All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 3, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:38:28
Patrick M Wood
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
I love Danny Paul!
Come and subscribe to the podcast, baby!
I love Danny Paul!
And there's another time, subscribe with me!
I love Danny Paul!
Welcome to The Delling Pod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
He's back for a second run.
This is kind of a sequel to our first one, isn't it?
It's Patrick Wood, and he's probably the world's greatest expert on technocracy.
And Pat, I would have thought that when you started out chronicling The technocracy movement in the early 1970s at its birth, you were probably plowing a fairly lonely furrow.
But now you've got your finger on the hot button topic of the moment because of the great reset.
I mean, all your chickens are coming home to roost, aren't they?
They really do.
And you know, from the early 70s,
One of the phrases that we took exception with back then, when I say we, I'm talking about myself and the late professor Anthony Sutton, we saw the phrase, the word, interdependent, all over the literature of the Trilateral Commission members, the academics, the mucky mucks, whatever, that we were moving into an interdependent era.
And that the world is going to change because of that.
And, you know, we analyzed this independent business.
Couldn't find any evidence that there was in fact a move towards interdependence.
Not a natural move towards interdependence.
Yet, they said the world is going to become interdependent and we're going to take care of that.
We're going to be there for you, you know.
And what strikes me as odd now, not odd, but just kind of chickens coming home to roost, the World Economic Forum this last week, as they met in Davos, Switzerland, one of the things that came out in one of the presentations is kind of a summarization bullet points, you know, of what we discovered or what we, you know, what we now know that we didn't know before.
One of the points, I think there was eight that they made, one of the points said, We are truly interdependent now.
It's like, okay, it went from nothing to something, and there was no natural demand for this.
It just happened because they manipulated it to happen.
So now they've declared we are interdependent.
What do they mean by interdependent?
Well, that's a good question, too.
It's like a slippery bar of soap.
How do you really figure that one out?
It's like, well, countries are declared to be interdependent.
So are corporations declared to be interdependent.
So are people groups declared to be interdependent.
And in the case of governments, for instance, or just kind of the world continental scene, they would envision the removing of the national borders, because borders create conflicts, they said, and borders are artificial, they said, and therefore you need to take borders away and just have an interdependent world.
Now, what exactly does that mean?
Well, I guess it means that That Europe kind of interacts with the United States, with Africa, with South America, and somehow we all figure out the global supply chain together and we're interdependent.
You know, I've never really seen a totally succinct definition of what they mean.
Yes.
I like to think it's just a marketing term maybe, but it's just kind of weird.
They do seem to like these nebulous terms, don't they?
I'm thinking of sustainability.
Everyone knows that sustainability is a good thing.
And everyone has a sort of sense of what it means.
But actually, it means whatever they want it to mean.
They sort of create these these concepts which they tell us that this is reflection of public desire, but actually they can't provide the evidence for the public desire except from what they tell us.
Right?
Yeah, that's exactly right.
And I see these these vague terms.
all over the literature, especially now.
I mean, it's just a repeat, I suppose.
But I see this in all the releases coming out of, and stories, articles coming out of last week's Davos meeting.
But you see terms that basically just have no meaning except what they want it to mean.
I see the word, for instance, reimagining coming up all the time.
They want to reimagine this and reimagine that in terms of trajectory and economic policies and whatever.
And you have to ask yourself, did we imagine this in the first place?
Are we reimagining whatever we imagined before?
This is a word, again, it has meaning, they say, but they don't ever really say what that is.
Transformation is probably the closest synonym that really works, as I'm looking at it.
at it and transformation back the synonym diction you know the the thesaurus does say that's one of the synonyms but the idea of reimagining is transforming and this was the theme of my first book on technocracy that was called technocracy rising the Trojan horse of global transformation.
This word transformation has been used a lot in the last 20-25 years.
You say, well, who's doing the transforming?
Is it a natural process of transforming or is somebody jamming the gears from the top to make sure we transform in a certain way?
Well, when you boil it all down and you look down through these terms, reimagining, transforming, whatever, you see this pattern coming up that is nothing that we've had in the past.
It's something that's brand new.
And they're the ones that are thinking this stuff up.
It's just out of the blue.
They're reimagining.
They're re-fantasizing.
You know, you'd like to say, well, are they taking magic mushrooms to figure this out or what?
You know, are they?
Yes.
Before we go on, Pat, we ought to just, just for those who've come into this, this podcast and not seen you before, seen the one we did earlier, Pat has been, dear viewer, Pat has been studying technocracy since its birth in its modern form in the early 1970s.
You had a career though in business, didn't you, before that as well?
Well, I was actually in the financial world.
I started out as a financial analyst.
I'm writing research reports for a brokerage company.
I'd go and I'd study a corporation, their financials and whatever.
And then I would write a report that would be given to the investors, right?
To decide, oh, you like this company?
This is what they do.
This, you know, this is their future.
And that's kind of how I got my first exposure to gold, by the way, because I was studying gold mining companies.
You know it kind of took me all over the world, South Africa included, and that's kind of during the time when I discovered this group of elites that were working around the world.
I was a young guy, didn't totally understand it, but when I saw what the Trilateral Commission was doing in its early days, many of the people So, I just scratched my head, I tabled my concerns for some time until I ran into Anthony Sutton.
And he filled in the blanks for me, whatever he told me.
And I thought, that's just weird.
What's the odds of that in a big, big world?
And so I just scratched my head.
I tabled my concerns for some time until I ran into Anthony Sutton.
And he filled in the blanks for me, whatever he told me.
He said, well, I've been studying this too.
And it's, you know, this group of people are doing something I think is quite nefarious.
And he was very concerned.
He was so concerned it got him thrown out of Stanford University as a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
He was pretty nonplussed when I met him.
He was actually pretty depressed because his academic career had been basically terminated by these people.
And fortunately he didn't just give up and, you know, throw his hands up and run off, but at least not then, he didn't.
And so we teamed up to tell the story about the machinations of the Trilateral Commission back then.
Yes.
I was having a conversation the other day with, I'm sure you've had this many, many times, somebody who was skeptical about the whole technocracy movement.
You know, they sort of want to believe two things at once.
They sort of say, yeah, I know the great research is a real thing because you've got Davos producing these websites which tell us all about build back better and so on.
So clearly it's a thing.
But what they can't quite do is, A, make the imaginative leap to actually this thing is real and it's going to affect their lives and these people are serious.
Number one.
And number two, they can't really understand the motivation of these people.
Now, what you were talking about there, when you're talking about people sort of imagining or reimagining a future, what they are surely is kind of debauched utopians.
Well, I don't think there's any other kind of utopian.
I think all utopianism is utterly stupid and corrupt and so on.
But is that fair that they have this idea of Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, still current director, uses the word we prolifically.
We need to do this.
We have to do that.
if that's necessary, because you can't make a long look without breaking ends.
Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, still current director, uses the word we prolifically.
We need to do this.
We have to do that.
We have a need.
And people, they want you to think, that as all the other people of the world, they want you to think that the we includes them.
But the we doesn't include the people of the world.
It only includes the small, narrow, little group at the top where they have figured out what they want to do.
And then they simply call it we.
We need to do, you know, this is what the world needs.
We need to do this.
And it's a very subtle psychological trick.
To involve people in the program that would not ordinarily be in the program if they understood what it was and it had nothing to do with them.
This also touches on the idea of stakeholders.
They're calling it now stakeholder capitalism.
Versus stakeholder capitalism.
Versus state capitalism, where the state runs it.
And shareholders, where profit is the motive, right?
Now it's stakeholder capitalism.
And what that means, as far as I can tell, is that all the stakeholders are the ones that determine policy.
