agenda 21, they called it other things since, Natural Capitalism, they call it Green Economy.
They've got all kinds of synonyms, but it's the same old garbage coming straight out of the 1930s, designed to capture the resources of the world.
For a small global elite group to control and they will be the ones that tap into this resource pool to make things for the rest of the world to consume.
So we've gone from the new international economic order of 1973.
That was definitely the genesis of modern globalization.
Into the United Nations, into Rio de Janeiro, the official meeting where all the countries in the world got together to ratify this, this new thing by treaty that the world is going to be converted into a resource based economic system.
I probably said way too much at this point, but I'll let you know.
No, I, I so enjoyed that.
And we could spin off in all sorts of directions from here.
Because I don't know whether you're aware, a few years ago, 10 years ago, I wrote a book called Watermelons, and what I set out to do in that book was to answer the question,
If global warming, man-made global warming, isn't really a problem, if it's all been exaggerated and actually there's nothing to worry about, why would so many people and institutions, disparate people, from hair shirts, eco loons, to hard-headed businessmen, to politicians, to scientists, why would they all be pushing this particular narrative?
And I read a lot about, I knew about the Bruntland Commission, I knew about, oh, the Club of Rome, for example, which has been pushing, pushing these, these similar ideas.
But I never quite, and I knew about M King Hubbard.
Because of Peak Oil Theory, and I knew that Peak Oil Theory was bunk.
It had been been proved wrong several times through history.
Peak resources generally are a myth.
But I was missing, I should have read your books, I was missing that final link.
For example, there's no mention in my book of the Trilateral Commission, and I realize now that Trilateral Commission is, it's like, It's like being initiated into an evil sect, isn't it?
Into an evil cult, and learning all the different rules.
And you have the key to all the mythologies.
You are the keeper of that, and I respect you for that.
Just before I ask you any more questions, tell me a bit about your background.
I mean, have you just dedicated your life to researching this, or did you have other jobs as well?
I had to raise a family in the meantime, because there's just not a lot of money in the kind of stuff we did.
So I had to make a living, and I did that in the technology world.
I founded and ran a business for some years that had to do with networking and business consulting.
It was a living.
It was fun.
I enjoyed it.
But my original, as I got out of college, I was equipped with economics and I farmed, actually ran a farm for a while or two or three years, did work out very well.
I had a brown thumb.
I couldn't get, I couldn't make anything grow like other people.
So I got out of that and I pursued my finance, my love for finance and for the stock market and research and analysis and stuff.
And I worked for some brokerage companies early on to do financial reports for companies that they wanted to invest in.
So I would go out on assignment like a reporter, like a journalist, kind of, and I'd visit companies headquarters.
I'd talk to the people and I'd gather their financials and write reports on whether or not they were going to pass or fail.
in the next 10 years.
And this is where I came across, originally, the Trout Adam Commission.
My studies took me to Africa to study gold.
And the gold stocks and the gold companies, the mining companies down there.
So I went down to South Africa a couple of times and learned a lot of stuff that I'd never really considered before, but I kept running into these members of the Trilateral Commission everywhere I went.
And I thought, what the heck is this?
This just doesn't make sense to me.
So that's where my radar went up.
When I met Sutton, of course, we were very attracted to each other because we both had the basic economics to communicate and we just went forward from there.
But I will have to say that my modern skills, if you could call them skills to do research and write, were so heavily influenced by my relationship with Anthony Sutton.
I didn't have a master's degree, a PhD in anything.
But I earned one with him because he was such a world-class researcher.
He taught me so many things I never ever would have learned in university.
He'd learned them kind of the hard way as he went along.
And I'm just so grateful that I had that experience and it served me all the rest of my life.
Tell me about these special skills because maybe I'm lacking them.
What did you learn from Anthony?
How to find information, how to smell a rat when there's a rat around.
He was suspicious of just about everything he touched initially.
He was the prove-it-to-me guy.
In the university, you have access to libraries, to lending libraries.
You can get your hands on any information in the world.
If you go through like a Stanford University, you have access to catalogs that nobody else has access to.
And so Sutton was always digging for information.
And he would pull in resources from all over the world on projects he was working on.
This is what I couldn't do.
I could barely, when I went through college, I could barely use the card catalog.
I just, you know, but he taught me how to find stuff.
You know, once it was necessary to find something, um, you know, we'd set out on a trail and we'd eventually find it.
We always did.
And so in the early days, we got a hold of every piece of literature and every study that the Trilateral Commission had produced from 1973 at least to 1980.
We had every single document that these people had written.
Now, nobody else had that.
But it was Sutton's persistence and his ability to kind of, you know, get in to the inside, get that stuff.
That's what we based our writings on, was what they said, not what we think, you know, thought they said.
So anyway, that was, that really helped me.
It really helped me.
So before we move, we move to the kind of the main course, which is like where we are now.
Just tell me a bit more about two things.
I want to know a bit more about David Rockefeller, because I imagine that he was, he was not the original Rockefeller who founded, what was it, Standard Oil?
Was that the right?
He would, he would have been a son or a grandson and therefore prone to that kind of decadence and sort of left-wingery, which seems to afflict the sons or grandsons of self-made millionaires.
Is that right?
That is correct.
The Rockefeller dynasty pretty much ruled all the way through the 1900s and it's, well, it still does, but I mean, that's really where they made their big, uh, their big splash, their fortunes, et cetera.
And it's not just that they made a lot of money.
They began to use their money for social control for social projects and stuff where they would try and control society, uh, to get people to do things they wanted them to do.
Like Bill Gates is now.
