All Episodes
Previous Next
Dec. 11, 2021 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:56:18
Iain Davis
| 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 Delling.
I know I always say I'm excited about this special guest but actually I think that I know I love all my children but I'm so so excited about this this podcast.
Ian Davis has written Just one of the best books, I think, you're ever going to read to understand all the crap that is going on in the world right now.
I mean, it's enlightening and, is it fair to say, kind of depressing at the same time, Ian?
Yeah, it's hard.
It's a hard read, I would say.
Yeah, it's a hard read.
We're not really selling it very well, are we?
I would say it is an essential book.
I'll show you what the book is.
Does it come out reversed when I do that, or can you see it?
No, it's the right way round, yeah.
Okay, it's called Pseudopandemic, New Normal Technocracy.
And what I love about this book is that it's got almost as many footnotes and references as it has actual, actual text.
So every point that Ian makes is sourced so that when you show this to your normal friends and say, look, this is what's happening.
And they go, no, that's just rubbish, you're just making it up.
They can go to the references, the cross-references, and see that absolutely everything Ian says is bang on, and it's really shocking.
Sorry, that was an appeal to the audience rather than to you, Ian.
I feel slightly bad about using the word normie, not that I feel embarrassed using it, but one of our holy missions right now is to explain to those who don't know what is going on.
There are lots of people out there that don't know, and it seems to me that in normie world they're in a kind of A trance or under a glamour, under a spell or whatever.
They need waking up.
This book, your book, is The Wake Up Call.
So before we go into the details, Ian, tell me a bit about yourself.
Yeah, my name's Ian Davis.
I'm a writer and a blogger and a researcher and an author as well.
I live in the south coast of England in Portsmouth.
My former career, I was a drug and alcohol Practitioner and mental health practitioner.
And then I started writing the blog about, well, I started writing the blog quite a few years ago, I think it was about 2008.
But I didn't seriously start writing in earnest until unfortunately, I was made redundant a couple of years ago.
And that allowed me to devote more time to research and to my writing.
Since then, I've been very fortunate.
My work has been featured in quite a lot of what I suppose you would call independent news outlets, particularly the UK column.
The Off-Guardian, Lou Rockwell, people like that.
And the purpose, the reason that I wrote the book, as you've quite accurately described, is that I just want to get the information out there that people are not commonly made aware of.
Because it's information and evidence which exists.
It's all in the public domain and I think that's an important aspect.
Often people talk about, and I think there's a tendency to talk about, secrets and hidden evidence and, you know, it's as if, you know, when people are talking about these kind of issues that they are speculating.
But the fact is that everything that is in the book, that is sourced in the book, it's already in the public domain.
If it wasn't in the public domain, I wouldn't have been able to source it.
So, and that's an important issue.
So this is information which we can all avail ourselves of, but we are not allowed or we're not certainly when the idea is not advocated that we should avail ourselves of it.
And I don't see how you can have a rounded debate on any issue if you simply ignore huge swathes of the available evidence.
In order to have a properly informed public debate about what is going on in the country at the moment, we need to look at all the evidence.
And that's why I wrote the book.
It's to put the evidence out there.
So people can read it and make of it what they will, but this is just very important to get this evidence out there because people wouldn't ordinarily know about it.
Yeah, and just one point, you say in the country, this book is applicable not just to the UK, but every, all my American listeners, all Australian, New Zealand, whatever.
Germany, Canada, if you want to know what's going on in your country, this book explains in excruciating detail.
I'm sorry to use that word, but it's just painful because when you wake up and realise what's going on, it is terrifying and it is organised, ruthlessly well organised.
So Ian, Tell me what is going on.
I mean, it's not it's not a pandemic.
It's a pseudo pandemic.
But why would they do this?
Why would and who are these people?
Well, I describe something in the book called the Global Public Private Partnership.
Which is a network of governments, philanthropic organisations, think tanks, NGOs, banks, corporations, stakeholder capitalists.
So this network is, you know, it's something that has been talked about at quite some length by academics.
Previously, I cite a Quite a lengthy paper by a couple of researchers, Bruce and Walt in the, I think, Bruce and Walt 2011 or something like that, who talk about the development of the idea of the Global Public-Private Partnership.
So when governments talk about working with something that we commonly hear in the UK, is governments saying that they are working with their industry partners.
We need to take that literally.
It's a partnership.
The public sector and the private sector are in partnership on a great many issues.
Now, as you rightly said earlier, the book is focused on the UK, simply because I'm based in the UK.
However, the same kind of approach to governance is global.
It's a global initiative.
very much the same policies that we are getting in the UK are mirrored in the US, in France, in Germany.
There are, you know, slight differences in policy, but, you know, it's essentially the same policy trajectory.
It's all heading in the same direction.
So the reason why it is all heading in the same direction is transformation.
The intention is to transform the global economy.
Now, I don't think that's a contentious point.
It's obviously the intention to transform the global economy.
That's what net zero policies and so forth are about.
It is about transforming the model of capitalism.
Now, at the center of this network, we have the people like the World Economic Forum, who are building a new form of a new capitalist model based on stakeholder capitalism.
So that means a transformation of our traditional capitalist system.
And that is going to be based on sustainable development goals and so forth.
So in order to transition us, the global economy, Towards a new financial and monetary system.
Towards a new system of rule.
Towards a new form of democracy based around something called civil society.
In order to get us to accept that transition, which is unlike anything that we have ever seen before.
This is a global transition of everything.
There needs to be a catalyst.
There needs to be a catalyst to get us to accept this.
And that's what I suggest is happening at the moment.
The idea is to shape our behaviour and control our behaviour.
So once we accept that our behaviour can or should be controlled by a centralised authority, Then that will facilitate the transition.
That will make the transition much easier, which is the ultimate objective.
And if they get their way, this sort of shadowy group of people of interests, what will the world look like?
I mean, certainly if they introduce things like central bank digital currency, Which is programmable money which enables central banks around the world to monitor, surveil and control every single transaction.
Then currently at the moment, if government introduce a policy that we're encouraged to adopt, We have freedom of choice about whether or not we may adopt that policy wholeheartedly and think, yeah, they're heading in the right direction.
We will follow that.
And normally, that's through our economic activity.
So, for example, they're talking about introducing, for example, more electric vehicles.
So we have a choice about whether we think, yes, that's the right thing to do.
We need to do something about global warming.
I will, if I can afford one, buy an electric vehicle.
So that's a choice.
With central bank digital currency, that choice is removed.
So with central bank digital currency, you technologically won't be able to buy a diesel vehicle or a normally aspirated vehicle.
You won't be able to do that because they will control what you can or cannot buy.
So the same can be said about, for example, the media we consume.
So at the moment, we choose whether we read The Times or whether we read The Guardian or whether we read, potentially, the central bank digital currency, that choice will be removed.
If the algorithm, the AI algorithm identifies you as a person who is reading the wrong kind of material or watching James Dellingpole when they really shouldn't be, then they will be able to stop you being able to do that.
Because they will be able to switch off or switch on what you can use money for.
And that is a global enslavement grid.
And that's what central bank digital currency really means.
We are handing over our economic power to the central banks.
And how close are they to achieving this?
I mean, how feasible is this central bank digital currency, a global one?
Well, technologically, it's easy.
Technologically.
I mean, it's based on the blockchain.
That technology is well established.
There are global cryptocurrencies at the moment.
But I think we need to draw a very clear distinction between cryptocurrency and central bank digital currency.
Cryptocurrency is based on the idea of independent nodes verifying transactions.
So it's very egalitarian in that sense.
You know, if you and I exchange a contract, if you and I buy something off you or vice versa, a global network of independent nodes who are anonymous will perform a checksum and they will verify that transaction.
So in other words, you and I, using for example a cryptocurrency, can effectively trust each other more because there's no third party Like a bank, verifying that transaction.
And that's using the blockchain.
Central Bank Digital Currency is being presented as a kind of cryptocurrency because it is also based on the blockchain.
However, if you control, in the model of Central Bank Digital Currency, if you control the nodes, i.e.
the gateways of the system that are performing those checksums, then you turn what is a freedom-creating financial system, which is what cryptocurrency could potentially be, into an absolute control grid, because then you monitor into an absolute control grid, because then you monitor every single transaction.
So although it's based on the same technology, it is used in an entirely different way.
So at the moment, we've got central banks all around the world introducing papers and studies and groups on how they are.
The Bank of England says that it hasn't made a decision yet whether it's going to introduce central bank digital currency.
Sure.
China have already introduced central bank digital currency.
It's difficult to know about information that comes out of China, but they're claiming that there's already been more than a billion or two billion dollars worth of transactions conducted using their central bank, Wan, in, I think, I can't remember what they call it, Crypto Wang or whatever they call it.
That there's already been, those transactions have already happened.
