Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 21, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:47:33

Mark Crispin Miller

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James DellingPod.
	And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's guest, but I've got a real star lined up for you today.
	It is none other than Professor Mark Miller.
	Mark Miller is the Professor of Media Studies at New York University.
	And Mark, you've been saying some pretty heroic things about the nonsense that's been going on.
	In fact, I'm amazed.
	I'm amazed you've still got a job.
	Well, I have tenure, you know, so it would be hard to get rid of me.
	They are they are trying and I can talk about that today if you like.
	Yeah.
	But I just it's very kind of you to say that I'm heroic.
	It chills my heart in a way.
	To think that making the sort of rational observations I make is somehow exceptional, you know, but but this has been quoted to death as line of Orwell's.
	It is apposite, you know, in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
	And that that is true.
	The last year and a half.
	I know you'll feel me when I say this, but the last year and a half have staggered me.
	It's taken my breath away.
	I never thought I would see anything like this.
	I never thought I would see so much of the world's media consistently and shamelessly lying in a way that is genuinely comparable to the press in the Third Reich.
	It's a comparison I used to consider tasteless and hyperbolic, but I don't, not.
	And there are other unfortunate echoes of that moment, and they're more than echoes, but we can get into that.
	But anyway, that was a very long-winded way of saying thank you and I wish you didn't have to thank me.
	Yeah, yeah.
	In a way, you've answered my first question I was going to ask you, which is that you've been on to the failure of the media for a long time.
	I mean, you know, that's your speciality.
	You analyze the gulf between reality and the propaganda that tends to get served up to us by the media.
	And I was curious, because I'm a recent visitor to the rabbit hole.
	I've only just started delving in the last 18 months, prompted by the extraordinary nature of the events.
	I think I started going down with the blatantly stolen Trump presidential election.
	And the media's complete, the way that the media gaslit us into imagining that no skullduggery had taken place, which I found, I mean, I've been a journalist for 30 years and I was gobsmacked by this.
	I thought, hang on a second, journalists, I'd always imagined that journalists were seekers after truth.
	Now you can giggle at my naivety, but that's what I thought.
	I've been a journalist all that time.
	I never suspected that my entire trade would sell out the truth in that way.
	But you've been watching this decline, or maybe it wasn't a decline, maybe it's always been that way.
	Tell me about this.
	That's a terrific question.
	The moment when you, you know, Fell off your ass on the way to Damascus.
	Yeah.
	Was, you know, this last election, I had a very similar experience when I was paying close attention to the elections of 2000 and especially 2004.
	You know, I mean, I have been a longtime activist for election integrity, living as I do in a country with the worst voting system in the developed world.
	And I should think that the fact that so many people in this country have awakened to the theft of an election, right, and are outraged over it.
	I personally, as a member of the election integrity movement, find that an exhilarating opportunity, okay?
	Yeah.
	Because back when I was more actively engaged in this movement and wrote a book about the theft of the 2004 election, those of us who were trying desperately to call the attention of the people, which meant all the attention of the media, to all the evidence we had that Bush-Cheney were not re-elected any more than they had been elected,
	Because the 2000 election was stolen mainly through the intervention of the Supreme Court, you know, which stopped the vote count in South Miami, right?
	That was the dimple shots.
	Yeah, that whole operation.
	You know, Florida was the swing state.
	Ohio was the swing state four years later.
	But, you know, I was not a Democrat.
	I hadn't voted Democratic In a presidential race since 1992, when I voted for Clinton.
	And that was the last time I ever voted for a Democrat.
	I, you know, I spit on that party and I spit on the Republican Party.
	Yeah.
	But I happen to believe, I happen to believe, you know, naively, as you naively believe in the mission of journalism to educate the people.
	And I share that belief.
	I also naively believe I have no use for Trump, but I believe he won overwhelmingly last year and I believe it was stolen and I regard the evidence as more than compelling, right?
	Well, that was my view, particularly of the 2004 election.
	And my allies in that movement certainly agreed, and we were all banging our heads against the wall.
	The media was rolling its institutional eyes at us, smirking, snickering.
	There's nothing there, right?
	If you watched all the newscasts on election night 2004, and this has happened in subsequent elections, one had that kind of disorienting
	Experience, because we had been covering as closely as we could all day the many, many signs of theft going on in the long, long lines outside polling booths, you know, particularly in Democratic precincts, because back then it was Republicans who were stealing the election.
	And funny numbers coming up and votes being switched by machines and all these, you know, really red flags, right?
	And then you turn on the TV and these calm, confident voices saying, you know, the election went off without a hitch today.
	But, you know, there one saw that what everybody now sees, that is to say everybody who is not a zombie, everybody who's not hypnotized.
	I don't want to put it pejoratively, but everybody whose eyes are open, you know, and who's kept his or her head.
	On a daily basis has this experience of a kind of radical discrepancy between reality and what's coming at us from CNN and the New York Times, right?
	And of course, one has had that sense of discrepancy throughout the COVID crisis.
	From the beginning, we in New York, like everybody else, we're told the hospitals are overrun, They've had to pull refrigerator trucks up to hospitals to collect the bodies, right?
	Yeah.
	Now, if you watched that, right?
	If that was what you watched, you had those blinders on and you weren't looking laterally at reality, right?
	You naturally believe that.
	I mean, what I'm saying is elementary, right?
	And it would be one of the first things you'd notice in a propaganda course, which I taught and intend to teach again, which NYU has, you know, stepped in and forbidden.
	But this is elementary, that if you know nothing but what you're absorbing from the media, right?
	And you don't have the time or the inclination to dig for the truth, you know, or to look beyond that spectacle to see what other sources are saying, to see what people on the ground are saying.
	I see what average working people in your own neighborhood are saying, you know, if you don't, if you don't find some, some means of, of, Checking the reality that you're being fed by the media, you're going to believe what you see.
	You are.
	It's just human nature.
	Average people, which I don't necessarily mean people of modest means, but most people have a job, those who have jobs, have that job to do.
	And they have families and daily responsibilities, and so they ought not to be expected.
	They shouldn't have to go digging around to figure out what's going on.
	We do now.
	We now have to do that, right?
	People have to watch your interviews, for example.
	People have to watch the very outlets that are now being, you know, slandered, demonized as Vectors of misinformation that are putting lives at risk, you know?
	Anyway, I hope I've answered your question, and I will tell you what happened to me personally, because this was a turning point for me.
	And it also elaborates on my answer to your question about my attention to the media.
	Well, I was originally an English major and then I got a PhD in English in the 70s.
	And my field was the Renaissance.
	It was Shakespeare and, you know, it wasn't political.
	It was purely aesthetic.
	Yeah.
	And I believed in close reading, you know, I very much enjoyed learning how to read texts closely, you know, Shakespeare's plays or Paradise Lost or the poem by Keats, you know.
	On my own, I started to watch movies that way, right?
	Loved movies all my life.
	And I discovered that if you watched a great movie really carefully, not just listen to the dialogue, right?
	But to look at the images, you could find, you know, wonderful new depths to the story.
	And that, you know, the narrative is a lot more complex.
	Then one would think just kind of watching and assuming it's some sort of conventional melodrama, right?
	Yeah.
	That was very exciting.
	I taught film courses on my own as a grad student.
	I ran the film series on campus, which was Johns Hopkins.
	And so I developed a kind of expertise in film.
	And when I got my first job in an English department, I was teaching both film and literature.
	But at that time, I also started noticing that one could subject moments of TV to that kind of analysis.
	TV commercials, for example.
	Not to say they were great works of art.
	They're not.
	They are extremely expert works of propaganda, which work not just explicitly, but also subliminally.
	I don't mean by flashing cues that you can't see with the naked eye.
	I don't mean that.
	I mean the visual composition, the cutting, everything about it.
	is propagandistic, right?
	It means something.
	So I started writing little essays on moments of TV, my first book boxed in the culture of TV, you know, as a collection of my writings.
	And that's what I was doing at the time, right?
	Well, by the 80s, late 80s, I was increasingly struck by and concerned about the increasing That it was becoming more and more concentrated, right?
	In ever fewer corporate hands.
	And I decided that it's all very well for me to keep on doing these exquisite little readings, which I enjoyed writing and people really liked them.
	But I was maybe missing the forest for the trees, right?
	And that democracy could not possibly survive with a media system as monolithic as the one that I saw forming back then.
	So I started to devote myself to a kind of activism for media reform.
	Going back to the 1934 Communications Act, when Congress made the choice between an advertising-driven media system, and that was radio at the time, Or maybe one more on the British model, you know, license fees or some kind of publicly supported system.