That seems to be an affliction of billionaires.
That's exactly right.
And David Rockefeller, he was the torchbearer for the Rockefeller family.
He had other peers, well not peers, he had other family members that were his age that were very influential, but they were never as visible as he was.
He was the guy that really was the architect behind what happened in 1973.
So how old was he at the time?
Was he a sort of hippie type?
Tell me about him.
No, he was very much the businessman, the banker, you know, the international banker at that point with Chase Manhattan Bank.
That was his bank.
You know, always wore a suit, always wore a tie.
He looked like, I mean, he looked like a guy that was ready to go to Davos back in 1973.
He was just one of those guys and, you know, had private planes to fly around and he was the global elite of the global elite for that day.
And I noticed that the timing of this.
America sort of wasn't exactly on the gold standard, but there was a connection with gold, wasn't there, which ended in 1971.
And that was the end of pretty much the death knell of fiat currency from that point on.
It's been losing its way ever since, hasn't it?
It has.
And that was, I think that was part of the mix in that day that resulted in the Trilateral Commission in 1973.
It wouldn't be appropriate.
To automatically say that it was David Rockefeller that architected the disassociation with gold in currencies, but I believe that was part of what convinced him that fiat currencies had a limited lifespan.
Mathematically speaking, it was undeniable.
And I think probably that's kind of what helped push him over the edge to say, we need to get our hands on the resources.
We'll ride this fiat currency thing until the end, but we need to get our hands on the resources in the end of it so that no matter what comes out the other side, we're in control of it still.
That makes sense.
He sounds a really terrifying figure.
I mean, he must have been stupendously rich in 1973.
He had no need of anything at all.
And yet he moved on to the next step, which is really trying to, well, I mean, doing what various people have done in history, which is to try and corner the market in particular, in particular resources, but he wanted to do it with the lot.
He wanted the whole world.
He wanted everything, but most people haven't even heard of him.
I mean, they'll be familiar with the surname, but not with, you know, David Rockefeller.
He's not a name that people know about.
No, he's, uh, he was a very understated underspoken type of a guy.
He was not a, he was not a, um, a blowhard in any way.
He didn't give up and give fiery speeches somewhere.
He wasn't a showman like, uh, Uh, like President Trump is, for instance.
You know, I mean, that was just not him.
He was always kind of in the background, you know, kind of like, uh, not the shrinking violet, but he was, uh, he never really put his face up front.
Did you ever meet him?
I did not.
We met several of the members, uh, other members of the Trilateral Commission.
I never met him.
Um, I did have a head to head debate one time, however, with, um, With the executive director of the Trilateral Commission.
And that was very interesting.
We did it on national radio here in the States.
The host of the radio program was Larry King, famous broadcaster, now.
And Larry King had the largest overnight radio program in the country.
It was run on a mutual broadcasting system here in America.
And he had a huge audience, overnight audience, and he invited this Charles Heck, was his name, and myself to do kind of a point-counterpoint discussion about this, what we're talking about.
And it was supposed to be a one-hour interview.
It got so hot and heavy that it ran for three hours instead of two.
And at the end of it, it was so overwhelmingly against the Trilateral Commission that Charles Heck, who was that Larry King, who was very liberal progressive back then, he shook his head.
All he could say is he shook his head literally like this.
And he says, I've never seen anything like this in my life.
And he shook our hands and off, you know, basically showed us out of the studio.
And we never saw him again.
But we had debates with other members of the Trilateral Commission as well, where we would do the same thing, point-counterpoint, and as soon as they would open their mouth to the public, oh, the public just went nuts.
They just, you know, you not getting away with this.
That's very interesting, because that is so...
We're seeing this reaction now, aren't we, to the Great Reset.
Finally, in the last few weeks, people have woken up and they're going, oh my God, no way are they doing this to us.
But we'll come to that in a moment.
I want you to tell me, because I think this is key, the Trilateral Commission, which almost nobody has heard of except maybe at the back of their minds.
But tell me what it is and who the members have been and are and what it does.
Well, it's a small membership organization.
You don't have an application to join, by the way.
They pick you.
By executive committee.
In other words, they look for people that will achieve their goals and they go out and tap people kind of like a fraternity would do at university, you know, where they watch you and then they come out and they tap you on the shoulder and say, come with us and they put you through the rush, as they call it.
Originally, there was about a little over 200 members from Japan, Europe, and North America, and mostly the United States.
Zbigniew Brzezinski was the first executive director, and all of those people were chosen out of certain fields.
There were some media giants involved.
There was law firms, highly elevated law firms around the world.
There was politicians, high-level politicians around the world.
There were the corporate mucky bucks, the chairmen of the board or board members of some of the giant corporations like Deere and Company, Tractor Maker, IBM, you get the idea, the money people.
A lot of banks were involved as well.
Chase Manhattan, of course, but JP Morgan and some of the other European banks were represented as well.
So it was kind of a mix of people, but collectively it was a group that had, they had their fingers kind of into all different areas in society from banking to manufacturing to the social, you know, it was kind of a, I don't want to give more credit than they deserve, it was kind of a genius selection of people in a way.
Yeah, yeah.
They put a team together that could get the job done.
What was the job?
And what do they do, these people?
Well, let me tell you what happened.
This was phase one.
We're probably in phase four right now, but phase one was to get control of the global economic system.
And how they did that?
They basically took over the United States government during the Carter administration.
And Jimmy Carter himself was a member of the Trilateral Commission, so was his running mate and Vice President Walter Mondale.
The first thing he did, Carter, when he got seated was he appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski to be his national security advisor.