Russia has already issued laws to create the legislative environment to enable their cryptocurrency, which is based upon their part of the own state bank, Spur Bank, who are surging ahead with that.
The United States, the Fed has already said that they're very much trialing crypto.
So it's coming.
There's no doubt about it's coming.
They will put it in, I would imagine, whenever they roll it out, it will be some sort of parallel system that would be voluntary.
And that's how they always start.
Yes.
You know, and then we will then, you know, if we ever get to the situation where our only access to finance and to money If central bank digital currency, then that, I would suggest, is game over for human freedom.
That will be the end of it.
Yes.
So, this is clearly linked to the World Economic Forum, that video that they very foolishly released a few years ago, where they said, you will own nothing and you've never been happier.
Yeah.
That's part of the plan, presumably, that we become like, what, sort of serfs of the system?
Yeah, I think what they say is that they want to turn everything into a service.
Everything will be a service.
So everything that we currently own, we won't own because it will be a service.
So they're talking about the financialisation of nature itself.
So they want to create, and it is staggering, the ambition of this, is that they want to turn natural nature, the trees outside your window, the fields outside your window, they want to turn that into what they're calling natural assets.
So nature will be a natural asset service.
So, for example, you might look at a forest and see the beauty of nature.
That's not what they see.
What they see is carbon sequestration services.
So a forest, therefore, has intrinsic financial value.
So they want to trade that.
They want to trade the rights to what Often it's referred to as the global commons, which is all the things that we rely upon to live, like the air that we breathe and the world that sustains us.
They're capitalising that, they're turning that into financial assets.
So that's why people like the Rockefeller Foundation are quite happy to divest themselves of their fossil fuel investments.
They've only partially done that.
But they're happy to say that they're divesting themselves of those investments because the future economy they envisage, the low carbon economy, enables them to invest in nature itself.
Right.
So they're turning that into the basis for a new global economy.
But of course, what that means is, when they say, You will own nothing and you will be happy.
What they mean is, we will own everything and we will be happy.
That's what they mean.
So the issue that I most commonly encounter when I'm trying to persuade normies of what's going on is motivation.
They say, but why would anyone do this?
And my short answer is, these people are psychopaths.
They're not like you.
They don't think like you.
But maybe you could put it in a more clinical way, a less emotive way.
What is the end game for these people?
Or rather, what's driving them?
I was recently asked this.
It's a very difficult question to answer because what you're asking is basically, why do we have tyrants?
You know, why has humanity suffered the rule of tyrants forever?
What is it about us that allows that to happen?
And that's a very difficult question.
I think that goes to who we are and what we believe.
You know, it's not just about Their ability to rule.
It's about our acceptance of that rule and that we allow authority to dictate to us.
That's intrinsic to who we are.
We're taught that as a child.
You know, one of the first things we learn is to obey our authority.
Well, that's good when you're a child, because you need to obey the authority of your parents.
Otherwise, you could get yourself into some sticky situations.
So it's important to obey the authority of your parents.
But when we become adults, we need to take full responsibility for ourselves and our own actions.
By acquiescing to authority without questioning it.
And I think that's the important thing.
It's not necessarily, I mean, I would argue that authority itself is bad, but we currently are in a situation where we just accept it without questioning it.
And that's partly the reason why I wrote the book, because the book is hopefully to encourage people to question it.
And that is really the essential purpose of the book.
But although you can't properly get into the psychopathology of tyrants, you can at least suggest some motivations.
I mean, presumably the people we're talking about have so much money, they don't need any more.
It's not about the money.
It's about something else.
Yeah, no, it's not about money, it's about control.
It's about global control and wanting to have that control.
I mean, if you look at most documents that are, certainly that have been written around sustainable development, you can go back to the Brundtland Report, you know, which spoke about depopulation and the need to depopulate the planet.
I think there is a, throughout that, all that kind of legislation and everything that's come out as a result of that, The people behind it, there is a strong ethos of eugenics.
So that still seems to be... I mean, if there's anything that unites them...
And I think one of the important things about the Global Public-Private Partnership is that the people that are involved in it don't necessarily have to agree with each other.
They just need to be committed to the cause, and the cause is more power and control for them.
So they're united by the fact that it's in their common interest.
It's in their common interest.
They don't necessarily share the same perspective, either politically, sociologically or in any way.
There is a common thread for those that kind of look at it of eugenics, the idea that, you know, Francis Gold's idea that we are, you know, genetically predisposed to rule.
And whether that whether that or some people are genetically predisposed to rule and others are genetically predisposed to be chattels.
So, right, they believe, I think they believe that.
There is a belief there that is poor.
So this is absolutely Brave New World.
I mean, Aldous Huxley, we know, was in with the technocrats.
He presumably knew Francis Galton and so on.
And you see in those who've read Brave New World will know that There are the alphas, the betas, the gammas.
I forget what the different stratification is, but yeah.
Yeah, I can't remember either.
No, but the alphas are the ruling elite.
They are the experts and people are graded down into sort of what Henry Kissinger might call useless eaters.
So yeah.
When I was writing my book Watermelons, which was the book where I set out to answer the question, okay, if climate change If man-made climate change isn't real, if there isn't an impending disaster, what possible motivation would the scientists, the politicians, the businessmen, etc., etc., have for promoting this lie?
And I was surprised by the answer I reached after a couple of years' research, and I wasn't really expecting it.
And one of the things I noticed was in the governing institutions, these sort of supranational bodies, and through commissions like the, you know, Gro Harlem Brundtland and her Brundtland Commission, was it 1972, I think?
Around, a lot of things... 1982, yeah.
- '82, yeah. - '82, right.
They seem to be largely Malthusians.
They genuinely believe in the multiply discredited notion that the Earth is incapable of sustaining the population that we've got now and that there needs to be dramatic reductions in population size I mean, you see this in organizations like the Optimum Population Trust, which David Attenborough was big in.
I think he sort of removed it.
Their original web details have been taken down.
They've softened their tone, but that's what the Optimum Population Trust was about.
It's amazing how many nice, decent people, when I write about the environmentalism, very often in the comments that there's some apparently decent person will say, well, of course, the real problem, the elephant in the room is, and you know what they're going to say, it's always overpopulation.
And built into that, of course, if you believe that the world is overpopulated, you quickly reach the point where The point of misanthropy is, you know, once you decide that population is a problem, you then then have to start asking yourself the question, OK, well, how do we reduce it?
And that's where it gets really, really sinister.
And yet, as you found, they they're open about this stuff.
They talk about these things.
Yeah, yeah, no, they openly discuss it, and it's been a plan that's been touted and, you know, for more than, well, I mean, it's for centuries, but in modern history, when we're talking about sustainable development, probably since the 70s with the Club of Rome and their limits of growth and so forth.
And, you know, you've got Paul, that came out at the same time that the Ehrlichs were talking about the population bomb, and that was very much the kind of Consensus of the day, you know, and building upon that.
That seems to have seeped into the public psyche, into the human psyche, and is accepted without question now, it appears.
That, you know, as you quite rightly say, it's just assumed, I think, that, you know, we have a population problem.
But, you know, It's interesting that you were saying about what, and this is the difficulty when it comes to sort of judging what people like the Brundtland Commission and Heavy Aid, you know, what they believe, because you can look at other documents.
So if you look at a recent document, I think a 2019 document by the by the World Bank, where they said that they estimated that around 30% of food production on earth was wasted.
I think they call it FLW, food something waste, I can't remember quite what they term it.
But around 30%, which they estimated to be about 1.3 billion tonnes of food every year wasted.
And at the same time, obviously, when we look at Horrendous situations like Yemen and places like that where people are starving and, you know, clearly we have enough food to feed the population.
The problem is not our ability to resource the things that we need.
It's inequitable distribution of the things that we need.
And that comes down to how we manage distribution networks and so forth.
And that is a choice.
So that's not like people are starving because there isn't enough food in the world.
People are starving because political choices have been made.
So, you know, when you look at somewhere like India, so the idea is that population growth is bad.
It strips the world of resources and there's nothing we can do about it other than reduce the population, which is ostensibly their argument.
And yet you look at somewhere like India, I think the population of India since 1970 has doubled.
It's doubled, and yet And yet standards of education have gone up, standards of public healthcare have gone up, food security, water security, it's all improved.
So the population is now 1.2 billion.
Which according to the Malthusians is some, you know, that level of population growth is a disaster, they say, which is simply assumed by everybody that talks about population growth in those terms.
And yet the evidence does not support that line of thinking.
It just isn't there.
And you can go back to something like Julian Simons, The Ultimate Resource.
Who famously had that bet with Ehrlich about whether or not anything that Ehrlich said in the population bomb was based on evidence.
And when he looked at the evidence and looked at whether Ehrlich was even vaguely right, none of it was right.