	I mean, the BBC is...
	You know, we won't go into that.
	But the fact is, I was very concerned about this.
	And I have to say, I can pat myself on the back for having been prophetic, you know, because I could see this happening and tried my level best to make this an issue, put it before Congress, talk to the Justice Department about pending mergers, writing articles for as large an audience as possible.
	Well, you can see what a, you know, an effective job I did, right?
	So that's the media system that we have today.
	Now, from there I moved on to notice that the voting system in this country is a disgrace and that there appeared no longer to be any real reason to believe that the outcome of any election in this country necessarily reflects people's choice.
	And that we desperately needed, as we still need, election reform.
	And it could be done quickly and easily, you know.
	It could be done by making everyone automatically, have everyone be registered to vote automatically on their 18th birthday.
	You know, making election day a federal holiday.
	I don't believe in early voting.
	I certainly don't believe in voting from home.
	And above all, Getting rid of computerized vote counting, right?
	And banning the participation of private companies in the election process, okay?
	Now, the point here is that our elections have been stolen for a long time, and I started to study that problem, as I said, wrote my book on the 2004 election, and until then, James, I was a sort of tolerable figure.
	You know, I was a public intellectual who was regarded as out there, but acceptable.
	So I had four or five op-eds in the New York Times.
	I was a frequent guest on national public radio.
	Public is in scare quotes.
	And anyone can go to those archives and see that I'm telling the truth, that that was my status.
	Then I wrote Fooled Again, scrupulously evidenced, you know, a lot of notes and so on.
	And it was my hope and the publisher's hope that this book would jumpstart a crucial national debate on the need to reform the voting system.
	And the book was completely blacklisted.
	It was blacked out to the publisher's amazement.
	This was basic books, a very big house.
	No views in any major papers.
	NPR would now not touch me with a 10-foot pole, you know, unless they used it to push me out the window.
	But the oddest thing about this moment and what really woke me up was the fact that I now was called by the left press a conspiracy theorist.
	Suddenly I was a conspiracy theorist.
	This is the left press that I'd written for.
	In fact, I did a number of, you know, major, I edited a number of special issues of The Nation magazine on the problem of media concentration, right?
	I mean, they were great issues because each one had a fold-out glossy chart of ownership.
	The first one showed what owns the TV news.
	So you can see, you can look up at the top and see what else they own, right?
	That magazine attacked me now as a conspiracy theorist.
	I was a conspiracy theorist.
	My book was Conspiracy Theory.
	Okay.
	So, to say that I was startled is an understatement.
	I couldn't believe it, but I decided to look into how that phrase had come into circulation.
	Now, everybody says, and I know it's the same in Britain, everybody, many, many people say, Well, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but... And then they'll say something perfectly rational that anyone who puts two and two together would say.
	But people feel they have to apologize for their suspicions of elite intentions.
	That's a momentous change, really.
	And I wanted to know how it had come to be.
	When did it become a thing?
	And it was easy to find out.
	I went to the New York Times archives and the Washington Post and Time magazines online.
	This took about 20 minutes.
	And I did a search on those phrases, conspiracy theory and conspiracy theorist, and discovered that before 1967, the former was rarely used, conspiracy theory, and used in various ways.
	And I never could come across the use of conspiracy theorist, right?
	It was like a new pejorative epithet.
	And then it was fairly easy to find that 1967 was the year that the CIA sent out this memo to all its station chiefs worldwide.
	It's 1035-960.
	It's online.
	And it basically instructs the station chiefs of the CIA, wherever each one is, to use his media assets, his friends in the media and politicians, to discredit the work of a number of writers who were questioning the Warren Report, and the most successful of them, written bestsellers on this.
	I mean, the one I think they were aiming most squarely at was Mark Lane, whose book Rush to Judgment was one of the first to question the Warren Report in a systematic way.
	The Warren Report is a joke, right?
	And here we are over a half century later, and it is still taboo to talk about this.
	And we can return to this subject in a minute.
	Anyway, that was the purpose of the memo, is to launch a kind of a smear campaign against people who were questioning the official narrative of the Warren report.
	And they did not mention Jim Garrison, you know, the district attorney in New Orleans, whose case against Clay Shaw was getting national attention.
	And they were also going after him, you know.
	So this was the beginning of a smear campaign.
	And it naturally grew and the use of those phrases increased and they have increased exponentially over the decades as more and more official narratives have been trotted out with more and more catastrophic consequences, you know?
	Pushing more and more people to do the rational thing and ask themselves, what is going on?
	What's happening here?
	You know?
	I mean, we could sit here for two hours simply listing the questions raised by the Daily News on the subject of COVID, on the subject of the vaccines, right?
	And on many other subjects, right?
	So, let me see.
	It took me a while to get over this attack, but not that long.
	And ever since I have devoted myself to precisely what you said I look at, which is the discrepancy between the media spectacle and reality.
	Now that gap is growing to a really kind of frightening extent, but also in a way it's exhilarating to see a process approach its climax, okay?
	Yeah.
	Let me make one point about what's going on right this minute, and it's the most important thing we could possibly discuss.
	I mean, I have to make an effort to maintain my composure when I talk about it.
	Yeah.
	But it's the vaccination program, right, which was anticipated by the mask Furor, you know, the masking mandates.
	That was actually a preparation for this moment, because that too was very, very divisive.
	It set maskers off against anti-maskers.
	It cast the anti-maskers as putting lives at risk, and it also created this profoundly illogical and ferocious imperative, right?
	A collectivist imperative, which is, I have my mask on, why aren't you wearing yours?
	Right?
	In other words, it's not enough to wear a mask, you know, they don't work anyway, we can get into all that.
	It's not enough for you to have a mask on, your mask somehow doesn't work if I don't have mine on, right?
	Doesn't make any sense.
	But you can't make that point with somebody screaming from six feet away that you have to put a mask on or you're going to kill everybody around you.
	Yeah.
	Well, that that has that insanity has has broadened into the far more threatening imperative.
	Hi, what happened?
	I've got this evil evil because I live in the country.
	I don't have like decent internet.
	So I have to have a sort of belt and braces approach where I've got my kind of traditional internet and then I've got satellite internet.
	And my satellite, I can see it now, the modem just cuts out for no reason and it's really annoying.
	Anyway, tell me where were we?
	Where was I?
	I was talking about, yeah, I'll just back up and say, I mean, formerly, in normal times, in the years BC, right?
	That's before COVID.
	If you were vaccinated, you weren't susceptible to certain diseases.
	Yeah.
	That's not the case anymore.
	That's not the case.
	Now the unvaccinated are being cast as really despicable, loathsome vectors of infectious disease, which is exactly the way the Jews were depicted by the Nazis.
	Exactly.
	The Nazis, the Nazi propaganda cast the Jews as vectors of tuberculosis.
	They cast them as vectors of syphilis.
	I think this is even in Mein Kampf, you know.
	So they were disease-bearing entities that had to be wiped out, had to be exterminated.
	And even though, you know, Germany was actually the best educated and most enlightened nation in Europe prior to World War I, You know, the expert use of propaganda and the complete elimination of any alternative voice, right, made the people extremely vulnerable to a kind of hypnosis.
	And the same thing has happened throughout the West, right?
	It certainly has happened in Australia and New Zealand as well.
	Thank God we have the internet.
	Because it does allow us to make an attempt to spread the word, despite the thunder of official propaganda.
	Yeah, I've wandered far afield but I wondered if I've been addressing your questions.
	No, I liked your wanderings because actually I would have asked you at some point about your journey.
	I find it quite interesting that you and I both started out as literature students who were interested in the aesthetics of literature.
	I mean, I was probably the last generation to be able to study Shakespeare and so on, for the aesthetics, rather than trying to impose on it some political orthodoxy, which is all English literature seems to be about these days.
	And it's, I mean, it's just, you fell down the rabbit hole A few election cycles earlier than I did, but it's the same thing.
	You've confirmed what I suspected about what's happened in the last 18 months, that the war on truth has reached unprecedented levels of mendacity.
	I saw you speaking on an earlier podcast about hydroxychloroquine.
	Now, you and I know that hydroxychloroquine and, indeed, ivermectin have been both very effective at treating COVID.
	If you have those drugs, you're not going to die, basically, if you get it early enough.
	And they obviate the need for these so-called vaccines, which aren't vaccines, which are experimental gene therapy, which we're yet being forced to get.
	The reason I'm so glad to have you on the podcast is that you're an expert, although I hate to use the word expert, it's more of an insult these days, isn't it?
