Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Oct. 26, 2022 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole

01:40:32

Simon Elmer

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I love Danny Paul!
	Go and subscribe to the podcast baby!
	I love Danny Paul!
	Now listen one more time, subscribe with me!
	Welcome to the Delingpod with me, James Delingpole.
	And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but I am really looking forward to talking to Simon Elmer.
	Simon, you were one of those people early on in the craziness, beginning in sort of early 2020, you were one of those people who emerged out of nowhere, as far as I could see.
	And you were talking so much sense When everyone else was losing their head.
	And later on, we're going to be talking about your book, which I haven't read yet.
	Well, obviously, it's only just come out.
	But I think I've had a taste of the sort of things you're saying, because I've been following some of your your blog posts and things in the last two years but just tell me about yourself i know nothing about you apart from the fact that you blog under architects for social housing which seems almost calculated to sort of put people off off reading you yeah um thank you for having me on your show um yes we set up
	i'm the co-founder and head of research of architects for social housing which we founded in 2015 um largely in response to the housing crisis which is particularly acute in london um We're an organisation of architects.
	I'm not an architect myself, I do the research, but the more we got into thinking about how to propose alternatives to housing policy in the country, I realized that I had a big role to play in investigating that policy, criticizing it and so forth, and analyzing it.
	And thank you for what you said about my early articles about the coronavirus crisis, if we can call it that.
	And one of the things that Architects for Social Housing has given me is an ability to read policy documents, to read legislation, and to kind of sniff out when something doesn't sort of smell right.
	Before that, I don't know if you know, I was trained as an art historian.
	I got a PhD from University College London.
	So I have a research background and a writing background.
	So that disposed me, if you like.
	I guess in March and April 2020, when the full hysteria and the full sort of propaganda was hitting us, one of the most important things was the kind of information coming out of Italy.
	Which we were told was two weeks, you know, in two weeks we would be kind of where Italy was.
	And if you remember there was all the photos and of the hearses and the, you know, the kind of this kind of craziness.
	And I started looking at the figures there.
	And you had kind of the equivalent of the chief medical officer there sort of revealing quite early on that in fact the official COVID deaths was nothing like people who had been killed, actually had died of the disease.
	And when I started looking at these figures, they simply didn't match up with what we were being told.
	So right from the very beginning, I was very suspicious.
	Initially, I was very tentative about writing short articles, simply analyzing these figures on behalf of other people who didn't really have the access to them.
	And then after a few months, I started to think, how is this being done?
	How is this lack of connection between the official narrative and what I am reading being accomplished?
	And that's when I started to look at Right, yes, because I remember.
	And the changes to best practice, NHS back practice in this country.
	And that's what really set me off in starting to question what's called the dominant narrative about this and to produce much more sustained articles.
	Right.
	Yes, because I remember, Was it not you who quoted the, who looked at the Office of National Statistics figures for age-adjusted mortality in England and Wales, going back, I think, to the 1930s?
	42, I think he was.
	42, sorry, 42.
	Yes, tell us about that because I think this for me was one of the killer points which showed very clearly that what we were experiencing was not a significant pandemic, if indeed it was a pandemic at all.
	That was an article called Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics, Manufacturing the Crisis.
	Yeah, and it got a very good readership.
	I'd been, as I said, I'd been looking at the figures but I thought this was, I think I published it in January 2021, so by that time the ONS, the Office for National Statistics, the NHS, Public Health England and so forth had kind of published all the figures that they had got from that year.
	So I had all the information to look back at what actually happened in 2020.
	I'd already cast I'd already analysed how changes to disease taxonomy, changes to protocols for testing for the presence of a disease, changes to the way that death certificates are formed out and so on and so forth, they're all being changed by legislation.
	But what I want to look at is how do I account for, how can we account for, the rise in Overall death, overall mortality in 2020.
	There was a moment somewhere in the middle of 2020 when doubt began to be placed on how accurate are these figures?
	You know, did someone die of COVID or with them?
	And doctors and ministers said, from now on we're simply looking at the overall mortality rate.
	So one of the things I did is I looked at throughout the year you had heads of organizations, agencies of cancer care, of dementia, of heart disease expressing extreme concern
	With the withdrawal of medical care, of treatment and diagnosis under lockdown restrictions on medical care, there was an enormous increase in deaths from these far greater killers of, you know, people in the UK and most countries than anything we got from COVID-19.
	And in that article I tried to make an estimation of exactly how many of these Overall deaths, this increase in deaths that occurred in 2020, had actually been from the causes of lockdown, had been caused, if you like, by lockdown itself.
	But right at the end of the year, I think the ONS came out and looked at the, as you said, the overall mortality rate adjusted for the increase in age and the increase in population.
	And it came to the conclusion that since 1942, 1920, sorry, 2020 was the 12th lowest mortality rate in that entire period.
	So, first of all, there was nothing like a pandemic.
	You had to go back only a few years, I can't remember how it is now, to find an overall mortality rate equivalent to 2020.
	2009.
	2009, exactly.
	2009. 2009, exactly.
	And that was in a situation, in a year, when medical care had been withdrawn for the major killers, the major causes of mortality in the UK.
	And above all there had been that appalling decision over the treatment of people in care homes.
	That is where the primary, my analysis, the primary cause of the increased mortality rate in 2020 came.
	Which is that thousands of people were simply locked into their care homes, given do not resuscitate orders, placed in front of a TV and terrorised and basically left alone, denied visits by their family and friends and so on.
	And it's very hard to estimate because so much has been changed, but if you dig deep, as I did in this article, you can see that lockdown, far from restricting or reducing the number of deaths from or with Covid-19, have actually contributed enormously to it.
	Yes.
	Well, I think there are two separate points, aren't there, to be made there.
	Okay, so looking at from, say, the years from 2009 to 2020, yes, you can see that the 2020 in that period might have represented a significant increase in mortality.
	And that, you probably correctly suggested, was due to old people being trapped in their care homes and probably being put on the sort of the Medoza Lamb death pathway.
	But separately, what you also found, and I find that almost this was more remarkable, that most of us listening to this podcast and watching this podcast were alive in the years leading up to 2009.
	We can remember what it was like.
	And we remembered that these were not periods when we were very conscious that people were dying in droves.
	We were not thinking, my God, the government must step in to lock us all down because lots of people are dying and this is serious.
	What those figures showed very, very clearly, I mean, devastatingly, I thought, to the case that this pandemic was unprecedented, was that there were many, many more years through which most of us have lived where Where there was a massive increase in mortality.
	For example, the 1968 Hong Kong flu year.
	Just for example.
	And in none of these years up until 2020, from before the war, sorry 1942 I think it was, in none of these years was it felt that the government should step in and intervene and take away all our freedoms in the name of this massive public health crisis.
	I mean, And I tried explaining this to people, I tried talking to them about it, and they were like... Well, I can't remember what excuses they came up with, but whatever they were, they were feeble, because the point you made was unanswerable, surely.
	Yeah, I remember there was the behavior of the medical profession in this country, I guess like most others, is being absolutely appalling.
	Most people, I certainly had never looked at ONS statistics on mortality or fatality rates or infection fatality rates to whatever diseases or whatever, you know, influenza or seasonal influenza.
	But the fact is about ten and a half thousand people die every month in this country.
	But you had doctors on Twitter saying things like, my God, it's like a Boeing 747 falling out of the sky every day.
	This is terrible.
	This is such emotive and deliberately deceptive language, because presumably, as a medical professional, they do know what mortality rates are.
	They do know that influenza kills 20,000 to 30,000 people every year.
	They do know that the major causes of disease in this country are heart disease, cancer and dementia.
	And they must know, if they took the trouble to look, that the changes to NHS practice and legislation meant that huge proportions, and I'm talking sort of like 80-90% of the people who died of those diseases, were being categorised as COVID-19 deaths.
	So anyone who had any sort of... I mean, if I can do it, and I've never looked at these figures before, medical professionals should have done it.
	I imagine they did do it, but they didn't speak about it, and they should have come out and said, this is a complete fabrication.
	These people are not dying of something new.
	Of course, some people are dying of COVID-19 or dying of a new disease, but the kind of figures that were being bandied around You know, the things like the, I don't know if you live in London, the Covid Memorial Wall, which is quite close to where I live, and they've got 150,000 red hearts up there.
	I think it's now increased to 200,000 red hearts.
	And when people are told that 200,000 people who would not have died otherwise have died of a disease in two years, they are rightly horrified.
	They want to take any steps or obey any steps that are done.
	That is quite clearly, I can demonstrate this to anyone, a fabrication, a deliberately made fabrication, a manufactured lie.
	It's come not simply from people misbehaving or slightly behaving or malpractice, it's come from changes to legislation and best practice.
	Yeah, we can talk about that in a moment.
	I mean, I think you've constructed a very persuasive thesis about what's behind all this.
	But I think you've possibly helped I'll answer a question which a lot of people had in their minds, which is, are doctors just dupes of the system?
	Innocent dupes?
	Or have they been active participants, active and morally deficient participants in this deception?
	And I think your argument would be, they knew the truth and they deliberately covered it up.
