All Episodes
Sept. 30, 2022 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:36:32
Patrick Wood
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the Deling Poll.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I really am.
It's Patrick Wood back for this.
I think it's our third, third podcast, isn't it, Patrick?
I think so.
Yeah.
And so much has happened since we last spoke.
I was just thinking, you must be looking at the events in the world now and just thinking, I saw all this coming, I've been writing about this for decades and nobody took me seriously, or hardly anyone, and now, look, look suckers, I was right.
I guess that's kind of the history of the world in a way, and I don't take any credit for it necessarily, but there have always been people who were the early warning signs, you know, that saw stuff coming.
And, people didn't listen, and policies just continued the way they were, and they got themselves deeper in a hole, and now look at us, you know, we're just so deep in a hole, it's not even funny.
Well, the classical analogy is, of course, Cassandra, who prophesied the truth, and her curse was that no one would listen.
I'm sure that was an archetype, which is... Yes, yes.
You know, I should...
I should say that back on December 18, which is the 18th of December is not that far away right now.
It's Christmas time.
Um, December 18, 2015.
That's seven years ago now.
Yeah.
Unbelievable.
Well, that was a date that I declared war on technocracy and, uh, not because I wanted to declare war on them, but they had declared war on us.
And so, I wrote back then, America is being methodically and purposely conquered by an unseen enemy.
Our shields are down, our people are asleep, our weapons are almost non-existent.
The war has been waged in stealth, so the enemy has not yet been identified until now.
That was seven years ago.
And only now are people finally really starting to wake up to this thing that we've been talking about for all these years.
Better late than never, but... When you say people are waking up, I'd be very interested to hear your personal experiences of this and your take on this.
Haven't you been on a tour recently, talking about stuff?
Well, I have been around America.
Um, it's a little bit of a specialty tour in a sense, because it only pertains to the medical, uh, field and crimes against humanity.
Um, I'm sure you realize this, this whole medical thing is kind of wearing thin at this point.
Um, the, um, the acute analysis of this and the angst is kind of.
You know, being passed over now, and it's not because the threat is any less, it's probably more now than it ever was, but people just kind of got worn out of talking about vaccines and COVID and crimes against humanity.
And now we're facing more problems that seem to almost eclipse the severity of those recent problems.
Like, you know, are we really facing A nuclear war right now.
These new things keep coming up and I know it occupies people's minds.
Yes, yes it does.
Rightly.
We'll come on to that but just tell me about your tour.
Who did you do it with?
Well, I did.
We started out, we went to several cities.
I say we, I was speaking with Dr. Judy Michovitz, the kind of well-known now microbiologist that was rubbing shoulders with the Fauci crowd back, you know, 20, 30 years ago.
And Dr. Rainer Fulmisch also, not a medical doctor, he's an attorney from Germany.
So, we also wrapped in Dr. Mike Yeadon in one of our conferences as well.
But our point of speaking was to document the crimes against humanity angle.
That we believe has been perpetrated against the world.
It's not just America and not just UK.
It's the whole planet at this point.
Yeah.
And we had relatively small audiences.
I was really surprised at that.
I would have thought it would have been packed out.
But our message was, um, it wasn't a patriotic message.
You know, people are all into having rallies and waving the flags and, you know, um, talking about their favorite political candidate or whatever.
And there's been lots of rallies that have had lots and lots of people, uh, where maybe, uh, like a frontline doctor will speak about something.
And, you know, that's, that's kind of gotten the word out.
Our message was pretty narrow.
Uh, very complete because in fact, I think we were the only people speaking at the time that actually had a coordinated message.
And when I, when I say coordinated, it wasn't just three of us or four of us standing up and saying what's on our mind, you know, with no coordination between us, we had sat down in advance and discuss the issues that needed to be presented.
And then we tailored our presentations to work together.
So we had, um, as I call it, we had kind of an engineered or a tailored presentation that lasted the whole day.
And it was very effective.
Everybody that, uh, that heard us was, you know, very, very moved and very excited, but it wasn't a message that really.
Struck a nerve with the public, you know, like where we'd get, you know, 5,000 people show up or something.
I just didn't want to hear it.
So what is your position on the whole vaccine Well, I hate using the word vaccine because they're not vaccines.
I mean, do you think that this was, from the start, a deliberate depopulation programme?
Or do you think it was just dodgy pharma companies trying to push Rotten old stock on an invented new scare or what?
There was some of that dodgy business, I'm sure.
They love money.
And you hold the carrot of money out and you get a feeding frenzy.
But on the other hand, this has been planned for a very, very long time.
That was the part of the message that I brought to the table.
Was my understanding of globalization going back several decades and one of the things that I discovered, I think we talked about before about my understanding of agenda 21 is sustainable development and those sorts of things.
Going back to 1992, when the Agenda 21 conference took place in Rio de Janeiro, it was actually called, it was UNSED, that's the United Nations Conference on Economic Development, UNSED, that was the acronym, but they put on the conference to create the The Agenda 21, and they also ran in parallel in that conference, the Biodiversity Convention.
Same people, same building, same everything.
It's just they had two different tracks.
One was Agenda 21, which was more of the political side, and the Biodiversity Convention was more the practical, how-to, environmental, you know, environment side.
I had missed a very important factor back then, but I had no context with which to understand it either until COVID hit.
But there was a book written by two scholars who had attended, they were environmentalists, and they had attended the Rio de Janeiro meetings.
And as principals, I might add, they were part of the negotiators.
And they came away very disillusioned.
If you remember back to that era, the big beef that the South had with the North was that the development being The development of the North was crushing economically.
It was crushing the people in the South.
And so they were upset about that.
And they didn't like their minerals being raped and all the wealth taken out of their countries.
That was kind of the reason that a lot of people went to the real Congress and said, man, we're going to straighten this out.
This development thing is killing us.
And of course, that was a development that was sponsored by people like, or groups like the Trilateral Commission from, that wanted to create a new international economic order.
They're pretty fed up with them.
So these, these two authors or scholars came away and finally wrote a book in 1994, leveling their criticism of the real conference.
And they're not on, they're not on, I wouldn't say they're on our side at all.
They were environmentalists.
They were of that, you know, persuasion.
They weren't American.
But they were intelligent people, obviously.
They were able to write a good book, and they documented what happened.
But here's what they said.
This is pretty amazing.
The book was called The Earth Brokers, by the way.
The Earth Brokers.
In one section, they wrote, we argue that UNSED, that's what it was, United Nations Conference on Economic Development, has boosted precisely the type of industrial development That is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants.
We see how as a result of UNSED, the rich will get richer, the poor, poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.
That was the first part of their testimony in this book.
Then they went on to talk about the Biodiversity Convention, because they also participated in that.
This is something that I missed, James, and I'm kind of embarrassed to even talk about it.
I missed it back then, but again, I didn't have a context to grasp onto it.
But here's what they wrote.
The convention, that's the biodiversity convention, implicitly equates the diversity of life, that is animals and plants, to the diversity of genetic codes.
By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate.
It promotes biotechnology as being quote essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
And then they go on the next page and they say the main stake raised by the Biodiversity Convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity.
The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries.
Boom!
This is 1992 that this took place.
And they didn't say that one of the stakes raised at the Biodiversity Convention.
They could have said that.
Well, there was lots of issues, but one of the issues was this.
They interpreted it.
And of course, you know, they're not God, so you can't say that, well, theirs is the only opinion that ever came out of it.
But they concluded that genetic manipulation was the main stake raised by the Biodiversity Convention.
So you see, what happened back in 1992, a cocoon was placed around the biotech industries and big pharma.
They were protected from lawsuits, for instance.
You know, from claims that, you know, probably would have put them out of business long ago.