And then they proceeded to appoint members of the Trilateral Commission into cabinet positions in our country.
Those are the people that run the agencies, the important agencies.
And at one point, all of the members of the president's cabinet were members of the Trilateral Commission, except for one.
It was a complete takeover.
And initially, people got upset because, oh my gosh, the United States is being taken over, you know, our political system is being taken over.
However, people in the commission repeatedly told us they're not interested in a political system.
They're not interested in politics.
And I'm convinced now they were not interested in politics, even though they took over the United States government, the whole cotton-picking thing.
Well, What happened was, what they were after was the economic engine that the United States government drove the world with.
We were the most important, the most powerful, the most influential economic entity on the entire planet.
No offense to England either, by the way, when I say that, but they knew if they could get a hold of the United States government, they would be able to control economic policy.
So over the years, we saw such things happen.
As, for instance, the World Bank.
The US always traditionally appointed the president of the World Bank, right?
Europe gets to appoint the head of the IMF.
That's the way the monetary system was kind of set up.
So, 8 out of 10 of the presidents of the World Bank, starting from back there, going forward, were members of the Trilateral Commission.
8 out of 10!
The other position was important was the U.S.
Trade Representative, the person who wrote all the treaties, you know, the economic agreements and the stuff.
The U.S.
Trade Representative, a very important position.
Nine out of twelve of the USTRs, even up in modern day, have been members of the Trilateral Commission.
These were the people That wrote the economic treaties that basically have sunk the world into an abyss now.
And I could go on and on with other threads of this, but they were after the economic machinery.
They could really care less about being president or vice president or whatever.
And they did this with just total skill.
And they have, by the way, they have continued their hegemony in our government.
Not so much for political sake, but for economic sake.
For instance, Ronald Reagan got elected.
His running mate was George Bush.
He was a member of the commission.
Then came Bush himself.
He was president for four years.
Then came Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both members of the Trout Island Commission, and they stuffed their cabinets with people too.
Then he got into the George W. Bush administration in 2000.
His running mate and vice president, Dick Cheney, was one of the most powerful members of the trial-out of commission in that day.
And the story goes on.
They've had their influence in our government and in others as well.
But, you know, we've been the primary driver of all this stuff, unfortunately.
And they use these positions to further their economic goals of creating a new international economic order. - And do they all, I mean, if you are a member of the Trilateral Commission, do you automatically believe In technocracy, in the idea of a new economy based on resource allocation rather than money.
I mean, did the Bushes, father and son, actually believe in this stuff?
Or were they just kind of fellow travellers?
I believe they did.
Even though they were political players, I believe they understood the big plan perfectly well.
And they may not have had any idea of the original technocracy movement from Columbia University necessarily.
I don't know why anybody would go back and study that if you're a politician.
They might have, but they fully understood Zbigniew Brzezinski and his plan for the ages.
And there have been other people, scholars on the right side of the political spectrum that were just as strategic as Zbigniew Brzezinski.
These were the academics, you see, that stood behind.
Isn't it interesting that it was the academics that started this whole thing in the first place, like Brzezinski?
A political scientist at Columbia University.
It was really kind of his idea, his spark that got this whole thing going.
And throughout the decades, we have seen these academics hiding behind, you know, kind of behind the political curtain pulling the strings.
This is exactly what we see today with all these, you know, the, you know, the, the, the Neil Ferguson's of the world that are hiding behind their computer models.
Do they have any qualifications to run society politically for the good of people?
No, they don't.
But they do it anyway.
And somehow they've gotten away with it all these years.
But the academics were the ones that kind of drove this through different political persuasions.
It doesn't matter if you're Democrat or Republican in America.
The Trump administration always had their men or their men or women in the system mixing it up.
When Trump talks about draining the swamp and about the deep state, is the Trilateral Commission essentially the deep state?
Loosely speaking, I would say so.
The deep state has never really been defined.
By anybody the swamp, you know, it's just swamp creatures.
It's just kind of like, you know, you're pointing finger at a you know, crowd of who knows, you know thousand people or just maybe New York City in general.
I don't know but it's very hard to you get a lot of opinions.
I guess who the swamp really is.
But if I were to say if I were to look back and say well, who are the real?
Who are the real culprits in this whole thing?
The first people I point to would be members of the Trilateral Commission.
I definitely would.
And it's not just America, you understand.
Here's the problem that Trump has.
The Trilateral Commission is global.
If you say, well, the swamp is global, then how can one president in the United States drain the swamp?
It doesn't make sense, does it?
It's not going to happen.
Well, indeed, I want you to name a few more names.
I mean, I'm shocked that the Bush's who are notionally conservatives, not not evil kind of technocrats, namely, just give me a few more names of the kind of people who are involved in this over the years.
Well, one group, well, of course, the Club of Rome.
Those people have had a pretty significant influence, and don't forget that when the Club of Rome was formed originally, it was in Italy, and the original meeting and the original formation of the thing was in a villa that was owned by David Rockefeller.
You just can't make this up.
They had the bases covered.
Here's some overlapping organizations that were very influential over the years.
You have the Aspen Institute, for instance.
It used to be called originally the Aspen Institute for Humanistic Studies.
That didn't fly too well after a while because it was too religious, so they changed their name and they just are now the Aspen Institute.
But they have been grooming and teaching executives from all over the world about the subtleties of globalization and stuff.
So they've got a lot of their members, their board members are members of the Trilateral Commission.
Then you have the Aspen Institute, something you might recognize, or not Aspen, but the Atlantic Institute, which you might recognize in Europe or in Great Britain.