	You well understand the nature of propaganda.
	And one of the things I wanted to ask you is, how come there is such unanimity across the mainstream media?
	I mean, in the past, you would have had rivalry between newspapers.
	If one newspaper was dissing ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, another one would be saying, scoop!
	Top scoop!
	Ivermectin is the answer, or hydroxychloroquine is the answer.
	And yet, every single organ of the mainstream media in the UK, and of course all the BBC, which I do want to talk about, because I was going to ask you whether you think it's always been a branch of the British, not just the British state, but the British secret state.
	I mean, I think it's always been connected to MI5 and so on.
	How is it that journalists, who are normally people who like sort of chucking stones, you know, making a nuisance of themselves, we're not house trained, we became journalists because we couldn't do a proper job, because we're rebels.
	How come everyone in the UK, apart from me, for example, believes that That vaccines are great and Trump legitimately lost the election.
	How did this happen?
	Well, that's a great question.
	It is an over-determined problem.
	That is to say, there are many reasons for it.
	I'll try to identify the most significant ones.
	The first we've already touched on, and that is that the media is now part of a huge cartel that is owned by the same few interests.
	Okay, leaving the BBC aside for the moment, because it's nominally public.
	Yeah.
	And I guess that includes NPR, you know, National Public Radio, or National Propaganda Radio, as some call it, and the CBC in Canada.
	But otherwise, the media is on the commercial side You know, completely dominated by just a few entities, you know, for like AT&T, for example, owns pieces of all the major networks and so on.
	BlackRock, you know, the hedge fund, they are very influential.
	Vanguard.
	Those two.
	So that you, yeah, yeah, you have the same head at the top, you know, with maybe, you know, four or five brains crammed into it.
	And they're the same brain.
	And then they have many, many, many tentacles.
	And so the same message tends to filter down to all the local stations and to all the major TV networks and to all the newspapers, right?
	Now that's corporate structure.
	Then there's the homogenizing effect of advertising.
	Okay.
	That's crucial.
	That's been a problem since the late 19th century.
	When the American press shifted from a circulation-based medium, which it had been since the revolution, into an advertising-based medium, they could no longer afford to keep up with the technology of printing newspapers and magazines simply on circulation fees, expenditures alone.
	Revenues, I meant to say.
	Advertising is a far more lavish source of funds.
	And, you know, so now you had, you know, glossier, fatter publications, you know, with, you know, more alluring illustrations and stuff like that.
	These are all kind of organic processes.
	But what happened almost immediately is that the most, the sources of the most revenue They exert control over content.
	And this began with the patent medicine industry, starting in the late 19th century.
	Newspapers and magazines made more money off of patent medicine advertising.
	This is snake oil.
	I mean, sometimes literal snake oil.
	These were either useless or toxic or addictive serums and powders and so on.
	You had all these Americans, middle class Americans, lawyers, doctors and stuff addicted to cocaine because they were all buying these powders that they took from what was called Qatar, which was a kind of, you know, respiratory complaint.
	Very common then for some reason.
	But you had coke heads.
	I mean, this was a drug problem.
	You know, this is in the late 19th century.
	So, you know, that gave way to cigarettes, you know, same thing.
	It's a fascinating history.
	But the fact is now big tech and big pharma spend obscene amounts of money on advertising.
	And that is not so that people will pick up their local paper and see a medication and say, oh, I'm going to ask my doctor for that.
	Of course, they hope that happens.
	That's not why they spend all that money.
	It is what Upton Sinclair called the bribe Indirect, you know, it's a bribe, basically.
	So, if you take that money, you are not going to allow any content on the editorial side to cast a shadow on the advertising, right?
	So, no TV network, no newspaper, no magazine is going to go against the grain, okay?
	So, these are the economistic parts of the answer, okay?
	They're not enough, okay?
	They account for a great deal of the nightmarish unanimity you're talking about, but they don't account for all of it.
	What really accounts for all of it is that on top of that kind of economic concentration and those financial interests, there's also the fact that as the media cartel has become ever larger, more concentrated, Its relationship with the state has tightened, you see?
	Intelligence agencies have been involved with the media forever, okay?
	But after World War II, you know, with the emergence of the so-called Deep State, the CIA immediately began cultivating relationships with journalists.
	We've heard of Operation Mockingbird.
	That was a formal operation along these lines, but it also had happened before they came up with that and all around that.
	And ever since that, it's really second nature for intelligence agencies to form tight relationships with media because the media system in any country is essential to the thinking and behavior of the population.
	You can't get anywhere trying to manipulate people if you don't have the press in your hands.
	That's why when real coups take place, you know, I say real coup because this farce on January 6th, you know, the attempted coup in the Capitol was another You know, gobsmackingly successful psychological operation, which even Noam Chomsky, you know, may God forgive him, this is not the first time he's It betrayed a very suspicious inclination.
	Called this an attempted coup.
	Noam Chomsky, I know he's very old, but I know he's also pretty sharp, and I'm sure he remembers 9-11, 1973 in Chile.
	That was a coup, okay?
	That's what a coup looks like, okay?
	It involves violence.
	It involves a violent seizure of the helms of government, okay?
	And it involves taking over the media.
	That's essential.
	Did that happen on January 6th?
	What you had is a bunch of, you know, government agents and some naive, organically, you know, roused citizens, you know, who had every reason to protest the failure of the Supreme Court to look into the election.
	They had every reason to do that.
	They had every right to assemble.
	So a bunch of them were ushered into the Capitol, ushered in by the police, So they could put their feet up on a few desks, maybe break a window, yell.
	That's an attempted coup.
	Okay.
	So the fact that, that all these talking heads, you know, heads on bodies that earn handsome salaries, you know, as corporate media employees, they all went to college.
	Okay.
	That they could stand there and say, this is an attempted coup.
	And they all say it, um, tells us something else that I have to mention.
	Okay.
	We've talked about media concentration.
	We've talked about the effect of advertising.
	We've talked about the covert relationship with the CIA and MI6 and the FBI and the CDC, which is basically a drug company.
	On top of that, and I know you'll know what I'm talking about, there's the complete corruption of the professional classes.
	The professional classes.
	This is a point that Denis Rancourt, you know, the Canadian physicist who has been a source of terrific, you know, study of the COVID narrative, made this point recently in an online group discussion.
	The professional classes are the problem here.
	That means across the board, academics, and that includes academic scientists and doctors, That includes the medical profession, of course.
	That includes journalism, of course.
	And it probably includes, you know, most of the legal profession.
	Because these are people who have all gone through a fairly rigorous training period that has entailed the gradual extinction of any idealistic impulse in those young workers-to-be, employees-to-be.
	This is something that's studied in the book, Disciplined Minds by Jeffrey Schmidt.
	Jason Bosch, whose podcast I also did, alerted me to this book.
	It came out, maybe 2001 or something like that, 2004.
	It's a study of exactly how young people with, you know, Genuine ideals, ideals like yours about journalism, right?
	Or mine and yours about studying literature, right?
	Introducing its beauties to students, etc.
	They enter the system of training with these ideals intact, ideals that impelled them to undertake that training.
	And then, you know, without their knowing it inexorably, that idealism is sort of pounded out of them.
	And this is especially disastrous for scientists, you know.
	Young people join, want to join the scientific professions to do, you know, pure science, you know, knowledge for its own sake and so on, or maybe to serve humankind.
	But they end up working in one way or another for the military-industrial complex or for big pharma.
	Certainly journalism students start out with admirable intentions.
	They don't think to themselves, gee, I want to get a job where I'm paid not to think for myself and not to investigate certain subjects.
	But that's what they end up doing.
	So I think that those are all the factors at play here.
	That's why we have a system that is as univocal as the system under Goebbels, you know?
	And it's more effective than that because it has the cover of a free press.
	Yes.
	You know, right?
	Absolutely, yeah.
	Reading the newspapers, which I scarcely do these days, Um, but occasionally I do it to sort of torment myself and to see what's going on on the other side, you know, and it's as if The world is still trundling on normally, and there's nothing to worry about, and here's a story about this.
	I suppose, for example, the SIOP, which is the Afghanistan Withdrawal Coverage, suddenly, look, proles, here's an international story which you should pay attention to, to distract yourself from what's going on in your own countries.
	I mean, I think I'd almost prefer right now living under the Taliban than under Biden or Johnson, because at least the Taliban are stopping the vaccine being administered in every province that they take over.
	But yeah, that's right.
	They also go ahead.
	But we are being my frustration, and I'm sure yours is the same, is so few people are aware of the degree to which they are being manipulated.
	It's a massive psyop.