But since that time, we've seen this ownership, this patenting of life rear its ugly head, like, for instance, Monsanto.
Gets a hold of native seeds.
Genetically modifies them.
Files patent on it because now they figured out they can patent life.
And then they license those seeds back to farmers around the world to plant.
And if you don't buy their seed from them, they'll sue you into oblivion.
So they have modified life.
Food is pretty important to us, obviously.
But they modified life.
They patented it.
And now they sell it to everybody and enforce their monopoly and cartel.
Well, that's just seeds.
They've done all kinds of seeds and grasses and everything else, in many cases, to make it Roundup ready.
So when you spray Roundup all over it, it doesn't die.
The plants don't die, but the weeds will.
That's had other issues, but just suffice it to say that the agriculture industry has been thoroughly genetically modified in the last 30 years.
And then on top of that, you have the animal kingdom.
Sheep have been modified.
Cattle have been modified.
Pigs have been genetically modified for all kinds of different reasons.
And facets and features.
Chickens and turkeys have been modified.
This is the case of the animal kingdom.
Now you have the insect kingdom has also been modified.
You have mosquitoes.
That's one of the big things right now.
Genetically, in fact, I think it was a British company, Oxitec, I think, was the one that developed these mosquitoes that are being released down in Florida that supposedly, well, the idea is the male mosquitoes, which don't bite, the male mosquitoes are genetically altered so that when they breed, The offspring that the female has Can't live.
They don't live.
They have like a, it's like a kill switch, but they can't get out of the water to fly away and bite somebody else.
So it drops the mosquito population down like by 95% within a couple of weeks.
It's pretty dramatic technology for sure, but it's a kill switch.
And so insects insect kingdom has been wide open.
Well, okay.
What's the only other thing left on earth?
Humans.
Yeah, yeah.
And they set their target on humans.
Just that simple.
You know, the concept, what these people are thinking, these technocrats slash transhumans, they're thinking that evolution was just an accident up until now.
They don't believe in intelligent design because they're specifically more on the atheistic side.
It was just random how we got to where we are today.
But now, because we have genetic engineering tools, because we have computers, because we have convergent science and we understand so much more, that we can now take over intelligent design for the future.
So all of a sudden, the land rush has been, by this particular transhuman genetic crowd, the big land rush has been to modify every living thing they can get their hands on, and that includes humans.
I know that sounds fantastic, But this is exactly what the literature says ever since.
When you're looking for it, you can see it everywhere.
It's like these people are off the rails, James.
Do you have any theories on why they are so keen to modify everything?
Well, absolutely.
The whole point of transhumanism is to ultimately escape death.
There's lots of milestones along the way.
Life extension, merging with machines like the World Economic Forum says.
You know, taking technology into your body so that you can be analyzed and controlled, etc.
But the ultimate goal of transhumanism is to conquer death itself.
They don't have a lot of plans for what's going to happen after they conquer death, by the way, because there's lots of questions about that, if that were to happen.
Well, it won't happen, I'll tell you that.
Everything in between is focused on that life extension and ultimately escaping death.
That does not represent the majority of the world, by the way.
No, we're going to be prolonged, aren't we?
They're not trying to save us.
No, no.
If such technology existed, which it doesn't, but if it did, you and I wouldn't see it.
We would never get a hold of it because either it would be too expensive or they would hoard it for themselves so that they could become the gods, if you will.
Of this world.
Which is a horrible thought, isn't it?
Can you imagine a future where the kind of the type of the human species is represented by people looking like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Klaus Schwab, Henry Kissinger.
I mean, none of them is a particularly attractive representative of the human species.
They're freaks, aren't they?
Well, you know, everybody has their little space in the universe or in the world.
And humans, you know, one human against another human, you know, two arms, two legs, two eyes, two ears, They were born the same way everybody else was born.
And yet, when they reach their maturity, there's such a radical difference between like a Klaus Schwab, for instance, and everybody else in the world.
How did that happen?
How did that happen?
It's like, well, it was an ideology for one, for sure.
A complex that they somehow have a better idea for mankind than anybody else, and that therefore, they have some duty to impose that on mankind for their own good.
This is really twisted and evil, because that's not the way the world works.
Not the way it should work, anyway.
Yeah.
These people, I kind of look at them like breakaway people.
This class has broken away from humanity, from the humanness of humanity.
They've elevated themselves above it in their own mind.
They have, unfortunately, have the resources to do stuff.
When they get together and collaborate and collude and make plans for the world, like Klaus Schwab says, we are making the future.
We are reimagining the future.
You know, what gives them the right, or any kind of divine mandate, to imagine the future for the whole world?
Yes they do!
This is just insane.
But you can see these markers, when you look at the Bill Gates of the world, when you look at the Klaus Schwab's of the world, you can tell, you put them in a group, you can tell who is orchestrating this whole thing from the top down.
And it's not like they have strings, you know, puppets on a string everywhere.
But the ideology is very contagious and it's very dangerous because it leads to ugly, ugly outcomes.
And, you know, people say, well, how could that be?
Well, look, look at Nazi Germany.
How did that get started?
Well, it wasn't everybody on day one that wanted to kill all those people.
It didn't happen that way.
But over a period of time, they got worked up with Hitler introducing his ideology.
The ideology was contagious and it was dangerous.
And nobody really saw, the people on the street did not see how dangerous the ideology was and where it would end up eventually with the death of millions of people.
We're in the same situation today.
These people have an ideology that's just flat-out evil and twisted.
Yeah.
And people still, well, you know, it's no big deal, you know, what's the damage in that?
It's just a guy, you know, he's got, you know, he's spouting off, he's bragging and... Yeah.
No.
Just wait.
They mean it.
You mentioned the word evil and I think it is not misplaced.
I wonder if you've given any thought to the religious underpinnings of this philosophy, because it's not just that they want to conquer death, it's also that they want to effectively destroy God, or obviate the need for God, because what they're doing is creating on Earth the thing that... Yes.
You know, I mean, he created us and what they're trying to do is show that, build their savior machine, that they can, they've got no need for him anymore.
Yeah.
Yes.
The underpinnings of both technocracy and transhumanism is scientism.
There's not a lot written about this currently, a little bit, but there was a lot to be said written about scientism in the last century.
In particular, F.A.
Hayek was one, so was C.S.
Lewis.
I would say that transhumanism right now could be called a religion and several people have suggested that, but the underlying ideology is scientism.
And what scientism is, it was originally coined by a French philosopher, Henri de Saint-Simon.
And this is back in the early 1800s.
And he had this idea that scientists were somehow, and engineers were better than everybody else, and that they should properly be the ones that control society.
And so he called it a religion.
He said, what we need here is we need to have a priesthood of scientists and engineers to administer science to society.
That was the exact thought.
Well, that caught on.
And over a period of time, you have a whole academic group of peoples now saying basically that science is God.
That God is the God, historic God of the Bible or anywhere else was like, well, there's no God.
That's just a myth.
And the real God is science.
And so let's all worship science.
And so science becomes an idol, if you will, that people, you know, can worship and say, oh, science is going to save us.
You know, science is going to provide transcendence for us.
Science is going to conquer death for us.
Science is going to deliver us from all the evils of the world that might affect us.
If we're sick, science will heal us.
And, you know, you can see parallels in the language that they have used.
You can see parallels with, for instance, the Bible.
That also talks about things like that, like healing, and immortality, and transcending death, and so on.
So they set up this new god of science, and the problem with this god of science is it's 100% exclusive to any other source of truth.
So they say there is no truth outside of science.
If science can't prove it, it doesn't exist.
So they throw out The Bible, obviously, that's totally toast.
And they throw out religion in general across the board.
They throw out morality, and philosophy, and ethics.