Now a stakeholder could be a radical environmental group, like Friends of the Earth.
Or somebody, I mean you've got them over there too, the Extinction Rebellion, they're a stakeholder.
Yeah.
And they're allowed, so supposedly they're allowed to come in and sit in on the corporate board meetings and whatever to be a stakeholder in the capitalism and determine the direction that policies will take on a given issue.
Stakeholder capital, they don't have equity, they don't buy anything, don't buy stock, they don't They don't work for the company.
They're just social justice do-gooders that say, we're going to come in here and we have an opinion, and you have to listen to our opinion.
Stakeholder capitalism is really insane, in my opinion, from any possible view, because it says something like this.
If I have need of a kidney transplant and you have a kidney, you need to give that to me.
I'm a stakeholder and I have a right to it.
And so get on the operating table.
We're going to have a little operation.
You can't, that's just not right.
This is not just redistribution of wealth.
This is like the capture of this tape and we'll tell you exactly what you can do with it.
It's just, it's, it's really crazy.
You know, these people that have, No business being in the policy mix, yet they're saying that they need to be at it, and everybody says, this is what we need for the future.
I'll tell you this, and then they have the brass to say, they kind of piggyback on what the UN has said, they talk about this is our common future, which is the heartbeat of Sustainability in the first place.
Gro Harlem Brundtland brought that phrase up years ago in the 80s.
Our common future.
Well, who determines our common future?
In their mind?
Yes.
You don't.
They do.
I say no.
Tell me something.
I was looking at the roster of talent On the on the online conference at at the World Economic Forum this week last week, and I mean they got President Xi of China.
They got Vladimir Putin.
They got Mr. Macron.
They got Angela Merkel.
I can't remember whether Boris Johnson appeared or not.
I mean, they certainly got the appalling mayor of London Sadiq Khan.
They do attract the big hitters now.
Klaus Schwab... I'm going to ask you to tell me about Klaus Schwab in a moment, but how does this weird talk... The other thing that struck me about these various discussion modules they had all week is that nobody watched them.
I mean, they had about 5,000, maybe less, viewers for each... fewer viewers for each discussion.
Even President Xi only got about 15,000 which, you know, given the size of the Chinese population, okay, maybe they were sensitive, maybe they couldn't see his speech, but you'd have thought there'd be enough CCP apparatchiks around the world to watch his speech.
So on the one hand, the World Economic Forum is a kind of obscure talking shop where they talk about things so boring that no one wants to watch.
At the same time, it's this event which managed to attract the most powerful people in the world.
How do you explain that?
You know, first off, the World Economic Forum has been around, what, since 1971, I think it was founded?
Originally?
Yeah.
That was just during that period of time when the Trilateral Commission was getting going.
You know, I look back at that period of time, uh, and some of the writers that were academics, especially that were writing stuff about the problems in the world, the same people that became members of the commission in 1973.
And they were all calling for, uh, an end run around national sovereignty is what Richard Gardner called it back in that day.
An end-run around national sovereignty would be more effective than the old-fashioned frontal approach, he said.
Well, if you look back before the 70s and say, well, what frontal approach are they talking about?
There were actually several initiatives where they just tried to barnstorm their way in and make changes.
They couldn't do it.
They got rejected.
So they got this idea that they could do kind of an end-run around everything and get what they wanted out of the system, ultimately.
So, the World Economic Forum, along with the Bilderberg Group that was meeting at the same time, along comes David Rockefeller, the big Nebraska, and they said, we need to crystallize this into a program.
We need to put shoe leather to it and quit talking about it and get it done.
That's when the Trilateral Commission was formed with the approval and the encouragement of the Bilderberg Group in 1972.
That was the cauldron time, 70 to 73, that produced the action group known as the Trilateral Commission today.
This incorporated not only academics, not only media, not only legal firms, but also the multinational companies, representatives, and also top leaders in countries around the world.
They set out for this action plan.
And the World Economic Forum has tracked with that, if you will, to bring the leaders of the world together, not just North America, Japan and Europe, but all the leaders of the world now.
We saw the president of China speak there to discuss the policies that the core group in the Trilateral Commission were interested in, which is the same thing that World Economic Forum is interested in now.
And this has all kind of matured along the timeline together.
The Trilateral Commission has done some things along the way.
They fed the whole doctrine of sustainable development to the United Nations in 1992 with Agenda 21.
This was a trilateral policy, James.
This was not something that the people of the world came up with and they sang Kumbaya, whatever.
This was a distinct Policy created the bowels of the Trilateral Commission and fed to the United Nations by Gru Harlem Brundtland who wrote the book Our Common Future in a task force assigned by the United Nations.
She was a member of the Trilateral Commission.
Case closed.
This is where it came from.
And so, it's like the snowball that rolls down the hill.
It gets bigger and bigger and bigger until it hits the bottom.
Yes, this is good, because I wanted to use this chat to clean up, because there was so much information to absorb from our last vidcast, which I highly recommend, by the way.
On the last one you talked about the origins of technocracy.
Early history in the 1930s, and then its revival in the 1970s, and the foundation of the Trilateral Commission.
But there were various things that puzzled me, because I've been writing about it quite a bit, to warn people.
And one of the things that confused me is that, okay, so you've got the World Economic Forum, the thing in Davos, but you've also got Agenda 21 mutating into Agenda 2030, and that's a United Nations thing, and I wondered how they connected.
But now you've explained to me that the Fonds et Origo of all this evil is It does, and I look at the Trilateral Commission kind of as the point man for the project.
It's not that they were the only ones involved in the globalization process, because that just would not be true.
from the Trilateral Commission?
It does.
And I look at the Trilateral Commission kind of as the point man for the project.
It's not that they were the only ones involved in the globalization process, because that just would not be true.
I couldn't say that.
But they did represent the point man of the project to kickstart it, to get it really moving along.
And I'll give you a perfect example of that, by the way.
Zbigniew Brzezinski got together with Rockefeller when Brzezinski was a professor at Columbia University.
That's where technocracy was originally created, 1932 at Columbia.
Brzezinski wrote a book, Between Two Ages, America's Role in the Technotronic Era.
Rockefeller saw that, picked up on it, said this guy's brilliant, he's on track with some great ideas here, so they started the Trilateral Commission together.
It was Zbigniew Brzezinski Who is credited almost single-handedly, Brzezinski, a brilliant strategist.
He's just passed a few years ago, but a brilliant strategist, even if evil, he's brilliant.
He brought Chairman Deng from China to the United States, normalized relations with China, And Brzezinski is given as the guy who's the architect of this whole thing.
Actually, Henry Kissinger, another member of the Trilateral Commission, was involved in it as well, but in more of a minor sense.
Brzezinski got the call and Brzezinski got the credit for bringing China into the economic system.
Now, before 1976, it was basically illegal to do business with China.
They were a communist country, a sworn enemy of the United States, etc., like North Korea.
You didn't do business with them.
But even by the time Brzezinski had pulled China together and began to seed them with the ideas of technocracy, there had been trilateral related companies.
In other words, companies where the chairman of the board or president were members of the trilateral commission.
By 1976, three years after the group was formed, Bechtel Engineering, one of the largest private engineering companies in the world, they're huge, still private, Casper Weinberger, the head of that organization, was a member of the Traudata Commission.
By the time it was legal to do business with China, Bechtel Engineering had already executed At least 18 major infrastructure projects in China.
Infrastructure projects.
Dams and roads and power plants and whatever.
They didn't have any qualms whatsoever about doing that because they knew what they were doing.
They knew it was coming.
They got away with it.
Nobody said a word.
They made millions and millions and millions of dollars off of it.
And as soon as China was approved, All of a sudden, all of the trilateral-related companies moved into China.