	I wanted to ask you, how do we convey the truth to people?
	How do we bring people around?
	Well, that's another great question.
	That's the question that has driven me to teach propaganda.
	Not how to do it, of course, but how to perceive it and how to resist it.
	That's, you know, that's the mission of my propaganda course, which I've taught for over 20 years in NYU and which they've now forbidden me to teach, at least for now.
	It's based on the assumption, I would call it a fact, that we can always spot propaganda when we do not agree with it, right?
	But it's extremely difficult to spot it when you do agree with it.
	Because then you don't think it's propaganda.
	You think it's just information that we need to know.
	So it's a very tribalized process.
	People on the right, you ask them, what's propaganda?
	They'll point to the New York Times, and they will be correct about that.
	You ask somebody on the so-called left for an example of propaganda, and they'll say Fox News, and they'll be correct.
	They're both right.
	The challenge is to get people to try to be impartial in the face of an overwhelming propaganda drive, especially one that's based on fear.
	Try to get people to take the necessary first step, which is to keep your head, okay?
	Don't just believe what you get on Google when you do a search.
	Scroll way, way, way, way, way down.
	Yeah.
	And then you'll start to find Some alternative narratives, right?
	Or go to DuckDuckGo, it won't be quite as difficult, at least not yet.
	Because, you know, Google and the so-called social media are a huge part of this problem, which we haven't even gotten into yet, right?
	So, the class is exhilarating for me precisely because young people tend to be vastly more receptive Uh, to, uh, counter narratives, certainly than people in my generation, you know, who have hardened, hardened into ideologues, liberal ideologues, uh, who, whose woke militancy has sealed their minds shut.
	Right.
	And it all has to do with the PSYOP that was Donald Trump.
	We can get into that.
	Oh, tell me, tell me about that.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	On the right, and I say this with no contempt, because for the most part, I can have a far more civil conversation with conservatives and libertarians, you know, and Christians, than I can have with liberals or so-called progressives, whose minds are like young oysters, you know, there is no opening them, right?
	It's impossible.
	With that kind of resistance, you can do nothing, unfortunately, right?
	You just say to them, you know, God be with you and let them go their way and let them get vaccinated, you know?
	Yeah.
	This is heartbreaking to me because I've lost, as you may have as well, I've lost many close friends since this COVID thing began.
	Oh yeah, totally, totally.
	Yeah, so it is a very isolating, you know, and disappointing.
	And that of course is part of the process.
	They're trying to achieve that.
	They want us, they want to separate us into different tribes.
	Yes.
	Oh, I mean, hence the rise of identity politics, you know, which does not come from Lenin, you know, it does not come from Mao.
	The intelligence agencies have been diligently and very cleverly encouraging that shift on the left.
	Oh, yes.
	Which reminds me, please, can I just briefly sidetrack you from Trump?
	Because I, tell me about Black Lives Matter, the brand.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Black Lives Matter is, okay, I did these two interviews that people can watch in the series called Perspectives on the Pandemic and part three will be coming out in a few weeks.
	So I, you know, briefly go over this stuff in those interviews and encourage people to watch them.
	I'm glad you brought this up.
	Very good.
	The last year, last year and a half, has been a continuous propaganda spectacle, whose purpose is simultaneously to devastate the independent economy that is small business, to destroy it.
	So that, you know, the predators can swoop in and buy these properties for pennies on the dollar.
	And we're talking about, you know, Amazon and, you know, Costco and Walmart and outfits like that.
	And also to drive more and more commerce onto the internet, along with most what was formerly human congregation, now is online, okay?
	So that makes, you know, people like Bill Gates and Bezos, et cetera, much richer.
	So it certainly had that economistic effect, right?
	But we always have to look beyond that, you know, because money is in everything.
	Along with the devastation of the independent economy has been the deliberate atomization of humankind and its division into warring sects or tribes.
	Divide et impera, right?
	Divide and conquer.
	It's as old as imperialism, really.
	It's part of that playbook.
	It always was.
	It has been, and it is, and now it's been carried to its exquisite culmination in a moment where we fear getting within six feet of each other because it might be deadly, right?
	And then that is further exacerbated by the division of whole populations into the virtuous ones who comply with the orders, however irrational and stunting those orders may be.
	They mask their children, right?
	They wear two masks.
	They mask when they're driving alone in their cars, right?
	I mean, this is pure insanity.
	And they're lining up, eagerly lining up to get injected with this witch's brew, which has God knows what in it.
	And they are delighted to be able to get that injection.
	You know, it's like, honey, good news.
	I have a couple of seats on the next train to Auschwitz.
	It's really, it's like that, you know?
	So it's making people, it's making people clamor for extinction, right?
	While utterly demonizing those who say, whoa, you know, not this Haas, you know, wait a minute.
	Have you read this?
	Have you read that?
	You notice, you point that out to people.
	You show them videos of some of the most eminent, again, experts, dirty word, videos of Mike Yeadon, videos of Sukrit Bakhti, videos of Dr. Peter McCullough, videos of Robert Malone, who invented the mRNA technology.
	You show them that.
	What do they do?
	They get pissed off.
	They're furious at you.
	Well, that's misinformation.
	You know, they think that's misinformation.
	And that what Dr. Fauci says, you know, this manifest charlatan, this liar, you know, who has an atrocious history from the time when he participated in the HIV AIDS fraud, right?
	Which was the beginning.
	This is important.
	That was the beginning of this notion that you could be a case of something with no symptoms.
	Okay.
	That was the, you have HIV, you know, this, this shattered people's lives.
	This is like a death sentence.
	You know, those of us old enough to remember, this was horrible.
	And it had the effect of making people think that sexual union was like a dance with death, you know?
	So all of a sudden you had to be careful.
	You had to withdraw.
	Now that only affected a subset or subsets of the population.
	That was, in a way, the dress rehearsal for this, you know?
	And I'm going to credit somebody for, you know, educating me on this particular history.
	It's Celia Farber, who was like the best of the AIDS journalists back in the late 80s and 90s.
	And has, you know, paid dearly for it because it's never, you can never really get away with telling truths that threaten such huge profits.
	The point is that the drug AZT from Burroughs Wellcome is a chemotherapeutic drug.
	Dr. Fauci helped to make available after the most minimal safety testing by the FDA, which previously had taken years to test the safety and efficacy of drugs.
	Now, all of a sudden, Dr. Fauci, with gay activists at his back, you know, on his side, He got them to clamor for these treatments.
	We want them now.
	If you don't make these drugs available, you'll be murdering gay men.
	Silence equals death.
	You know all that?
	It was weaponized by Dr. Fauci for Burroughs Welcome.
	And you have tens of thousands of gay men killed by AZT.
	I'm not exaggerating.
	It is a horror story, right?
	AZT, okay, just fast forward, AZT flowers into the vaccines, right?
	These lethal vaccines, which have already demonstrably killed over 12,000 people in America, at the very least, over 20,000 Europeans, at the very least, right?
	It's the numbers have Surely far greater than that, because the vaccine adverse event reporting system in this country, VAERS, that represents up to 1% of the actual number of such cases, okay?
	So you can, as they say, do the math.
	And then recall in 1976, with the swine flu fraud, you know, they rolled out a swine flu vaccine And back then, 60 Minutes reported this, okay?
	And that vaccine started killing people.
	And I think the number was 46.
	It might've been 78, something like that.
	When the deaths reached that number, they aborted the whole program, okay?
	That's in 1976.
	It's just a few decades ago.
	That level of fatality was enough To make the authorities say, wait, forget it.
	This is hurting people.
	Now we have thousands dying or, you know, coming down with, you know, they become breakthrough cases, right, from this vaccine.
	It is beyond grotesque and it leaves people like you and me sort of fulminating out here in the wilderness.
	But I, you know, I I don't despair.
	I never despair.
	I wouldn't be talking to you if I didn't think we can turn it around.
	And I think we can turn it around by persisting in what we do, in telling people the truth, in addressing those minds that are not closed, right?
	And in particular, young people, who, as I say, are usually the most receptive just to the idea of looking beyond the official narrative, right?
	When I praise their receptiveness, I don't praise it because, oh boy, now I can indoctrinate them into my views, you know?
	No, that's not it.
	That's what a lot of my colleagues do, right?
	Because they're all terribly woke and everything.
	No, no, the point is that you always ask yourself, is this true?
	Is it true about climate change?
	For example, that's ramping up again, you know, very, very loudly.
	That's not got anything to do with saving the planet.
	You know, you want to save the planet, you want to save the planet, you talk about air pollution, you talk about water pollution.