That's also thrown out because you can't prove that in a test tube.
So, scientism has evolved in such a way that it does not have a moral boundary.
It does not have a moral standard or an ethical standard.
There's no boundaries.
Anything goes.
You can see where this starts to get dangerous.
We can see this philosophical stuff coming into Today, like with COVID, well, not just with COVID, but let's just talk about the vaccines.
The vaccines themselves, based on messenger RNA, and that takes you right back to 1992 with the real conference, manipulating genetic codes.
The whole thing with messenger RNA and the vaccines and so on, Um, were initially held up as being the salvation to stop COVID.
They said, oh, you take this vaccine, you'll never get it again.
You can't possibly get it.
Or if you take it and you know, you won't get as sick as you, if you do get it, you won't get as sick as you would otherwise get sick.
Well, all that has fallen apart now.
All that narrative is gone.
We know that's not true.
It's just a bald face lie.
But have the shots stopped?
No, they haven't.
They're still going on and boosters are being created and now that they got the needle in people's arms, they want to keep it there forever.
So, we see that all the people that have been harmed...
Buy these messenger RNA shots which by and large are still completely untested.
Nobody knows the long term effects of what's going to happen.
But we do know that people are dying short term and that people are having all kinds of health issues, blood abnormalities, neurological problems, heart problems, myocarditis.
People face planting, uh, you know, top, top shape athletes face planting on the pitch.
They just run along and boom, they just go down and die on the spot of a heart attack.
Um, have these shots stopped?
No, they haven't.
This shows you that the group that's pushing the shots, whatever you want to call them, the big got big pharma, you've got biotech industry, whatever you want to point to.
They have no ethical boundaries to measure when the damage should stop.
You see, it never occurs to them, apparently, because they haven't stopped it even still.
They say, oh it's perfectly safe, everybody should take it, even children, babies should take it, pregnant women should take it, it's wonderful, everybody should take this.
But it's killing people and it's harming people.
And they know this, by the way.
We know they know it because emails have been extracted saying they know they've got problems with this thing, but they don't stop it.
That only tells you that they have no moral base.
None whatsoever.
It doesn't even occur to them that, well, maybe we should have a little heart for those people out there that are being killed and, you know, families are being destroyed.
Maybe we should kind of You know, apply some ethical principles to what we're doing?
No, they don't do that.
This is a marker of scientism to me.
This is a pure, this is absolute proof that they're marching according to the scientism, to the god of scientism.
And it's very dangerous.
It's as dangerous as anything we ever saw in Nazi Germany.
I'll tell you that for sure.
Yeah.
Very dangerous.
Well, you must have spent a lot of time chatting to Judy Mikovits, who I know has been well ahead of the game.
I mean, even as Covid, whatever it is, was just starting to become a kind of a thing, she already had been warning of the sort of mass Rushed vaccine rollouts and etc, etc.
She knew about the wiles of Big Pharma.
So, where are you personally now on this?
I mean, what do you think's in those shots?
There's all sorts of weird stuff, isn't there?
Like luciferase and sort of weird nanotechnology and graphene oxide.
I mean, what do you reckon?
What's your best guess?
I'll tell you, I know, I'll tell you, it's a very complex topic.
Very complex topic.
Because you can talk to Dr. Judy for hours just going over the history of vaccinology.
Judy for hours just just going over the history of vaccinology yeah and how it developed over a period of decades and who was involved with it and what kind of corruption involved was involved Yes, Bill Gates' father was in charge of the vaccines during the alleged Spanish flu pandemic.
That, exactly.
So, from a purely medical point of view on, okay, is there messenger RNA in these shots?
There appears to be.
And if that's the case, what's the whole history of this?
Well, Judy can speak for, literally, for hours, non-stop, hardly ever taking a breath as you talk about it.
But then there's the other issue.
Other issues.
Are there extra Items that have been placed into certain injections to cause another effect that has absolutely nothing to do with the virus whatsoever.
So that's when you get into start looking at things like graphene, nanotubes, and other chemicals and stuff, maybe metals.
And I'll tell you, as far as I'm concerned, the only reason I don't make big A big deal or a big stink about any of that stuff and I read the reports like you do too and some of them I can believe, some of them are still pretty spurious because people want to believe the worst in their mind.
So the real talent in this in the end to me is I kind of look at all that stuff in the vaccine as a black box.
I just kind of, in my mind, I just kind of treat it that way.
And I've looked into it a lot.
I've talked with Judy for a long, long time.
We shared a lot of meals together and, you know, just casual talks.
And so I could ask her my stupid question.
Yeah.
You know, I don't understand when you said that such and such, can you explain that?
And she did about, you know, 25 times in a row.
Um, but I look at it as a black box.
I see the inputs and I see the outputs.
I see, I know who created the black box.
And I know the effects on the other side of the black box.
That's really what the important thing is, in my mind right now, is the important thing, is the outcome.
It's not so much what the black box is, although people should, they want to know and they have a right to know.
But the impact on humanity is really what I'm concerned about.
The people that are dying, the people that are getting sick, the people that are having all kinds of problems.
Yeah, I've talked to people personally who so greatly reject, uh, regret having taken a shot because they've had nothing but trouble ever since.
All kinds of trouble.
I mean, it's really bizarre.
This is definitely connect, most definitely connected to that black box.
There's no doubt, but politicians don't want to touch it by and large.
And the medical community is making money off of it, so they refuse to talk about it.
And they let it go on.
They let it perpetuate.
And it's just, it's an absolutely incredible story.
But the outcome of it is what is literally what is killing us today.
This is war.
I will just go back to my original statement.
This is flat out war that's been declared on humanity.
And when you have war, consider what happens when you have war.
This historically is always the case.
You have a lot of dead bodies.
That's one.
That's pretty self-evident.
You have dead bodies.
Many wars have known that it's better to injure the enemy rather than kill him, because if you injure the enemy, other people have to go and take care of that person, and it takes people off the battlefield, right?
So injuring people, there's a lot of injured people today.
Then, along with war, you have economic disruption, always.
Do we have economic disruption today in the world?
Absolutely we do.
Then you have, typically, a food crisis.
Famine often follows war, and it's intentional.
It's a weapon of war.
Just think of the Holodomor in Ukraine in the 30s, where all of the means of production of food was taken away, and they just died.
That was that.
So, you know, these are all markers of war.
And yet, it's not being really recognized that way at this point.
I wrote an article, or I put an article into Technocracy News some time ago.
I've used this in a couple of my speeches since then to a presentation.
I call it the poly-crisis of doom.
Poly-crisis meaning many crises at the same time.
We're facing this right now.
I subtitled my presentation, Technocracy's Mother of All Wars to Conquer the World.
It sounds a little bit like something Orson Welles could have narrated.
The War of the Worlds.
But, you know, we've got all these different crises being leveled against us.
We've had a biological attack and the issue with just COVID itself and the vaccines, I'm sure.
A global panic that's been perpetrated.
Propaganda has never been as heavy and as thick as it is today in the last few years.
We have an energy crisis.
Manufactured.
All of it.
100% manufactured energy crisis.
We've got plenty of energy in the world.
But you and I don't have it right now, unfortunately.
We have a financial crisis right now, brewing again, artificial.
We've covered this over the years, many different ways.
All these crises are coming at us at the same time.
This is orchestrated.
It's not just incidental.
Oh, we're having, we're just having a really, you know, a really bad year.
We had a bad, a string of bad luck here.
You know, I saw things happen and boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.
Yeah.
When the planes are flying overhead and they're dropping the, You know, the 500-pound nuclear bombs, I guess they would.
You know, it's like, yeah, you could call it, you can call it just an accidental thing, but we have a war being prosecuted against the world right now.