It was all tosh.
But what you've noticed... But people don't know that.
No, but I was going to say, That what you must have found, as I have found, is that actually the truth does not matter to these people.
And certainly everything I've seen about the environmental agenda, which is another branch of what we're seeing now with the fake pandemic,
um is that um you can have any number of eminent scientists producing learned irrefutable rebuttals of this idea that we're all doomed that that that you know the polar bears are dying you know they're not they're not being wiped out the polar bears the Tuvalu isn't sinking uh the Maldives are building airports to
You know, expecting a growing tourist industry and so on and so forth.
The Great Barrier Reef is not dying.
It's actually thriving.
Every time you debunk these lies, and they are lies, it doesn't matter.
The caravan rolls on because we have these decisions being made at a level beyond those of a democracy.
They are Well, this is what global governance looks like, isn't it?
That decisions are made by shadowy committees that have the power to overrule even reality, even facts.
They just ignore them.
But anyway, let's cut to the chase here.
We've accepted that there is this shadowy elite, although elite sounds like a good thing and they're not.
Making these decisions as to where they want the world to go, and it involves the collapse of the global economy, of the financial system, and the creation of this new central bank, well, digital slavery, basically.
Can you now tell us how they've gone about this, the story of the pandemic?
Take us through it.
Yeah, I mean, there's a lot, obviously, there's a lot of debate about whether or not there is You know, even virology itself has been questioned by many, many people.
There are some very interesting issues around proofs of basic tenets of virology, which are interesting.
Yeah.
For my part, I felt that there is definitely a disease which is harming people, which you could describe as novel.
There appeared to be, in March 2020, a novel presentation that doctors were struggling with.
Obviously, it goes back further than that.
It goes back to Wuhan in December and January.
But in the UK, doctors were certainly presented with... There is a wealth of evidence that doctors were presented with an unusual presentation.
They were seeing people that appeared to be suffering from what otherwise would be pneumonia-like symptoms, but there was this no loss of respiratory compliance.
So the lungs appeared to be functioning normally, and yet people were struggling for oxygen.
And that was unusual.
So I think, for my part, I am content to say that, yeah, there's something COVID-19, which is potentially dangerous to particularly vulnerable people.
Can I ask you, has it been isolated by anyone?
A virus can't be isolated according to virology.
So according to virology, you can't isolate a virus because it cannot exist outside a cell.
So it needs to have a medium in which to function, right?
So you can't isolate it, and I think a lot of the problem when it comes down to isolation is a linguistic one, because we assume isolation means separated for study, that you can separate this thing and study it.
But you can only study a virus in situ, you know, you can't do that according to virology, which people like, you know, people like Dr. Stephan Lanker and people like that have said, well, then there is no proof of this separate thing that you call a virus.
And he makes a very good argument, and he makes a very good argument in terms of, you know, are we accepting something of which there is no categorical proof?
However, science, and I'm not a scientist, science can become extremely complex.
So, there's also problems with the other side of the argument, because the other side of the argument is if this thing doesn't exist extraneous of the cell, then there's no such thing as infection, and there's no such thing as...
So for those of us that remember going to chicken pox parties when we were kids, clearly, you know, we have personal, nearly everybody has got personal experience of infection.
Yeah.
So it's difficult.
It's difficult to, and I'm not scientifically qualified to make that distinction.
And I am very much on the fence about that.
I think it's a distraction also, because it really doesn't matter, because ultimately, even if the virus, even if SARS-CoV-2 is a convenient fiction, It's a fiction with a political purpose, and it's the political purpose which is obviously going to impact on our lives more.
But can I ask you, do you think it matters whether or not this thing was created in a lab, maybe originally in Georgia and then shifted over to the Wuhan Laboratory under the auspices of one of Fauci's stooges?
Is it Danczak?
Does it matter?
No, I don't think so.
I mean, it's interesting.
I mean, there's lots of things that are interesting and, you know, things that we would want to know more about.
But in the great scheme of things, no, it doesn't matter because it is the way that the narrative has been exploited, which is the important part of the pseudo pandemic.
So I very much in the book, I put forward the idea that the threat is real, that there is a threat to vulnerable people.
Which we can see in the data.
I mean, the average age of mortality for somebody with COVID-19 is 82 or 81 or 82, which is the same as it is for life.
That's the average age of mortality for life.
And when we look at the mortality distribution, It is indistinguishable from normal mortality distribution.
So there is nothing there that you could look at and say that a virus or a disease is having a particular impact on mortality distribution.
There are certain anomalies in the patterns of when that mortality is occurring.
But there are other explanations that could explain that.
But broadly speaking, you can't look at the data and say, oh, well, there's obviously an effect there of a pandemic.
It's not there.
It's not in the data.
So what are we talking about?
I think what we're talking about is A statistical chicanery for a start, that's what we're talking about.
But what they've done is they've taken something which presented a level of threat and then massively ramped up the scale of that threat.
You know, something which has got a tangible real threat and then just blown it out of all proportion.
We're all terribly at risk of dying of this thing, which is fundamentally not true.
Even people like Chris Whitty, at the very beginning of the pandemic, made that abundantly clear.
I can't remember where he spoke.
I can't remember where he delivered the address, but he was speaking to a fraternity and he was talking to them and he spelled it out.
He said, you know, this is a disease that isn't going to affect most people.
Most people won't be.
Most people will experience.
And I don't know when that transition occurred, because I remember when it first started.
You know, government officials were saying that.
You know, they were saying, this isn't a disease that is going to affect the general population too badly.
Most people will be fine.
You know, it is a risk for the most vulnerable.
And they mean the most vulnerable, the people who are sadly coming to end of life anyway.
Yeah.
For them, it is a significant risk, just as is Flu, or bronchial pneumonia, or any other type of infection.
Yeah, so Ian, how do you... I encounter, when I try and convert normies over to the side of truth, I often encounter Oh, but my, you know, I know it's real because my granddad, my granddad died of it.
So many people have a relative that they claim died of COVID and this is their, their, their proof that this thing, this shit is real and we've got to take it seriously.
But tell me about that.
So the way that death has been attributed, Mortality has been attributed throughout.
This is a big part of how this scam has worked.
The attribution for mortality has been based very much on coding, and the coding is centrally controlled by the World Health Organization.
They issued codes at the start of this.
It's U072 and U071.
U072 and U071. So U072 is suspected case, possible case.
U071 is confirmed case.
So we're talking about the clinical coding.
So when someone passes away, how is their death attributed through clinical coding?
So U072, which is suspected case, the evidence isn't that strong, but they had a respiratory-type presentation, so it could be COVID.
The World Health Organization issued a document saying that all suspected U072 cases will be reported as U071 confirmed.
They're only confirmed through a PCR test.
A PCR test is not a diagnostic tool.
It is incapable of diagnosing a disease.
So suddenly, if you put that together in a hectic environment, well, let's not forget that the doctors and the nurses that were working, and I've got family that work in the NHS, that doctors and nurses were working in this hectic, fear-laden environment.
So they're getting presentations of people that would normally come with respiratory illness, Which PCR tests, which Sage themselves said that 2.3% of all PCR tests are false positives.
When you look at the number of PCR, broadly speaking, if you look on the UK government's dashboard, It is about 2.3% of all COVID-19 RT-PCR tests, which they're calling the cases.
Well, according to Sage, most of them, according to Sage, most of those are probably false positives.
But those are the tests which then define death from COVID-19.
And then you get the huge numbers.
Can you just explain briefly why PCR tests are not a diagnostic tool?
Because people will think, well, come on.
I mean, this is the test that the medics use.
This is what doctors use to tell you whether you've got COVID or not.
Surely the doctors wouldn't be using this thing that doesn't work.
Okay.
The test is only as accurate as what they call the primers and probes that are used.
So basically you have a sample, you introduce these enzymes called primers and probes, Which, when they meet a certain nucleotide sequence, when they bind to a certain nucleotide sequence, there's an illuminosity that comes off, which can be measured in real time.
So that's RT-PCR, right?
So as you as you are spinning this through a centrifuge, as you are spinning this sample, As long as the primers and probes are mixing with the sample and they're trying to find these specific nucleotide sequences.
So what they end up showing you is, after a certain amount of cycles, is that there is the presence of those nucleotide sequences.
But as the guy who designed PCR said, Cary Mullis said, this is a method for finding anything in anybody.
Because whatever you Our microbiomes are full of trillions of viruses and bacteria and fungi and all kinds of things.
If those sequences are not indicative, i.e.
they're not unique to a virus, then what you are finding is those nucleotide sequences.
It doesn't mean that those nucleotide sequences are fundamentally identifying a virus.
However, If those nucleotide sequences are accurate and they are unique to the virus, then you can say, yeah, it's found the presence of a virus.
So that could be latent.