	You talk about the runoff of agricultural fertilizers.
	You talk about radiation in the oceans, right?
	There are a lot of serious problems that we can see with our own eyes, and it is not CO2.
	That is not the problem.
	That is a diversion, right?
	That is an opportunity for further financialization of the planet.
	And trust me, it's about climate lockdowns, right?
	This is all about locking down It has nothing to do with health.
	It has nothing to do with the environment.
	It is about taking over the world economy, digitalizing all currency, and creating a kind of bio-fascist state, where if you question any official narrative, you are a domestic terrorist.
	It has come to this, okay?
	People can sign up for my listserv at markcrispinmiller.com.
	And what I do is I just send stuff out on a daily basis.
	You know, news items from citizen journalists, from other media, you know, et cetera.
	Information people should know, and sometimes pieces of my own.
	They can also subscribe to my Substack column, which is brand new, and that'll be exclusively writings of my own.
	Well, something I sent out just two days ago, was a screenshot of an NBC News report on the latest bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security listing potential terror threats as of now.
	The first terror threat is people in opposition to COVID measures.
	That's a terror threat.
	People who think the last election was stolen.
	That is a terror Threat, and they add to it that Trump may be reinstated.
	You know, they want to jam these two issues together so that if you're questioning the results of the last election, you are a Trump supporter, right?
	The third potential terror threat is the 9-11 anniversary and Religious holidays, see?
	So, if you're a 9-11 truther, in other words, you're being tacitly connected to a kind of religious fanaticism, which I don't think any longer means Islamic fundamentalists.
	I think it means American Christians, you know?
	If you read this list of threats carefully, what you see is Conspiracy theorists of any kind are a potential terror threat, inextricable from the white nationalist movement.
	Trump, whom we haven't yet talked about, served the purpose of enabling the complete demonization of everybody who is dissatisfied with the Democratic Party establishment and agenda.
	This naturally includes Christians, right?
	Non-woke Christians.
	And it includes a lot of conservatives and libertarians, of course.
	It also includes a number of people on the genuine left.
	I mean, I know some who actually voted for Trump the second time, you know, out of horror at the thought of Biden-Harris taking over.
	At any rate, you know, that was one of the purposes Trump served, but that's just a little glimpse into the full picture of his function in this whole vast psyop, which, to put it very succinctly, has been to make it impossible to discuss any issue on which he has taken a position.
	You can't discuss hydroxychloroquine I try to talk to some of my educated, you know, liberal slash progressive friends or former friends saying, look, you know, hydroxychloroquine works.
	You know, there are dozens of studies proving this.
	I can point you to hospitals all over the country where they've used it early to treat COVID-19.
	It works.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	And they'll say, no, it kills people.
	It kills people.
	Trump's a liar, see?
	Because Trump touted it.
	What does that have to do with anything?
	How is it that they're letting him control their minds, you know?
	Just as he controls the minds of his most avid followers, who believe everything he says, you know?
	People who reflexively disbelieve everything he says.
	He is the poll star of their entire universe, you know?
	He's it.
	That's it.
	I mean, I was talking to a former ally in the election integrity movement.
	I think this guy's a Democratic Party operative, actually, because he was all in for Russiagate, and he's all in for climate change, and he's all in for saying that last election was not stolen, right?
	And I said, look, you know, hydroxychloroquine works.
	He said, yeah, kills people.
	Now, I looked into this.
	You may remember, this is interesting.
	This is the kind of thing we'd study in my propaganda course.
	After Trump touted HCQ, they always use that word, Trump touts drug.
	And in the background, you know, there's Tony Fauci doing this.
	Yeah, yeah.
	So, you know, it's like all rolling his eyes.
	So all the people who are trained to think That the other side is absolutely right.
	Yeah, Fauci, wow.
	HCQ, can you imagine?
	They don't know anything about it, but they see Fauci do this.
	Yeah.
	That's it.
	All right.
	All of a sudden there are news stories about this couple somewhere in the Southwest.
	You may remember this.
	I do.
	That they, they, yeah, they ingested, um, uh, fish tank aquarium stuff.
	Yeah.
	Fish tank that had chloroquine in it.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	This is all over the New York Times and they say, Oh, Trump, you know, listen to Trump and he killed this guy, you know, and the wife's just recovering.
	Okay.
	On that basis, this smart, you know, person, you know, one of whose essays I included in a collection I edited about election theft in 2008.
	So we were pretty close on that basis saying, yeah, it kills people.
	Okay.
	Well, you know, follow-up story, which got no coverage except locally.
	That woman, the wife, was arrested for murdering her husband.
	She poisoned him.
	That's what the cop said, or the DA.
	She poisoned this guy, took a little of it herself.
	We watched Trump, you know?
	We watched Trump and we took this.
	Okay.
	You know, words fail me.
	This is like the plot to kidnap Governor Whitmer of Michigan.
	Remember this one?
	Yeah.
	You know, these white nationalists were going to kidnap her.
	They were like brown shirts, you know, and the whole thing was exposed as an FBI operation.
	I mean, they are in the business of concocting these terror plots, you know, and then holding press conferences and getting more funding, you know, in the media.
	Oh, see, see, see what happens, see, see what happens if you question the official narrative, right?
	I could go on with many more examples.
	But the fact is, you can't, you can't believe these stories, right?
	And I think it's, I fear, James, that in a week or two, maybe tomorrow, I don't know when this is going to go up, but you know, at some point, very soon, There's going to be some big, horrible thing that's going to happen, right?
	That's going to justify like the mother of all crackdowns.
	Okay.
	Earlier in the summer, I was speculating that they might actually fake an alien invasion because suddenly, you know, aliens was a thing, right?
	Yeah.
	And I'm thinking, okay, here comes independence day, you know, the movie, because they have all kinds of, you know, spacecraft that can be very scary looking and I thought that was a possibility.
	They dropped that very quickly.
	Now they're, you know, turning up the COVID panic.
	They're amplifying that siren again, you know, they're cranking it again, right?
	And they're also saying the planet's too hot, the planet's too hot, I think that there's too much conversation like this going on, okay?
	I think there are more and more signs that they're coming to the breaking point.
	And this is a very important historical point I want to make about this.
	These vaccines are killing unprecedented numbers of people, all right?
	And it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that.
	On PBS, you know, public television, which is always abjectly deferential to Dr. Fauci and the rest of them.
	The interviewer recently, he gave, this was two days ago, he was interviewed by somebody who was, you know, bowing and scraping, but he said, you know, politely, Dr. Fauci, there's this very high number of so-called breakthrough cases Even though people are fully vaccinated, they're coming down with COVID being hospitalized.
	What's your response to this?
	And Fauci engaged in his usual mendacious and incomprehensible doublespeak.
	I think he said, I don't like that phrase breakthrough cases, but whatever he said, doesn't matter.
	The point is that when it gets to the point that even a sock puppet like this guy on public TV puts that kind of question to Dr. Fauci, it means that it is no longer possible to pretend that something really horrible is not happening, right?
	The historical analogy is the Vietnam war in this country, okay, which they did finally Okay.
	They did not end the Vietnam War because of the anti-war movement that I was part of as a college student, right?
	We wanted desperately to end the war.
	It was an ongoing atrocity, right?
	They ended it, not because of the protesters, right?
	Which tended, I think they tended, we tended often to piss people off.
	It ended because of the casualty rate, period.
	That's why they had to end it.
	Back then, being more of a democracy sort of than we are now, we had a draft, which I now, as a curmudgeon who's seen quite a lot, I now believe in the draft, right?
	We had a draft.
	Our military was comprised of people from all over, average people, mostly people who were have-nots.
	And so many of them were killed in Vietnam.
	So many were blinded or driven insane or lost limbs, you know, came back broken.
	It got to the point where you just couldn't keep it going.
	You couldn't say there's light at the end of the tunnel, right?
	So we return to this, you know, metaphor that we were discussing early on today.
	You know, at a certain point, the pounding on the doors of the theater, you're locked in, right?
	becomes overwhelming, you know, that noise just drowns out whatever they're saying, you know, on screen, whatever lies they're telling are drowned out.
	Maybe people break a hole in the wall of that theater and some sunlight comes streaming in and the image on the screen is not as clear anymore.
	But the point is, you can't keep it going.
	You can't keep it going.
	And I don't think they can keep this vaccination program going.
	I don't think so.
	And you look at places like France, you know, you look at places like Guyana.
	I mean, nobody knows this, but the government completely backed off there because of too much protest, too many workers quitting.
	They will not get the shot, you know?