And I'll tell you, the sooner people wake up to it, the better off we're all going to be.
Well, that's why I was, I shared your puzzlement that so few people turned out to see your roadshow.
I mean, I imagine those that did turn up were very awake.
So, what's happening to the rest of the people?
How do we wake them up?
Well, a lot of people now have washed their hands from the vaccine and from the boosters.
A lot of people that originally took a shot are not taking the boosters now.
So, there's diminishing returns.
in the public right now.
And it's not that people just all of a sudden said, I'm awake to everything, like what we're talking about.
But they're at least, you know, they realize that that was stupid to take the shot.
I'm not going to do that anymore.
It doesn't mean they have any understanding of anything else whatsoever.
But it's better that they had to adopt that position than not, because now they're not going to be harmed as much as they would if they continued to get shots.
Yeah.
But when Yeah.
But when the pain of whatever it is attacking you gets into your body, Um, you know, when you're the one that is being pressed down and manipulated and jerked around and, uh, you know, you're losing your money now.
It's not just somebody else losing their money.
When the pain hits you, you start asking questions real quickly about what's going on.
Why, why is this happening?
Those are the people that are tending to be more of a more general awakeness to what's going on.
They're looking at the broader picture.
Would they listen to a podcast like we're doing right now and all of a sudden be enlightened?
Probably not.
But some will, and I've had people come up to me and say just that, you know, that, yes, you know, I listened to some of your videos, your interviews, whatever.
And, you know, I really get it now.
And I thank you for, you know, putting that information out there so that there are people falling out of the fog.
Not nearly enough, but then again we don't need 100%.
Even 15 or 20% of people coming out of the fog would probably put the final monkey wrench into this technocrat transhuman nonsense.
But we're not there yet.
It definitely helps, Patrick, that you've got a lovely accent and a kind of soft, reassuring manner.
You don't look like you're wearing a tinfoil hat.
You sound like a normal person.
She's good.
I hope so!
What you say is true, by the way.
There was a relative of mine, I shan't mention which relative, but he berated me for not having taken my jabs, you know, saying, don't be so silly, just go and get it, it won't do you any harm.
Anyway, I'd kind of written him off, not because I don't love him, but because I thought that he was a goner, because I thought he was going to get all the boosters, and that would have finished him.
But I discovered the other day that he's not.
He's not getting his booster because he said apparently on his second jab it made his throat go all funny and gave him problems.
So even though he's still probably very much in the paradigm of the believers that it's all coincidence and that governments have our best interests at heart.
So you're right.
But it's not enough, is it?
It's not going to win us the Because what they're doing is they keep changing the narrative.
So first of all, they distract us with the vaccines and the Covid and all the surrounding nonsense.
And then they move on to Ukraine and how we've all got to be hot for war with Ukraine because Putin is the new Hitler.
And I mean, I don't know what they've got planned up their sleeves next, but it's going to be They keep moving, distracting the public with different... I mean, you must know this because you've been analyzing their methodology over decades.
This is how they roll, isn't it?
It is.
We've seen this so many times.
The target keeps moving.
But you know, that's always the case in any war.
If you study any war in the last two or three hundred years, you will see that wars are always fluid, they're always dynamic.
You may have a battle line in one area today, and tomorrow the battle line has completely moved to another part of the country or another part of the area.
It's fluid.
And that's the way this war is, is being prosecuted against the world.
The target keeps moving.
The issues keep moving.
And they will continue to.
But, so far we haven't really identified who is responsible for this.
Because, okay, it's all very well saying technocrats, but they're not just.
This has been going on for decades, hasn't it?
So who are these people?
Well, I'll tell you, my view of this has matured over time.
I wouldn't say that I was flat out wrong 30, 40 years ago, because I don't think I was, but I fine-tuned my thoughts about this quite a bit.
And I'm pretty, I could say I'm pretty convinced that there's not like a Dr. No somewhere that's pulling all the strings, you know, like the ultimate dictator, you do this or you'll die.
But whoever controls the narrative, controls the downwind from the narrative.
And when I say narrative, look at Klaus Schwab in the World Economic Forum right now.
They say openly that they're controlling the narrative.
Well, what's the narrative?
Well, the narrative is we're reimagining the future.
It's for your own good.
And they say by 2030, you'll own nothing and be happy.
They're spinning a narrative, a story.
That they're giving to everybody as if it were fact.
Not just something imagined up by somebody like a Klaus Schwab.
So, if you were to look at the people at the top of the World Economic Forum, the thinkers, the narrative makers, you will find the people that are controlling the world.
Because whoever controls the narrative, controls the people.
And that's how it's done.
I've seen this from day one when the Trilateral Commission first was formed.
They started spinning a narrative and the first thing that came out of their lips was, well, we live in an interdependent world.
We need to have cooperation between these economic blah, blah, blah.
And we need to have a new international economic order.
They said, well, couldn't have told me that back then.
There wasn't any need for a new international economic order.
But they spun this narrative that because we are an interdependent world, that was completely a priori, off the wall statement.
They created a narrative.
And they kept speaking it, speaking it, speaking it until more people and pretty soon everybody's speaking.
Oh, well, you know, we're in an interdependent world now.
All of academia was talking about it within five, six years, even the United Nations in 1994.
Excuse me, not 94, 74, the year after the commission was started and they initially said that they're going to create a new international economic order.
The United Nations came out, passed a general resolution by the same title, the establishment of a new international economic order.
The United Nations, they picked up the narrative.
Yes.
You see, Agenda 21 was a narrative.
It was the agenda for the 21st century.
It hadn't happened yet.
But they said, no, this is the agenda.
Hang on.
That's my speciality, Patrick.
I don't know how that happens, but I'm not going to let it happen.
Happens all the time in my podcast.
Yeah, but at the moment you've just gone and described the method.
I mean, look, just taking your example of the World Economic Forum.
We know that the World Economic Forum, that Klaus Schwab was hand-picked for the role by Henry Kissinger.
So it's not like the WAF is Big Evil, which has sprung from nowhere.
This stuff's got history.
And clearly, Schwab is just a kind of a front man.
And I think that the fact that he dresses up as a James Bond villain is actually part of the show.
It's part of, you know, the kind of... they're mocking us.
But, so, Kissinger selected him for the role, but even Kissinger is just the bag man of the people who are behind this, is he not?
Exactly.
And Kissinger, by the way, well, let me back up just a minute.
You can picture, let's say, an armada of Navy ships sailing out in the Atlantic Ocean.
And let's say you have an aircraft carrier.
That's the, that's the main flagship, right?
The big powerhouse.
Well, around, uh, around the carrier, you'll have other ships, you'll have battleships, you'll have destroyers, you'll have, uh, supply vessels and so on.
Right.
And they all kind of go along.
Maybe there's 20 or 30 ships in the armada.
They go along, but the main thing is the aircraft carrier.
Well, if you would consider the Trilateral Commission originally with a, this is Rockefeller and Brzezinski that started this.
If you kind of look at them as the aircraft carrier, not everybody has gotten on that aircraft carrier.
That's not where all the troops are necessarily, but they've created, they've created other ships along the way that sail in the same direction and are under the control basically of that carrier.
Groups like the World Economic Forum, the Atlantic Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, and so on.
They're sailing in the same direction.
They're supporting the mothership in a number of different ways.
And they all are going after the same objective.
In the end.
In other words, an armada doesn't just go wandering around in the ocean for the sake of wandering around in the ocean.
They have an objective.
Wherever it is they're going, they're very intentional about getting there.
And maybe if there's an enemy to take care of at the end of the journey, they'll go and take care of that enemy.
But this is kind of how this whole thing has progressed from the 1970s to today.
You've got groups like the World Economic Forum.