That could be an infection that you had.
You know, three months ago, six months ago, that you've still got some residual, you know, some residual.
So it's not telling you.
What it is not telling you is that the person who's got the presence of this virus is ill.
Right.
It's not saying that they're not sick with it.
They've just got it.
There's a whole range of reasons why you may have found the presence of that specific nucleotide sequence.
So you could be perfectly healthy.
And you could very foolishly believe that the system works, and you could go and get your PCR test, and you could come up positive, and suddenly you'd be, oh, on the phone to your friends, I've been diagnosed, I've come up positive for COVID, you'd have to isolate, if you took these regulations seriously, you'd have to isolate for a number of days, take time off work, all
On the basis of a test that actually doesn't tell you anything accurate.
Yeah, all it tells you is that some nucleotide sequences have been found.
That's all it tells you.
I mean, one of the crazy things, one of the things that was really crazy is people that are healthy.
This happened more, I think, in 2020, but we're still seeing it.
People who are healthy going for a test.
Yes.
Why would you go for a test if you're healthy?
Why would you do that?
It's like, well, why test for coronavirus?
Why not test for flu?
Why not test for bubonic plague?
Why not test for anything?
Because if you're well and healthy, what is it that you think you've got?
And then we had the crazy...
Given that all this is so, somebody must have known and embedded this test in the system and made it a thing, which persuaded the world that lots and lots of people had COVID.
How did that work?
Well, it started with a paper by Corman and Drosten et al.
in 2019, who presented what they said.
Actually, it goes back to Wuhan.
So in Wuhan, you've got the Wuhan Institute of Virology, who put a paper out saying that they had identified the presence of this new Novel pneumonia type presentation.
Yeah.
So that was the beginning.
The beginning of saying that there's something new here.
Right.
So they then sequenced.
So bearing in mind that, you know, as we've discussed, there's no such thing as an isolated virus in that sense.
So they didn't have a sample.
It's not like they had a sample in front of them that they could, you know, extract the DNA from and then measure it.
What they did was have a sequence of nucleotide sequences that they found that were anomalous in some samples, which they then matched with previous nucleotide sequences from SARS-1, the original SARS.
And they found something like a 57% match or something like that.
So they said, look, these are matching sequences.
We found this sequence has been associated with SARS.
This sequence we found in these samples.
So therefore, this is a new novel virus called SARS-CoV-2.
Right.
Cormann Drosten took that sequence, which, so at this point, this is really important, and this does go to the isolation thing.
At this point, no one has got a sample of this virus.
All they've got are nucleotide sequences Matched from different samples, which were taken from patients, but matched from different samples.
Cormann Drosten et al.
then decide to select a couple of those nucleotide sequences and say that these are indicative.
These are indicative of this unique thing called SARS-CoV-2.
So we're already starting to get into Well, is it?
Why, you know, why is it indicative of this?
So we're already, things are already starting to look a bit fuzzy, a bit woolly.
They then submit this to the World Health Organization.
And that paper itself, the Cormann-Drossen et al, the people that were writing that, the conflicts of financial interest for those people that were involved in that paper should have, should have immediately ruled it out.
Straight away.
I mean, undeclared conflicts of interest, I might add.
I mean, some of the people that wrote the paper had companies that were some of the first to issue RT-PCR testing kits.
So they wrote the paper saying, this is how we will test the globe for a global virus.
Oh, and by the way, use our kits, which we designed two weeks before we released this paper.
So then they send this to the World Health Organisation, and the World Health Organisation take the Cormann-Drossen paper and say, OK, now this is the global standard for testing for this virus.
So this is how centralised authority works.
And in the book, I talk about compartmentalised authority.
This is happening at a global level.
But from that, This then gets disseminated across the planet.
From that centralised point, everyone is testing for this virus based upon highly questionable papers.
I mean, the Doctors for Covid Ethics pointed this out.
They've been very, very critical of the Cormann-Dawson paper.
There was a lack of standardised controls.
The methodology was out of whack.
There were all these horrendous conflicts of financial interest in the paper.
It wasn't peer-reviewed.
There's no chance that it was peer-reviewed.
I think it was submitted on something like January the 16th and it had been published by January the 20th or something like that.
So there's no way it was peer-reviewed.
That's the basis of global RT-PCR tests.
Right.
Which seems to indicate that Corbyn and Drosten were in on it, the World Health Organization was in on it, but also, I think as you're about to tell me, That they've been planning this stuff, that they were ready for this moment because they created this moment, that they've been planning for this alleged pandemic for many years beforehand, hadn't they?
Yeah, I mean, we can, yes, I mean, for decades.
I mean, that's pandemic preparedness, which in one sense you would say, well, that's a sensible precaution anyway.
Who wouldn't do pandemic preparedness?
But specifically, If we go back to 2009 and the H1N1 alleged global pandemic, now, in retrospect, you could look at that and say, was that a dry run?
Because that was a pandemic that didn't exist.
I mean, there is no evidence that there was any kind of pandemic at all.
You know, I think globally there were, I think, something like 18,000 confirmed cases of this H1N1 influenza pandemic.
Well, that's not... Was that the swine flu?
Or was that a different one?
Swine flu, yeah.
Tammy flu.
Yes, I remember that.
And it was weird, wasn't it, at the time, that there was this gulf between, massive gulf, between the media scaremongering And the reality on the ground, you could see that people were not dying.
And yet you were very aware that swine flu was a thing.
And I hope that later on we're going to talk about the role of the media, which has been truly scary.
And we're also going to talk about Event 201.
Event 201, yeah.
Yeah.
So you've got the... Yeah, carry on.
No, no, you go ahead.
Yeah, I mean, so you've got all these series of training events.
I mean, the one that everybody focuses on is Event 201 because that was so close, you know, that took place in August 2019.
So it was so close.
Was it August?
I think it was August 2019.
That was so close, obviously, to the outbreak of the pandemic.
It's an odd naming convention.
There is something quite unusual about Event 201.
It was named Event 201 because there was a paper that came out that was talking about 200 epidemic events.
In every 200 epidemic events, the next one is a pandemic.
So, Event 201.
Right.
And it just so happened.
So that's an unusual anomaly, but that could be a coincidence.
There's, you know, that could be a coincidence that it happened.
But the point is that those Event 201 was kind of the penultimate before the breakout of what was called the global pandemic.
But it followed a series of such exercises that have gone on Over a period of years, I mean, Crimson Contagion and Clade X and all these exercises which modelled what we've seen.
So they modelled what we've seen in quite an unerring accuracy.
Yeah.
So you could say, well, that is You could say, well, that's sensible.
I mean, these people know what they're talking about.
They know what's likely to happen.
So they're predicting it.
But of course, by training global institutions in that way, You are predetermining the future because what you're doing is you're preparing.
I mean, that's the point of training.
You're preparing a response that is going to happen when a trigger event occurs.
So this is what will happen when this event occurs.
So you're predetermining loads of things.
You're predetermining the policy response.
You're predetermining the economic response.
You're predetermining everything.
So when that trigger event occurs, the plan is ready to roll out.
Okay.
Look, I'm going to get, I'm going to be a bit stronger than you.
I mean, it is massively suspicious that, that not even a year, less than a year before, before the outbreak of the, of allegedly the worst pandemic since Spanish flu, that we have the global health security industry, let's call it, meeting at this event called, and Fauci's there and Bill Gates is there.
A lot of the key players are there, right?
And they are outlining a scenario which comes true into the tiniest detail the very next year.
Can you just give me some example?
How well up are you on Event 201 about what they were talking about?
What is spookily similar to the policy that happened the year after?
Yeah, reasonably.
I mean, you know, you can certainly look at their modelling of the media response, which always fascinated me, because I thought, you know, they predicted the media.
So, you know, we are Labour under the illusion, I would say, that we've got a free and pluralistic media.
Yes.
So you would imagine, if we have a free and pluralistic media, that it would be very difficult to predict what the media response would be.
But not only did they predict it, Inaccurately.
It was in minutiae it was accurate.
I mean, if you look at the media stories that they used during the Event 201 exercise, and if you didn't know that you were looking at Event 201, you could be forgiven for thinking that you were actually watching CNN during the pandemic.
Because it was that accurate.
They knew exactly what the media response would be.
Now, How can you predict what a pluralistic media will respond to?
What evidence they will find?
How could you possibly do that unless it's not really a free and pluralistic media at all?
Yeah, absolutely.
So we then should come on, should we not, to the vaccines?
Because I tell you what really puzzled me.
Just going back to early 2020.
When for a very brief period, I'd seen the stuff coming out of China, and it seemed to me to be sort of samizdat information coming, you know, slipping underneath the Chinese censorship machine.
Although, of course, now I realized that I was being played.