But the Atlantic Institute, you can look at their board of directors today and you'll find, I don't know, at least three or four or five members of the trilateral commissioner on that.
And these different organizations kind of had a different slap.
For instance, Aspen has been a training organization primarily, where they take and mentor executives like presidents and vice presidents of these giant companies.
And they teach them about how globalization works and stuff.
Well, that's different than the Atlantic Institute.
It has a different mission.
It's more economic oriented and it's more probably aligned with the World Economic Forum, which now, and by the way, here's another organization you have.
The World Economic Forum has been saturated with members of the Trilateral Commission over the years, attendees.
There's other American organizations, or at least based in America, institutes, think tanks.
The Brookings Institution, for instance, is one.
But you kind of get the idea.
These are the elite of the elite.
The Council on Foreign Relations has been a huge player for recruitment.
where people are inducted into the global philosophy and taught and they go to meetings and they rub shoulders with the mucky box and pretty much anybody can join the Council on Foreign Relations.
But if you stay at it long enough, you're going to get the fabric of your life is going to be dyed a different color and you'll be with them.
I hope that kind of answers.
No, Patrick, this.
No, Patrick, in a way you answer a question, I think.
See if I'm thinking on the right lines here.
I've observed people, contemporaries of mine, who've gone into politics in the UK and have attained a very senior level.
One of them was George Osborne, who became Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But I used to see him in the school playground.
We had kids at the same school, you know, when he was sort of up and coming.
I'm friends with a guy called Michael Gove, who is now sort of effectively the deputy prime minister.
I've had two of my university contemporaries and friends become prime minister, David Cameron and the current one, Boris Johnson.
And what I've noticed in several of those cases is that it's almost like they've flipped at a certain point.
And I sometimes wonder is that when you reach a certain level of eminence or influence in politics, do they kind of sidle up to you and give you the key to the room where it happens?
It's like it's explained to you, look, this is the deal.
This is where the world economy is going.
If you want to be wise, if you want to be part of the elite, you accept this.
Is that how it works?
I think there's a culture amongst the global elite that that is exactly how it works.
If you want to get along, you have to go along.
It's just that simple.
And that's probably true in all kinds of different scenarios in life, whether you work at a hospital or, you know, somebody's going to take you aside and say, you know, you kind of got your own ideas and that's great, but this is the way it works here.
And if you want to stay here for any length of time, then this is what you need to do to, you know, make sure you stay here.
But I've seen this, I've seen this type of thing that you're describing many times over the years where, and I scratched my head.
How could that happen?
Where somebody started out down one course and all of a sudden they're going this way.
What happened?
And I would look at, for instance, at your Boris Johnson at this point, and I would call him, uh, just kind of knee-jerk, uh, you know, name-calling, I would call him the consummate technocrat right now, the way he's behaving.
I know he didn't, he didn't sound that way as I remember from his speeches some time ago, but man, he's hitting the nail on the head for technocracy right now.
That's right.
I mean, his, his 10 point green, green revolution is essentially technocracy, isn't it?
Totally extraordinary.
Totally.
And he started, he was skeptical.
I mean, he was a, he was, you know, all for shale oil, um, shale gas.
Uh, he, Rejected wind turbines and stuff, and suddenly... Whoa!
Yes.
Yes, I know.
This is terrifying, Patrick.
I know, somebody got... We've had this joke in America, at least I have with some of my friends.
It's not a general joke, but... But it's like, when somebody goes to Washington from our local community, somebody we know and like and, you know, understand, etc.
It's like a little rain cloud forms over their head, you know, when they get to Washington, D.C.
And after a while, they just disappear into the fog, you know, and they're different.
They come back and they're different.
They're voting for things they would never, you know, they said they would never vote for something.
And all of a sudden, then boom, they vote for it.
We see this all the time.
And partly it's peer pressure, partly it's just being in the crowd, the group think, that's important.
But I do, I'm just certain that there are situations where people get pulled aside and say, we need to have a little talk here.
I'll give you an example.
This is kind of an example.
Back in the early Trump presidency, somebody showed up on the back door of the White House, you know, knocking on the door, right?
Hey, can I come in?
And no schedule, nothing in the schedule book for this person to show up, right?
They just showed up and knocked on the door and said, Hi, I'm here.
It was Henry Kissinger, who was one of the original members of the Trilateral Commission, I might add.
And he said, I'm here and I'd like to sit down with Donald.
Oh, come right in, Henry!
Nobody else can come in this way, but since it's you, sure, come on right in, you know?
This kind of backdoor diplomacy has been whittled down to be a fine science in America, where people finally learn OK, this is the way it works here.
And if you want to come out of it with your skin, then you're going to have to comply.
That's all I can figure.
It's the only thing that makes sense.
I'm very grateful to you, Patrick, for being so kind of normal looking, shall I say.
I mean, you look quite distinguished and you're very reasonable and you're amused.
You counter this notion that anyone who believes in this stuff must be a kind of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.
But I've got to ask you, I mean, this is just about the most shocking thing.
I think people listening or watching this podcast are going to be going, what?
And I think they're going to be asking, if this stuff is so egregious, why has it not Come out more.
I mean, why, you know, you've been writing about this for years.
Why?
Why does it still go on?
Well, I'll tell you, most people don't listen for one thing.
That's just been my experience.
Most of the citizenry that we've addressed don't listen.
And heaven knows the mucky bucks in government don't listen.
They all have their own agenda.
And they're afraid to buck the big guys.
I've bumped into this so many times over the years, it just boggles my mind.