They are not the Trilateral Commission.
Clearly they're, you know, they're, they're not like overlap that way and ownership, but they're in absolutely the same direction saying the same things, the same kind of narrative has been, this been said for decades now.
Yeah.
Yes, but we know it didn't start in 1971, which I think was when the Trilateral Commission was born, wasn't it?
Yeah, about then.
I mean, before that you had other organisations like, I mean, the Milner Group would come way before that, and probably before the Milner Group were other... What else was there?
I mean, this is like the Committee of 300... So where does it all go back to?
Well, there was something new that happened in the early 1970s.
And one of the early founding Trilateral Commission members was an academic by the name of Richard Gardner.
And he wrote a seminal article in Foreign Affairs Magazine.
I think the title was something like, The Hard Road to World Order.
That's why I subtitled my book, by the way, the second book, The Hard Road to World Order.
And in there, he said, he complained, that the old-fashioned frontal assaults that they had tried to achieve didn't work.
They were not working because they didn't have control of the world by that point.
They had had several frontal assaults.
They said, what we need now, we need a new strategy.
We need to have an end run around national sovereignty to break it down.
We need to create this new international economic order that restructures the order, the economic system of the world.
So there was clearly something new happened at that point, and the thing that was new was brought in by Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Brzezinski, at the time he wrote Between Two Ages, America's Role in the Technotronic Era, was a professor of political science at Columbia University.
That's the same place that technocracy was invented in 1932.
And many of those original engineers were still alive and still available during Brzezinski's stint in the 1960s.
And so when he wrote the subtitle of his book, America's Role in the Technotronic Era, it was a knockoff for the word technocratic.
He couldn't use the word technocratic Technocratic because it had been outlawed at Columbia University in the 30s.
There was a number of reasons.
I won't go into it.
But they literally outlawed the term technocracy at Columbia.
You couldn't say it or you'd be fired.
So Brzezinski didn't dare use that name.
He didn't say technocracy or technocratic.
But when I went back and read his book again after I discovered historic technocracy, I said, this is it.
This is the new resource-based economic system that will be controlled by technology, now that technology is growing up, be controlled by technology, and he said in that book, we're between two ages.
Most people say, oh, there's two ages.
No, there's three ages.
If you're between two ages, there's age number one, there's the age that you're in, That's number two.
And then there's the future age, which is number three.
It's the technotronic era.
Okay, so Brzezinski was suggesting then that we're in this middle ground and we're headed towards a technotronic era.
And he described that technotronic era exactly like technocracy would have described itself in the 1930s.
Rockefeller ate that up.
There was reasons he ate it up because it offered Rockefeller, the money guy, and he was chairman of Chase Bank back then and Chase Manhattan at the times, now JPMorgan Chase.
And he also had the Rockefeller dynasty of oil behind him, right?
Lots of money, you know, one of the richest people in the world.
And he was a monopolist.
He wanted everything.
So, technocracy, a resource-based economic system, offered Rockefeller a means to accumulate resources directly, not just money, but resources, to take away from people, nations, mostly nations, I guess, really, but people have been deprived of property as a result, too.
That's where this whole narrative started that we're dealing with today.
That was what the new international economic order was all about, was transforming the world into a technotronic era, which was a technocratic era, where everything is controlled from the top down.
They wanted, by the way, back in the 30s, To completely remove the political lair from civilization.
They wanted to take that lair out.
You know, you've got, when I say lairs, you've got the people, you've got a spiritual lair, you've got a political lair, you've got an economic lair, a society.
They all kind of work together like a big sandwich, you know, to make things work.
They wanted to do away with the political lair altogether, get rid of all the politicians.
They pretty much have.
I mean, the politicians, they're just puppets, aren't they?
They have no autonomy at all.
No.
You're right.
This has worked out for them.
This has worked out just fine because when you see the... and by the way, Europe is so much more open and understanding of this than we are over here because of the EU.
The EU has grown up as a purely technocratic organisation.
They're unelected and unaccountable.
And they've stripped sovereignty away from every nation that they've gotten a hold of.
It's like, well, okay, this is where, this was the whole vision from the get-go.
Was, you know, making a system where the political system didn't matter.
Either neuter it, or flat out do away with it.
That's kind of where we are today.
Did you ever meet David Rockefeller?
Hang on a sec, I just lost my audio.
Okay, I'm sorry, I'm back.
Did you ever meet David Rockefeller?
Did not.
But I did meet the Executive Director of the Trilateral Commission.
What?
Brzezinski?
And we debated several others as well.
Well, who was the Executive Director?
Brzezinski?
No.
Well, the Executive Director was just, he was just the administrator, basically, back then.
His name was Charles Heck, but Brzezinski was the co-founder and he was the, I don't know, in today's language you could call him the co-CEO, I suppose, of the commission.
Rockefeller and he were together.
I mean, I can understand why somebody like David Rockefeller would be into this because he's a megalomaniac, Satanist, whatever.
But what's the appeal of somebody like Brzezinski?
Was he just a kind of a wonk who happened to find a kind of sort of rich person to support his crazy ideas?
What's his story?
That's exactly right.
That is exactly right.
You have the beauty and the beast.
That's the way I look at it.
That's an old Disney movie, right?
Beauty and the Beast.
Rockefeller brought the money to the table.
He brought the brawn, the connections, the network.
Brzezinski brought strategy.
And that was his strong point all of his life.
He's a brilliant strategist, by the way.
I mean, he wrote many, many books.
That altered the course of political science all across the world.
He really did.
Now, I disagreed with just about everything he ever said.
Probably everything he ever said.
But he was brilliant.
And as a strategist, he laid the groundwork for Rockefeller to achieve what Rockefeller wanted to achieve.
And it was a perfect marriage.
It was a perfect marriage.
They were friends until they both died.
Yeah.
Here's the thing, Patrick.
We're still no closer to identifying the people responsible, apart from David Rockefeller, but obviously other people are involved.
Here's what I don't get.
I've got a friend called Toby Young who is a, you know, he's like a sort of normie version of me.
He refuses to believe whatever evidence that there's any kind of conspiracy involved.
It's all just cock up.
And I used to be a bit like that.
I used to think that the world was a much more innocent place than it actually is.
And I think one of the delusions that people like Toby have Is that at the upper echelons of the world, that it's all like it is further down the scale, that there is competition between these different groups and they all have different ideologies and they're not all concertedly trying to take down the world, which I think is what is happening.
Why aren't there any countervailing movements among the super-rich?
Why are they all aiming for the same thing?
The destruction of the financial system, mass starvation, mass control of the energy supplies.
Why are they all pushing the same narrative?
Why are there no good gazillionaires who are fighting against this stuff?
That's a great question.
Some of them are useful idiots.
I'm sure of that.
Some of them are following the narrative.
They don't see the outcome of the narrative.
They don't see the train at the end of the tunnel coming at them.
And they're going to be crushed along the way.
There's a lot of useful idiots in the world right now.
They're just buying the party line, not paying any attention to any dangers down the road.
Oh, so-and-so said it.
It must be OK.
But let me, I'll reiterate whoever controls the narrative, controls the system that the narrative is being spread at.
You might remember the head of climate change when the Paris Climate Agreement was made.
Her name was Christiana Figueres.
And she's moved on.
I think she's doing something in the UK now, working for some NGO, and she's still out there promoting all of the sustainable development stuff.
She's a very bright woman.
She's a go-getter.
She's an organizer.
She's very persuasive, for sure.
And that's why she happened to be head of climate change, the czar of climate change at the United Nations at the time.
She did a press release right after, or a press conference right after the Paris Agreement got, all the whole conflop got done.
And she said, this is a direct quote, she said, this is the first time in the history of mankind that we're setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution.