But there were stories about satellites analyzing the materials within the Around the sort of mysterious pyres outside Wuhan, you were thinking, my goodness, the bodies are piled high and this is bad.
And you saw the footage of people being welded into their houses and so on.
And you thought, shit's real.
This is not.
So I did two things.
One of them is that I instantly started putting, I shorted carnival cruises.
And made $10,000 out of that.
So that was good.
But also I started sort of warning my family that bad shit's coming around the corner and we should get... I made everyone get a shot for pneumonia because I thought that maybe pneumonia would be the kind of the killer that came after the... if one got infected by this deadly virus.
Anyway, so I took it seriously for a brief period and then I realized fairly quickly That this was not right, that I smelt a rat.
And I was watching the media, which hitherto I trusted.
I mean, it's extraordinary.
I've worked in the mainstream media for 30 years of my life, and I suppose maybe that that had sort of brainwashed me.
And I noticed very quickly that there was this Even though there were available prophylactics or curatives, even hydroxychloroquine and later on Ivermectin, Nevertheless, the media narrative and the political narrative was almost relentlessly, we've got to get the vaccine, we've got to get the vaccine.
And yet, at the same time, one knew from previous vaccines that the vaccines take ages to develop.
No way could a vaccine be rushed out in this time.
But very quickly, the media came on board with this idea, and it became the only idea in town that the vaccines were the solution.
Nothing else was going to solve this stuff.
So tell me about the vaccines.
Presumably, the vaccines were looking for a pandemic, rather than the other way around.
The vaccines weren't developed for this, were they?
They'd been around already.
Yeah, I mean, I don't know.
I mean, you would assume so, because you can't, as you quite rightly said, you just can't develop a vaccine that quickly.
I mean, they're saying that with... I mean, this is the...
The argument is, isn't it, that the development of new technology, particularly mRNA technology, does enable the development of vaccines very quickly because, going back to what we were talking about earlier about the Cormann-Jostam paper, it's based on sequences of nucleotide sequences rather than on Isolating a pathogen and developing something that is going to assist the body to fight that.
I mean, that's still the argument, but it's the modern technology, they say, which enables them to develop them so much quickly.
But nonetheless, that's not really the point.
The point of the lengthy trials is to make sure that they're safe.
That's the point of the trials.
It's kind of a side issue about how fast they can actually develop the jab.
Is it safe?
And you can only do that through long-term study.
You can only know that through long-term study.
You can't... And that's why, generally, it takes 10 years to develop a vaccine.
Then suddenly, because of this global pandemic, which wasn't a pandemic, so, you know, it's not as if, if you look at the statistics, people have been... I think this is where people get very confused, because they see the numbers of deaths that are attributed to COVID And then they then equate with that, that that's a number of excess deaths, i.e.
that number of people are dying over and above the normal number of people that die.
But it isn't.
It's not like there are more deaths.
There have been a slight increase in deaths.
But it's not like, you know, if you look at the UK, for example, 2020 was the ninth highest in the 21st century.
was the ninth highest in the 21st century.
So it's a midway just in the last 20 years.
It's a midpoint, you know, year.
So these deaths are not excess deaths.
They are deaths that have been attributed to one thing.
And, you know, you could argue about what's been put in there.
So the vaccines, as you quite rightly said, from the get-go, the only solution was vaccines.
The World Health Organization went to extraordinary lengths to discredit Other treatments, particularly at the beginning hydroxychloroquine.
I mean, to the extent of heavily promoting what was obviously a fake scientific papers to discredit it.
Now, why would the World Health Organization ever do that?
Why would they promote what was obviously fake science And then retract it, when the scientific community, I mean, these people are supposed to be, are they not, the world's experts in public health, so you would think that they've got access to all the best and latest science and so forth.
When the scientific community saw that paper that was discrediting hydroxychloroquine, which was by an odd company called Surgisphere, a research company called Surgisphere, The scientific community, broadly speaking, very quickly looked at that paper and said, that's a fake.
That the data is fake.
The whole thing is fake.
Who are these people?
Very quickly, the scientific community did that.
It is impossible to imagine that the World Health Organization wouldn't have known that.
Unless, of course, the argument is they're completely clueless.
In which case, why are we listening to them?
Assuming that they're not, then there's something very untoward going on there.
Now, why would they want to discredit What we now know are good treatments for people that potentially have this in the early stages.
Why would they want to discredit that?
It is to push the vaccine.
Why do they want to push the vaccine?
Because what is the vaccine a gateway to?
The vaccine is a gateway to the vaccine passports.
So the vaccine passports, this app that we carry about, we take with us everywhere, identifies who we are, who we meet, where we go, what we buy, what shops we go into, what football team we support, everything.
It's a data hoovering up exercise.
So I think personally that the vaccines, you know, we can obviously look at the kind of depopulation element of it and obviously Bill Gates certainly said some weird stuff.
We'll do that in the second half after we've had our coffee.
Yeah.
So it's about getting us to accept things that ordinarily we would not accept.
Yes.
So, you know, if you said to anyone two years ago to go to a nightclub or to go to a bar or to go to the theatre or something like that, you're going to have to log in.
If you'd have said that to people two years ago, they would have gone, I'm not doing that.
Why should I do that?
So that is a tremendous, just think about the shift in mindset that that is.
We now have millions of people who just accept that in order to live their daily lives, they have to register.
They have to register where they go.
They have to register everything.
That is a fundamental shift of mentality on a global scale.
So how do you do that?
Yes, you've actually answered the question I was going to ask you, because I was going to say, well, surely would it have been so much easier just for national governments to say, right, from now on, we're going to have ID cards.
We've decided that, you know, terrorism and social security fraud and all these issues, you know, we recognize, of course, you know, you can imagine Boris giving the speech.
Of course, we recognize that, you know, liberty and blah, blah, blah.
But we feel very strongly that But of course, the answer to that is, yeah, but people would not have bought into it in the way that they do when they think that this is a genuine health scare.
Yeah, I mean, obviously we've had quite a few votes on ID cards, haven't we?
I think we've had two or three votes on ID cards and the public consistently reject them.
We don't want them.
Because we know.
Instinctively.
We don't want them.
We instinctively know that we don't want some form of electronic ID card because we know what that means.
It means control of us.
Yes.
But that's the situation two years ago.
Now, if you ask people the same thing, they accept it.
I think because they don't perceive it as an ID card and they don't perceive it as a control grid, they perceive it as a public health response.
And that's the trick.
That's how they've sold it to us, as a public health response.
They've got what they want.
Yes, they've got what they want and going back to your point about about dictators, tyrants, it's a two-way thing.
Tyrants cannot, tyrants are few and we are many, and tyrants cannot operate without essentially the compliance of the useful idiots or the cattle.
The cattle have got to do what they've got to allow themselves to be herded into the pen rather than Biffing their herdsmen with their horns or whatever.
I think this is a good place for us to, like a cliffhanger, if you like, for us, you and I, to go and have our coffee.
I might even have a fag, because actually cigarettes, as you probably know, they help ward off this deadly, I mean, there've been about five papers that Five peer-reviewed studies which show that actually smoking reduces your chances of dying of coronavirus.
I was laughing there, but that's true, isn't it?
Yes, there have been a few studies.
I know that there's been a couple of studies that have suggested it, yeah.
Oh yeah, yeah, absolutely.
Yeah, there have been, yeah.
You can have any.
I'm just going to do, I don't normally, because logically I'm forgetful and there's not a natural pause, I'm going to...
Dear listeners, freedom isn't free and neither ought this podcast to be.
I do a lot of, I find some great guests, I think you'll agree, people like Ian, and I really appreciate your support on Subscribestar and on Patreon or via my Dellingpoleworld.com where you can buy your special friend badges or you can give me money on, give me some Bitcoin.
And I may even, I may even, this is cruel, but actually this is what the higher side chats do, I may hold over the second part of this podcast for subscribers only and I think it's going to get quite juicy in the second half.
I may delay it for a while, just to encourage you.
Ian and I need our coffee, we'll be back shortly.
Welcome back to The Dilling Poll with me, James Dilling Poll, and my very special guest, Ian Davis.
Ian, we've established that there is this global master plan, if you like, which is the real motivation behind this alleged pandemic.
It's about control.
It's about turning us into digital slaves.
But I first wondered how extraordinary it is that you, are one of the voices out there, the independent voices, which are calling out this scam.
And your background, I mean, it doesn't really...
A lot of people are saying, well, why this guy?
I mean, your background is looking like, originally, you were sort of helping to rehabilitate drug users and drink users.
It's bizarre, isn't it, that all these disparate independent figures are able to do research that the supposed experts, People trust experts, don't they?
And they think that a credentialed person like, I don't know, Anthony Fauci or someone would be the gatekeeper of the truth.
But actually, it's people like you who are doing it.
Well, that's an interesting point.