	And Guyana, good old Guyana, didn't that happen?
	Yeah.
	Well, you know, I mean, this is one of the things I sent to my listserv.
	So watch, watch, everybody watch Guyana because what's going to happen to them, right?
	Because we know that some African heads of state have conveniently, you know, bought the farm.
	Those were leaders who were, you know, standing against the vaccination program.
	I mean, the interests were up against James.
	They mean business, okay?
	But that doesn't mean they're all about only business.
	It is a mistake to think that this is purely driven by greed.
	I'm saying this to you from the bottom of my heart.
	I don't think this is simply about greed.
	I actually think that this is something more evil than that.
	I think that the notion of requiring children to be injected with an experimental serum that is demonstrably, lethally dangerous A recent call by the CDC to inject particularly pregnant mothers with this stuff?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	I'm sorry, but I am with Michael Yeadon on this.
	I am with these other, you know, real experts in saying that this looks like a depopulation effort, you know?
	And then if we step back and do a little study of the history of the eugenics movement from the late 19th century, a movement of which Adolf Hitler was an avid student, right?
	And George Bernard Shaw, all the intellectuals of the day.
	Yes, Shaw, Wells, Here, Woodrow Wilson, W.E.B.
	Du Bois, one of the greatest black intellectuals, they were eugenicists.
	They believed in encouraging the fit to reproduce and discouraging the unfit from reproducing.
	Positive eugenics was simply about persuasion.
	Negative eugenics was about forced sterilization.
	And a kind of Malthusian tendency to welcome famine and disease among the have-nots, you know?
	Yes.
	You know, this is a very crude economic... I think Mary Stokes is a Jedi.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	It was a very, very successful and pervasive pseudoscience, right, that justified extreme racism and What people call anti-Semitism or Judeophobia.
	When Hitler took power, the eugenics movement was thrilled.
	They were delighted to see this.
	A movement, you know, subsidized by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and other interests like that.
	Yeah.
	Interests that never, never gave up.
	They never stopped, James.
	Okay.
	They welcomed Hitler's rise.
	Okay.
	Then after the war, there's footage of the liberation of the death camps.
	And it was an uh-oh moment.
	It made eugenics look somewhat suspect, you know?
	That maybe, you know, putting the theory to the test so radically, you know, is not a good idea.
	Not because it's morally wrong, but because it's so ugly, right?
	So they pulled back, they pulled back, and then they very quietly rebranded.
	And they rebranded themselves as a movement for population control.
	So now it was about population control.
	Turning point, as far as public visibility was concerned, was the formation of the Population Council in 1952, which was the Rockefeller project, you know.
	I'm surprised.
	And from then on, yeah, from then on, it became, it was more and more Cleverly greened the movement so that now it was a matter of saving Mother Earth.
	That's why we have to cut the population.
	Eugenics put on hippie drag.
	It was successful.
	Greta Thunberg is, is, is basically a eugenicist tool, right?
	Yeah.
	They use her.
	Oh, she's like, she's like one of those, those, those mentions with, with, with the, with the, with the pigtails, you know, in, in, in 1930s Germany, she's exactly like that.
	She does look like, yeah, there's something very scary about her.
	I mean, I kind of feel for her because what they've done is a kind of child abuse.
	Nevertheless, her, by the way, her, Great grandfather, Sven, I forget his first name, Arrhenius, Arrhenius.
	Oh, Arrhenius, the guy who, yeah, Svante Arrhenius.
	Yes, he invented the notion of global warming.
	Yeah.
	And he was an avid eugenicist before the Nazi movement.
	Eugenics was huge in Sweden, even before the Nazis came along.
	There was a kind of race, you know, a kind of a grandiose racist mythology about the Swede, the perfect Swede.
	And I don't think Sweden has ever come to terms with this, but it's interesting that the man who kind of coined the climate change, he created that model, right?
	That kind of grounds for discouraging development, right?
	He's also somebody who, you know, was a eugenicist.
	And this is my phone.
	All right.
	This is an amber alert.
	You know, it's probably a Delingpole alert.
	Yeah.
	I am toxic.
	You probably got overdose levels of Dillingpole toxicity.
	I had it already.
	I just finished by closing the circle here that Bill Gates is really an outspoken eugenicist, although he makes it sound palatable.
	Yes.
	I think that many of your viewers, you talked to James Corbett, right?
	Yeah.
	He did the series, Who is Bill Gates?
	And, you know, so your audience has probably already seen him with and without you.
	But I just want to re-emphasize the importance of Gates's own personal commitment to eugenics.
	His father, Bill Gates Sr., was on the board of Planned Parenthood, which Margaret Sanger founded purely out of feminism, but out of a kind of rabid desire to cut the numbers of the world's unfit.
	You know, she's explicit on this subject in her book, The Pivot of Civilization.
	She was such an egregious eugenicist that even Planned Parenthood has had to officially disavow her, okay?
	Their headquarters are, you know, three blocks from me.
	So, you know, well, we have nothing to do with her.
	But the fact is she wanted to see Planned Parenthood abortion clinics all over black neighborhoods.
	That is not a right-wing fantasy.
	That's a fact.
	Yeah.
	And Bill Gates Sr.
	was not a feminist, you know?
	Bill Gates Sr.
	was a Rockefeller intimate and a member of the elite.
	Bill Gates's mother was connected to the Federal Reserve.
	That's where this, you know, nerd comes from, right?
	And his function has been to make the idea of lessening the world's population through vaccination seem kind of kindly and altruistically intended.
	Because Gates managed to rebrand himself, again speaking of propaganda, After his antitrust lawsuit, you know, the federal government sued Microsoft for monopolistic practices, and rightly so, just as the government sued John D. Rockefeller a century earlier for monopolistic practices with Standard Oil.
	And just as Rockefeller rebranded himself as a kindly altruist by forming a foundation after that litigation, right?
	So, Gates did with the founding of the William Gates Sr.
	Foundation, right?
	I'm sorry, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but Bill Gates Sr.
	was its director.
	Right.
	And there, just as Rockefeller was suddenly this kindly old guy handing out dimes to little girls, right?
	There were all these photographs throughout the press.
	So, as Bill Gates suddenly I mean, everybody regarded him as, you know, predation personified because his practices atop Microsoft were kind of shocking, you know?
	This guy doesn't have an altruistic bone in his body.
	He is really, you know, an embodiment of greed at its worst.
	Suddenly he's got these pastel sweaters and he sounds like Kermit the Frog.
	You know, and he's flapping his hands as he talks so earnestly.
	And there are all these neo-colonialist images of him and Melinda in darkest Africa.
	Yeah.
	I mean, all he needs is a pith moment on his head, you know, and a train of dark servants carrying his luggage behind.
	I mean, it's straight out of the 19th century.
	It's like one of Cecil Rhodes' wet dreams.
	You know what I'm saying?
	I do.
	Oh, isn't he kind?
	Isn't he good?
	Ooh, there he is giving an oral vaccine to a little black baby.
	Oh, he's so good.
	Those Africans really need him, you know?
	Oh, Lord.
	I mean, it works, James.
	This stuff works.
	It works, you know?
	It works if you just don't keep your head and, you know, look, direct your gaze away from the screen, you know, and stop reading the New York Times and, you know, look elsewhere.
	Read some history, you know?
	Yeah, I mean, we can't put the blame entirely on the good Germans, right?
	Because it's not only the media, no, it's the universities, it's schools too, from kindergarten on up through graduate school.
	No, you were making me think that.
	I mean, you know, this is not an original thought, but that maybe the real most evil man of the 20th century was Edward Bernays.
	Yeah, he was two blocks away from me here.
	Yeah, Bernays.
	He was, well, you know, bear in mind that being a really dedicated and extremely brilliant propagandist, he was also functioning that way on his own behalf, right, and therefore cast himself as the sole possessor of the kind of nefarious wisdom we're talking about.
	Right.
	It was really a whole profession dedicated to it.
	Yeah, Edward Bernays, and I guess I should recommend his classic Propaganda, because, you know, my introduction to that edition is very helpful putting the whole thing into context.
	I want to say, full disclosure here, You know, rereading that introduction recently, I was horrified to see that among the examples I adduced to make the point that propaganda need not be malevolent.
	Yeah.
	You know, you wear your seatbelts.
	I'd included vaccination.
	Okay.
	This was 20 years ago or something.
	But so many, you know, we're susceptible to, I mean, you know, this shit works.
	That is the whole point.
	There's so many things I believed for most of my life that I now realize are wrong and probably evil.
	Right back at you, James.
	I have had the same experience and I will continue to have it and you will continue to have it.