Boom!
And they began to take businesses over there and build plants and build more infrastructure and bring China up to speed on how to grow its economy.
This was the picture of crony capitalism, really.
And it's been going on ever since.
They said, they make the a priori statement, we're going to foster a new international economic order.
We're going to foster interdependence amongst countries.
That's exactly what they did with China.
They made China interdependent with the United States.
Was there a natural demand for that?
Was anybody calling for it?
No, it was their policy.
They said, Well, this is obvious.
Everybody should know we want to be interdependent.
So China stripped our nation bare.
They took manufacturing, sometimes 100% of it, from our country and ripped it out and put it in China.
China has now grown to be almost the major economic power in the world.
And old Brzezinski, back in 1976, didn't teach Chairman Deng about free market economics.
He didn't.
He taught them about technocracy.
This was according to Brzezinski's own philosophy, where he wrote in more than one book, but he wrote also in Between Two Ages, that Marxism and communism, or the isms, were nothing more than stepping stones To get to what he called the technotronic era, and that was just another synonym for technocracy.
That's why he picked China, a communist country.
He said, this is what's going to happen.
The natural outcome of this is going to be communism is going to give way to technocracy.
And it's a necessary stepping stone to get from here together to there.
And why not?
Because communism is completely autocratic.
You can do anything you want if you're a dictator.
That's the only way to get it done.
The people would never accept it if it weren't for a dictator.
That's what they said, by the way, back in the 1930s when Roosevelt came to power and got seated as president.
The technocrats of that day called for Roosevelt to declare himself dictator in order to implement technocracy.
Unfortunately, Roosevelt didn't.
But they called for it.
I don't know if that answers the question.
It opens more doorways to further questions, I think.
It's fascinating.
It is a bit like the Matrix.
It is a bit like taking the red pill, which makes you see the world in a completely different way.
And you realize that the world that we ordinary folks have been taught to imagine exists, and we've been brainwashed, if you like, into thinking it exists, is merely a construct.
And actually, the people pulling the strings are these people that one's never heard of.
I mean, it sounds to me like Brzezinski, a name that one can barely pronounce, and people have certainly not heard of most people, is yet probably as influential and dangerous as, say, Karl Marx or Adolf Hitler.
What are the differences between fascism and communism say and and technocracy?
How does it sounds pretty similar in many ways?
Well, it does and I'm going to I'm just going to pull up an article that I put up on actually, I think a year ago you're about a little more than that on technocracy.news.
And that was actually a document comparing technocracy to communism, socialism, and fascism.
And it was an interesting study because the reason I even got onto this in the first place was that back in the 1930s, the technocrats hated the communists, the communists hated the technocrats.
They were always fighting with each other.
I saw this in newspaper articles time and time again.
And so I scratched my head.
I said, well, at the time, I didn't quite understand what's going on.
But they said that they didn't like communism because communism still relied on a price-based economic system using currency and stuff like that.
And the technocrats wanted to use energy as the controlling factor for all resource management stuff.
There were significant differences in philosophy, but they were real sticking points for them.
Some of the different markers that I found for, and this is a long list I put up on Technocracy News, the name of the article, by the way, was Technocracy versus Communism, Socialism, Fascism.
It was day four of my series.
that I did a year and a half ago.
Actually, I called it at the time the 12 Days of Christmas, but I just now call it the 12 Days of Technocracy.
Technocracy, for instance, I'll just give you a couple of these markers.
Technocracy despises capitalism.
Now, we know that's true.
We listen to Klaus Schwab.
Marx is a technocrat.
Marx, on the other hand, believed that capitalism was a necessary step to communism.
And fascism viewed it as a third way, that's the buzz phrase, a third way between capitalism and communism.
Technocracy is racially agnostic, whereas communism, Stalin condemned, for instance, anti-Semitism.
And in fascism, of course, it tends towards anti-Semitism and racism.
That's an important difference.
Here's another one.
Population.
Technocracy looks at population as a huge problem.
Overpopulate the world, it's going to just, you know, go crazy and we're going to multiply like ants.
To the Marxist mind, population is a non-issue, absolutely.
And it's a non-issue to fascism as well.
Universal basic income.
This is another good one.
Of course, we see this all the time now.
UBI is being promoted by technocrats all over the world.
As far as communism is concerned, they believe in a stratified pay structure according to the need of each citizen.
That's really backwards to what UBI is.
Fascism stratified the pay structure according to merit and value to the leadership and only the leadership.
Technocracy with relation to human conditioning Human conditioning is desired so that the people will live within the system.
In communism, education supports ideology.
They sent you off to education camp, re-education camps.
And in fascism, education always supported nationalism.
Now, technocracy is anti-nationalism.
It's just completely opposite.
So there's a few markers.
There's many more.
But there are substantial differences when you look at, and these are really kind of core issues.
They're world view type of issues that I listed here.
I think maybe there was like 20 different distinctives that I discovered here.
And you know, people can go and read that and chew on it, whatever.
I still get arguments from people on this, but I didn't write it to make an argument.
I just wrote it to make an observation.
Yeah, that's interesting, because it sounds like an offshoot or an update of Malthusianism to a degree.
This obsession with which we've known has gripped thinkers for a long, long time.
This idea that the Earth cannot sustain growing populations and that therefore, Tertullian said this in the fourth century.
Carthaginian priest and then Malthus reiterated it in the 18th century and even people like Cuddly Sir David Attenborough was for a while I think chairman of the Optimum Population Trust which believed that the world had an optimum population considerably below the levels it is now.
These people had this cuddly caring image.
They care about the planet, but actually There's a sort of misanthropy built into it and one of the dangers, I'm sure you've noticed this too, of holding the view that human populations are a problem is that, take that to its logical conclusion, it means you've got no problem about reducing that population.
The nicest way I suppose would be birth control, which in itself is horrible because it stops people having families and enjoying all the blessings of, you know, seeing their children grow up and so on.
It gets dodgy, doesn't it?
You can go from there to death camps or you can go to sort of more subtle culling programmes like maybe this, the vaccine.
Shall we talk a bit about the vaccine?
One thing I don't really understand about technocracy, and this is I think one of its most sinister elements, this idea that we're going to become trans-human or something and that they're going to interfere with our RNA, our DNA.
Tell me about that.
Well, if we can establish the fact that technocracy and sustainable development are essentially the same, Sustainable development is a resource development economic system promoted by the United Nations.
They have used climate change and global warming to drive people into sustainable development.
There's never another option on the table.
The problem is global warming.
The solution is sustainable development.
There's never a plan B. Okay, so that's a concern right off the bat.
Back when this pandemic started, the same people that were pushing climate alarmism in order to drive people to sustainable development, the same people that were running the computer models that were in academia, that were in the political arena, they jumped track over to the pandemic.
To use the pandemic to achieve the same results that they had with climate alarmism that was running out of steam.
Climate alarmism did run out of steam.
The last play, the last card they had to play was with youth.
And in particular, poor little Greta Thunberg was pushed up to the plate.
To scare the world half to death, shame on you leaders, their house is burning down and you know, she got no traction.
Everybody just, you know, come on, get out, you know, and they went on with business as usual.
It didn't move the needle for them to create a sense of emergency to get into sustainable development.
Now, the same crowd is pushing the narrative of pandemic to scare people to death and to achieve other policy goals.
I'm sure vaccines are one of them.
And the same thing is being offered now in the Great Reset, in the Green New Deal, whatever you want to call it.
It's sustainable development, baby.
That's the only thing that can deliver us from the ravages of COVID-19 or the ravages of climate change.
It doesn't matter what the driver is.
The point is there's only one solution offered.