	I think from my research, my kind of parallel research, although the level of corruption, if you like, or deception is not as bad within how housing policy is made.
	Is that the level of culpability generally goes up.
	The more seen you are, the more culpable you are.
	I would imagine, I don't know, but I imagine most doctors are very busy people.
	They're professionally trained to do one thing.
	They're technicians.
	They've been changed under two years of propaganda in this country and across Western liberal democracies into sort of arbiters of our freedoms.
	of laws of our rights and so on and they have had their heads turned and they've embraced this role the behavior of most doctors on social media platforms is ludicrous i think they kind of oscillate between hysterical patients and kind of uh spiritual gurus but i imagine most of them are simply don't have the the time or the time of the all the capabilities or the training to do that sort of research.
	But when you get into people like CEOs, chief medical officers, all the heads of the NHS, all the ministers for health and social care, making these changes to legislation, and the people who are carrying out that, the lawyers and so forth, they are undoubtedly culpable.
	Yes, yes.
	They definitely knew what they were doing.
	Let's talk briefly about the role of journalists in this, because you've just said this is not your area of speciality, and yet we know that there are dozens out there of medical correspondents, science correspondents and yet we know that there are dozens out there of medical correspondents,
	Whose job is to look at figures and to question, well you'd have thought it would be, to question the official narrative because their duty, you would have thought, would be ultimately to the readership and beyond that to the truth.
	Wherever the truth can be found.
	And yet I cannot think of a single medical writer or science correspondent or whatever who raised any of the questions that you've you raised.
	Yeah, I wrote, um, one of my articles was called, um, The Betrayal of the Clerks, which is what I'd written after that famous, that famous book by, can't remember his name now, um, and it was, it was an indictment of the, the role of intellectuals and their failure to hold the state and the government to account.
	And that failure has been absolute, um, not only among, in the media, but amongst scientists, amongst, um, journalists, amongst the education industry as well.
	I think, I mean even during the Iraq war, which as we know was certainly, we went to war on manufactured reasons, the false dossiers and so on, even then there was nothing like the hegemony between The different papers, you know, in this country, like most countries, you've got papers who are meant to have different political positions.
	Some of them are more critical of the government, more supportive, most of them are critical in some way.
	They're meant to be investigative.
	But I've never seen the sort of the absolute total collaboration between those papers.
	Imagine you have another, and not just between the papers, but the news platforms, the BBC, the ITV Channel 4, the whole lot.
	So yeah, that level of, if I can introduce the word of totalitarian, if you like.
	Unity between the fourth estate is something that I've never seen before.
	No, it really shocked me as somebody who spent his...
	Most of his working life in the mainstream media.
	I mean, I was there for about 20 years as an MSM journalist, and I remember, for example, the two Gulf Wars, that there was a very distinct position between, say, the Guardian's line on these wars and the Telegraph.
	I waited in vain for this similar level of disagreement.
	You'd have thought that there would have been a lot of mileage, a lot of sales for any newspaper that could have demonstrated to the public that actually the government was lying to them, that the Covid thing, whatever it is, was being horribly overblown.
	That these, the experimental therapies that they were being encouraged to take by the government were actually not necessarily, well, not needed, and if you took them you could harm yourself.
	But nobody said any of this!
	It wasn't only an absence to report what they should have been investigating, but it was also the collaboration on the, it wasn't just censorship, the attack on anyone who tried to speak about it.
	Any of the doctors, the handful of scientists or doctors or political commentators Who dared to go on to the BBC or the Channel 4 or something and actually just sigh and question it.
	I mean, I've never seen that level of censorship or of tact of slander of the doctors who did have the courage to stand up.
	and say we shouldn't be doing this.
	The what you call the mainstream media, the corporate media, really, simply became a propaganda arm of the government.
	And I've never I've never seen anything like that before.
	No, no.
	There's no questioning.
	Was this your your red pill moment?
	I mean up until this point had you had you sort of had a vague faith in the system and that you know the newspapers on balance are trying to tell us the truth and that ministers on balance are trying to serve the interests of the country or did it come before that?
	Well, I've just spent the last eight years writing about housing policy and the housing crisis, which is a great way of understanding how global policies are set and how they accommodate the movement of money between countries and so on and so forth.
	So I wasn't enormously surprised by that.
	One of the very common responses to the sort of things that we're talking about is people say oh nobody could organize that.
	It's impossible to organize.
	It's this sort of idea that governments kind of bumble through and they're incompetent and then you get told you get accused of being a conspiracy theorist because there's impossible either the conspiracies don't exist or there is no there are no bodies which are powerful enough or organized enough or well connected enough to organize such a planned kind of assault if you like.
	But if you've read how housing policy is made and how that's caused the enormous damage it's done.
	So I came into this with a disposition through reading policy and through understanding these kind of mechanisms between government policy and global capital.
	How this stuff sort of works.
	So as I said at the very beginning, I was, I was tentative.
	I looked at the figures.
	We were talking about people dying in great numbers here.
	So I didn't simply go and say, this is a lie.
	But I, right from the very beginning, as soon as I looked at the figures and I, I looked at, God, they're taking up the, the kind of the, the removal of our rights and freedoms, the level of censorship, the level of slander, the propaganda was so great.
	I'd never seen anything like this in my life.
	And the figures simply didn't match up to it.
	So, the Red Pill moment, to use your analogy.
	I had it in my mouth already, but I swallowed it pretty quickly.
	Well, OK.
	Before we go on to the really juicy bit about what you think is going on, tell us a bit about the crookedness of housing policy and what you've noticed there that reflects on other aspects of the scam.
	OK.
	What's my line on this?
	There's a There's a kind of argument made by governments that the failure of the world to house the world, the people of the world, I'm not sure I can put this quite quickly actually, I haven't really been thinking about this.
	I guess there has always been a housing crisis.
	There is no interest in either governments or the provisors of houses in housing a population.
	A housing crisis, that is the unaffordability of housing or the lack of housing, generates the profits from which house builders make their money.
	If you understand that, that housing policy is not there to house people, but to create a housing crisis.
	That's where the money comes from.
	And housing, I imagine you're aware of this as a journalist, particularly over the last decade, you know, kind of dominated so much of our politics.
	And it's a global phenomenon.
	When people sort of say a lot of the sort of silly arguments about housing things like, oh, the UK is too small, we don't have enough land here, or London is built too low, it needs to be a higher city.
	This is absolute rubbish when you compare it to places like there's a housing crisis in Australia, California, In Canada.
	I've been to Vancouver and looking at places there.
	These are not places where there's not enough land to build on.
	Or if you look at somewhere like Hong Kong or something like that, you can't have a city which is built any higher.
	So the kind of excuses that are very easy for people to grasp that immigration Or two insufficiently dense buildings, or not having enough land, or there's too much of a population.
	These kind of arguments, which are very easy for journalists to repeat and for people to understand, have absolutely nothing to do with the actual cause of the housing crisis.
	Because the housing crisis has been deliberately caused because that's where profits come from.
	It's a very simple point, but if you flood the market with your commodity, that commodity is not going to be worth as much.
	Right.
	Okay, so I know one aspect of this.
	I know that the main building developers, people like Barrett, I suppose, and the big ones, they have a massive land bank which they can develop at any time, but which they deliberately don't because they want to keep scarcity.
	So that's one example.
	Are there any others of how this happens? - Oh gosh.
	I think we'd have to go back at that.
	I've kind of got my mind on something else at the moment.
	Well that's all right, no.
	They certainly have, they are land banking, they have enormous, they also have permission to build vast quantities of, you know, they've actually got planning permission to build on that land as well.
	The whole discourse of scarcity, I mean, every time, last time I went to, I think last year I spoke at the Battle of Ideas, which I think Toby goes to and stuff, and I was asked to speak about, you know, what can we do about our housing crisis?
	And again and again I heard planners sort of saying, oh, you know, we need to deregulate planning.
	There's a parallel here, I think, with the kind of the regulatory bodies on medicines and health care products in this country have for the last few years.
	People like Dr. June Rain, who is now Dame Dr. June Rain, has been speaking at conferences organized by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, arguing about deregulation.
	So the scarcity argument, the scarcity that there's not enough land, there's not enough planning permission, the idea, the discourse of scarcity always operates to get rid of regulation and that of course allows you to build products and build commodities that make more money.
	That was ultimately the cause of the Grenfell Tower fire, which we also wrote a report on.
	Ah yes, yeah, Grenfell.
	Yeah.
	On the morning of the Grenfell Tower fire, a whole bunch of people with the Red Tape Initiative met on that actual morning to discuss deregulating EU policy on Many things.
	The type of housing you can build, but particularly about the safety of the house in relation to fire.
	I don't know whether they went ahead with the meeting or whether they looked out their window and saw the house on fire.
	But before that, many, many people in and outside of government have been calling for increased deregulation because this was repeatedly blamed for the scarcity, the lack of housing, the housing crisis.
	So the housing crisis serves both, ultimately it serves profits, but also serves to change policy as well.
	Right, yes.
	Am I right in thinking that the cladding on the side of the Grenfell Tower, which was supposed to be, it was put on because of eco-regulations, and yet it was not flame retardant.