Now, this is a declaration of war against capitalism and free market economics.
And this is a conspiracy.
She clarifies that, number one, they have an intention.
That means the intention is up here, right in their head.
They have an intention of doing this.
Secondly, they've created a timetable.
I think the timetable is playing out right.
I think that kicked in about 2020, January of 2020.
So they have a timetable and then they have an outcome defined.
The outcome defined is the death of capitalism.
That's exactly what Klaus Schwab has said and the World Economic Forum has said.
In order for the Great Reset to take place, there needs to basically be a scorched earth policy to get rid of capitalism and free enterprise.
That's the only way that the phoenix can rise out of the ashes on the other side.
That's why they say we're gonna build back better.
And if you think about it, nobody uses the phrase build back better anywhere in the world, ever in history, except that something has previously been destroyed to the ground.
Your house burned down.
I'm gonna build back better.
Your business went bankrupt.
I'm gonna build back better.
You see?
This phrase can't be used in any other context whatsoever other than the fact something burned down beforehand.
Now back in the 1930s, James, the reason that the early technocrats at Columbia University went down into the basement to create technocracy as an economic model was because of the Great Depression.
1932 was the worst part of it.
After the great market crash of 29, 30, 31 were horrible years.
Food lines, depressions, economies falling apart.
These people believed that capitalism was certainly going to die.
They were totally, thoroughly convinced of it.
Their writings, by the way, support that belief.
I've checked it.
They were certain that capitalism was going to die.
The problem is, though, it didn't die.
It came back with World War II, and it was just alive and well.
Americans rejected technocracy.
Ultimately, in Nazi Germany, the technocrats got conquered there that helped Hitler do what he did.
This whole idea that technocracy can't coexist with capitalism is still with us and we see it at the United Nations just by what Christiana Figueres just said.
We're going to kill it.
We have a timetable.
We have an agenda.
We have a direction.
We have purpose.
We're going to kill it.
Why are they going to kill it?
So they can implement sustainable development because sustainable development is identical to historic technocracy, a resource-based economic system.
It hates, it wants nothing to do with capitalism and free market economics.
Absolutely nothing to do with it.
And so now, because capitalism has refused to die after 70, 80 years since then, capitalism has refused to die.
These people collectively have concluded, well, if it won't die by itself, then we need to kill it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And so they're creating policies that will destroy the world.
It's insane.
This is worse than any James Bond movie that was ever created with a villain.
This is absolutely insane.
We have to kill the entire economic system in order to have sustainable development, aka techocracy?
Yes.
They're willing to do it.
They're willing to do it.
This is what I found when I was researching my book on the environmental movement.
I found the origins of phrases like sustainable development, you know, the Brundtland Commission and so on.
What's astonished me, I mean, okay, the book was not a bestseller because such is the way of books like that, and you've probably found this as well, but it's not like the information wasn't out there that sustainable, what people think of as sustainability has got nothing to do with the reality of sustainability as devised by this crazy Norwegian woman.
And yet, despite the books, the articles and books that you and I have written, and people like late Christopher Booker and so on, my daughter talks about sustainability like it's, you know, it's a good thing.
Like, is it sustainable?
Everyone uses sustainable like it's a good thing.
It's been incorporated into everyone's vocabulary.
In other words, the whole agenda, the whole Technocratic takeover has been like a steamroller.
Anyone who's written an article critical of it, analysing it, just being crushed by the machine.
Which makes me wonder, what can we do?
I mean, apart from waking people up, where is all this going?
I mean, have we lost?
Well, we can certainly do personal things that may have some effectiveness.
One of the things that we've been talking to people about is keeping cash in circulation because there's a war on cash.
It's important to keep cash in circulation.
That's an economic thing.
Technocrats hate cash.
They always hated cash.
They hated cash back in the 30s.
They still hate it.
They're trying to get rid of it from the world system.
Make everything digital.
I say, okay, buck them.
Use cash everywhere.
It's less convenient.
It's more of a pain in the rump.
But use cash.
Keep it in circulation.
And everybody I talk to in restaurants, you know, when you go in and you pay something for cash, I tell people, you know why I'm paying cash?
They say, no, why?
Well, because the banks are trying to take cash out of circulation, and what are you going to do in your business here if the internet goes down?
How many credit cards are you going to process?
Oh, I never thought of that.
You know, and the light bulb goes on all of a sudden.
Well, that's one thing.
But I'll tell you the main thing we need to do, James, we need to change the narrative.
We need to fight this narrative, tooth and nail.
And we need to convince people that their narrative is wrong and that our narrative is right.
And if we can't do that, then we have really failed.
I mean, this is not a battle that we want to fight with missiles and guns and rockets and stuff like that.
That's not the kind of war we want to fight here.
The narrative is what has conquered us.
Even though it had physical manifestation, like ESG for instance.
It has physical manifestation.
But the narrative is what got us to where we are today, and only we can change the narrative.
This is not the right way that we should be going with their narrative.
It's wrong.
You know, I want to go back to this narrative business.
Defining who.
And this is a chapter, by the way, in my book that I'm writing right now that hopefully is going to be out.
I'm working on Chapter 8 right now.
But one of my chapters is going to be how to identify these people who have worked this from the early 1970s.
You remember we talked about Agenda 21 in 1992, the Rio Conference.
The Rio Conference, the Doctrine of Sustainable Development, Is credited to a European diplomat by the name of Gru Harlem Brundtland.
I'm sure you're aware who she, generally at least, who she is.
Yeah.
She was the Prime Minister of Norway for a time.
She is also the Environmental Minister of Norway.
And most importantly, she became a member of the Trilateral Commission.
Back in the early 90s, they invited her in.
She adopted the narrative, okay?
Just follow me.
She adopted the narrative that the Trilateral Commission had.
We're all interdependent.
We need to create a new international economic order, et cetera, okay?
Gru Harlem Brentlin was picked by the United Nations, probably David Rockefeller had something to do with that, but she was picked to head the so-called Brundtland Commission that was charged with developing a doctrine for the Rio de Janeiro Conference.
And so, the Brundtland Commission produced a book called Our Common Future.
That book is still available in the world today.
You can get it from Amazon or anywhere else in the world.
Our Common Future.
She was the primary architect of that book.
Was she writing on behalf of Norway?
Was she writing on behalf of the European culture?
Or was she writing on behalf of the Trilateral Commission narrative?
Well, it's the latter, I can assure you.
She was writing Trilateral Commission doctrine into Our Common Future, which became the singular book That spawned everything sustainable development.
She's the one that popularized that term and the United Nations has been effusively talking about her ever since.
She's so wonderful.
She was the mother of sustainable development, they say.
She was a member of the Trilateral Commission and she took the narratives, the seed of the narrative, and she planted it.
And it grew at the United Nations.
And now, sustainable development is on everybody's lips around the world.
The narrative controls the downline.
In her case, I think it's pretty obvious.
In Klaus Schwab's case, he is declaring that he is the one in charge of the narrative.
I doubt it's just him.
There's others.
What about Yuval Harari?
Well, he's the house scientist they keep in the cage.
Yeah, he's in the middle of it.
He's spinning the narrative.
He talks and people go, oh man, this guy's so smart.
He knows everything and we better believe him because he's got the future nailed.
A whole swath of people at the World Economic Forum just go goo-goo over him, and he's got to be the gospel truth now.
He's influencing the narrative, if not creating the narrative, at the World Economic Forum.
So when the World Economic Forum corporate says something, when Klaus Schwab jawbones those thousand companies that belong to the World Economic Forum, basically the most powerful companies in the world, When he jawbones them and gives them his narrative, they go out and act on it.
Okay?
They go out and take action.
They go out and, for instance, create the ESG policy that has spread everywhere across the planet now.