So, having said that, okay, just lay that groundwork.
The philosophy behind both transhumanism and technocracy is the same core philosophy.
It's called scientism.
Scientism was coined originally by a French philosopher by the name of Henri de Saint-Simon, and I think he died in 1825.
But he proposed a new religion for the world.
And he said it was going to be science-based and that scientists and engineers would be the priesthood of this new religion.
And so, as that percolated through the 1800s and into the early 1900s, this became part of the technocracy movement.
Science is everything.
Engineering is everything.
In fact, the technocrats said that they were going to run the world according to their quote-unquote science of social engineering.
That's a scary term, too.
We'll talk about it right now.
But they thought that science was the only means to discover truth, period.
Now, technocracy was more overt and visible in its expression to change and engineer society.
Transhumanism, on the other hand, wasn't quite as visible early on in the 30s.
It was mostly just kind of a metaphysical proposition at the point that someday man was going to be immortal and omniscient, God qualities, essentially, going to be able to escape death.
They had no promise of that back then, but since technology has taken off in the 90s and now in the 2000s, yes, They have lots of reason to crow now that we are going to become transhuman and escape death and we're going to extend life and we're going to wire our brains into google so we can know everything there is to know and be trained instantly on something.
Transhumanism is now merging with Technocracy.
And here's the proposition.
You see this Klaus Schwab, by the way, World Economic Forum is saying this openly now.
He's a transhuman.
He's also a technocrat.
It's a perfect match.
And here's their thinking is as technocracy is to society, transhumance is to the people who live in that society.
If you're going to have society 2.0, Well, they call it the fourth industrial revolution, right?
But essentially, if you're going to have world society 2.0, that's the structure of society, then you need to have humans 2.0 to inhabit and live and work in that new 2.0 society.
Now we see they're merging together.
They're like Siamese twins joined at the hip, if you will.
I can't get loose from each other.
And Klaus Schwab is making that point today by talking about technocrat things just as easily as he talks about transhuman things.
So what's the plan with this vaccine?
Because it seems to me that the COVID alleged pandemic, although I'm not even sure I believe it is a pandemic, which is why the... They themselves, James, are calling it...
The human operating system.
They're looking at this now.
It's the human operating system.
What is that?
Well, it's controlled.
Maybe we should back up and talk about genetic modification just a little bit.
Scientists and genetic engineers have been Modifying everything they can legally get their hands on.
Everything.
Seeds have been re-engineered for all kinds of different characteristics.
Monsanto owns most of the seed business now in the world.
An intellectual property.
Then you have animals that are being genetically modified for various characteristics.
And some of it is really bizarre.
But that's a big thing.
It's been going on for several years.
And then anything else basically that is living, whether it be algae or bacteria or virus or, well, viruses aren't actually living, but anything that can be genetically engineered is being genetically engineered.
These people think that whatever nature was, nature was insufficient, not very efficient, it was insufficient to Take care of the needs of the world and enter the engineers and the genetic scientists to make things better.
They're going to make everything better.
They're going to grow new plants that just completely outperform the old growth and everything's going to be fine.
It was just a matter of time, and it was handwritings on the wall, it was just a matter of time before they set their eyes on the pinnacle of DNA, that is the human condition.
All previous has just been talked, but now that they can edit human DNA, they are editing human DNA.
In many different situations, medical situations, treating cancer for instance, there are lots of cancer cures that will take your genetic structure, make modifications to it to take care of the cancer, to kill the cancer.
And I'm not saying that's just a bad thing.
That's not my point here.
But for those crazy people who believe that humans 2.0 is going to be achieved by a rewrite of the code that make humanity possible.
This gets off into another area that there's no ethical boundaries whatsoever.
If these people want humanity to be a certain way, to not be so argumentative, to be blue-eyed blondes like Hitler wanted... Boys from Brazil.
I've seen that movie.
Yeah.
See, now they can do this.
The problem has been, of course, if you're going to rework humanity, reprogram an operating system, you have to get access to the DNA directly.
And this is the danger right now.
With this new class of vaccines that has not been tested, it has not been proven whatsoever,
But it's relying on a new technology that modifies messenger RNA, which is the precursor to DNA, and it's injecting this new genetic modified fragment into your body to make modifications to your DNA.
Now, in some cases, it might be that if you have a child after you've been vaccinated, that DNA that was changed may not necessarily enter the germline where your progeny has it.
But that is not guaranteed at all.
But the watershed issue on the vaccine right now is That Big Pharma is gaining access to your operating system.
This is the very first time.
Small little hack.
Wee little hack, right?
But it's a watershed issue because once they get into your body with that needle, Now they're saying, well, first they said you just need one shot.
Oh, but now you need two shots.
And now that the virus is mutating and there's all these other flavors coming up, you need booster shots.
When will the shots ever stop, James?
And right now it looks like they never will.
They'll continue to bring forth new genetically modified Organisms to put into your body to rearrange your genetic code.
And I don't care how purient the interests are in this, if they're as innocent as the pure driving snow, I don't care.
Leave my DNA alone.
Just leave it alone.
I'll live my life out the way God made me and I don't want to change my DNA.
And I think most humans, if they really understood that, would say, are you people crazy?
What are you doing with the human race for peace sake?
But in the technocrat mind, this is perfectly natural.
This is like, well, why wouldn't we want to do that?
Don't you want the human race to be better?
Don't you want humanity to be sustainable?
Don't you want to live in a sustainable, smart world?
Do you want to live in a dumb world?
And people's mind spins around, I guess I better get the vaccine then and go along with the program.
This is really pretty crazy.
Yeah.
Yeah.
There's something else I don't understand because since obviously I spoke to you, I've been trying to spread the word about what's happening.
And I think one thing people find very hard to grasp, and I don't really understand it either, is Why is it that you would have thought, for example, that elected politicians would, on some basic level, want to do what's best for the people in their country and for their country.
And yet what we've seen through the pandemic is that national leaders and their senior politicians acting in concert with this globalist New World Order.
Now, What is it that inspires politicians like Boris Johnson in my country, his sort of Deputy Prime Minister Michael Gove, he's clearly on board with the kind of technocratic program.
What is it that makes them, what is it that turns them, turns them away from the interests of their country towards this rather weird and sinister cult
Science is a cult that most people, let's say pseudoscience, I don't want to put real scientists in this, I love real scientists, but the pseudoscience of technocrats is like a cult, very much so.
Back to scientism, it's a religious proposition.
that all truth comes from science and no truth comes from anywhere else, including the Bible, including philosophy, including history, whatever.
It's all science, baby.
This is cult.
And when a leader who has no ability to really understand the deeper things of pseudoscience, at least, and I would say I would put Boris Johnson in that right there.
I don't know that he started out that way as a science graduate.
A lot of these people are liberal arts graduates, so they probably look at science as something special because they don't quite understand it.
Right, and so politicians like that may come in with good interests or good intents to help the country, to help their fellow man.
I can think of several people here in the United States probably that started out that way.
But once these Once these pseudoscience types get their hooks mentally, their mental hooks into these people, they begin to turn them to do policies and implement policies they never would have accepted before.
And I have to say, for instance, every leader in the world right now, national leader, like a Boris Johnson, and in our country, whether it be Trump or Biden, You'll always see these people in white coats standing in the second row behind them when they give speeches.
We saw Anthony Fauci, Dr. Anthony Fauci, behind Trump all the time with his arms folded, you know, looking down his little nose.
He didn't speak a lot.
But who are these people?
Yeah.
They seem to be dictating and controlling policy.
We have people like this in Arizona right now.
For instance, our governor is not a science guy at all, but he's got a director of health policy standing behind him who is saying, you have to obey science here.