	It was actually the opposite.
	The fact that we've got thousands of high-rise buildings in this country which are clad, which have been fitted with cladding, has got a lot to do with Green lobbying, arguing that...
	That it will improve the thermal performance of the building, it will reduce bills on heating for residents and so on and so forth.
	That's the argument put forward.
	The actual Grenfell Tower recladding actually had nothing to do with that at all.
	If you look through the documents and the policies leading up to that, in 2009, kind of towards the end of the last global financial crisis, a proposal was put forward by an architectural Company practice at the request of Kensington and Chelsea Council to look at what to do with the area.
	And they suggested that they would knock down the entire estate, the Silchester Estate and the, what's the estate it's on, and Grenfell Tower itself because it was unsightly and it would reduce the profit margins or the price of the houses that they wanted to build around there and in that area.
	It deliberately cited Grenfell Tower as being unsightly and therefore as as 70s post-war concrete tower blocks, which are kind of demonized in this country in the way they're not at all on the continent, as depressing prices in the area that you could charge for homes.
	So originally it was going to be knocked down.
	Unfortunately, the investors around that time, 2009, were not too sure about investing in such a huge project.
	So they came up with a compromise, and that was to clad it.
	And all the planning permission and the applications for planning permission that are made around that time And the response of the councillors afterwards, the head of the council, always cited it as a blight, a visual blight to the area and of depressing the kind of the quality of the air, by which I mean the profits that can be made from the houses there.
	So it was actually done as a cosmetic thing, primarily.
	From what I know, because I know people who live around there, we'd actually done a walk around that estate exactly a year before I met the architect.
	Who was not at all pleased with the cladding itself.
	He thought it was incredibly unsightly.
	It didn't fit in.
	But the residents in there, they really disliked it.
	Not simply because of the actual disruption to their lives of constructing it, but it made the windows very, very small.
	The windows were kind of like a lot of modern windows.
	They only opened a tiny little bit.
	And it made the place very hot.
	So I don't think it did anything to improve the conditions of living in the house at all.
	It was done as a cosmetic adjustment to the appearance of the garden.
	in anticipation of building more very expensive buildings around it.
	You know, Kensington and Chelsea is an incredibly upmarket area, but that part of it is not, and they wanted to change it.
	And that's primarily why all estate demolition, council housing estate demolition is done in London.
	These council estates sit in very central land, and the land they're built on is worth an absolute fortune.
	Yeah.
	We could, of course, do a whole episode on Grenfell, but it's kind of been eclipsed.
	You can invite me back later and I can talk about it with you.
	Well, yeah, but it has been eclipsed, unfortunately, by the utter insanity of what's... so give me the...
	Spell it out.
	Tell me about the real reason for the pandemic and for this rebadging of all manner of other deaths, Covid deaths and the Great Deception.
	What's behind it all?
	That's an easy question to answer.
	Good.
	Let me introduce my book a little bit.
	This is my book.
	It's reversed there, isn't it?
	So it doesn't work.
	It's called The Road to Fascism for a Critique of the Global Biosecurity State.
	So my point in writing this book was to see, to answer the question, does the word fascism Which is a very difficult word, I'll get to that in a minute.
	Illuminate what is happening to the Western democracies at the moment, Western neoliberal democracies.
	I was very struck that, I resisted using this word when I was looking at the extraordinary level of state violence that had gone on through these last few years.
	I started writing this book, I finished writing the series of articles that you generously talked about, there's about two dozen of them, in around about October 2021.
	And I took six months off to work on more of our architect's sort of work.
	And over that period, we went into a very, very dark period.
	You had what was going on in Canada over the winter there, when Justin Trudeau was calling a state of emergency, disbanding Parliament, and sending in incredibly nasty looking and very violent police and what looked like paramilitaries to assault the Freedom Front.
	Possibly imported paramilitaries.
	Yeah, I mean, they looked terrifying people and the kind of the violence which was done there.
	You also had this really appalling kind of counter demonstrations being done by the kind of the woke left, if you like, where you had these little kids coming out and holding up banners telling truckers and their families who were facing destitution, unemployment because of the vaccine mandates to sort of check their privilege.
	So I was very struck about this.
	This new ideology, this new woke ideology, which was very deliberately being deployed not only by Justin Trudeau, by Jekynda Ardern, by Emmanuel Macron, by a lot of these countries which were at the very forefront of imposing these biosecurity restrictions.
	They were using this ideology to implement it and to get rid of, to quash any kind of dissent.
	I imagine you, like all of us, were called right-wing conspiracy theorists right from the very beginning.
	I think I was called far-right, probably.
	Far-right conspiracy theorists, yeah.
	I probably just got right-wing and all that sort of stuff.
	So I was very struck that...
	There was this enormous cohesion between changes to government legislation, the complete erasure of our human rights, our freedoms and rights, under the most sort of tenuous justifications, incredible rise in state violence that was going on in France, in Austria we were, I think in February
	In 2022, we were getting very close to where if Austrians hadn't been vaccinated, they couldn't even leave their home and they were threatened if they didn't pay the enormous fines that they were threatened with, if any police officer stopped them, they would actually go to prison.
	You had Australia, you know, kind of a liberal country, building these quarantine centres in which people who entered into them were basically turned into, well, they were removed of all their rights altogether.
	They were well-appointed quarantine centres.
	They weren't quite like the ones going on in China.
	But when they entered into them, they had the same absence.
	They lost their citizenship altogether.
	They became effectively refugees within their own country.
	So I was looking at this around the world, and I was really scared.
	I was really thinking, this is going to come here.
	I mean, strangely, the UK kind of emerged from all this.
	It hasn't emerged from it, but at that period we were one of the most likely regulated countries at all.
	We had vaccine mandates on obviously care home workers and it was being threatened against NHS workers, but it had meant as sort of a general thing, which is what was going on in Germany and so on.
	And I began to think Is this the return of fascism?
	I'd always resisted using this word.
	But when I started to employ it, I was very, very struck by how people dismissed it straight away.
	They were kind of scared of the term.
	You know that fascism, even nowadays, the woke will call you every easternism at the drop of a hat without justification or proof.
	But there's one word which if you use, if you use the word fascism, you get dismissed as somehow being not worthy of, you know, you're not a serious person.
	It's a sort of an insult.
	And when I started to use it to talk about this, to describe this, to say, if this isn't fascism, what is it?
	People got very upset about the word, and they said, this is ridiculous.
	Fascism is something that's happened in the past.
	Find a new word to talk about this.
	I am, by training, an art historian, and that period of historical fascism was my specialty, is my specialty.
	And the more I started looking at the parallels between, for instance, to take in a comparison, between the biosecurity regulations made under the Third Reich between 1933 and say 1941 or the beginning of the war 1939 there is enormous parallels between the biosecurity regulations made in the UK at the time and there's obviously a lot worse ones in in other countries.
	That is not only the removal of our rights and freedoms, not only the division of people into vaccinated and unvaccinated, but precisely through this biosecurity dimension.
	It was done around Health.
	It was done around a discourse of disease, of protection, of isolation and of division of society into those who met the requirements of biosecurity, the protection of the state and the people from what was considered a dangerous disease, whether that disease was Jews or whether it was the unvaccinated.
	When I started to talk about this, I immediately got denounced as disgraceful.
	In fact, the Architects Registration Board which looks at rules over all architectural practices, actually accused me and our company of being anti-semitic, for daring to make any comparison between the present and the past.
	And we were subjected to a six-month investigation.
	Fortunately, we got Francis Hoare, who I think you might know, to defend us, and he scared them off pretty quickly.
	Part of our defense was like, when did it suddenly become illegal to draw lessons from history?
	The big word, I don't know if you've read my book, I think you read the excerpts from the preface the other day, didn't you?
	Which was very generously published by Toby in the Daily Skeptic.
	I begin with this word, unprecedented.
	We were kept from being told that what we were facing was something which is unprecedented.
	And as a historian, I don't believe that's the case at all.
	I think the history has always got to tell us about something.
	When people say this has never happened before, it's because they don't want you to think about it.
	They don't want you to draw any comparisons.
	And I think the past has always got something to tell us.
	So I began to investigate this This thesis, if you like, is this a form of fascism?
	How is it different to historical fascism?
	It undoubtedly is, but can, primarily, because it's not an academic question, can the historical fascism, what actually happened, how it happened, tell us about what's happening now?
	And my book is basically the argument to say, yes, I think it can.
	Tell me a bit about those biosecurity regulations in Nazi Germany.
	Well at the end of my book I've actually got an appendix which is called Laws for the Protection of People and State and I start off with several pages worth, dozens of them, in which I look at the progressive removal of the rights.
	The first thing The Nazi government, the Third Reich government did, was get rid of political opponents, but then of course it turned to Jews.
	Not just Jews, to anyone who was questioning of the state.
	You know, one of its laws, I think it was called the...
	The editor's law, I think, made it illegal, punishable of course, and under then the punishments were severe, to write anything or publish anything in a magazine which either made fun of a government official or questioned or was deemed to put anything ...to say anything that put the state in danger, which threatened the security of this state.