Where you'll sit down and talk to people and explain it to them, and they will agree with you 100%.
Oh man, you're right on the money.
We see what's going on.
Yeah, you nailed it.
Yeah, something needs to be done about it.
And the minute they walk away, they just do nothing.
They're afraid to do anything because they don't want to buck the man.
They're afraid of these people, and so they just don't say anything.
I think this is kind of a cultural thing.
It's just the way people are.
They may get alarmed over something.
I mean, you know, look at things like, you know, why hasn't there been more resistance against the whole global warming scam?
Well, lots of people understand that the science on their side is completely cracked and it's useless and worthless, but they won't stand up to it to, you know, to take it out.
Uh, for any number of reasons, either they're profiting economically or they're scared of the people literally in America.
Now we have, we have groups like black lives matter running around and Antifa threatening people saying, if you don't do what we say, we're going to burn your house down.
Oh, that gets pretty personal now.
But I think we've seen this on a macrocosm for a long time.
And by the way, I have talked to some influential people over the years.
I'm not just saying I talked to my neighbor down the street.
People that could have had something to do to push back on this, but they didn't do it.
Yes, this is very much my feeling.
I mean, Michael Gove being the obvious example.
Michael Gove, he's one of the more intelligent politicians in the country.
He read my book.
Which lays out very, very clearly in a way that no sentient person really could read that book and not realize that global warming is the most massive scam.
There is no evidence for it.
There is no evidence that the solutions are going to help, you know, wind power and solar energy, not good, not good environmentally, not good economically, not good socially on any number of levels.
And yet still, He's sort of plowed on in fact, he embraced the green blob which I found puzzling until I spoke to you and now you've you've made it feel very clear.
So let's let's cut to the chase.
Now the great reset.
What does it what will it entail for us?
What what's what's the plan?
What do they want?
In America, we'd call it.
The Green New Deal that was proposed kind of originally by Senator Markey and Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez.
They were laughed out of the room when they first spoke this stuff.
It was so ridiculous.
Everybody thought.
But since then, now, at least half of Congress is sympathetic towards it, and all of business, big business, is sympathetic toward it.
It's like a virus of the mind.
Not a virus, you know, like COVID-19, but it's a thought virus.
It's just like, man, it just gets in people's heads, and the idea starts kicking around, and somehow they get deceived, and they're thinking it's a great idea.
The idea of, and by the way, let's just dispel this at first, based on what I've already said, when they talk about wealth distribution, and that's frequently, you hear that, there is no wealth to distribute.
This is the first big lie That just stands out from an economic point of view.
There is no wealth to share.
Does anybody think that the people, the global elite running this whole thing, who are rich beyond their wildest imagination, are going to give up one nickel of their wealth to help you or me or anybody else in society, much less the poor?
No way.
They want to have all of the resources.
So when they trick people into thinking, well, we're going to redistribute the wealth here.
No, they're not.
They're going to redistribute it towards themselves.
You just don't understand the context of what they're talking about.
It's about getting it redistributed from you to them.
And they're doing a pretty darn good job globally.
During this pandemic, the whole year, at least in America, the companies that have gotten filthy stinking rich are the Amazons of the world, the Teslas of the world, the Googles of the world, the Facebooks of the world.
These companies are just raking in money.
Well, everybody else is falling apart.
Businesses are falling left and right in America.
Restaurants are going out of business.
Bars are going out of business.
Small companies are going out of business.
It's decimated our economy.
Is that part of the plan?
Pardon?
That's part of the plan, right?
That they want to destroy the small and medium businesses?
It's the crushing of free market economics.
on a global basis.
They wanna crush it everywhere.
And this has been the goal forever.
You know, even the United Nations, four years ago, Christiana Figueres, who I know she's in your country right now, I think, working for an NGO, she was the head of climate change.
She ran the Paris Climate Conference, by the way.
She was the climate change czar at the United Nations.
She said openly at a press conference that the United Nations' goal is to replace Capitalism and free enterprise with sustainable development.
She said they have an intention, they have a timetable, and they have the plan.
You couldn't be more blunt as to what was going to happen.
When Klaus Schwab came along and started the World Economic Forum and started his whole, everything he's got going now, it's gotten very big since the beginning, this is his mission.
To convert all of the big giant corporations of the world to get them in line with this so that they, you know, they're part of this crowd that will profit from it.
But everybody else is targeted for just getting flattened, just stomped.
And this is happening, and nobody's being alarmed about this.
Having been a small businessman for most of my life, I cry for these people that are getting driven out of business.
They got their life in it.
They worked maybe 20, 30, 40 years to build a little business.
Not a big business, just a little business for themselves.
And they're making money, they're supporting their family, maybe their extended family.
And all of a sudden, some government politician comes along and says, you're not essential.
You can't run that business anymore.
You need to shut your door and lock it up right now and tell your customers they can come back next month.
This is just murder of business.
Just killing it.
And I know it's happening in Great Britain.
I know it's happening in Europe.
It's happening everywhere on the planet right now.
And this is the goal of the Great Reset.
The Great Reset, by definition, if you think about it, You cannot have a reset unless there's some vacuum that happened before you push the button.
You can't rebuild something unless the first thing has been destroyed.
And we've heard this from the global warming crowd for years.
I hate to say why we're flipping back and forth here in just a minute.
We've heard this thing for years from the global warming crowd.
That capitalism is evil.
That mankind is responsible for the warming of the planet, which will certainly kill the whole planet.
That the global commons is the only way we must work together in order to save the planet.
Yes.
All of this craziness has been rolled over into the Great Reset.
to just flatten the economic system of the world so that sustainable development can rise out.