You can't deny science.
The problem is it's pseudoscience.
And, but these are the people that are driving it and they get their mental hooks into people like a cult, right?
Once you succumb to the cult, it's very hard to get out, James.
And I've actually, in years past, I've studied cults quite a bit.
So I'm not an expert by a long shot.
But I understand a lot about cult mentality.
And it always starts kind of slowly.
It's never just an abrupt thing.
But somebody else comes along and begins to influence your thinking.
You accept what he's saying and then you turn more and more to his way of thinking, and if it's a wacko way of thinking, you eventually will be consumed by that cult.
And there have been some really innocuous cults, and there's been some really dangerous cults.
For instance, the Jim Jones affair years ago, where people drank the Kool-Aid, you know, poisoned Kool-Aid, and they all died.
Well, that was pretty radical.
And there's some cults that maybe aren't quite as terrible as that.
But they all start the same way, and they all end up with personal destruction in the end.
Yeah.
This is a question I feel uncomfortable asking.
These people are dangerous.
Have you ever felt threatened by them?
I often say, if you want to destroy the enemy, show their workings.
Constantly point out their techniques, because otherwise their propaganda techniques just fly past people's radar defences and they don't really know they're being manipulated.
But you're pointing out, you're explaining what they're doing.
Do they, have they ever tried to threaten you or?
No, not directly, but we have been censored over the years heavily.
Back in the seventies, we were censored from bookstores and we did a lot of radio programs back, speaking in person as well, but we were, Completely, our books are completely banned from B. Dalton bookseller across the country.
It killed our sales pretty much overnight.
And there's been a lot of censorship with Google, especially with Twitter, Facebook, the standard stuff, shadow banning.
But there's never been any direct attacks.
And it's hard to attack somebody directly when they have, You know, the facts kind of laid out that this is not a conspiracy theory.
Although we were called conspiracy theory by these people back in the 70s.
But we only reported on what they'd written that just it made no sense.
But people believe that all their conspiracy theorists.
Now, while today, when you see a cloud Schwab speak out, he's saying exactly the same things we said in the 70s.
And it's just open.
It's just like, there it is in your face.
We've never had an attack.
Just one small anecdotal incident back in my publishing days in the 70s.
We had a detractor in our print shop that we owned.
Somebody was sneaking up in front of the office building and taking a big Boulder like a river rock, you know about this size about 25 pounds and throwing it through the window and it would it was screech across a couple of desktops knock everything just cattywampus and and It was we'd come in in the morning go.
Oh my gosh, what happened here?
It looked like a war zone, but it was just a rock and one of my print shop people who was a I don't know, kind of an odd guy, but he came up with this idea, you know, there's this new product on the market, something called Lexan.
Looks just like glass, but it's plastic and it's bulletproof.
And why don't we just replace that window with Lexan?
And I thought, well, that's a great idea.
So we did.
And we never had any more trouble about a rock, you know, somebody busting our office up.
One day we came to work and noticed there was a scratch on the window.
What's that?
How do you scratch this stuff?
And we looked down in the kind of river rock area below the window.
It's like for a draining area.
And we saw one of these big concrete blocks broken in half.
Somebody had taken this concrete block and heaved it at the window thinking I'm going to get him for the third time.
And this rock or this brick came Barreling back at them in their face, bouncing off the window.
We didn't see any blood, but I expect whoever threw that rock or that brick was so shocked that they probably ran off in total fear that they almost died.
But no, we've never had any before.
Did you see, by the way, I was just remembering before you started that anecdote, how The latest, the WEF has just made a video about the Great Reset.
And in the video, they are at pains to point out that there is nothing sinister about whatever you might might have heard, there is nothing sinister about this.
And it's not it may sound like a conspiracy, but it's not.
And you're thinking, hang on a second, not you protesting a bit too much.
And I imagine it's this is partly because of the work you've been doing promoting this this stuff that they're they finally woken up to the fact that maybe real people in the real world don't actually want this great reset about the great reset the Breitbart for example massive massive traction lots and lots of lots of shares people don't like it, huh?
They don't and I have to say that the one I believe the one thing that this group fears is is the populist movement in the world.
The populist movement.
Generally, those are the people that are concerned about citizens, not about political machinations.
And in our country, the populism movement is still pretty much alive and well, even though they're discouraged that we lost one president, President Trump.
But you know, the populist movement wanted change and they could have It wasn't fait accompli that Trump was going to be the winner.
They could have had somebody else.
They could have picked a Rand Paul, I suppose, or a Ron Paul.
There's other people.
But the populist movement is the key here.
The populist movement here in America has been under fierce attack.
That's partly what censorship is all about, to stop out this movement.
In your country, I think the populist movement, even though you still see the protests, the populist movement has been severely crippled by the actions of your PM, Boris Johnson, because he's leaning to a technocrat now with the lockdowns and the Green New Deal stuff, whatever.
This is completely antithetic to the populist movement.
I think we see that in various countries in Europe as well.
We see protests, huge protests, actually, in Germany.
But Germany is also taking a more authoritarian crackdown on these protests, where they're getting really ugly now.
Fights with police and tear gas, rubber bullets, whatever.
I mean, this can't end well for the populist movement at this point.
But there's resistance, pressure coming against these.
And China also has clamped down on what would be a populist movement if they could ever get off the ground.
But any type of display against the government, wham!
China jumps on it right now with their social credit scoring system and they can just null somebody right out of society before they can be a danger.
How close are they to achieving their aims?
Um, it seems to me, and I get called a conspiracy theorist for saying this, but actually we should talk about that term.
Um, it seems to me that COVID-19 is being used as a deliberate, as a way of deliberately crashing the global economy, of crushing small businesses, of killing jobs, of making people dependent on the government for their universal basic income.
Which I find extraordinary to believe, you know, if you told me this was going to happen 18 months ago, I'd have said conspiracy theory ain't never going to happen.
But how close are they to realizing their dreams?
Well, the United Nations has been very open.
I don't know what they intended this originally, but the head of climate change a few years ago was Christiana Figueres.
I believe she's still operating in your country working for another NGO right now.
You gotta keep an eye on this.
She said openly in a press conference that the United Nations had an intention and a timeline and a schedule to replace capitalism with sustainable development.
Replace it.
Transform everything from this to this.
That reporting that press conference is not a conspiracy theory on my part.
It's simply saying this is what the woman said.
Can we take the woman at face value?
And she said it.
Can we assume then that that is an official United Nations position and agenda?
Yes, we can because she was leading the entire, she was the envoy for all things related to climate change and that's why she drove the Paris Climate Agreement meeting in Paris.
She was senior, senior official stating official policy.
So we see there's people lurking all over the United Nations who have an agenda to destroy capitalism and free enterprise and replace it with sustainable development.
This is no conspiracy.
This is open.
Absolutely positively in the open.
They just don't want you to know all the facts.
And if you go and look at some of the videos that these people have done with the United Nations and World Economic Forum, Some of their videos, like the ones that are on YouTube, that you think, oh, if they're really that popular, wouldn't they get a bunch of people?
Some of them have like a hundred views, maybe 150.
It's like, are you kidding me?
This is sub, sub, sub, sub, uh, important.
If they can't get more than a hundred, 200, 300 views on these videos, it's just insanity.
This is not conspiracy is all I'm saying.
They stated it openly.
Klaus Schwab has declared himself openly.
We need the Great Reset.
We need to build back better.
That's the phrase everybody's using now.
Build back better.
What does that mean, build back better?
Just parse it.
It means if you had a house and you bought fire insurance for your house, I hope, and one day your house burns down.
And you're very sad.
You lost everything.
You're very sad.
Your house burned down.
It's a bummer.