	And this is exactly the same sort of discourse that we hold, that when you disagree or when you question anything said by Matt Hancock or all the other liars in government, simply by questioning it, You were endangering lives.
	And when you make that connection that questioning kills people, and I'm sure you, like me, have been told that, your questions are endangering lives, then you set up something which is very similar to what was done in Nazi Germany at the time.
	And not just in Nazi Germany, across fascist states in Europe.
	We should never forget that by 1942, There were millions and millions of people in Europe who had been living under fascist governments for over a decade and more.
	The history of fascism is a very interesting one and it didn't end after the Second World War.
	Portugal and Spain We waited well into the 70s.
	I think fascism is something which is particular to Western democracies.
	I think it comes out of the failure of Western democracies and it comes out of capitalist economies.
	It doesn't come out of socialist ones, it comes out of capitalist ones.
	And I think it's got to tell us, I think it has the potential to tell us a lot about what is happening now.
	Western democracies now, Western capitalism is under enormous pressures.
	There was a huge crisis, obviously there was the global financial crisis in 2008, and nine which we have never recovered from and there was the repo market the repurchase agreement market crisis in september 2019 i've done a bit of research into what happened six months in six months before anyone really have heard of covet and certainly a long time before a lockdown happened
	And that was in September 2019 when there was this enormous spike in repo market exchange rates.
	And BlackRock and the Federal Reserve and the Bank of Intermediate Settlements, all the documents are there and they all got together and they all talked about what are we going to do.
	That's the first time they used this word.
	Unprecedented.
	They said they needed unprecedented monetary policy.
	It wasn't about a virus.
	And what they started doing is pumping huge, and I'm talking tens of trillions of dollars, into this collapsing financial market.
	An argument has been made by people who know much more about economics than I do that lockdown was imposed To insulate, this is the term that BlackRock uses.
	You know who BlackRock is?
	They obviously, they've got all the most powerful companies in the world.
	They were the ones who actually advised the Federal Reserve of the US to take this monetary, this unprecedented monetary policy.
	They said, we need to insulate the real economy, the economy of retail, of buying and selling between small businesses and people.
	We need to insulate it from this vast Amounts of money that we're going to magic into existence.
	And if we don't do that, we're going to use hyperinflation.
	What I find fascinating about BlackRock's document is that they use historical examples of hyperinflation.
	You know the one that they use.
	They don't just talk about Argentina.
	They talk about Weimar Germany in the 1920s.
	So what we've got now is something very similar.
	Of course, we're in a very different economic situation.
	We've got a very different world.
	Globalization has gone on.
	We've got different technologies and so on, so I'm not saying that our economy is the same, but we've got economic conditions of crisis, of hyperinflation, of a crisis in Western capitalism, which is very similar to what we had in the 1920s and 1930s.
	You've even got people, and recently I've been, I like to listen to a great range of things, and two of the economists I've been listening to recently, one is Richard Wolff, who's a professor of economics, he's taught at Yale, City University, New York and the Sorbonne, so an eminent economist who is saying that this merger of government, state and corporate interests now is reproducing, replicating the conditions that you had under fascism.
	Fascism is not what people think.
	It's not simply about leaders.
	It's about this merger between the state and private business.
	Someone else even more interesting, I think, Ray Dalio, who's the founder of the world's biggest hedge fund.
	Not someone who's into conspiracy theories, certainly not a socialist or anything like this.
	He's saying that we've now reached the end of a debt cycle which began when the dollar was taken away from the gold standard in the late 1970s.
	We've got zero interest rates at zero and he said the last time this happened was in 1932.
	So there's a lot of people who know a lot more about the economy than I do who are arguing that Not only are we in a very, very dangerous place and there is going to be an enormous, they don't even call it a depression, they call it an economic crisis.
	What I've been trying to do, because I'm not an economist, is to understand how to understand this enormous change in, not just our legislation, but the relation, the social contract if you like, the relationship between Populations between us and the state, our human rights, our patterns of behavior, our culture, our ideologies, the way we react to each other, our freedom of speech.
	How is this, if you understand this in relation to a crisis in capitalism and not a health crisis, does that tell us a little bit more about what's going on?
	And I believe it does, and that's basically what my book is about.
	Tell me a bit about the repo market's collapse of 2019.
	I don't really understand it.
	Presumably you've begun to acquaint yourself with what it all means.
	I've acquainted myself with it.
	I'm not an economist.
	I admit that in the book.
	I've been looking at the work of Fabio Vigi, who's an Italian critical theorist who's written about this more.
	But there are other people, you know, people have been sending me links to other economists, again, people who do understand this better.
	And they all kind of point to this huge rise in interest rates, happened to something like 2.5 to 10% in a matter of hours in September 2019.
	The repo market repurchase agreements are loans which are usually paid back the next day.
	At an enormous, sorry, at an increased rate.
	It's kind of complex, but they rose to become what they did.
	I think by 2008, they actually made up of 40% in 2009, 40% of all loans in the US.
	I think in 2020, they represented something like $41 trillion.
	So we're talking about vast amounts of money.
	Unfortunately hedge funds started getting to them and a lot of people like Morgan Stanley pulled out of this market.
	Interest rates spiraled and basically the whole market started to collapse.
	The Bank of International Settlements, which is the sort of central bank of all central banks, it published an annual report in June 2019.
	And it begins with these remarkable words.
	I've never read anything like this.
	This is read by every central bank and kind of bankers and investors across the world.
	It started with the words, it was too good to be true.
	And what they were referring to, the it, it was too good to be true, was the recovery from the global financial crisis of 2008, 2009.
	They said, you know, a storm is coming and we need to do something about this.
	Over the next month, July and August, Blackrock publishes It's an unprecedented policy, a monetary policy.
	The repo market spike hits, the markets collapse.
	They're looking at a financial crisis which is many times worse than that in 2008, which they only just survived.
	And basically, the Federal Reserve of the U.S.
	adopted BlackRock's suggestions.
	The central banks from all the G7 nations met up, and in September 2019, the administration of Donald Trump starts off with the, you know, the vaccine preparation.
	The following month, Bill Gates, you know, has his famous, what is it called, you know, that kind of, I can't remember what it's called now, the famous, you know, they get together and do a kind of a Well, not an experiment, wasn't it?
	It was kind of a test run.
	Oh, what, the Spars, you mean?
	Yes, because they're based on the SARS, but with a virus which is based on SARS.
	The John Hopkins thing?
	Yes, the John Hopkins thing.
	Sorry, what is it called?
	Yeah, it's called SARS.
	Yeah, and they say it's going to be a coronavirus which is based on SARS, but it's going to be much more transmissible with people with low symptoms.
	No, no, we invented this thing called asymptomatic transmission.
	So, a few months before this crisis hit, this global financial crisis hit, there's the anticipation of it.
	When it does hit, BlackRock makes its proposals.
	The G7 nations get together to discuss it.
	And then, only then, do they start to prepare for this pandemic.
	And then eventually the pandemic is declared by the World Health Organization in tandem with the World Economic Forum.
	Then in March 2022, the lockdown happens across the Western world and at that point the US Federal Reserve starts handing out, I think over the next, between then and over the next three months, they hand out $11.7 trillion sort of interest rates and 0.25% to Morgan Stanley, Citibank and all the other big guys.
	If you look at this sort of stuff, either it's the biggest coincidence in the history of the world Or they are linked.
	I'm not an economist, I'm simply reporting.
	I'm going through these documents and saying what they say themselves.
	And again, to go back to your earlier point, is there any newspaper in the world that's reported on this?
	No.
	It should at least be reported on.
	So, yes, I almost think that it's too much for most people to take on board.
	When you present them, Clear evidence that in 2019 they were war-gaming precisely the pandemic that, by extraordinary coincidence, just a matter of luck I guess, emerged in 2020.
	They just go, well, people are always doing pandemic preparedness, you know, it's what the authorities do to protect us and so It's true.
	A few years ago, there's a very good book called Microbial Storms.
	Unfortunately, I don't think it's been translated.
	It's a French book, which is referred to by Giorgio Agamben, in which he looks at the way that over the last decade and more, these organizations have been, in a way, preparing us for a pandemic.
	And they're looking at various Various ways in which they can react to it.
	I mean, at the moment, the big treaty that's in preparation by the World Health Organization is the Pandemic Preparedness and Response Treaty, which the WHO, the World Health Organization, is really pushing, and which most of the neoliberal economies of the West have signed up to.
	And they want to make, most of them, including the UK, want to make it a legally binding treaty.
	Now the relationship between the Who and the sovereignty of nation-states is a complex one.
	I don't think it's ever going to be that there's no way the Who could impose it.
	What I think it will do, and I guess I'm trying to get around to answering your question about what I think is actually happening, is what we're fundamentally seeing at the moment is that the nation-state The governments of nation-state are being surpassed and replaced by international technocracies, which form a kind of global government.
	The old models of this are things like the EU and the United Nations, but the new models are things like the World Economic Forum and the World Health Organization.
	When, whoever's going to be our Prime Minister in a few months time, because I wouldn't give Liz Truss much of her time, it doesn't really make any difference, does it?