Now, global warming, by the way, the solution to it, they never ever have proposed any other alternative than sustainable development.
There is no plan B.
There is no retrofitting of capitalism or free market economics.
No, it's never been that.
There has only been one solution they ever offered to fix the problem, and that was sustainable development.
And I will contend from day one that the whole global warming, global cooling back in the 70s, this whole thing has been A made-up social engineering program to drive people into sustainable development.
That's the only answer they ever provided for anybody.
And that's what Klaus Schwab is suggesting now with the Great Reset.
It's so bad, he said.
Oh, the world is so bad.
Capitalism is so broken.
Oh, it just can't possibly survive.
What we need to have is let it go, let it die, let it just go and disintegrate.
We'll help it, give it a good push on the way out, make sure it's dead.
And then the great reset, why we'll fix everything.
We have technology now that can do this and you know, we have new ideas.
Just trust us.
You're going to love this.
It's going to be great.
They say, you know, but you look at the fine print.
You look down at the fine print of what they want to do.
We will have no autonomy whatsoever as people.
If these people get their way, there will be no autonomy.
Property rights are going out the door.
All of Western civilization is based on property rights, the ability for people to own individual property, whether it's the clothes on your back or the diamond ring on your finger or the house that you live in or maybe you've got a little farm or a little business somewhere.
Maybe you have an apartment building.
They don't want anybody to own property.
Oh, that's radical.
And then they try and tell us, well, it's actually cool not to own property.
You don't have to worry about paying the taxes or whatever.
But, oh, wait a minute.
OK, so if we the citizens don't own the property, but there is property because we're living in it.
Well, who owns the property then?
Oh, somebody has to own it.
don't they?
It's like, well, yeah.
And they're saying to themselves, we own it, you turkeys.
We will charge you rent for the property that we own, but you don't have to own anything.
And that's a good thing for you, they say.
Well, I'll tell you what, it's like the walnut shells where you have three walnut shells on the table and there's a pea underneath one of them.
And the magician goes like this and mixes them all up.
It works.
Where's the pea?
And you turn all three over and they're all empty and the guy had pulled it out somewhere along the way.
This is the biggest intellectual sham of history.
They're telling us what they're going to do But nobody thinks beyond the end of their nose what this means.
If you want a scary read before you go to bed, get the Jenna 21 book.
It's still available on Amazon, by the way.
Anyway, it's a big old orange book, you know, the eight and a half by 11 size.
I think it's 250 pages, something like that.
Read the original Agenda 21 book.
It'll freak you out.
This is what they want to do.
This is the Great Reset.
Okay, go get the 2030 Agenda document from the United Nations, which is kind of the update for that.
Same thing.
Read it from cover to cover.
They want everything.
They want you to have nothing.
And I guess at the end of it, I could just ask you, James, are you ready to give up everything in your life?
For the sake of somebody else controlling your... Hell no!
I'm certainly not.
So, Patrick, what do we do?
Is it too late?
Can we still resist at this stage?
Because, I mean, this year has been... they've really accelerated the program, haven't they?
Undercover of this, I would argue, largely manufactured viral scare.
Yes.
And you know, by the way, you haven't told me this, but I've listened to a couple of your other interviews on the internet.
I know you're clued in to understand what happened originally at Imperial College of London with Neil Ferguson with his original computer model stating that half a million Brits are going to die and that 1.2 million Americans are going to die.
Well, he's been shamed out of the computer community since then, by the way.
People don't know that because there's never a tagline on the story.
The guy's software, modeling software, has been absolutely decimated by legitimate computer scientists.
They say this thing's a piece of junk.
And he's been morally compromised along the way, not, you know, won't go into that, but he's got his own issues removed from boards and stuff.
The guy's career is in tatters right now, but he was the guy that started this.
We also know that Imperial College and others of that group like East Anglia have been those universities that provided the alarmist studies based on computer models to the global warming crowd for decades now.
This is where this stuff came from.
Same type of computer models, same type of mentality.
We're all going to die if we don't do something right now.
The policies that Ferguson threw out there to the world, he's no policymaker, but he did it.
Close all the schools.
Social distancing, wear masks, and lockdown.
Those four things were the policies that went out to the whole world.
They had a special relationship with the United Nations, and they say so on their website.
They fed that all into the UN immediately.
The UN, through the World Health Organization, which has treaties with almost every nation on earth, They exercised, they pushed the button on those treaties and said, here is what you must do because we have a pandemic.
And all of a sudden, boom, the whole world does the same thing at the same time.
Yes.
All this happened here.
And here's the problem with global warming, how quickly things change.
But the one thing that global warming could never get traction over, And they kept telling us, Al Gore told us, we're all gonna die in 12 years if we don't do something, you know?
They never had any dead bodies!
You can't convince anybody there's a threat if there's no dead bodies, and this finally got through to them, and they said, Let's leave this horse over here in the stable.
Let's get a new horse to ride for a while, and let's show the public a few dead bodies, and we'll blame it on this, and we'll scare the crud out of them, and get them to do what we want them to do.
So the United Nations exercised all their global treaties at the same time, and that's how it got spread to the whole planet.
But I ask people over here, If you think that there's some other thing going on here other than what I'm trying to present, just tell me one thing then.
Who has the power to shut down the global economy?
I listen.
How about Democrats?
Ooh, those nasty old Democrats probably did it.
Oh, no, no, wait a minute.
There's no Democrats in Europe.
That's us.
We have Democrats.
Oh, well, it's the Republicans.
It's the Bushes or somebody doing it.