You're in shock.
And then a few weeks go by and you get your insurance company backing you and they're going to pay you the money for your house and you've got some other ideas and you and your spouse talk about it and one day you get out of bed and you say, honey, we're going to build back better.
You see, if predicated on the fact that your house burned down, that's the only way you build back better.
You could say, I'm going to go build a new house and just get rid of the old house.
Well, I'm just getting a new house.
Build back better means something has been destroyed.
You're building something that wasn't, you're building back from a system that was destroyed.
This is exactly what Klaus Schwab is saying.
It's in process right now.
The old must be done away with and the new must replace it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Simple.
Yeah.
So they are, as you say, perfectly open about it.
But here's the thing.
A lot of people say to me is, yeah, but what's their motivation?
You know, why is it?
Surely these people understand that you want a prosperous global economy.
You know, businessmen, the kind of people at the high end of in sort of partners of investment banks and so on.
These people, they like money.
They know, they understand that a thriving economy generates, it accelerates the wealth process and the economy expands and everyone gets richer and better off.
Why would they be wanting to crash the global economy?
What's, how is it in their interest?
Because they're forcing all of the lower-level players out of the economy.
Businesses are being destroyed, small businesses are being destroyed, but you notice even during all of 2020, the mega-rich got something like 25% richer during that same period of time.
And the larger companies are accumulating all the business.
For instance, in America, we have scores of restaurants and small retailers.
They're gone permanently.
Meanwhile, who got all that business?
Well, the Walmarts of the world got all the business.
The Costcos of the world got all their business.
And so the giant companies have prospered like crazy as they become more like monopolies, you know, operating in the marketplace.
The giant companies that belong to the World Economic Forum do not represent the mom and pop shops that exist in your community.
They don't like those small companies.
They're competition.
They want to get rid of them.
And that's how Klaus Schwab can launch this idea, private property is a thing of the past.
You don't need private property.
You just don't.
So you'll be able to rent everything that you need.
Rent your transportation, rent your house, rent your clothes.
You'll be able to rent your kitchen utensils when you need to make a certain recipe.
And they promoted a video showing a young girl saying, and I'm just happy as happy can be because I don't own anything.
And I ask immediately, I'm always looking at the skeptic why not questions, right?
I'm thinking, okay, so if you rent those things, and life is great if you rent those things, who owns them?
And who's collecting the rent?
Well, duh!
You know, all the assets of the world, talk about wealth distribution, are envisioned as being sucked out of the rest of the world into their hands, essentially setting up a system of neo-feudalism Yeah.
It's like it used to be in the dark ages.
Why do they call it the dark ages?
Because it was a dark age.
It was the darkest period in the last 2,000 years where the landlords, the barons, owned everything and all the people basically became squatters living at the instance of the land barons.
And they had to integrate everything they made.
You know the great irony of what it was that ended feudalism effectively, probably the biggest driver of the end of feudalism?
You know what I'm thinking of?
The Black Death.
So a genuine pandemic created a situation in which there was so little labour around that the value of labour increased massively and the pressure of that increase in the value of labour meant that
People could no longer be serfs on a lord's land because down the road, okay, they tried to enforce penalties to stop people moving around, but they couldn't because there was just too much of a social need, economic need for this labour to be in the market.
So I don't want a black death.
I don't want a pandemic to be the solution rather than the driver of the problem.
I don't know where I'm going with this.
But yeah, neo-feudalism.
Surely people aren't going to take this shit, Pat.
I mean, people don't want to live in a world where their property is taken away from them.
You know, we're very proud of our homes in my country.
And you know, you mentioned to people in this country that they won't have any property and they'll be happy.
And they go, not on your nelly.
So how are this technocratic elite going to square that?
How are they going to do it?
What are they going to do to stop us?
I know.
This is the we that Klaus Schwab uses all the time.
We have decided we will do this.
We will have a great future.
It's our common future, and we are determining our common future.
And people are saying around the world, Over my dead body, you'll make my common future with you.
And probably these technocrats are thinking, that could be arranged.
Well, it may have to be that way, mightn't it?
Out of our cold dead hands.
Here's the difference between the Black Death and what we have today.
We have a pandemic.
And it's not an issue of the virus not being real.
I've never said that and I never will.
We have viruses all the time over the decades, whatever, centuries.
But the way this narrative has been ginned up is to promote, like climate change, alarmism, is to promote sustainable development.
This is the only option that's ever given to any of these problems.
I don't care what your problem is.
If it's a city problem, a community problem, a personal problem, there's always sustainable development that's brought up.
That's where you need to take this.
So they're encasing the world with this propaganda that this is the only possible course for our future.
I may have mentioned this before, but it's a little bit like An old Alfred Hitchcock movie from the Alfred Hitchcock hour back in 1960 somewhere, where the skit was that an insane asylum, an insane asylum, had an incident where the inmates took over the asylum and changed places with the staff
And change clothes and everything, and they became the staff, the crazy people, for the asylum.
And everybody on the outside couldn't tell the difference between who was who, and it led to some absolutely crazy outcomes in the skit.
You have a situation here where Where the inmates who were really, in my opinion, divorced from reality of the world where you and I live, and they are taking over the running of the asylum, if you will, right?
They're changing places.
They're usurping their authority with dignity and pinstripe suits and beautiful neckties and You know, all the trappings of, uh, great society, whatever, they look good.
They sound good.
They've got technology, but you know what?
When you kind of peel back the veneer, some of them are just as crazy as a March hair.
In my opinion, they're just crazy.
It's like, how, you know, how can they say certain things?
How can you think certain things?
Of course, some people might agree with them, but when you really kind of look down at what they're really proposing, you say, these people are just flat out nuts.
Do you remember the lady professor from your country who I believe was very friendly to Extinction Rebellion?
I can't remember her name, but she was a professor with the university in England, I'm pretty sure.
She wrote a book saying that the only solution to save the world Is to let the human race go extinct.
Yeah.
That was her answer and I heard a bit.
I listened to a video of this woman talking about this and I'm thinking... Not Gail Bradbrook.
She's from Extinction Rebellion.
There's a few of the nutty with kind of areas of expertise which are very, very nebulous and they've got these tenuous professors at these minor league universities and you think what?
They're actually teaching people that they've got tenure?
No, surely not.
But yeah, I can believe that.
You can't explain how, I mean, with a logical view, you can't explain how somebody comes up with this.
But when you listen to somebody saying the solution to save the world, which we are part of, is to let the human race go extinct.
That person is nuts, flat out, just crazy, pathologic, weird, schizophrenic, I don't know what you'd call it, multiple personalities maybe, I just don't know.
But that is not human thinking.
This is so anti-human and anti-civilization that it's insane.
And there's a lot of people like that around.
Some of them aren't as vocal as that woman was, but there's a lot of people that harbor these ideas that have no basis in reality, no basis in fact.
They spun them up in their own mind.
They have no approval from anybody to be an authority on any topic.
And yet they say, "Whoa, we had a revelation and this, our common future now, we have it.
We got it, baby.
You can trust us.
We're going to lead you into our common future.
You know, some of the craziest statements come out from, and I see them all the time because I'm looking for them.
The United Nations and World Economic Forum, they talk about the circular economy.
That's a new term.
The circular economy.
We're supposed to reuse everything.
And in the doctrine of circular economy, they talk about economic growth decoupled from resource usage.
Economic growth decoupled from resource usage.
Now, I don't think you need to be an economist to understand that is the stupidest statement that could ever be uttered by anybody in business.
You cannot decouple economic activity from resource usage.
You can't.
Every economic activity requires inputs.
Energy, too.
Energy plus inputs equals productivity.
This has always been this way in the history of the world.