	But if they say, well, the World Health Organization, we've signed this treaty with them and they have decided that the next, you know, whatever they fabricate into existence, requires you to have a vaccine mandate or to wear a mask or to be locked down, they can They can depoliticize a fundamentally political decision.
	Well, they can depoliticize what is a governmental decision.
	And they can say, well, if they choose to, if it suits their policies, they can say, well, we're doing this, we're going to impose this, and it's not in our hands.
	This is a technological decision.
	A lot of the new programs, programs of the Great Reset, Digital ID, Central Bank Digital Currency, Universal Basic Income, Environmental, social, corporate governance, all those sort of things.
	They're all being implemented as we speak.
	I imagine most people won't have heard of them.
	They might have heard of digital ID, some of them have heard of CBDC, but the huge range of things.
	They wouldn't have heard of what the Internet of Bodies is, or the Internet of Things.
	They wouldn't be aware of the extent of facial recognition technology.
	These are all being implemented outside of any democratic process.
	They're not even being debated in Parliament.
	But if you look at what's actually going on, they are being implemented by technocratic committees.
	And they're simply being presented to us as upgrades in the technological capabilities of the state.
	But what they're actually going to do is fundamentally change the social contract that we've got within the West.
	We're no longer going to be living in democracies.
	And when the government can say, well, the WHO, or the WEF, or whoever it is, has recommended that we do this, This is apolitical.
	Throughout the pandemic, I was very struck that people were saying Covid-19 is above politics.
	And we saw it demonstrated with the collaboration between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party and the Green Party and everyone else.
	If anything, Labour and Green were even more part of the Covid faithful or the crew of covidians.
	They want to depoliticise what are fundamental changes to the politics of the West.
	So I think we're moving from a parliamentary system democratic decision-making accountability into a technocracy.
	And of course, technocracy has been a very strong part of historical fascism.
	Yes, well we've all read Brave New World, which was written by the brother of somebody who was intimately involved in the first flush of the technocracy movement.
	So he knew, Aldous Huxley knew where he spoke.
	Italy has got a long history of technocracies beyond fascism.
	I mean, it's only with the recent election that, you know, Mario Draghi, who oversaw, well there was two, they had two prime ministers, didn't they, through the last two years, and they were both appointed, met the head of technocratic Parliament by their president.
	So they've got a long history of doing that.
	I mean, Mario Draghi was the former president of the Central Bank of Europe as well, wasn't he?
	So I think it's a move away from parliamentary democracy to technocracies, and particularly international ones, which are It's threatening to turn national governments, those we vote for, who are accountable to us, to a certain extent, at least in principle, into mere implementers of decisions which are made at a global scale by international technocracies.
	And I think that's where the World Economic Forum is very important and shouldn't be dismissed as the way that some liberal commentators say.
	People like Naomi Klein like to kind of make fun of it and stuff, of course she herself is a complete lockdown fanatic.
	The WF is proposing a new model of global governance which is based on stakeholder capitalism.
	You can see there's something like 1,112 of the biggest companies, banks and financial institutions of the world who form this technocracy.
	It's on their website, it's all there, you just have to look at it.
	And stateholder capitalism is going to be a form of governance in which you have unelected representatives of national governments working with board members and CEOs of these corporations and of these banks to make decisions which national governments will simply implement.
	And I think what we're going through at the moment, why we're in this sort of calm before the storm, this sort of phony war, as I've called it, again, comparing to the 1940s, why these regulations have been lifted is that what we're at the moment going through is they are forming this form of stakeholder capitalism and this new global form of governments.
	And that, I think, is very, very concerning.
	And in a way, my book is trying to warn against that.
	Yes, yes.
	I mean, once, presumably, they implement CBDCs, that's it.
	That's game over.
	Because you won't be able to live without playing by the government's rulebook.
	Yes, and CBDCs, Central Bank Digital Currency, can't be implemented unless they first put in Digital ID.
	I think digital ID is the gateway, the gateway drug, if you like, towards a properly totalitarian world.
	I'm using that term, you know, not lightly.
	When they can control all of your transactions and everything else will come across without, you know, universal basic income for the, I think there's a, there's an estimate by some UK corporate, It says that by 2030, you know, this is the agenda 2030, nine in ten British workers will have to be retrained or reskilled.
	Universal basic income will come in and kind of, I think, be used as an extension of kind of universal credit to keep people completely compliant if you are dependent on the state in that way.
	CBDC obviously will, I mean, that will take longer to put in, maybe four, maybe five years, but when it does come in They've got complete control over us.
	I think one of the things I've been, one of the things my book is arguing against is that a lot of people from the, I don't use this as an insult, I use it as a description, the libertarian right if you like, libertarians, People, for instance, like Jonathan Sumption, who defines himself as libertarian.
	I think a lot of people have tried to describe what is going on.
	This enormous increase in state power, the lockdowns, the removal of our human rights, and also the rise in censorship, not simply by the state, but by each other.
	The refusal of people to speak with each other, to self-censor themselves.
	As being modelled, as a form of communism, if you like, modelled on that in the Republic of China.
	It's undoubted, I think it's absolutely certain, that the lockdowns imposed in the West were modelled, if we believe Neil Ferguson, on what had done in China.
	I think that's unquestionable.
	And we can see at the moment, God knows how many, they've got 60 million people locked down at the moment, haven't they?
	The conditions in China at the moment are absolutely appalling.
	And we have certainly copied that.
	And the things like the social credit system, which really, it's been in place in China for a while, but it really kicked off with the first lockdown.
	And it's now being used to control people's movements, their bank accounts, their access to their homes, and so on and so forth.
	They do have an extraordinary level of totalitarian control over their population of a billion people in China at the moment, certainly in the cities.
	That's undoubtable, I think.
	But there are other models, I think, of what is actually happening over here.
	We don't have a form of state capitalism.
	I think we have a very different economy in the West.
	We also have a very different ideology, if you like.
	Our notion of freedom, which was really invented in the West after the Second World War, I think, The idea that freedom is the primary value in our politics.
	It's going to take a while to weed us off that, although we've been taken off it incredibly quickly over the last two years.
	I don't think we can simply say we are going the way of China.
	But it's undoubtedly, I think we're going into a different type of totalitarianism.
	And I think it's for that reason that I think fascism is interesting and can tell us about the nature of that, because fascism came out of an equivalent crisis in Europe in capitalism.
	That was the point I wanted to make.
	Yeah.
	We are, though, creating equivalents to that.
	The social credit system in China, there's a kind of a perception that it only applies to individuals.
	People have to wear their mask, they're not allowed to smoke on a train, and they get a kind of a social credit store based on their behavior.
	But that's actually not its primary function.
	It is used in that way, and it's certainly used that way at the moment under lockdown.
	But it's primarily being used to control corporations and businesses.
	At the moment, one of the key programs of Agenda 2030 is the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, and that itself is determined by the Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance criteria.
	Now, it's called UN in the same way that our You know, we call the NHS Test and Track.
	It wasn't NHS at all, it was run by, you know, kind of different corporations and so on.
	Those criteria are set by people like BlackRock, MainShare, StateStreet and stuff like that.
	Yes, ESG comes from BlackRock basically, doesn't it?
	It's the only big effort.
	So these are ways in which any business, any corporation, any company, it's access to to capital, its preferential treatment through policies and so on, are being determined under the umbrella of the UN by organizations like BACROC.
	And that in a way is, I think, a model of the difference between what is happening in China, where you've got this sort of state system, this extraordinarily powerful authoritarian government, and the way it's going to be done in the West.
	But I think the two can illuminate each other.
	In a bit, I'm going to ask you what, if anything, we can do about it.
	But first of all, I just wanted to go into a bit more detail about, to backtrack a bit, and talk about all the different ways that we used to turn what was a routine viral respiratory infection, if indeed it was even that, I mean, if even it's real.
	How the entire system Both the medical system and the media system and everything else was transformed into this facilitator for the fascism you described.
	What things happened?
	What things happened or how was it done?
	How was it done?
	Tell me the mechanisms.
	One of the guides, I think, especially towards the end of my book and understanding what's been going on, has been the German political theorist Hannah Arendt, who you probably know was an escapee from the Third Reich.
	She wrote her book The Origins of Totalitarianism and she describes, she talks about what surprised her most in the first years of the Third Reich.
	I think she left in kind of in the first year but when it sort of came down and she realized very quickly she had to escape from Germany if she could and she was successful.
	Fortunately.
	She said what she was surprised at, what shocked her morally, what challenged her morally, was that, was not the behavior of, you know, the kind of the Nazi thugs going around beating people up, or the speeches, the extraordinary violence of the speeches of the officials, it was the people she knew
	from across political and cultural spectrum all fell in line extraordinarily and like that started changing their opinions and simply following the herd and in a way not simply being forced into it by changes to government policy or regulations or brutality but regulating themselves bringing themselves into line with the prevailing wind
	And she describes this as, she says, Germany during the 12 years of the Third Reich lived under a moral collapse.
	The people experienced a moral collapse.
	It's not a word I use very much, morals, but the last two chapters of my book are actually devoted to this, trying to understand this moral collapse.
	I think we've, without a shadow of a doubt, in the West, and particularly in this country, but across the West, undergone a moral collapse, a failure.