	That's what it means to be a living, thinking being and not a pod, you know, like an invasion of the body snatchers.
	Yeah.
	Where you just never change your mind about anything.
	And this metamorphosis that we're being forced through now has radically changed my outlook.
	Radically.
	I still regard myself, in a sense, I still regard myself as a member of the campus left of the 60s, you know?
	We were against censorship, we were against war, we were against corporate power and sought to restrain it, you know?
	We believed in saving the planet, we were in favor of civil rights, you know?
	We were feminists, okay?
	I don't really see much wrong with that fundamental code of ethics or politics.
	I still subscribe to it.
	But I also realize that the conservatives have long possessed a certain wisdom that I reflexively rejected because of where it was coming from.
	They talked about freedom.
	They talked about the dangers of too much government control.
	They talked about that.
	Okay?
	And we took freedom for granted.
	Words I never thought I would hear myself uttering, even privately.
	But we took freedom for granted.
	We took freedom of speech for granted.
	And we took freedom of religion for granted, right?
	Now we see religious holidays are being termed a terror threat, right?
	Now we see that pastor up in Canada who drove the Nazis, he called them Gestapo, he drove the Canadian police from his church quite rightly.
	He did it twice.
	Then they actually pulled his car over to the side of the highway, handcuffed him, and dragged him into custody.
	I mean, I get too overwhelmed with other things to follow up to see what's happened to this guy.
	This is a righteous man, you know?
	We didn't think about religious freedom.
	If anything, we thought it was for cranks, you know?
	And I believe in the Second Amendment, too, okay?
	I never gave that a thought.
	And I discovered George Orwell believed that every peasant, every worker should have a gun.
	And I think he was right.
	I believe in that.
	I think that if you don't have an armed peasantry, you are very vulnerable.
	I think that the Port Arthur massacre in Australia was probably a psyop because it gave a huge push to the gun control movement.
	You mean the one in New Zealand?
	Yeah, New Zealand.
	I'm sorry.
	In the mosque.
	Yeah, that's right.
	It had the same.
	Maybe it was authentic.
	Whatever it was, it was used to give tremendous power to the gun control movement in both nations, right?
	Both Australia and New Zealand, right?
	Yeah.
	Now look at them.
	Now look at what's happening to the people there.
	I mean, I've been sending stuff out on a daily basis.
	It is shocking.
	They're going to take 24,000 kids into a sports stadium and inject them all, and parents are not to come along, right?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	It's a sort of unhappy historical link with, echo with sports stadiums, isn't it?
	You think about the French, the Jews in Paris being rounded up and sent to the velodrome.
	It chills me to the core.
	Chile too.
	Remember?
	Chile, after the Allende was deposed, they put everybody in the stadium.
	Yeah, and they're doing it again.
	This brings us to an aspect of this whole thing that I think we should touch on.
	There are no time constraints, are there?
	No, no.
	You want me to edit things out?
	No, you go ahead.
	There's a certain flagrancy to some of what they do.
	That it's almost as if they're deliberately showing their true colors to those of us who can see them.
	Can I tell you my theory on this before you tell me yours?
	It's to do with, you know how vampires can only enter your house if you give them permission?
	That's the kind of the folklore tradition.
	In the same way, I believe, and I think there's a lot of evidence to support this, and you've actually covered this in your study of films, which is that it seems to me that in the mindset of these people, we call them the Kabbalah, whatever you want to call them, that their evil is legitimized If they tell you what they're going to do, because you in a way have given them permission for them to destroy you.
	It's somehow by their curious moral code, which is an essentially a Luciferian one.
	They feel that by telling you what to, what they're going to do, it's okay.
	It's legitimate.
	Well, I, I think you're absolutely right.
	No, I had, I had thought of it in a slightly different way.
	I think they're complimentary.
	You know, they have the two ways to approach this, you know, and I actually take both ways.
	Okay, take both approaches.
	One is that simply as a tactical matter, you will be much more successful at attaining your goals.
	If you avoid a too explicitly coercive an approach, you know, like Bull Connor, you know, in Where was that?
	I'm blanking on whichever town in Alabama or Mississippi it was.
	He was the notorious police chief who set the dogs on non-violent protesters, you know, over voter registration under the guidance of Martin Luther King.
	And it shocked the nation.
	The footage shocked the nation.
	You know, these police dogs, fire hoses.
	It was a very brutal approach.
	And it impelled the police chief, I think in Albany, Georgia, I'm sure I have the places wrong, but he learned from that example that it's far better to take a non-confrontational approach and sort of manipulate the situation to your ends.
	And this is similar to Edward Bernays' understanding of propaganda.
	That I think is correct to some extent, But what's happening now is so glaringly evil and so increasingly and flagrantly coercive, you know, in places like Australia.
	Australia.
	And look at the way the German police are now behaving, right?
	Look at the way the French police have behaved in recent days, you know.
	It's starting to look a little different.
	It's starting to look as if they figure we might as well know that they are all in here, you know?
	Now, that's to cast them as sort of self-possessed and cool, biding their time, you know, timing the process with exquisite precision.
	You know, that's the kind of image of those of the controls that Goebbels sought to project There was also the strong possibility that there's a certain desperation in their coerciveness.
	Yeah.
	They know that the crunch is coming, you know?
	And so they're ramping things up in order to force what they haven't been able to get people to do voluntarily.
	I don't know.
	I think that the whole thing will be checked shortly by some kind of ultra traumatic Event, you see.
	Yes.
	And we can only guess at what it is.
	You know, I'm thinking about how more and more obvious it's become that Joe Biden is really seriously impaired.
	Yes.
	Cognitively impaired.
	And I've thought all along that the plan might be to have him eliminated in one way or another So that Kamala Harris can become our figurehead president.
	This was the least popular of all the democratic candidates.
	Her support, her level of support did not reach 1%.
	I mean, she's really unpopular.
	I have yet to meet a black person who can stand her.
	Okay.
	Granted, you know, my field of acquaintance is limited, but she is a completely ruthless character.
	Completely ruthless and completely corrupt.
	But she will be our first black female president.
	And, you know, in that capacity, I think they think she will be able to, you know, take steps that they would be screaming against if Trump took them, for example, or if anybody else, you know.
	You know, woke militancy and that whole mythology plays a crucial role in this whole process, you know?
	Part two of the huge propaganda spectacle of the last 18 months was the George Floyd incident, which gave birth, in a sense, to Black Lives Matter as a very, very powerful brand, right?
	Yeah.
	Which is all that Black Lives Matter is, you know.
	Any organization that, any progressive organization that takes a hundred million dollars from the Ford Foundation, which is a long-standing CIA pass-through, is not a progressive organization, is not a grassroots organization, though
	Members of the grassroots, you know, eagerly join, and I think participate with the best intentions.
	But it is... Black Lives Matter is a fraud whose purpose is to enable, first, the further devastation of independent businesses, including an appallingly high number of black-owned businesses.
	And then to also, you know, further divide people from one another and racialize all discourse.
	Yeah.
	Right?
	Which has happened now.
	And that's part of the new redefinition of rural Americans across the board and Republicans generally as domestic terrorists and white racists, you know?
	So, I mean, this is material, potential material for a whole nother show here, you know?
	Well, I know, I'm thinking that.
	There's so much, there is so many, oh, you can tell we've gone on, because the battery on my light thing is starting to die.
	We have so much in common, intellectually, and you're absolutely on the same page as me.
	I agree with everything you've said.
	We should have another chat.
	I mean, I say this to all my favorite podcast guests, but we should.
	It's very fruitful.
	We could talk about this endlessly.
	I was wondering, actually.
	Oh, I know what I'm going to do.
	Before I close off, I wanted to say something I normally put right at the end, which is Please everyone, don't forget to support me on Patreon and Subscribestar and visit my website dellingpoleworld.com where you can become a special friend or pay me on PayPal or even give me some Bitcoin.
	I like Bitcoin.
	No one ever gives me Bitcoin.
	I like cryptos.
	Anyway, that's by the by.
	Can we just close off for this session?
	My followers are divided on the issue of Trump.
	There are some, I think, who still believe in Hopium.
	They still believe that he is the White Hat, with the plan, and that he's going to come back on a cloud, maybe with some seahorses in front of him, and like the character in I don't know.
	Or something.
	And he's going to come and he's going to wave his rainbow wand and it's all going to be okay.
	And the Cabal are going to be defeated and it's just cool.
	It may involve the Space Force that he established.
	And I think there are others More cynical, who've been conspiracy theorists, so-called, since the era of the Kennedy assassination, pretty much.