Yet these people say, oh, it's so different now, we're going to decouple growth From resource usage, and we'll control all the resources, by the way, but you'll see it'll work out great.
No, it won't.
It won't work out great because you can't do that.
But they come up with these ideas, they make marketing slogans out of them, people don't question them.
I don't know why they don't.
They should.
It's just insanity.
Yes, yes.
Weirdly enough, I just wanted to tell you something, because I think it's important to get this stuff out.
A friend of mine has written this very good report.
Are you familiar with the Global Warming Policy Foundation?
It's one of the very few think tanks in the UK which has its intellectual integrity intact.
I mean, so many of the free market think tanks.
Actually, you could maybe answer this question.
So there were these allegedly free market think tanks in this country.
I'm sure you've got the same problem in America.
These guys who are professedly libertarians, who've got an economics background, whose job it is to deep dive below the surface and to look under the bonnet, not to accept what the used car salesman is telling them on the lot, but actually examine whether the engine's working or not.
And so many of these guys have succumbed to the government narrative on COVID-19 and on the vaccine and so on.
They haven't questioned it at all.
They've just bought into it.
And I've been looking at these people and saying, hang on a second.
You guys were supposed to be manning the foxholes next to me and holding the line.
What are you doing?
Have you got an explanation for that on top of your head?
Yeah.
Oh, well.
We see people all over America, leaders supposedly, governors, mayors, city council people, that just dove into this thing, you know, became overnight tyrants essentially.
But I'll tell you, from the global economic, from the master picture, they're talking about a total of As much as 30 to 50 trillion dollars that will be required to convert the world from what we have now into this new sustainable development system.
- Oh yes, Larry Fink is saying that, the guy in charge of BlackRock. - Yes.
When you talk about that kind of money, you're creating a feeding frenzy up and down the food chain.
I want mine, baby.
I want my money out of this.
And so in Arizona, for instance, we have a situation, and all our states do, where if you want to get federal money to put into your coffers, which are just absolutely in trouble right now anyway because of tax declines and economic decline, if you want to get the federal money, then you have to pump up
The health crisis because we're giving you money for hospitals and for patients and this that and the other and for testing or whatever.
Your state can make a lot of money if they go along with this narrative and so of course they do because they want the money.
They want to get a piece of it.
At the WEF level you have companies like Siemens and like IBM and like GE and on down the line the big pharma companies.
These companies Are the ones that are going to be the major beneficiaries of the feeding frenzy for this 30 to 50 trillion dollars.
They're thinking, man, I want a piece of that pie.
If this could be possibly serious, we're in.
And we will get rich off of this thing, and they probably will.
But, you know, this is not too hard if you say follow the money, follow the power.
A lot of people are in it for just the money.
They have no philosophical Anything for technocracy or anything else.
It's just they're looking at the short-term money.
They want to be a player in the ultimate system that comes along and they see this as the way to get there.
Just play along with it.
Go along with it.
There's a phrase here in America, in our political system, if you want to get along, you have to go along.
And they do.
Right, yeah.
Just briefly, if I can try and keep it simple.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, they've just produced a report on how Boris Johnson managed to railroad through his 10 point green revolution.
I mean, all sort of basically sustainable development, despite the fact that he's supposedly a conservative, despite the fact that a lot of research has shown that People in this country really they're well disposed towards the environment and climate and so on but they're not really on board with the radical lifestyle changes that the Greens tell us are necessary to achieve this stuff.
And we know there's lots of evidence that shows that for example renewables investments actually kill jobs rather than create them.
I think you know Gabrielle Carlos Alveda I forget his name.
What is his name?
He's an economist at a university in Madrid and he produced this report saying something like that for every green job created by government spending, something like three jobs lost in the real economy.
I mean, I've written about it before and I'm surprised it's not on the tip of my tongue.
Anyway, the point I'm making is sustainability is bad for the economy, bad for workers, Bad for freedoms, because you've got petty bureaucrats making all these rules.
People instinctively understand this, which is why they don't really want this transformative lifestyle that's going to create a better world, allegedly.
Anyway, Extinction Rebellion, this eco-fascist protest group, held London to ransom, held London hostage.
They closed down London streets for something like five days in a row.
They glued themselves to energy companies, they disrupted passengers on the underground, they dug up the lawns outside of Cambridge College, and yet they got amazing, softly, softly treatment from the police.
Compare and contrast the treatment that anyone who's dared protest against the government's lockdown policy and stuff, or any of that.
They've been hammered by the police, just like they have in Germany, just like they have in the Netherlands.
Extinction Rebellion treated with kid gloves.
Now, one of the demands that Extinction Rebellion made was that there should be a People's Climate Assembly.
And what the report shows, the real aim of this was to give a pseudo-democratic legitimacy to what was actually a decision taken by the narrow elite at the top of the government in cahoots with With the environment we know with with with the climate industrial complex.
So Extinction Rebellion sends a deputation to to the then Environment Minister Michael Gove and represented by a 14 year old boy.
He says, you know, I wanted to be a musician.
But now now my mission is to be an activist to fight against fight for climate and Gove who used to believe I think in conservative what good conservatism once Gove says, yes, we really We feel your pain, and we understand that your aims are worthy, and we must do more for this.
Next thing we know, there is a climate assembly.
A people's climate assembly.
And who are running this climate assembly?
Is it genuinely a democratic process?
No.
It's people like that professor that you mentioned, that left-wing professor.
Academics, really low-grade people, generally, intellectually and so on, hitched themselves to the sustainability bandwagon, got these these sinecures, now position themselves on the People's Climate Assembly.
And the Climate Assembly produces a report which says, yes, there is what we demonstrate is there is a massive popular desire for all these all these policies.
Does this kind of make sense to you?
These techniques that I've described?
It does.
We see it over here in the United States all the time.
And I think it's a global thing.
I don't think it's just in your country.
The forces of globalization, the way it's constructed right now, the term globalization and everything we've talked about so far about the World Economic Forum, etc.
This is kind of vague concept and misconstrued concept of globalization.
Is predicated on destroying existing society and creating something brand new.
Now, there's a moral hazard that exists here.
To give anything a pass that tends to destroy society.
You just gave an example.
In our country, we have Black Lives Matter.
They were allowed free to Loot, pillage, and plunder, so to speak, in our country last year.
Same thing with Antifa.
They got a free pass, but somebody that shows up at a rally on January 6th in Washington, D.C., they get arrested and charged with terrorism crimes.
You know?
This makes no sense.
Black Lives Matter and Antifa and everything, you know, these radical groups like that, they are destructors of society.
And this is in line with the globalist plan, the globalist mentality, I believe.
They are the useful idiots, like we used to say about the Bolshevik Revolution.
These are the useful idiots of the technocrats that are allowed free pass to do what they, as long as it's destructive, don't build up society, destroy it in some way.
When technocracy finally grabs the upper hand, if they do, that's, we don't know for sure yet, but they're on the way, but if they get the upper hand, there's certain people that are going to be thrown under the bus and those radical environmentalists are one of them.
They're going to be gone.
I guarantee it.
They have no concern for those people whatsoever.
The second group of people that is going to get thrown under the bus are going to be the politicians because they don't need politicians.
The whole thing about economic control from day one was theorized back in the Columbia University.
If you control all economic activity, you do not need, and of course they think correctly, and we know what's correct, if you control all economic activity, you don't have any need for a political system.
Period.
Read the book, I mean, I say this to anybody, not just you, but read the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, a Brit, by the way, that has no bearing on anything, but Brave New World was written in 1932, the same time that Columbia University was housing technocracy.
The president of Columbia, Nicholas Murray Butler, was a socializer in Europe He was great friends with the fascists.