	And I think there are a lot of reasons for that.
	It's been a long time coming.
	I think the neoliberalisation of our institutions, all the institutions, both civic, governmental, social, which could have provided, and political, which could have provided a forum in which to resist what has happened, have been almost erased by 40 years of neoliberalism.
	I think woke ideology, which has created, which has normatized censorship, no platforming, You know, all that sort of stuff, has created a kind of an ideology in which behavior that only a few years ago would have been considered completely unacceptable and completely ridiculous, frankly, have been embraced by people who should know better.
	People in positions where they are expected to hold the state to account.
	Writers, journalists, scientists, historians, political commentators.
	They have been terrorized by a mixture of woke ideology and social media, which are absolutely linked together, into conforming.
	So part of my book is obviously about the reasons for this moral collapse, and also recording it as well, because one of the things that's happened at the moment is everyone's forgetting what they did, aren't they?
	People are sort of going around saying, oh, it wasn't me.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	Yeah, even Piers Morgan is saying this.
	Piers Morgan, yeah.
	And my book makes a... I've recorded quite a lot of the incredible The absolute incredible things are said by very prominent journalists across the political spectrum.
	From the Guardian, to the Telegraph, to the Daily Mail, everyone said it.
	And they were saying the most incredible things.
	They were almost calling on people on the street to attack the unvaccinated.
	That we were murderers and killers, that our children shouldn't go to school, that we should be not given medical treatment.
	You know, real fascist, again, real fascist behavior.
	We have gone through a moral collapse and at the moment we're sitting terrified, waiting what's coming next.
	And I'm very worried about this moment because across the world, particularly in this country, across the world There was, even in this country, a big reaction to what was going on.
	In the spring and summer of 2021, there were between half a million and a million people on the streets of London and across England protesting about this.
	It did very little because the media refused to cover it.
	Parliament refused to discuss it.
	Government just pretended it didn't happen.
	But it did happen.
	I was on those marches.
	And those protests are still going on across Europe and around the world, less so in this country.
	I'm very worried that when the next phase, the next stage of the global biosecurity state kicks into gear, which I imagine will happen this winter, we are totally unprepared for it.
	Because people are, they're embarrassed, they're ashamed, as we were after the Second World War, we're ashamed of what we've done and we don't want to face up to what's going on.
	Even the people who have been some of the most, you know, this is not a criticism, who have been at the forefront, you know, public figures of resisting biosecurity restrictions and lockdowns and so on and so forth, there's a kind of a tendency at the moment to look back on there is no justice, there was no justification for lockdown.
	And to look at the vaccinations.
	That's in the past.
	The vaccinations are still going on, where they should be resisted, and I really support that effort to do that.
	But there is a reluctance, I think, to look at what's coming next.
	And it is coming, without a shadow of a doubt.
	And we need to get prepared for it, because that's going to make what happened over the last two years look like nothing, I think.
	No, I entirely agree with you.
	There's certainly no room for resting on one's laurels.
	No.
	And I agree that the vaccines and the... I mean, I'm not going to name names, although I wish I were more spiteful, but I can think of a certain conservative commentator sort of boasting about how he was one of the first people to question the lockdowns and I'm thinking, so bloody what?
	Lockdowns were just a tiny, tiny facet of a much bigger war on us, which you are contriving to ignore from your cosy position in the House of Lords.
	And it's just, it's not just about the vaccine.
	And this is another thing that I've noticed that
	People who were sort of red-pilled about the vaccine and about lockdowns have somehow surrendered the pass on issues like Ukraine because another thing you sort of hinted at but didn't quite mention is that one of the ways that they solve problems like this besides all the measures you've mentioned is they start another war to distract people from this and it's clear that Ukraine is serving that function at the moment and yet
	Some people who recognise the monstrosity of the whole vaccine scam are completely blind to what's going on over Ukraine, and are blind to what's going on with the financial system, and are blind to what's going on with the deliberately engineered food shortages around the world.
	So I agree with you.
	So what do you think is coming next?
	Do you want to make a prediction?
	The World Health Organization is already recommending mandatory masks over the winter.
	I don't know if they'll go to the vaccination program now, it's been so discredited, particularly with the Pfizer documents finally coming out, and the vast increase in deaths, heart attacks and so on and so forth.
	Just talking to people around me, I was in the butcher's yesterday and my butcher, he kind of said to me, you'll be proud of me Simon, I didn't take my booster.
	And there was a woman in the shop, she said, should I take mine?
	I went, don't take it.
	So, you know, before that, everyone, everyone was doing it.
	I think there is a kind of a, that's just an anecdotal thing, but I think that's a problem.
	I don't think we're going to go back to that.
	It will continue, but I don't think that's going to be the next, the next campaign, if you like.
	The next campaign is going to be digital ID, because I don't think any of it can go forward without digital ID.
	CB, Central Bank Digital Currency Roadwork without digital ID.
	Universal Bakery.
	All those things come from that.
	So I think that's going to be the next great big thing that's going to come in.
	How will they push that?
	What form will this take?
	I don't know.
	I don't really know.
	I mean, like, for example, when you go to the supermarket now, and you use one of those self-checkout things, there's a camera recording you, recording your transaction, which I find very intrusive, and nobody asked me whether I wanted this, whether my supermarket, you know, which we've been trained to think of as part of the private sector.
	Yeah.
	But they're not, are they?
	The private and public are now merged.
	Yeah, completely, yeah.
	Yeah, so I'm very aware of the fact that I'm being filmed.
	It's not just, you know, London has got the highest level of closed-circuit TV cameras in the world, but this is beyond this.
	Every time you go into a supermarket, there's a camera recording you.
	And I imagine the way they'll do it is just one day, we'll wake up and it would have just gone boom, like that.
	Money will be, cash will be withdrawn.
	We can only use digital currency.
	And you can only use digital currency if it is it is validated by some form of digital ID.
	I don't think we're going to simply have like they had before the kind of the NHS COVID pass or something like that.
	I think that was useful for a moment to introduce the idea.
	I think it's simply going to go through that you will not have all your Our level of access to different areas of the global biosecurity state will be slowly, slowly shut down.
	To travel, to then to buy food, then to get a job, then to get healthcare.
	There'll be all these kind of little increments, I think, and eventually we'll simply...
	Convenience breeds compliance.
	And the new generation has been brought up on convenience, hasn't it?
	Oh yeah.
	And when you say, are you sure you want to hand over all this stuff?
	I mean, I just read the other day that in next year, I was thinking I must go away before this happens, the EU, if you get into the EU, you're going to have to put your fingerprints.
	Yeah, when's that starting?
	I think it's May or something like that.
	I mean, they've already got that in the US.
	When I was in Canada and getting into the US, I was like, you want to have my fingerprints?
	I thought that only happened when he got arrested, but effectively you are being arrested.
	So I don't think it will be a great big wave like that.
	I think we've now been shocked so much with this sort of the shock doctrine.
	I think the ID thing will go in little increments.
	It'll be through, do you want this convenience?
	The current generation is so wedded to convenience, and they believe everything their phones tell them.
	They will simply go, yes, it's more convenient.
	And then it will be, you can't shop in a supermarket unless you've got some form of digital ID.
	But I imagine CBDC, when that comes in, when they withdraw cash, and you can't exist in the economy without it, that would be a big shock.
	You've got the smartest people in the world working on this.
	I'm just trying to keep up on what they're doing.
	To answer your question, I think the first thing we've got to do, the big, big thing we've got to do, is block Digital Nike.
	We've just got to say no to that, because once that comes in, everything else is going to flow like a domino effect.
	Yes.
	Our political representatives, who aren't at all, when do you think It is the point in their careers when they realise that they are nothing but puppets of these supranational bodies, and that they have no autonomy whatsoever.
	They must all know this, but when does it happen?
	Through my work with architects of social housing, I met quite a lot of politicians, both at council level and MPs and so on, and ministers.
	I haven't got a very high opinion of them.
	They seem to be people who do not have any principles at all.
	It's not whether I disagree with their principles, they don't seem to have it.
	They seem to be only interested in getting into power.
	They kind of constantly justify every compromise they make by saying, well, until I get into power, I can't make a decision on something.
	And then, as you say, they get into power and they realise they're not in power.
	I think it's significant that a lot of MPs, including Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, both were saying, oh, no, no, no, I was always against lockdown.
	I think the fact that they're worried that an accountancy is coming, an accounting of their behavior is coming, shows that they don't actually realize the full extent to which they're not the ones in control.
	They have nothing to worry about.
	The people who are in control are controlling them.
	And that's kind of what I'm saying about that.
	There's very few leaders in the West at the moment who are not in, you know, Who have not signed up to Agenda 2030, who are following not merely the principles of neoliberalism but of the World Economic Forum and its stakeholder capitalism.
	I guess what you're getting at is how do we hold our leaders accountable.
	I don't think that's the way this is going to happen.
	I think our politics are so compromised now Not only do nobody in England believes in them, or very few people believe in it, as a forum or as a medium for change.
	I don't think they actually do have that medium of change.
	I think, for instance, to go back to what I was saying, our resistance to digital ID and everything that's going to come from that comes from a different source of resistance.