	And they say, look, Trump is another part of the PSYOP.
	Trump is... Nobody becomes president without the cabal's permission.
	And I think you hinted that you might believe in the second version of events.
	Just tell me briefly what you think about Trump.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I appreciate and respect the desire of his supporters to believe that he's going to be their means of deliverance from the nightmare.
	Yeah.
	And I think he genuinely won the last election.
	And on that basis, I believe he should have been reelected.
	My view is complicated by my strong suspicion, James, that he did not actually win in 2016, because there is substantial evidence that the votes in the three swing states were rigged.
	Which explains why he really seemed to go out of his way to alienate as many large voting blocs as possible.
	And I believe he expected to be able to run a TV network.
	I don't think he's a witting participant in the spectacle.
	I'm willing to argue about that.
	The fact that they did not have an acceptance speech written, and I learned this privately, tells me a lot.
	Okay.
	We could quibble about whether even that was staged or not.
	I tend to think that it wasn't.
	I tend to think there was a last minute decision up there that Hillary had become too thickly caked with excrement by election day that even though she was going to win, she was going to win.
	Excrement and blood, I should say.
	Yeah, well, exactly.
	What a disgusting image.
	But, you know, it would be four years of hearings by Congress, and there's the emails, and I don't even dismiss Pizzagate, you know.
	I know that makes me a thought criminal.
	And I think they thought, well, let's go to plan B. Okay.
	It was plan B, but it was, I think, a plan.
	Because as you say, you don't get to the point where you can run for president without having been approved.
	And if people would just bother to read some books about Trump, Okay, in his history, his story, they'll see that he does not have an altruistic bone in his body.
	He's a kind of, you know, pathological narcissist, you know, and, you know, a liar, although I, you know, I think his lying has been, you know, overblown by the media.
	Uh, you know, and I think he did some good things actually.
	Um, or even if in a negative sense, he didn't start any new wars or anything.
	Uh, so I don't regard him as the epitome of evil.
	And I certainly laugh off any comparisons with Hitler.
	I think that whole comparison was part of the PSYOP, but I do believe that placing any hopes in him is, uh, only going to, uh, result in heartache for you.
	This is a guy who's mentor.
	As a young and aspiring real estate tycoon was Roy Cohn, C-O-H-N, one of the most malevolent figures of the Cold War, Joe McCarthy's henchman, also somebody caked with excrement and blood, you know?
	A fixer, a really scary guy.
	That was his mentor, okay?
	And then he rises to the point where he's a huge TV star.
	And I believe his presidency was like nothing so much as a pro wrestling match, you know?
	Oh, I thought he did that well.
	Right?
	Swagger around in his tights with his cape and, you know, with the pompadour and, uh, Everybody on the liberal side of the aisle goes, boo, boo, boo, bad orange man, you know, so everything he says is horrible, he's Hitler, all that stuff, you know.
	I think that was his function.
	There's two things he's done that strike me as unforgivable and unjustifiable, okay?
	The first is, he not only started Operation Warp Speed and boasted of it, But even after pouting hydroxychloroquine, right?
	When he got sick, he didn't take it, right?
	That's not the major sin.
	The major sin is that since January, he has He's explicitly joined the Vaccinian extremists by saying that anyone who won't get the shots has been taken in by deranged pseudoscience, okay?
	He said that.
	That's unforgettable.
	That is, I agree.
	Well, I just want to say, I got to get off soon, I want to say this last thing.
	They've got scores of people in solitary confinement in federal prison on no charges.
	These people were swept up after the attempted coup on January 6th without a peep from the American Civil Liberties Union, you know, which is all about trans rights and stuff like that.
	It's completely woke now.
	It is not doing its job.
	I don't care what politics these people subscribe to, what they believe in.
	It is completely unconstitutional and illegal and just plain wrong to drag people into prison and throw them.
	I mean, what happened to the Magna Carta, for God's sake?
	You know, where's Trump?
	OK, these are people who in one way or another showed up to protest, you know, an election that they believe was stolen from him.
	If he's such a champion of the real people, if he's such a Vox Populi, why has he said nothing on their behalf?
	The fact is he doesn't care.
	He doesn't care about them or anybody else any more than Joe Biden, when in his right mind, cared about anything else, any more than Kamala Harris cares about anybody else, any more than Dr. Fauci cares about anybody else, any more than Bill Gates cares about anybody else.
	They don't care.
	They don't care.
	At this moment, anyone who doesn't speak up for these people, right?
	And I don't just mean them.
	I mean everybody getting injected with this stuff.
	Anybody who says, I don't take a position on this, right?
	Anybody who's lukewarm on it, right?
	I spew them out of my mouth, okay?
	To quote scripture.
	It is a time where you're either, you know, gonna do the right thing, Or you're not, you know?
	And if you do the wrong thing, trust me, someday, you know, someday, people will recognize where you were when this happened.
	Just as, you know, kids asked their parents in Germany, what were you doing?
	You know, what were you doing then?
	Right?
	It's going to happen again.
	Because I think they're going to lose.
	I believe that.
	I believe that they cannot win.
	They can't build the Tower of Babel.
	I don't care how much artificial intelligence they have.
	They can't do it.
	They can't do it because humankind is against them.
	They can't do it because nature cannot be contained and circumscribed and monetized the way these freaks want to do it.
	You can't do it.
	You can't stop the river of life.
	You can't do it.
	And you can't do it because it's evil.
	It's wrong.
	Evil loses.
	Evil has lost.
	But we have to keep fighting.
	I was thrilled to get the invitation to talk to you today.
	It's been a long time coming.
	And I look forward to our next conversation.
	It's been an absolute pleasure.
	I hate to rain on your parade by one tiny, tiny thing, which I meant to pick you up on right at the beginning, which is that Orwell, unfortunately, didn't say that.
	It's attributed to him in times of universal deceit, truth telling becomes a revolutionary act, but it's attributed to him.
	Oh dear.
	I know, isn't it terrible that I'm just kind of, I've just bummed you out, I've just destroyed the entire interview, you know, our lovely chat, and now... You debunked me.
	Sorry?
	You debunked me.
	I know, I know.
	You debunked me.
	I debunked you, yeah.
	You're like a fact checker.
	Like a fact, yeah, definitely not like a Reuters fact checker, because they, Reuters fact checkers would have confirmed that Orwell definitely said that.
	Because they're evil.
	Yeah.
	And he didn't say that thing about guns.
	They'll say he didn't say that.
	Oh, because that would be so inconvenient.
	Yeah, I think he did.
	I think he did, though.
	I think it's in the Lion, the Unicorn.
	Yeah.
	Oh, well, we love we love.
	No, no, no.
	It was a newspaper article.
	And it was like 1938.
	Yeah, yeah.
	It was it was one of I don't even know if it's in his collected writings, but I came across it.
	He did write that.
	I mean, I think that George Orwell is sort of our patron saint.
	1984 is the book that must be read to understand what's happening now.
	It's a novel of such depth and brilliance.
	As a vision of... I think there's a trilogy, a trio of books which are essential to now.
	One is 1984.
	One is Aldous Huxley's Brave New World because he saw the technocratic movement.
	And the third is C.S.
	Lewis's That Hideous Strength.
	He understood the... I just read!
	I just read that!
	It's good, isn't it?
	Oh, it's amazing.
	Yeah.
	It is amazing.
	Because of what I've been going through at NYU, a friend recommended it, and it was staggering.
	It was so prescient, and it's hilarious, too.
	I want to just, you know, before we stop, I mentioned my listserv and my substack.
	We didn't even get into what they're doing to me at NYU, so I urge people to go to my GoFundMe page because I am suing 19 of my department colleagues for libel.
	They libeled me in an effort to get me fired despite my tenure.
	by casting me as a monstrous predatory bully in the classroom of all places.
	So I asked them to apologize, twice asked them, and they ignored that, so I am suing them.
	And I expect this to be a costly process, so people can read about it.
	I'm excited for you.
	I'm very pleased for you.
	And yeah, that is such a worthy cause.
	Everyone, please, please.
	Support this GoFundMe.
	Well, it's been so good having you on the podcast.
	It's an absolute treat.
	I know people are going to be sharing this like mad.
	So thank you very much.
	It's been really good.
	And let's do another one.
	Yes.
	Thanks, James.
	And, you know, on the assumption that neither of us is in custody in a month.
	Yeah.
	Let's plan to do this again.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	So yeah, that was really good fun.
	Mike Wispin Miller, it's been a pleasure.
	Okay, thanks a lot.
	More talk soon.

▲