I mean, I don't know whether I'm gate... I wouldn't say that I'm gatekeeping the truth.
No, you're not.
What I'm doing, I hope, is just highlighting evidence.
That's all.
I mean, I just... Assuming that, you know, what we're talking about, this controlled agenda.
Well, obviously, if you're trying to control an agenda, that means you're also trying to control the narrative.
So, because the two go hand in hand.
So the hope that I offer with the book, and then something that I think, you know, we discussed earlier, was the book is quite dark to read in terms of its, you know, it can be startling, I would suggest, for some people to look at the evidence that's in there and, you know, perhaps as you refer to normies might read it and think, wow, this is mental.
This can't be true.
But the point is, we can have hope.
Because we are not irrational beings.
We are rational beings.
So, as long as we regain our ability to be To think critically and to be sceptical of the information that we are given.
If we can get back to that, and I see no reason why we can't.
That's been a tradition going back centuries, that we do in fact look critically and think critically about information.
Seem to, as broadly speaking as a population, lost that ability somewhat.
We can easily regain it.
And once we regain it and start questioning what we are told, then we can have a debate about it, a reasonable debate about it.
And that's the hope of the book.
That's what the book is about.
It's simply suggesting to people that it is within our grasp To be rational about what is happening, and not just react to fear-driven agendas that are foisted upon us.
We don't have to do that!
Here is the book, and I can't recommend it highly enough.
Ian, if I may say so, you really are a bright spark.
I was wondering, do you have a scientific background?
Because your grasp of the detail, of really quite recondite scientific detail, is something that I don't really... I've got my skill set, and my skill set is communication, and I'm critical thinking, and I'm quite good with a handy phrase here and there.
But you're all over the detail.
What is your educational background?
I've been kicked out of some of the best universities in the world.
When I was younger, I suffered from, I suppose, the thing that has driven me to where I am, and that is questioning authority.
So I've always been rebellious.
So that didn't make me fit in well at school.
I did reasonably well.
I ended up going to university where I got kicked out because I didn't turn up.
I think I actually had an annual report where they were talking about my contribution.
I was studying English Literature and History.
They were talking about my contribution and my lecturer Said, can't comment, never met the guy.
Then I just worked, you know, I worked on a variety of jobs, labour, building sites and that kind of stuff.
And then I ended up moving towards care, and then I trained as a social worker, and then I ended up doing drug and alcohol work and working with people with mental health issues.
But, you know, it's interesting that you say that, you know, about Maybe my grasp of kind of the minutiae of all this kind of detail and stuff like that.
When we think about it, there are some people who get called conspiracy theorists.
So I'm called a conspiracy theorist.
As you said, people have got strengths and people have got weaknesses.
Now, some people are particularly interested, as I have been all my life, in the study of Realpolitik and how that operates and power structures.
So that's been, if you like, that's been my lifelong passion, really.
I've always been interested in that.
So what comes out of that as a 50 year old man is that all I'm doing is I'm speaking about something which has been an interest and a passion of mine all my life.
Yeah.
There isn't anywhere where you can go to study that.
I mean, obviously you can go and study political history or something like that, but wherever you study, you know, there is a sort of confined history that you are given, even if you study political history, you're given a defined history.
You're not given the alternative view of that history.
So that's something that obviously political historians and so forth do in later life, usually after they've studied, then they pursue their own research.
So the only differences with me, I guess, writing this book and the things that I talk about, is that I've done that all my life.
I've always done that.
So this is actually a useful jumping off point for discussing another of the problems that we have persuading normies, for want of a better word, of the truth of what we're saying.
And I think a lot of normies think, well, look,
The medical establishment, these are doctors, these are people who became doctors because they care, they want to heal people, they sign up to the Hippocratic Oath, first do no harm, and yet they seem to be participating in a global experiment where people are Clearly.
I mean, you don't read this in the papers, but there's plenty of evidence outside the newspapers.
That people are being harmed by these alleged vaccines, that we are being encouraged to wear masks despite the fact that the biggest study shows that masks make no statistically significant difference to whether or not you're going to catch COVID or whatever it is.
The establishment that we have all been encouraged throughout our schooling and our education and from the media, we're encouraged to trust these authorities and these authority figures are betraying us.
Now, how do you explain that?
Why is it that so many, let's deal with doctors first, why are so many doctors promoting these untruths?
I would say it's down to compartmentalised authority.
So it's not just authority, it's the compartmentalisation of the power structure that delivers that authority.
So you can take something like the World Health Organisation that makes a decree, in this case we were talking earlier about the coding, the coding of COVID-19 in terms of mortality.
Now, a doctor has to follow... We also know that there's been a tremendous use of non-disclosure agreements for doctors, so they're under that as well.
But, you know, a doctor that is dealing with the situation on the ground, they make a judgment based on the information that they're given, because it's come from above in a...
From an authority.
So the World Health Organization decrees the evidence that they need to be looking for.
So a doctor, you know, even the best educated doctor in the world is still looking for that evidence that has come from above.
They have been told, this is what you are looking for.
Right.
So if they're seeing that evidence play out on the ground, then they will be convinced that they're seeing high numbers of COVID-19 mortality because they are prescribing it based upon what they have been told to look for.
Yes.
So they're not acting with any duplicity.
They're not acting with any kind of subterfuge or anything like that.
They are doing their job to the best of their ability within the parameters that are prescribed for them.
And that's the point.
And yet, and yet, you've got epidemiologists like Sunetra Gupta and several others we could name.
You've got people like Dr. Mike Yeadon, who used to work in Big Pharma.
You've got nurses, Who can see what's going on, what's happening to their patients on the ground, and they recognize, for example, that the midazolam scandal, that a drug which hastens people's deaths by by putting them on the so-called care pathway
um what a what a what a what a cynical euphemism that is on the care pathway basically stops them breathing properly and and and kills them that way you've seen a significant portion of people within the medical industry refusing to take these these jabs because they they recognize that these are not this is not like taking your cholera shot or your yellow fever shot to go and go to west africa say say
They don't want to touch this vaccine with a barge pole, even if it means losing their jobs.
So some people within the medical community can see this stuff clearly.
So how do you explain that anomaly? - Well, I mean, this is like saying, why do so many of us believe the narrative that we are given and a sizable minority of us don't?
I think it doesn't really matter what kind of role we're in, even within the medical profession, that's true.
So I would imagine, I don't know, but I mean, speaking to my family members that work in the NHS, the vast number of their colleagues Believe the story of COVID-19.
You know, they accept that.
Because let's remember that not everybody works in ITU.
You know, there's only a small percentage of the medical profession work in ITU.
Most of the medical profession don't.
So they're working in, you know, they're working either in general practice or in the hospital or whatever, or mental health or whatever services they're working in.
So they're not necessarily familiar with what is actually happening in ITU.
But they read the same papers as everybody else.
They watch the same news coverage as everybody else.
But among that community, as you just said, there are hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of medical practitioners or people working in the health service who do not agree or accept what is happening.
You know, they're not going along with it.
To the point, as you said, that they are risking losing their jobs.
I mean, we've recently seen, so what happens to, as I've catalogued some of those in the book, what happens to a health professional who speaks out?
I mean, when you have leading cardiovascular surgeons and doctors like Dr. McCulloch, who puts out information about a paper that he has written and is then Censored off the airwaves, taken off YouTube, taken off all social media.
Basically, you know, most of his colleagues, his medical colleagues from around the world, don't know that he's put that information out.
They don't know what he is saying, because it all comes down to control of the narrative.
So even for medical professionals, it comes down to control of the narrative.
When Dr. McCulloch put that paper out, there was a massive response to his paper about cardiovascular impacts of COVID-19.
And he was looking at treatment.
How do we treat this?
Because there was no available information for any doctor anywhere about how to actually treat this.
So when he put that paper out, there was a thirst for it.
And obviously it kind of went viral.
But then as soon as that happened, The shutters come down, he is removed from and belittled and called a conspiracy theorist and a quack and all this kind of stuff.
So other doctors around the world, they're susceptible to that as well.
We're not listening to him.
He's a quack.
It's said so in the Times.
Yes.
So that's how it works.
Yes, this is something that people find hard to believe, isn't it?
They say, OK, let's suppose for a moment, for one crazy moment, that this pandemic is fake.
It would require so many people to be in on the scam that it wouldn't be possible.
There would be whistleblowers.
The truth would get out.
How do you...?
Yeah, I mean, so the point is the truth does come out, but when the people that are within, for example, the medical profession do speak out, they get called conspiracy theorists.
Yeah.
So it's not as if this whole idea that there are no whistleblowers and that the truth doesn't come out.
If there was a huge global conspiracy, then the truth would come out.
The truth does come out, as I've shown in my book.
As I said right at the beginning, the whole thing is in the public domain.