	And I think that's in things like I believe that the Great Reset, lockdown, vaccine mandates, masking and all that, it couldn't have happened if it simply came from regulations.
	If you just simply bring in all these regulations and you put out the police, even in London where we have 50,000 or 43,000 policemen on the street or 43,000 in the service, you can't enforce regulations that people don't believe in.
	And that's, I think, important because it shows that the ideological, the cultural, the propaganda element is absolutely crucial to these fundamental changes that we're undergoing at the moment.
	And, of course, we're facing this enormous collaboration between the instruments and the institutions of this cultural and ideological hegemony that we've got at the moment.
	But it also means that if we can resist in that field, in that dimension, this is our greatest chance, I think, for change.
	In other words, what I'm saying is parliamentary politics has been too compromised.
	We need a genuine, a complete change.
	I mean, personally, I think everyone who's... I think this is the worst parliament in British history and anyone who sat on it should never be able to hold office again.
	But we're not going to get rid of that short of a kind of a serious kind of...
	A kind of social or political change.
	But I think we can still fight at this level of culture, of education, of propaganda, of ideology, or, you know, ideas, if you like.
	Because it's been shown absolutely that the people who made this happen, they realised that that was the key to compliance.
	And if we get people to stop complying, this won't happen.
	I think there's a very small chance, but I believe in that chance because it's the only thing we've got.
	I'm with you.
	I think it is the only thing we've got.
	I mean, one of the effects of the last two years is that I went from being red-pilled to black-pilled to white-pilled.
	Because, as a Christian, I think that the Bible actually is a very good manual for what's happening now.
	We are living in the beast system, and the beast system is ultimately controlled by the devil.
	A lot of what's going on now makes a lot more sense if you see this as a diabolical plot, because it is so diabolical.
	The ways that they've subverted All that is good about human beings, about our civilization, about our culture, everything of value has been inverted.
	For example, you've got the environmental movement which claims to be about saving nature.
	is actually saving the planet yeah does does the opposite i mean you know it it cuts down trees to to build wind wind wind farms and and solar panels you know which which cause a tremendous environmental damage which probably don't you know renewables don't pay in their lifetime the the environmental cost of of um All the rare earth minerals and so on that go into their manufacturing and so on and so forth.
	Just one example.
	I mean, children's charities often are actually involved in not protecting children, but enabling the child abuse.
	And housing.
	Housing institutions, which are supposed to provide people with accommodation, actually do the opposite.
	And so it goes on.
	We are in dark times.
	Okay, we're in dark times.
	I wasn't inviting you to suddenly embrace Christ with me, but one of the criticisms that is levelled against Christians is, well, you know, you're just sitting on your arses waiting for the rapture and, you know, you think it's all taken care of, it's all inevitable.
	Well, I can say for myself that I Yeah, I recognise that's a possibility, but it's not going to stop me resisting at every turn.
	Yes.
	What other... How else do you respond to tyranny and creeping tyranny other than to resist?
	But do you not worry that so few people seem to be... I mean, look, you're doing a good job.
	I'm doing my bit.
	All I think we can do, really, is get the information out there and start, you know, talking to people in butcher's queues and things like that, which is what I do all the time, and I'm sure what you do all the time.
	But it just seems so painfully slow.
	I mean, okay, look for example at the information emerging about vaccine injuries.
	How is it not clear to everyone now that the very last thing you want to do, unless you're planning on checking out soon, is to get another booster and yet people are still doing it?
	Why are people not waking up?
	I think I'm not embracing your Christianity.
	The last chapter of my book is called Humanity in Dark Times, which is a quote from It's the name of a lecture that Hannah Arendt, who I mentioned earlier on, gave in the 50s, in which she was looking back on, you know, obviously the period of the Third Reich and the Second World War and the rise of fascism and stuff.
	And she wanted to look at various people.
	And she looked at Lessing, who was the 18th century philosopher, and his theory of friendship.
	And she came up with some very interesting ideas, which I've written about here.
	She said friendship for the ancient Greeks was not what we think of it as now, a kind of an intimate thing where you meet up with a friend and you kind of discuss your, you share your kind of personal things, your personal details of your life.
	Although now we do it because of Zoom and so on.
	I don't, but I suppose people do.
	So it's a way, it's a realm of experience and intimacy which is away from the political state, the politics and so forth.
	And she said that's not what friendship was as understood by Aristotle in ancient Greece.
	He said Friendship was seen as the absolute key to the success of the polis of the city-state.
	And their notion of friendship was that it was a time when it was a space in which people precisely discussed the world in which they lived.
	They discussed with each other openly what was going on in the world.
	They discussed the state.
	They discussed, in its broadest sense, the politics.
	And one of the things that is still ongoing, but particularly was strong under lockdown, is not only were we banned from discussing the legitimacy of what was going on, the laws, the justification, the effects of it, by censorship from media outlets, from punishment from the governments, from arrests by the police, but we ourselves as a people And this is not just in the UK, but across the West.
	We censored ourselves.
	We stopped having these conversations.
	I found, and this is not unique because many, because of my writings, hundreds of people have written to me expressing similar experiences, that people that they would usually discuss absolutely everything with.
	People who've got a kind of a place, well just through friendship, or people who are kind of politicised, suddenly they didn't want to discuss it.
	They refused to discuss it because even discussing it was putting people's lives at risk.
	So there was this extraordinary level of self-censorship and I think friendship itself, this political notion of friendship, that is something which is absolutely at the heart of a democracy, was deliberately attacked by the state.
	We were banned from seeing each other.
	Our faces were covered up and blocked.
	You know, there was an absolute... I met people on these marches who were... they were husbands and wives who weren't speaking to each other.
	Families were torn apart by this.
	So I think that idea of friendship, of intimacy, of discussion of what was going on, That changed enormously quickly.
	So I think to go back to that was very important to this working.
	So I think renewing friendship, talking to people, insisting on talking to people, whether that's done in a book or a journal or writing or more importantly Interpersonally.
	Get off this bloody computer, but to start meeting up with these people and saying, no, I'm not going to pretend this didn't happen.
	Why haven't I seen you for two years?
	Why is it the last time I saw you ran away from me?
	Why have you stopped wearing your mask?
	Have you finally stopped injecting yourself?
	Please tell me that you didn't give your children this.
	Bringing these things up, doing that very un-English thing, and talking about the elephant in the room.
	We have censored ourselves.
	We have renounced our Bonds of friendship.
	Our bonds of community with each other.
	And that's been at the heart of the moral collapse, I think.
	And if we are going to recover ourselves, we need to interrogate what's happened and make us make each other aware of what's going to happen.
	Unless we reclaim our rights and duties of citizenship from the crooks to which we've handed them over so shamefully, I think.
	Yeah, so obviously I don't agree with that, and perhaps on one of those marches, little did we know it at the time, but we were marching only a few feet away from each other, and loving this extraordinary atmosphere.
	I sometimes describe it as like...
	Going back to the Garden of Eden.
	There was a sort of truth and beauty and honesty and love.
	I mean, there's any way of describing it.
	Love.
	I agree.
	These were like the best friends you'd never met.
	It was extraordinary.
	The bond I felt with those people was stronger than bonds with friends I've known for years.
	It was like a meeting of minds and a meeting of spirit.
	Yes, I agree with that.
	A lot of people online... I kind of argue when there's more of us on the street than there are on social media bitching about us, that's when change will happen.
	But people often said, well, it didn't get reported in the press, it wasn't discussed in Parliament, what's the point of doing it?
	I said it changed the people who were there.
	It gave us community with each other.
	It supported each other.
	A lot of people were under enormous pressure from their peers, from their friends, from their families, to kind of fall in line.
	And they found strength through coming on those marches.
	Those marches are about the people who went on them.
	It's a shame they're no longer going on.
	I hope they start again, as they are in other parts of Europe.
	The last thing I want to say about these marches though is that I've been on quite a lot of marches and there's always a large... often nowadays you have kind of a self... the people organizing the march have their own security.
	We had none of that.
	I was on marches where maybe one of them had a million people on it.
	It took two hours to go past a single point.
	I've never seen anything like it.
	Bigger than anything I've ever seen.
	Absolutely immense.
	And there was no official security.
	There was no violence.
	There was nothing at all.
	I didn't see any violence at all, except of course at the end when the police kind of ran into us.
	But there was no violence coming from the crowd itself.
	It was Edenic, if you want to use that kind of thing.
	It was a beautiful thing.
	And I think the reason it was so powerful is because people had been deprived of their friendships with each other, their community with each other.
	And they went there to find it.
	And if we could find that again, and make it a political force, we can resist this.
	We can do it.
	You don't need digital ID when you're in the middle of a million people who you feel completely comfortable and safe with.
	Yes, but this in a way goes back to the question I hinted at at the beginning of this chat, which is like, before this, before 2020, I wasn't a nobody exactly.
	I had a reasonable media profile, but nothing like the mix of notoriety among those who are unconvinced by me, and the extraordinary love I get from people who are on board with what I'm saying.
	It must be the same with you.
	I feel like I've been plucked out of... I don't really understand what's happened to me.