No, no, no.
That's just us.
There's no Republicans in Africa, right?
Who did it?
Okay, who is it?
Oh, it's the EU.
That must be it.
The EU orchestrated this and they shut down the global economy.
Oh, you know, that may be, but I don't think the Africans would like that very much if they caught wind of that, right?
I don't think South America would like that if the EU crushed them.
Okay, that's none of those.
They're not the culprit.
Okay, so the question again, who has the power and the moxie to shut down the entire global economic system?
You have to follow the money, you have to follow the power, and you have to look at the only person in the room, the 800 pound gorilla, that has threatened to do it already And you look straight back into the eyes of the United Nations, Christiana Figueres, back through Harlan Brundtland, right straight back to 1973 and the Tronado Commission.
You can just follow this whole thing back down the line of history and say, dang, endgame has just occurred, folks.
We're at it.
What can we do about it?
That's the next question.
That's what you ask.
Help me now.
We're all on the edge of our seats, Patrick.
We're thinking there's a lot of fear around right now.
And if you can offer us a crumb of hope or even a kind of a roadmap for this game.
Yes, absolutely.
Now is the time for people, citizens, to take to the street.
Not with weapons of destruction, Not to harm anybody.
I would never recommend that, and I don't.
Philosophically, I'm totally opposed to that.
But now is the time for citizens who understand what's going on to take to the street to message other citizens on what's going on, to bring them out of the fog of deception, invite them to be in the street as well, And grow a movement that cannot be ignored by these boneheads.
These people, in my mind, are absolutely insane.
Even though they have their own axe to grind, I realize that.
And from my point of view, they're absolutely nuts.
Their arguments fall apart on so many different levels.
That when you really understand what they're trying to do, you say, this is insane.
It's just absolutely insane, but they're trying to do it anyway.
These are the relatively small group of people that must be told the message.
You're crazy.
We do not accept you.
We will not accept you.
Get out of public policy.
If you want to play scientist or something, go do that.
Go buy yourself a laboratory and go have fun.
But stay out of public policy.
You don't own the world.
You don't control the world.
And we're not going to let you control the world.
That's the message that needs to be sent.
Can I digress for one other story?
Please.
Just a little story, if we have time.
Go on.
Yeah.
Back when I mentioned the interview I did with the executive director.
Of the trial.
With Larry King.
I discovered something.
Afterwards.
I actually went had breakfast with him.
Early morning, I think it was a Denny's or something open in the building downstairs.
And we talked.
And I discovered that philosophically speaking.
That he was a member of Christian Science, which is kind of a mind-twisting religion that doesn't believe in evil.
They don't believe evil exists.
And if evil things happen to you, it's only because you're giving a scent to it in your mind, you know, that somehow you believe it, it gets you.
I never quite understood it, but it's a little bit nutsy.
And I've seen this philosophy, not that all Trilateral Commission members are Christian scientists, there weren't, but I just say that.
I ran across this philosophy many times with them directly, where you'll say something to them that would criticize what they're doing.
Well, I don't like this policy, X, whatever it is.
This policy, this is one.
And they look at you and say, wow, how can you think that way?
It's like blank stare.
How could you possibly come up with some other, you know, that what we're doing is just so good and we're doing it for you.
How can it possibly be criticized?
And they're just as sincere as the day is long.
They're just like the deer caught in the headlights.
Well, why would anybody resist us?
Why would anybody be against this wonderful, wonderful idea that we have?
You know, like there's some paternalistic figure or something responsible for our childhood.
I've never fully understood that.
I can explain it a little bit.
But this is the mentality that this crowd across the top, the top layer of this global elite, this is their mentality by and large.
They can't conceive how anybody would ever be disappointed with them.
And nobody has really ever challenged them, James.
That's part of the problem.
They're so far removed in their ivory towers of academia and flying their private jets and their castles and their mansions and their whatever, they don't have any contact with real people and they just operate in a vacuum.
And nobody's ever really confronted them to say, you people get out of here.
You just, you know, if there was, if there was a group of people in a town, you know, that was doing something that was going to burn the town down or whatever.
I mean, the townspeople would run them out of town.
No, you can't do that.
You just put your matches away.
You can't do that.
But nobody's really ever challenged these people.
I say now it's time to make To make known to them that we will not accept their nutsiness any longer.
We've discovered them.
We've exposed them.
The American people, the European people, the British people, the African people, the Indian people, South Americans, the Brazilian people.
We need to stand up in bulk at this point.
And say, you people, get out.
We don't want you here.
Do you read my lips?
We don't want you here.
Get out of our system.
Get out of our public policy arena.
You do not belong here anymore.
I don't know if we can get this message across, but I guarantee you we won't get it across if we do nothing.
If we do nothing, the Great Reset is going to run over us like a steamroller on a hot pavement that's just been laid down by a truck.
Patrick, thank you for one of the most important podcasts I've ever done.
And I hope everyone watching this or listening to this will feel impelled To take action.
I think that we have reached an inflection point in the history of Western civilization and it's extraordinary.
I think this what started as a weird cult in the 1930s could in the space of a few decades be threatening everything that we've achieved in our in our civilization all the prosperity all the things that we're looking forward to for our children and grandchildren.
All will be rendered as nothing and ground to dust if we don't resist.
So thank you, Patrick.
And please, if anyone has enjoyed this podcast and would like to support me, you can find me on Patreon or at Subscribestar.
This enables me to do more podcasts and vidcasts like this, and I hope you'll agree that We, those of us who are speaking the truth about these things, we are beleaguered right now.