That's black roll.
Well, I started somewhere with a narrative, you see, a story.
This is what we need to do.
Why?
To accelerate the fight against the climate, which has nothing to do with the climate, by the way.
The disasters that have been thrown at us Whether it be global warming, the seas are going to rise and the polar bears are going to die.
Whatever is thrown at us as a disaster always leads back to one singular place and that is sustainable development.
That's the narrative you see.
The narrative is whatever ails you, The answer is sustainable development.
There's never a plan B. They don't say, well, we need to make some mid-course corrections in capitalism and free market economics.
They don't say that.
They don't say, we need another Adam Smith to come back and straighten this out.
No.
They say the only thing you need to accept sustainable development.
And so if you refuse to accept it today, Next year, another crisis hits, boom!
And all of a sudden, you got pain, you got problems, and they say to you, well, you need to accept sustainable development.
Year after year after year, crises come along.
Well, the answer is sustainable development.
When are people going to see through this?
This is a bunco operation for peace sake.
It's just all of these panics.
Have been designed to drive people into sustainable development which is, I argue, is technocracy just warmed over from the 1930s.
It's an age-old scam.
To panic people into where you want them to be.
And this is what the narrative has been.
All along, this has been the narrative that has been spun against the people.
Those who believe it seem to fall under some kind of a cloud of delusion.
You know, like, I believe that narrative.
I have to go sustainable.
I have to be sustainable.
You know?
And they lose their mind.
Totally.
But I was just thinking, maybe we should just talk about this for the end of our chat.
One of the reasons they go away with this is because they control the newspapers.
They control the TV news, they control the publishing industry, and they control the entertainment industry.
And I was struck by what you said about, you know, you were berating yourself for not having noticed the really key part of the Rio Earth Summit.
I remember it, I remember it well.
I remember the folder roll of all these kind of climate activists going out to Rio.
And this was the kind of the chaff, it was the stuff that was used to distract us from the evil machinery behind the curtain.
So we were looking at these climate loans from all over the world, we were having arguments over whether climate change is real or not or whatever, and meanwhile, behind closed doors, the real business was taking place.
But I was also thinking about, because I feel guilty myself in not having Sort of, okay, I warned about this, but I didn't see everything.
I didn't see just how evil they were.
And you mentioned Monsanto and the way that they are impoverishing farmers, they're turning them into kind of...
Forced clients of their dodgy business and so on.
But, having seen how the media works, I know that part of the cheat, part of the trick they use is that you have right-wing journalists, right-wing journalists playing right-wing roles, and left-wing journalists playing left-wing roles.
As a right-wing journalist, I would have read books by people like Matt Ridley.
I don't know whether you've come across any of Matt Ridley's books.
I like Matt very much, but I can see now that he's being used by the enemy as much as any of us have been.
There's a narrative which emerges where Actually, biotechnology is really great because it's enabled the Green Revolution, which stopped the Indian subcontinent.
I've written this myself.
Stopped the Indian subcontinent starving by developing short stem strains of wheat.
Look at Patrick Moore.
Patrick Moore, who I think is a hero for a lot of his work.
And yet, golden rice.
Golden rice, you know, rice with added vitamins.
Genetically modified, so it's got the vitamins.
And this is... See!
Technology is our friend.
Monsanto isn't evil.
So people like me, you know, I too have been part of the deception.
Maybe even you have as well.
These people are really, really devious.
They get us on different levels.
Yeah.
They don't have to tell the truth.
And again, this, this, this whole technocratic mentality goes back to the thought I offered before that when you, when you adopt the principles of scientism, whether you admit it or not is immaterial.
You don't have to call your, you don't have to use that word if you're in it.
But when somebody adopts the tenets of scientism, they discard their moral base.
They discard ethics.
And all of a sudden, it's all about science.
And it's not about humanity.
You see, all of, and I have, I probably have to say it this way.
Ethics and morality are about people, right?
They're about people.
I mean, why would you need morality if it wasn't in relation to other people?
It's not right to kill someone.
It's not right to punish or torture someone.
It's not right to kidnap someone.
It's not right to steal things.
That sort of thing, right?
It only has to do with other people.
Morality by itself means nothing.
It's like when you operate in a society, you have an ethical boundary.
You have morality that you stick to and so on.
When that morality is removed, you become a loose cannon.
Anything goes.
Anything you wanna do, you can say anything you wanna say, you can do anything you wanna do, especially as it relates to science, and get away with it.
Now, if you're a technocrat or a transhumanist and you kill somebody, society's gonna take care of you.
Society's gonna take what's left of its morality, and they're gonna reach out and grab you by the collar and throw you in jail.
That's a good thing.
But by and large, technocrats and transhumans have no moral base whatsoever.
That will control their behavior.
That's why they do these things.
That's why they can never say stop.
You would do some practices, like if you got into a situation that you thought was good when it started out, you know, it looked like, hey, that's a great deal.
And you get into it a little ways, and you think, oh, wait a minute.
This isn't turning out the way I thought, or maybe there's some consequences I see coming.
Now, I didn't see them initially, and I'm pulling out.
I'm not gonna do that.
I'm gonna stop what I'm doing.
You wouldn't have any problem with that, probably.
They would.
They would say, well, let's just keep going, see what happens.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I was having a chat the other day on my telegram channel about Aldous Huxley.
As we know Brave New World was the kind of the technocrats manual because of his brother Julian was heavily involved in the technocratic movement and a discussion arose as to whether Aldous was a goodie or a baddie.
In other words, was he kind of an insider spilling the beans for the benefit of us useless eaters?
Or was he basically gloating in the project?
Have you got a view on that?
Well, I do.
The Huxley family... Thank you for giving us the Huxleys, by the way.
Uh, the Huxley family had nothing good to say as far as I'm concerned from the get go.
Not the parents, not the, not the brothers.
Um, who were the parents?
Who were the parents?
Well, whatever, like I can't remember the whole story behind it, but they were, they were, they had twisted minds as well.
But remember it was Julian Huxley, Huxley that founded UNESCO at the United Nations.
That's the U.N.E., Education and Scientific, whatever, the rest of it, UNESCO, right?
That was really the most nefarious part of the United Nations, and still is to this day, because it's conquered education everywhere in the world, among other things, and the scientific community.
UNESCO's horrible.
So, that's Julian, his brother.
And at the time, Aldous wrote Brave New World.
You remember what year it was?
It was 1932.
The same year that Technocracy was at Columbia University.
Now, where would he have gotten the ideas to include in his book that would so closely model What the technocrats were creating in 1932, where would he get those ideas?
Well, it's true.
They were there.
Technocrats were talking during the late twenties.
They were already meeting and study groups and stuff like that.
That's true.
But the president, the president of Columbia university, little historical research was interesting on him.
His name was Nicholas Murray Butler.
They called him Miraculous Nicholas.
He was an egomaniac to the nth degree.
And even though Columbia was based in New York, Butler liked to travel to Europe.
He spent about half his time in Europe hobnobbing with the leadership in Europe, because he was a big name dropper and stuff.
One of his best friends was Benito Mussolini, just to give you an idea of where this guy's head was at.
He was crazy, but he loved to hobnob all across Europe and into Great Britain as well.
And in my mind, I don't have any hesitation to make the connection between the widespread propaganda that was going on at Technocracy at the time, that Aldous Huxley picked that up.
And it helped him to formulate his book, to make the whole picture for the book.
Which, by the way, was a scientific dictatorship, number one.
Number two, it had no political system whatsoever.
None.
Three, genetic engineering was the big thing.
Eugenics.
You could engineer people any way you wanted.
All of the fundamental tenets of technocracy, now transhumanism, are seen in his book.