All the evidence is in the public domain.
But when the truth comes out, the people that are imparting that truth are castigated as lunatics.
So that's how that happens.
You know, it's not as if... I mean, it often amuses me when people talk about, you know, when someone like myself gets labelled as a quote-unquote conspiracy theorist, that you think there's some secret conspiracy that controls the world.
No, I don't.
I don't think it's a secret.
It's not a secret.
It's not.
It's in the public domain.
You can go to the World Health Organization and read their documents where they openly talk about a global public-private partnership.
It's not a secret.
And that's the very frustrating part of this.
Yes.
Well, of course, a key Agent of this misinformation is, of course, the media.
Now, I don't know, you were probably wiser to this earlier than I was, but for most of my life, really most of my life, I thought that journalists were motivated by the quest for truth.
That we are Congenitally suited to asking questions and being difficult.
It does attract that kind of person.
People a bit like you, actually.
I mean, you would have been a good journalist had you chosen that career path.
And yet, what we're finding is that every newspaper, I mean, every newspaper is promoting the same Nonsense.
I mean, there was there was a there was a full page story in the Telegraph the other day.
And, you know, I spent 10, 15 years on the staff of the Telegraph.
I used to think it was the in the days when I believed in the in the left right paradigm.
I thought that this was the newspaper which which promoted a conservative agenda, that it was it was catering for the Shire Tories and that it wouldn't betray its readership because newspapers, you would have thought, depended on the trust of their readership and they repaid that by telling them the truth.
But in the Telegraph there was a full-page article promoting the idea that Covid Covid itself was causing people to have heart problems, heart issues, and you even had doctors being quoted in this article saying, yes, well, it's possible that there have been some cases of myocarditis from the vaccine, but
It's far worse for people who don't take the vaccine.
So, yeah, never mind this myocarditis problem.
It's COVID that you must fear and it's the vaccine you must take.
This article was an absolute lie, just absolute bullshit.
And you could find dozens of thousands of examples of this in the media.
So can you explain to me why the media is so morally and intellectually corrupt?
Well, perhaps you can.
You've got more experience.
You've got more experience.
Well, yeah, I mean, OK, so so I would I would cite, for example, the three million dollars plus that Bill Gates, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation paid for the Telegraph for its global health.
Well, that that buys quite a lot of bollocks and it buys, you know, it pays quite a few journalistic salaries.
Journalists don't earn three million dollars a year.
You know, you probably get Quite a few people for that amount of money.
um so so that would be i mean certainly yeah so i mean during the during this i mean during 2020 we saw the government become the leaky uk's leading advertiser yeah yeah the government is the uk's leading advertiser yes so And who's the second leading advertiser?
The pharmaceutical corporations.
So you've got the government followed by pharmaceutical corporations are paying for the media.
I mean, the commercial media.
And then obviously you've got state broadcasters.
So you've got the BBC.
Well, I mean, the clue is in the name.
They're a state broadcaster.
I mean, they broadcast the information that the state wants to put out there.
That's it.
But we've grown up believing, Ian, that this is the kind of stuff that only happens under totalitarian regimes.
We all know the name Pravda and we all know that Pravda was, or if you like, Völkischer Beobachter or Die Stürmer.
These are publications you associate with totalitarian regimes where Where they promote lies on behalf of the ruling party and the populace kind of knows on some level that they're being brainwashed and this is part of the deal.
But to see our supposed free and frank press, you know, I mean I've read lots of articles about, you know, from the people who write for Spiked etc.
about The tradition of John Wilkes, Wilkes and Liberty, and how we fought hard for our press freedoms and about how our tabloid press just is absolutely fearless in speaking truth to power.
Was this always an illusion?
I don't know whether it's always been an illusion.
I think even now, within the press, obviously there are good journalists.
There are journalists that do question authority and question power and, you know, do what journalists are supposed to do, which is fundamentally to question power.
You know, that's what journalists are there for.
And there are still journalists that do that, but they are few and far between.
I mean, one thing is the younger journalists that are coming in.
There's so many of these young journalists that appear to have come straight out of university, that have gone into the profession, who are told to write four stories a day, that they've just got to churn it out like some sort of news mill, that they have to produce all this stuff.
Well, obviously, I mean, as you know, I mean, some of the investigations that you've done, as you know, to do a thorough investigation takes quite a long time.
You need to cross-reference your sources.
You need to, you know, all of that.
That's not something that you can knock out in an afternoon.
But young journalists are being brought into the profession.
And it's notable that some of the more experienced journalists Are dropping out of the profession and doing things like, you know, their own podcasts and things like that.
Whereas being replaced by what?
By young impressionable minds that are willing to, you know, they're trying to build a career for themselves, make a career.
So, of course, they're going to write what their editor tells them to write.
Again, this comes down to compartmentalised authority.
You don't need a room full of liars to produce disinformation.
You only need one controlling authority to guide them towards doing that, and that seems to be what we've got.
One of the interesting things about, for example, Pravda, is that people in the Soviet Union, People knew that anything that came out of Pravda was rubbish.
They accepted that.
They didn't read it thinking, oh, this is all true.
They read it thinking, you know, this is what the state wants me to believe, so that's why I'm reading it.
The great, the great trick of Western mainstream media, which is built on a genuine, there's a genuine reason for it.
We did have a free media.
We did have a free and pluralistic media that did question power.
And I don't know when that transition changed, when that changed.
But the great trick of the Western mainstream media is to convince all of us that it is free and pluralistic.
So then when we do read it, we're predisposed to believe it, which is juxtaposed to the people that were living during the Soviet era, who were predisposed not to believe it.
So that is a fundamental difference.
Yes.
We should extend this, shouldn't we, to the realm of politics.
I've been very, very disappointed by the performance of the backbench MPs in calling out the government, holding the government to account.
None of them has been doing that.
And it's clear, you know, from conversations I've had when we were still on speakers with Steve Baker, who was supposed to be one of the more independent Thinkers on the back benches.
And he clearly does not get it at all.
He's bought into the narrative.
The ignorance among backbench MPs is widespread and presumably it's partly a function of their having trusted that they read the newspapers because like MPs do read the newspapers every day because it's got the news and it's the agenda that they have to work with.
But Higher up at the level, at cabinet level, at prime ministerial level, the senior politicians in the UK and elsewhere.
What level of understanding of what's really going on do you think there is?
Some people must know that what is going on is bullshit.
Okay, an example of this, the number 10 Christmas party that's being talked about at the moment.
They didn't wear masks, there was no social distances.
So they're not buying into this bullshit and yet they are promoting it and increasingly using the law to enforce it.
So who knows what's really going on at what level?
Well, I mean, the Cabinet Office is very interesting, isn't it?
Because, I mean, what is it?
Now it's got a staff of something like 3,000 people.
So there's 3,000 people sitting in the executive, effectively, of the British government.
Who are working towards, they openly state that the purpose of their activity is to protect the corporate interests of the UK state.
The Cabinet Office openly declared that that is the purpose for their existence.
Right.
So that's what we've got at the heart of the executive in the UK government.
That's what we've got, this unit that is controlling the discourse.
Now, within that, obviously, there are thousands of people working in the Cabinet Office.
Obviously, they're not all part of some global conspiracy to fundamentally change the nature of society.
However, You are quite right.
Within that, there must be people who are aware of it, who are shaping the agenda.
And they must be high-ranking.
So, you know, that's how compartmentalised... I mean, one of the things, going back to what we're talking about, is that how do you control something like a global conspiracy?
People imagine that that is impossible.
And yet, that is how global corporations work.
Global corporations work like that all the time.
There are huge global corporations.
Take, for example, Pfizer.
They have got a global operating model.
They structure their business so that it functions, you know, there are arms of their business functioning independently in different parts of the world, but collectively it all comes under the central authority of the Board of Directors and Board of Trustees.
So this is a global Operation.
That's how global operations work.
Government do it.
You know, any war requires tremendous coordination, but not everybody who works at Pfizer and not everybody that's involved in a military campaign understands the overall system.
It's only those people at the very top who have got an overview of the entire system Who would have to be aware of a nefarious agenda if one existed, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to roll it out.
Exactly.
But it doesn't mean that the people that are involved in rolling out that agenda, such as backbench MPs, who are currently allowing basically the formation of a dictatorship.
If we look at this, there's legislation that's coming out at the moment, the PCSC, Act, you know, the Bill and all this kind of stuff is coming out at the moment and it is forming the legislative basis for a dictatorship.
Now, MPs, are they passively allowing that to go by because they don't understand quite what the implications are of the legislation that they are voting for?
You would hope that they do, otherwise they would not vote for it.
But then you're faced with a party whip system.
So all the time, it's all about the control of groups of people through compartmentalised authority.
All they need to do is accept the edict of someone above them, and they can do anything.