We need support because there was a mighty edifice around the world bent on our destruction.
Thank you, Patrick.
That was absolutely brilliant.
And I, I hope you'll come on the podcast again sometime because I think this is going to be a, I don't know how long it's going to last on the internet.
I'll probably get taken off, off YouTube and et cetera, et cetera.
I mean, do you get that, by the way?
Have you had people trying to shut you down?
Oh, yes.
All the time.
I've had this for 45 years, James.
That's nothing new to me.
We were censored back then, and I'm still getting censored.
So, you know, I say, OK, you sissies today, not you, but you internet sissies today that get a little bit of censorship and think, oh, my whole life is destroyed.
You ain't seen nothing.
We need to just deal with it, and that's one reason I say we need to go to people directly now.
Don't rely necessarily on the Facebooks of the world anymore.
We need to go to people directly and have one-on-one face-to-face conversations and re-establish those lines of communication where we can build human relationships again, not some kind of computer relationship.
It's very important.
I wish, I wish President Trump could see this, because I think that, I think he will, I think he will become president again.
I think that, I mean, maybe I'm being optimistic, but I think that the scale of that electoral fraud, I think that the kind of, I think it was the globalists in one form or another, I think they overreached themselves.
I think, let's hope.
I mean, Joe Biden is part of the Great Reset, isn't he?
Totally.
He said so already.
He's used the exact language that Klaus Schwab invented on the World Economic Forum website.
So they're all gung-ho for the Great Reset right now.
And it's just kind of a matter of time in one way, because even through the Trump administration, there's been all kinds of things that have continued to move ahead as far as technocracy is concerned.
But it will be the people in the country, ultimately, and I know you could say this in Great Britain as well.
Whatever the problems the people have in Great Britain, you know it's not going to be your national government that saves you.
You know that.
And it's the same thing here.
Our national government is not going to save us where we live.
We live out here in a town, you know, in a state, and it's far removed from Washington, D.C.
There's not going to be anybody coming out here from Washington with any policy that's going to straighten out our local affairs.
We need to be the ones that take charge of our own local communities across the country.
Take that back, and you will, by default, take the rest back.
And that's what makes it so difficult for most people because they don't want to get off their couch and go out and actually do something in their own local community.
We need to just defy these people that are giving this mask mandate garbage and this social distancing garbage.
And I realize I'm stepping into the area of civil disobedience, but it's come to that, James.
This thing is a fraud.
It's a scam that's been perpetrated to trick us into the Great Reset.
It has nothing to do with the disease anymore.
It never did.
No more than global warming had anything to do with the planet's temperature.
That was just the fear-mongering technique that was used to drive us into sustainable development.
Same race, different horse.
And we need to just say, you know what?
We ain't gonna play ball.
In America, I'm telling people, do not comply.
Just make your mind up.
Say, I will not comply, and then don't comply.
Don't wear the face mask.
Forget social distancing.
And if somebody throws you out of the store, don't go back for Pete's sake.
You can buy some somewhere else.
But, you know, you gotta stand up, take a stand, and say, I will not play the role that they have assigned me to play.
This is the idea to spread.
I just will not, I will not play the role that they have assigned me to play.
And I think you could probably say the same thing in any country you go to today.
This is what the citizens of that country need to hear.
Yeah.
Great.
Well, um, thank you, Patrick.
I urge people to read one of your books, at least, Technocracy Rising, Technocracy, The Hard Road to World Order.
Can they see your, have you got sort of a website?
Yes, technocracy.news is where people need to go to see all my stuff on technocracy, my current stuff.
But I would mention that all of my books are available on Amazon.com.
I know there's an iteration of that in Great Britain.
And you might want to, if people over there in Europe hear this, don't buy it from me.
The postage is just crazy to get something overseas these days and it takes weeks to get there.
We get constant trouble with that.
But Australia has .au, and the United Kingdom I think is .uk, and Europe is .eu.
There's an audiobook for my latest book, there's Kindle versions, and my original Trilatos over Washington, I've republished that, and that's available on Amazon as well.
So, depending on how much you want to get educated and up to speed on it, they're all there, and you can get them, and you can also get them off my website.
That's great.
Patrick, it's been an absolute pleasure to have you on the show and best of luck.
We need it.
I'll tell you what.
I just got to say this.
We have our problems here.
You have your problems there.
I realize it.
We're both up to our eyeballs and alligators, right?
But I just want to say this.
We need each other.
in this battle.
It may not be apparent initially because you're way far away from me, but people like us, we so desperately need each other for this battle that's coming to us that we didn't call for.
We didn't ask for this.
We didn't.
The freedom-minded, liberty-minded people that don't want to see their cultures destroyed They need each other now more than ever in history to get mutual encouragement, mutual understanding, building up, whatever you want to call it.
We need to see each other around the world.
We're facing the same problem.
It's a global problem.
And we need people like us in every country and this planet right now to stand up and say, nope, not going to fly, guys.
We see your plan.
It's crackpot.
You're not going to do it.
You're not going to destroy the world for the sake of some nut cakes idea from some academic ivory tower somewhere.
Not going to work that way.
So I hope we can achieve that and I'm thankful that you're over there doing what you're doing and.
And I know there's other people that are, you know, helping along and along those same lines over there.
It's great.
And I'll just say, incidentally, that some days almost 30 to 40 percent of our website traffic on technocracy.news comes from the UK.
I never intended that.
That's just the way it happened.
That's good.
That's good to hear.
I'm glad that my people are playing their part.
Good.
Thanks again, Patrick.
I'll say goodbye now.
Thank you.
▲
Export Selection