One of his best friends was Mussolini back in that day.
And he was all over Europe hobnobbing with people.
Somewhere along the way, Huxley got this idea and took a look at technocracy and said, here's what it's going to look like, guys.
Brave new world has no political system.
There's no politicians at all.
Nothing is democratic in a sense, right?
It's just science decides what's right and then you do it.
What if I don't want to do it?
We'll just throw you out in the reservation.
But everything is done scientifically, so all the babies are born in test tubes and there's no family relationships.
You're expected to have sex with anybody and everybody and be happy about it.
No long-term bonding relationships are allowed.
Your job is your job, and you might get promoted, but you're given genetically a class that you can work within and probably never, ever, ever escape.
So if you're a gamma, or you're a delta, or you're an alpha at the top, or you're at the bottom, everything is engineered in society.
This is the vision of technocracy in the end.
Everybody else is going to be a useful idiot to get there, and partly this is what Brzezinski talked about when he said that Marxism was a necessary stepping stone to get to the technotronic era.
Yes, you need that authoritarian iron fist in order to enforce technocracy for the first time, but once it gets a hold, it will wipe everything else out off the landscape.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Yet again, because I love talking to you about it.
It's just like I think I said before, it's like it's like bumping to a doctor at a party and being able to ask him all your all these ailments that you haven't had time to get checked out.
So, doctor, doctor, there's one there's one final question I'd like to ask you.
Oh, by the way, may I say, if you've enjoyed this podcast, Please do remember to support me on Patreon and Subscribestar because increasingly people like me are being shut out by the mainstream.
I mean, Pat can speak of this all too well.
I don't trust the mainstream media at all anymore.
It has completely failed.
This is where my income stream largely comes from now and it makes me stronger and it makes you stronger by supporting me.
So I hope you can do that.
Pat, one last thing.
Recently, people have started to imply that I'm something of a conspiracy theorist.
Now, we've examined one aspect of that, which is that it's not a conspiracy if they're telling you what they're doing.
But just take me back to the origins of that phrase, conspiracy theorist.
Am I right in thinking that it was devised by the CIA to discredit alternative thought and to stop us realizing what's going on?
It was, and I think that You know, it was probably popularized mostly towards maybe people like you and I from groups like the Trilateral Commission that came up with it.
This was a phrase that was used against us back then, that we were conspiracy theorists.
They used it very effectively.
And the way they positioned everything was that they were always the The moderate central on anything.
You were either left wing or right wing, and they would shove you off to one or the other.
Sometimes we actually were pushed off into the left wing.
But as long as they were left in the moderate middle, that's all that ever counted.
So sweep them to the left, sweep them to the right if somebody criticized you, and they're always left as being the paternalistic You know, father figures in the middle.
And of course, they were the reasonable ones.
The rest of these people are crazy.
You have a group or groups of individuals that clearly get out in the weeds.
QAnon would be one here in the United States.
That actually kind of became a global thing.
But QAnon is one of those groups, I think, that really spun up some stories that were pretty insane.
Yeah, I think it might even be a Psy-Op, mightn't it?
I mean, are you familiar with that theory?
With what now?
That QAnon might be a Psy-Op conducted by the very people that it reports to be against.
I wouldn't want to make a conspiracy theory about it, but it could be.
Yeah, but you're right.
I would never listen to an anonymous person for any type of serious intelligence.
I would never do that.
And you know, so I never paid any attention.
I'm with you.
Yeah, I mean, okay, if you got a story and you're a real person, just tell me your name and what, you know, vet yourself, would you?
But there are people in society who are given to conspiracy theories and they simply just cook stuff up in their mind with no No basis in fact.
They have no real reason to believe what they're believing.
They're connecting dots that really don't exist and so on.
And that's human nature to a large degree.
I've always, all my life, I've seen people come up with stuff that, you know, where did you come to that conclusion, you know?
And not to criticize them necessarily, I mean, but this happens.
And so when somebody calls you and me a conspiracy theorist for writing simply what somebody else has said, They point the finger at us with the other finger pointed at them.
You know, those other people.
You're a conspiracy theorist just like that guy.
This guy.
And baby gets thrown out with the bathwater.
Yeah.
I've seen this happen repeatedly.
Well, you're just like so-and-so.
No, I'm not.
And then you get the argument going.
You are.
No, I'm not.
You are.
No, I'm not.
Once somebody figures, really believes that you're a conspiracy theorist, which is a conspiracy, which is a theory in itself, you can't get loose from it.
It's really, at least not with that person.
It's really tough.
Yes, yes.
But still, I think we are reaching some people, Pat, and thank you very much.
Absolutely.
Thank you.
I have to say, James, I am probably more encouraged in this in this regard Than any other time in my life.
People are really waking up around the world.
Even if it's too late to do anything about it, they're still waking up and this is very gratifying.
That people are regaining some of their common sense and some of the, you know, just critical thinking skills that maybe they had once and lost because they drank the Kool-Aid so to speak.
It may be too late.
I just don't, you know, we can't predict the future.
Nobody can.
Not even pre-crime software can predict the future.
But, you know, when you talk to people who listen and who start to study and read, well, I'll go check that source myself and see if it's, well, wow, he reported what was right.
When people really start to lighten up, you know, their eyes, I get it now.
I really get it.
Um, this is just totally satisfying.
I, you know, he could throw out all the other conspiracy theorists, whatever, but for the sake of rescuing one mind from the fog, I know you guys know something about fog.
I do too.
What, when you can pull one person out of the fog and get their head straightened out stuff a bit on this, this is just, this is the reason why we do what we do.
Why are we doing?
I agree.
It's worth it.
Definitely.
Um, I'm feeling that, uh, there's definitely at least another podcast, uh, in this, which we'll do in a, you know, in a, in a few months, but thank you again for, for appearing on the, on the Deling pod.
It's been great talking to you and, um, let's hope it's not too late.
I think, you know, I, I, I, I said that big, if I was being laconic, I was being, um, I was being the Spartan King.
I was being Leonidas.
Because I don't believe one should ever surrender.
I think we can hold the past against the Persians.
Yes, I do too.
And we have to.
Even if we go down trying, there's a great movie in America made about Texas once upon a time called Remember the Alamo.
It was a famous battle that took place between Mexico and Texas.
Oh, I know.
Yeah, Davy Crockett.
You do what's right because it's the right thing to do.
Imagine that.
It doesn't matter what the outcome is.
You do what's right because it's the right thing to do.
Now technocrats should take a lesson from this.
They should.
They should do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, but they don't in many cases.
But for those citizens of the world to say that That don't just automatically buy the whole under-the-thumb oppression type of thing.
As people, you know, you're a unique sovereign entity all by yourself.
Think, use your brain that God gave you and think about this stuff.
Wake up, you know, wake up and smell the coffee or wake up and smell the tea.
I don't know what you smell, but wake up and smell it.
Yeah.
And get out from under this oppression that's coming upon the world.
And at least you can, you know, we used to use this phrase, I think, I think my, I remember my mother using it on it when she got really, really mad at me.
She'd say something like, you need to wake up and die right.
I never knew what that meant.
I was just stupid phrase, but this kind of has a day in the world, you know, wake up and die, right?
Everybody's going to die for sure, but sometime or another, but don't, Volunteer to be a slave for somebody else and destroy... No!
Isn't the phrase better to die on your feet than live on your knees?
Yes.
It's a version thereof.
Yes, I believe that.
Good.
Okay.
I'm going to man the Alamo with you or I'm going to man the foxhole at Bastogne with you because I can do no other.
Thanks, Pat.
Yes, my pleasure.
Have a good Sunday.
▲
Export Selection