People will do anything.
So backbench MPs.
Yeah, sorry.
No, I was going to say, it's only obeying orders.
Just obeying orders.
That's what they're doing.
Just obey orders, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, we've got a problem with the party system.
I would say that the party political system is particularly problematic when we've got something like an alleged global pandemic.
Because it enables decision-making to be Centralised.
You know, it is very easy to centralise it.
I mean, at the moment, we haven't got... Can anybody honestly say in the UK at the moment that we have got an opposition?
No, we've got a uniparty.
We've got a one-party state, haven't we?
And that's what we've got.
Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
So, this is... we enter the realm of speculation here, but I would imagine that Boris Johnson must know.
I imagine that people like Michael Gove must know.
I imagine all the help, you know, Hancock and what's-his-face, the current, you know, NPC person.
Polazi.
Yeah.
These people must all know.
What do they think that...
They grew up when we didn't live under a totalitarian state and they presumably, I'm sure that Michael Gove's written many an article sort of railing against totalitarian systems.
What do they think is in it for them?
Given that the people who are making these decisions probably don't give a toss about somebody as lowly as even a cabinet member in the UK, Why are they participating in the destruction of Western civilization, which is what it is?
Yeah, I mean, who knows?
I mean, it could well be personal.
You know, a personal greed, couldn't it?
We're all aware of the revolving door between politics and corporate life.
So how many politicians don't go on to be rewarded for their efforts?
I mean, let's look at David Cameron for a start.
I mean, politicians are rewarded for what they do.
I mean, they must be aware of that.
I think George Osborne is probably a better example, isn't he?
Yeah, George Osborne, yeah.
His extraordinary salary from BlackRock for one day a week.
And BlackRock, as we know, like Vanguard, essentially controls the global financial system.
All the stocks and shares of the companies are owned by them.
Yeah.
So there's a reward mechanism there.
Yeah.
So there's a reward mechanism there.
But then there's also a belief system as well, perhaps.
You know, if you accept that the world is coming to an end because of global warming, or you believe in eugenics, if you accept that, then... I mean, let's look at Boris Johnson.
I mean, Boris Johnson has openly written about the need to depopulate.
Yes, because the apple does not fall far from the tree and his father is a eugenicist and closely associated with the Rockefeller Foundation, which is intimately involved in this global master plan.
Yeah, and so it's not unreasonable to suspect that Boris might hold some of those same views.
So they could be on board from a moral perspective.
That's what they think should happen.
So let's say that they assume that the world does need to transition, that it needs to be transformed into something else.
If they accept that, and believe it, and they've been convinced of that argument, then why not?
That's what they're attempting to do.
Right.
So it's... I don't know why they do it.
It's abhorrent to me.
I don't know why they do it.
But you can only speculate as to the... There are many reasons why they might.
Right.
Um, I think that we should talk about what comes next, how we what the solution is, because I think I think it's very important that we remain positive and even in this this dark hour, because I mean, I personally believe that this is A massive confrontation between good and evil, and that it's up to us.
The politicians aren't going to save us, clearly.
There are no white hats out there.
There are no white knights.
It's up to us.
So what do we do?
I mean, one of the points of the book, the book is very, as you said, is quite heavy going in terms of the kind of information that it gives.
But at the end, I hope people get from it a sense of hope, because the ability to change this is within our grasp, and it's very simple.
We just need to focus on our lives and take responsibility for every aspect of our lives.
And we need to share the things that are important with us, with each other.
We need to support each other.
We need to work together in our local communities.
We need to make sure that we, collectively, do not adhere to the edicts of some global authority.
So we need to pursue our lives to live as individual sovereign human beings.
Doing the best that we can to support our families and to support each other.
Because fundamentally, at the basis of the whole eugenicist and depopulation agenda, which is certainly a vein that runs through this policy, It makes us out to be some sort of parasitic waste of resources on the earth.
That's all we amount to.
We are, as you said, Ursula, the useless eaters.
We are not.
We are not.
We're good people.
The vast majority of people that we meet in our day-to-day lives are good people.
They don't wish harm on anybody else.
They don't intend to rob anybody or do anything that is immoral.
People are essentially good, and people can cooperate and have cooperated on vast projects for centuries.
We can turn this around, but in order to do that, we need to stop complying with everything we are told.
And we need to challenge the information that we are given.
And we need to support each other to do that.
And as you rightly said earlier, the whole idea of, and you said, you know, that when I realised that the left-right paradigm was a con, it is absolutely a con.
There's no left, there's no right.
There are us.
As a species, there is us, and there are those who seek to control us, and who always have.
They've always controlled us.
And we need to break away from that mindset.
We need to understand that we don't have to accept that no one And I would say this, because I'm a voluntarist, so this is the way that I perceive it.
No one on this earth has any authority over me.
No one has any authority over me.
Authority does not exist.
It only exists because I believe it exists.
I give my authority to others.
It's mine, but I give it to them and allow them to wield it over me.
But it's not theirs, it's mine.
So if I retain my authority, there is no authority.
And similarly, I've got no right to tell anybody else what to do.
So if we focus on that, that we need to be independent of government in terms of, you know, it's very difficult because we rely on things like the health service.
We rely on things like the government fixing the roads.
We rely on things like the government.
And these are all important aspects of what a government supposedly does.
But there is nothing that government does that we couldn't do ourselves.
We are capable of doing that.
We're not idiots.
We're not fools.
We do not need to be under the under the yoke of tyranny.
There's no if.
If we end up under the yoke of tyranny, unfortunately that has been through our choice.
So we need to reject that choice.
I agree with all you say and I think this goes back to what we were saying earlier about how this has been planned for Many, many years, decades, even centuries.
I'll give you one example.
The BBC, which you rightly finger as the broadcasting arm of the state, and probably, I would say, the security services as well.
I mean, they're all intimately bound, aren't they?
I think it is a branch of MI5, MI6.
I noticed for years that whenever you listen to a BBC politics programme, the default assumption was always, why isn't the government doing more to solve this problem?
It was never about What we can do, or is this even within the government's remit?
Should the government be concerning itself with such things?
Always.
It's about inviting the government to micromanage every last detail of our lives.
The government is everywhere now.
Even in the bedroom, on the The food we eat, and so on.
Things where the government really has no place, and yet organisations like the BBC have encouraged this surf mentality.
Yeah, no, absolutely, yeah.
And it's a fundamental falsehood.
I mean, that's We don't need government.
I mean, one of the things that always makes me laugh is when we talk about government spending, or the government announces that the government is going to invest.
The government isn't going to invest in anything.
The government has no money.
None.
It doesn't have any money.
The only way that it can invest is through the money that we give it, or the debt that it builds up, which then we have to repay.
There's no such thing as government spending.
There is only us.
That's it.
Now, so that is a... but for us to accept that so easily, you know, when Boris stands up there and says he is going to invest in the, you know, we are going to invest in the NHS and we are going to invest in this, we are going to invest in this war, you know, whatever they are going to invest in, we passively absorb that.
We sit there and we watch it and we listen to it and we go, all right, yeah, yeah, that's what the government is going to do.
It's not what the government is going to...
Yeah, good old government.
It's not what the government are going to do, it's what you are going to do.
Because we're paying for it.
I would love to talk.
I could talk to you all day, and I wish I could.
I've got to take one of my children to the station now.
But thank you very much.
Congratulations on a brilliant book.
It's been lovely meeting you.
I hope we get to talk again.
We will get to talk again, and I'd like to meet you in person one day.
Well done.
Just a gentle reminder, I really appreciate your support on Subscribestar and on Patreon at my website dellingpoleworld.com and where you can support me by a special friend badge.
Ian, where can people find your stuff?
Yeah, you can find my stuff at my blog, which is in this together with hyphens between the words, so it's in hyphen this hyphen together dot com.
That's where I write, but I also write for the UK Column, and I hope your viewers, I'm sure, will check out the UK Column.
They have been solid throughout this whole thing.
They've been just asking questions, basically, which is what a media should do.
I also write with the Offguard and often share my posts, and you can find my stuff there as well.
My book is available through my website.
You don't have to buy it.
It's free.
The electronic version is completely free.
You can download it.
The electronic version is Creative Commons licensed, so you can adapt it, share it, do whatever you want with it.
And if you want to buy a physical copy, then you can also get that through my website.
And obviously that isn't free.
But but yeah, just just check out my work.
I really hope it's working well, well for you, because I can tell you, I mean, as you probably know, I'm a Christian and I believe that these things are divinely ordained.
And I think that the reason you lost your job in in looking after, although it's a noble work, I think this was meant to be you.
You are doing what you were born to do, and thank you.
Well, thank you very much for having me.
It's been a pleasure to speak to you.
Yeah, thanks a lot.
Okay, mate.
Bye-bye.
▲
Export Selection