And he could protest all he wants, and he did along the way.
He did protest a little bit.
Well, I was really just trying to warn everybody.
You know what?
I just say that's bunk.
The guy was wrong from the get-go.
He was an idealist.
He was a utopianist, just like his brother.
Right.
And it's like, OK, I don't give him any credit.
I won't cut him any slack.
Don't give him any credit.
Some people don't remember also that he wrote another book in 1958.
It was called Brave New World Revisited.
Right?
In which he went back and he kind of reviewed, did a self-review.
Well how, you know, what has happened since then to now and so on.
And one of the most striking things in the book, in 58, he said, There's really no way, if a scientific dictatorship were ever implemented, there would be no way to escape it.
It's odd because I remember reading that book as a schoolboy and thinking the vision of the world was much less threatening than Orwell's in 1984.
But in fact I found it rather attractive.
A, because in my arrogant way I assumed that I'd be one of the alphas.
And B, I quite like the idea of all this free sex and drugs that went on.
And I was thinking, what's not to like?
It wasn't like, you know, Big Brother or anything.
And I wonder whether that was part of the psy-op.
I mean, I share your view that it was all part of the predictive programming.
It was telling us what's coming and there was nothing benign about it.
Nothing Generous about it.
It was just there like, suck it up, cattle.
This is what's coming your way, sooner or later, whether you like it or not.
And maybe the semi-seductiveness of that vision was another thing wrong with the book.
It makes it much more insidious, because it kind of invites you to want this world, almost.
In a way it kind of does.
You know, it also just incidentally destroyed the family.
There was no family structure there either because you weren't allowed to fall in love.
You could have sex with anybody that you ask.
So, you know, there was no morality whatsoever.
Absolutely void of morality or ethics.
Which is kind of what we've been talking about here too.
Yeah, well, it's...
Yeah.
It's how they roll, isn't it?
I mean, they do plan everything.
I mean, none of what's happening now would have been possible without things like, well, everything from the sexual revolution to the development of the way they tricked us into carrying these spying devices and persuaded us that we wanted them because we couldn't do without them because we look at them all the time and, you know, we can't live without them now.
All this stuff.
It's been developed incrementally, hasn't it?
It really has.
The narrative has not changed very much over the years, over the decades.
It has not changed a whole lot, but still basically the main thrust is still there.
And I'll just go back to the thought, whoever starts and controls the narrative, will control everything downwind from that.
And that's why they did conquer the newspapers, and the media, and Hollywood, and the internet now, for the most part.
They want to control the narrative so badly, and they want to destroy free speech so badly, because that would prevent you and I from speaking.
That they'll do anything to do that.
And we see this working out.
I saw just this last week that PayPal pulled the rug out from under Free Speech in the UK.
What?
What?
They could do that?
They did it!
They just summarily cut them off and kept the money for 180 days at least.
They won't give it back until they decide whether or not they're going to have financial penalties for doing bad, bad things.
But they won't tell them what the bad, bad things were.
You know, we see these attacks on free speech.
It's unmistakable.
It's here, it's there, it's everywhere in the world.
It's being attacked with vengeance.
By all these companies that have bought the narrative.
That we're evil.
That their ideas would not survive in a free market of ideas.
Flatly would not survive.
So their answer is, let's just kill the other people's ideas.
Don't let them out of the box.
Don't let them talk.
Don't let them change the narrative, you see.
Don't let them get their narrative out of the box.
Because other people might go, whoa, that's a much better narrative than your narrative.
I'm going with this one.
Yeah.
Kill it!
And so, you know, is Free Speech Union dead?
Probably not, but they're wounded badly.
It's going to take a while, you know, to get everybody somewhere else.
A lot of people are just going to drop off and never come back again.
It will definitely hurt their organisation.
Well, funnily enough, Patrick, after this, this podcast, I'm going to talk to somebody who figures he's got a way around this problem and he's going to, we'll see.
But anyway, yeah, you're right.
I think you and I have got to storm The Bastille, which is the narrative.
We've got to... Yes.
Well, we're doing our best, aren't we?
We need to.
We are, and I'll tell you what, I know...
I know that you are a narrative changer.
I don't know how you view yourself, but I would view you as being a narrative changer, because you don't sway from it.
You're on one message, and that's your message, and you keep speaking it over and over and over.
This is what we need to do.
We need to have more leaders.
in our space that are able to think, that are able to reason, you know, see through this stuff and reason out what it ought to be.
We need more leaders to stand up and speak the right narrative to people in such a way that it makes sense to them, where they will take on your narrative and spread it to other people too.
Right?
Second, third, fourth, fifth generation spread of the same narrative.
So when somebody hears you or they hear me, hopefully, somebody in the audience is gonna go, they're right.
These other people are wrong, they're right, I'm going to tell other people about this too.
The narrative spreads.
To the extent that the correct narrative spreads, the narrative of humanity, the narrative of humaneness, of humanness, Right?
Human sanctity, human dignity.
This narrative is the right one for the people.
They're the right one.
Nobody wants to be tortured, killed and murdered and maimed and, you know, die of a heart attack at, you know, 30 years of age.
I'm totally with you.
And actually, before we go, I really don't like this thing you sometimes hear people saying where they talk about how, yeah, people are so stupid, they deserve it.
And, oh, and they always cite human vices.
I think people are basically good.
Which is one of the reasons I'm on the side of the people.
People cannot be blamed if you have this narrow elite which has been brainwashing them over a period of decades, if not centuries, which have captured the media, which have captured the entertainment industry, they've captured the newspapers, they've captured the schools.
It's not people's fault if they send their child to school and their child imbibes all this complete Communistic drivel.
It's not their... It's not the evil within humanity which makes them... No, it's not their fault.
So I think we need to defend.
You know, the people are good.
Yeah.
I think, yeah, you know, where people assume guilt is when the truth is told to them.
When they face the truth.
And consciously reject the truth.
That's where I would assign blame.
Some blame.
If you've heard what's true and you refuse to acknowledge it, your guilt now is on you, not me.
Right.
We could say this about all these big drug makers, you know, people like the head of Pfizer, for instance, that isn't stopping the shots.
Well, he knows the shots are hurting people, but he's not stopping them.
Well, he hasn't taken it himself, has he?
So, is he guilty?
Yes, he is.
He's very guilty.
Yeah.
I think it's quite a clue that he clearly hasn't taken his own shots, you know.
Le patron ne mange pas d'ici.
Anyway, Patrick, it's been lovely talking to you.
Please tell everybody where they can see your staff, read your books, etc, etc.
Oh yes, absolutely.
Well, technocracy.news is still where all the action is on technocracy and I'm writing a lot about transhumanism.
My books are available there as well as on all the standard electronic places on the internet, whatever you can get them there, or from local bookstores that will order them for you if you want to pay cash and get them at a brown paper bag so nobody knows what you have.
That's fine, I don't care.
But I am writing a new book right now, and I'm serializing that on Substack, actually.
It's patrickwood.substack.com, just for a small subscription to kind of help me get through the whole thing, and encouragement to write it and finish it and pay for expenses.
And dang, books are expensive these days to write.
I'm buying books all the time.
I've got to get this one.
I've got to get that one.
So anyway, it's patrickwood.substack.com.
And the title of the new book, which should be out I think by Thanksgiving, I'm hoping, is The Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism.
And we're going to cover a lot of the things we're talking about here today.
That's great.
Well, I look forward to reading that, Patrick.
And great talking to you.
Thank you.
May I remind you lovely listeners and viewers, I really appreciate your support and you can support me on Locals, on Substack, on Subscribestar and at Patreon.
So thank you very much.
And thank you again, Patrick Wood.
Speak to you again.
My pleasure.
Anytime.
Export Selection