	Why is it that I can see, and you can see, and the people on the marches that can see what's going on, why can't everyone else see through it?
	That's what I don't get.
	Well, first of all, I think there's a lot more of us than is officially acknowledged.
	We're a nation of 68 million people.
	If a million of them are in London, or even half a million, that's a huge proportion of people who've actually... That isn't all the people who see through it, if you like.
	That's the people who can actually get down to a single place and do it.
	You can multiply that by many, many times to the actual number of people.
	We know that the government, when it comes out with the figures of how many people have been vaccinated, They're simply not right, are they?
	We can actually look at the real figures and realise maybe a third of the population has got no more than a single injection.
	The uptake on the third injection is very, very small compared to it.
	And it's primarily amongst elderly people who have simply been terrified.
	So I think there's a lot more than us.
	What we need to do is to get people to change recognition and awareness into action.
	that is into non-compliance, into civil disobedience, if you like, when the time comes.
	To make a...
	You know, if several million people surround Parliament and they're all saying the same thing, It is difficult to run a government.
	And if a government continues to collapse, as we've seen with the, whether it's right or wrong, but the reversal of the mini-budget and stuff, things can be changed.
	So I think, first of all, to answer your question, I think there is a greater awareness and there's definitely a growing awareness.
	Even if people don't understand, not even necessarily need to understand, the full complexity of the sort of stuff that we're discussing and other people are discussing, if they have doubts, over vaccines.
	Everyone knows that lockdown was a disaster, even if those who think it was necessary are now seeing the effects of it, even though they're told it's all about Ukraine and stuff like that.
	I think there's still a lot of compliance with our masks, unfortunately, but this is only going to grow, and I think it's important that we continue to talk, to continue to do the work that we can do, and everyone else out there.
	So I think there is a growing number of people who don't buy this.
	Why that makes me worried, though, is because I think there isn't the compliance for the next stage.
	So I think the way this next stage is going to be implemented is going to be done differently.
	In different ways, no, I agree with that.
	No, I suppose what I was inviting you to do, because look, You would never have been on my radar.
	In fact, dare I say it, you would never have been on most people's radar if it hadn't been for the events of the last two years.
	You were just a guy who was researching housing policy, for goodness sake.
	And you've just written a book, which I think is going to be really, really important.
	And you've been there, on the front line, doing absolutely amazing work.
	Do you not ever ask yourself, what the fuck?
	Why me?
	Because, I mean, I can't imagine your life up to that point was what it felt like it was leading to this moment.
	No, it hasn't changed that much.
	What's changed is the number of people reading me.
	I used to get 5,000 people reading an article, now I get 50,000 or something.
	Hopefully with this book I'll get even more coverage and thank you for allowing me to come on and discuss it.
	I loved, by the way, your quote yesterday with Toby.
	I'm going to use it on the back of the paperback.
	Simon Elmer's book hasn't a cat's hope in hell of getting published by a mainstream publisher.
	I loved it.
	That was great.
	I mean, I am having trouble sort of getting it published and, you know, I'm writing to publishers.
	Why would you want to be?
	Well, well, just because I'd like as many people as possible to read this.
	I want people who are questioning it to go, actually, this is a very serious book written by somebody who knows what they're talking about.
	It will give them strength to go, hmm, maybe I'm not going to simply get digital ID.
	Maybe when there is a demonstration I might come down and do this.
	Or maybe I'll talk to my friends and say, hey, have a read of this.
	You know, these are objects in the world and you can never underestimate what an object does.
	I'm telling you stuff you already know when it goes out there.
	You know, I want the objects in the world to get shared.
	So it's not just vanity, it's that I'd like to actually get people to do what we can do.
	This is what our job is.
	Yeah.
	Where can people buy your book?
	Just remind us of the title again, first of all.
	The title is The Road to Fascism.
	For a critique of the global biosecurity state.
	If you go on to... I have a website called Architects for Social Housing and you can go on to there and the top link there will take you to the links.
	It's available from Print on Demand from Lulu which prints and bounds it and it'll send it out to you in a week or so.
	You can also go on to my Twitter account which is And follow the kind of the research I put out there.
	And in both places... You haven't been banned yet on Twitter?
	I was banned in March and I lost a rather large account and I've been building it up since then.
	I was banned for publishing the figures from the UK Health Security Agency and summarising the information on the Pfizer documents which were being released.
	I wrote to Twitter and said, are you banning me?
	If you don't like these figures, go and have a talk with Pfizer.
	But they didn't get back to me.
	So I lost all that.
	A lot of us lost our accounts then.
	I was kind of in that medium range where I wasn't... I imagine they can't ban you.
	You could have too many people up in arms.
	No, no, no.
	I've got my account because I'm controlled opposition and I'm secretly working for the enemy.
	State opposition.
	I don't know whether you saw, there was the most fantastic thread yesterday.
	And it was up for such a short time that it had been banned by the end of the day and the person that had his Twitter account deleted.
	It was a sort of thing you could have written.
	It was fascinating.
	Somebody analysing the nature and function of Twitter and pointing out that it has no monetary value in terms of, no conventional business model in terms of advertising, Or whatever.
	That's not what Elon Musk would have been buying had he been able to buy it, if he's still able to buy it.
	It is purely a propaganda tool.
	That's its function.
	It is designed to move the dial.
	And the reason it's so important is even though it's actual, as a proportion of
	Social media users, the number of people on Twitter is tiny, but very early on it managed to get all the kind of opinion formers, the journalists and so on, and they are rewarded in the form of the dopamine hits of their artificially boosted traffic, and they are encouraged to write more shitey woke articles because look, these nobodies are suddenly made to feel important because look at all the shares they've got.
	No wonder Twitter took it down.
	Someone told me that, yes, that Twitter is where the opinion formers go.
	And even though, as you say, it's a small proportion of the actual people on social media, it has an influence beyond that.
	And it's kind of what you said about the publishing industry yesterday in relation to my book, that the publishing industry exists to create hegemony.
	I don't think you use that word.
	It does.
	But it creates, you know... Someone recently recommended I send my book to Polity Press, which is kind of in the area I kind of thought, yeah, they might do it.
	But then I looked up who their political editor was.
	He was on Twitter.
	And he is pro-woke, you know, very, very strongly.
	He's into the whole environmental fundamentalism.
	And I knew before I sent the book to him that he was going to reject it.
	And of course he did.
	I imagine he did.
	You shouldn't have given him the opportunity.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, now I've had this interview with you, I'll probably get my account deleted again.
	Well, I do hope so Simon.
	Obviously, that is part of my function.
	I knew you were from my web.
	So, have you mentioned the website where you can buy your book yet?
	Yes, architects, plural, architectsforsocialhousing.co.uk.
	And as I said, you could, on my Twitter account, which is at Simon Elmer, E-L-M-E-R, 2022.
	This is a whole new subject, but I was just, one of my One of my Oxford contemporaries who read English at the same time as me, same year, was this girl called Frances Stoner Saunders, and I remember she had sort of shortish hair at the time, and I don't know why I was aware of it because she was in a different college from me, but she has written
	A fascinating book, it came out a few years ago, on the history of the CIA manipulating art markets and things, basically inventing the modern art scam, as part of the kind of corruption of our culture.
	Are you aware of this?
	Cy Twombly, for example.
	After the Second World War with the Marshall Plan and the US's pumping huge amounts of money into Europe.
	Particularly because it was worried about the prestige of the Communist Party, particularly in places like Italy, and in France as well.
	They had to be, kind of what we were talking about, not simply an economic defence against the threat of global communism, if you like, international communism, but there also had to be a cultural validity to what they were doing.
	It's what I said before about the invention of the notion of freedom as the ultimate, the highest political value.
	That was, I think, created To create a sort of a moral, ethical veneer to capitalism to oppose socialism, whose moral values are kind of more apparent.
	And certainly, yes, there are quite a lot of books written about that.
	The promotion of abstract expressionism, American modernism, US modernism, which in the post-war period kind of supplants Europe as the kind of the center of avant-garde art, if you like.
	Yeah, I suppose this is a whole other area, but I think when you realise the extent to which everything is manipulated...
	It's not conspiracy, it's policy.
	It's policy.
	I don't know how this word conspiracy is... It's got to the point now where if you attribute any kind of intention to any organisation at all, you are sort of a conspiracy theorist.
	And I can think, what do you think all these groups get to?
	It's like a government is a conspiracy, a council is a conspiracy, a board member is a conspiracy.
	It's really got... I don't know.
	I think part of it is people are so terrified about their lack of agency in the world and the threat to their freedoms presented by these unelected, unaccountable, often very secret organizations that the only way they can do it is kind of like the little child who puts their hands in front of their face to not see the monster at the end of their bed.
	They're simply terrified of it so they deny its very existence.
	That is a very, very good way of ending the podcast because it actually sums up where so many people are.
	They don't want to know.
	They don't want to see the monster under the bed because it's just too damn scaring.
	Simon Elmer, it's been an absolute pleasure, first of all, working out who the hell you are and seeing you putting your face to the name.
	Many congratulations on your book, and I hope lots of people buy it, because I think you've got a really important message, and thank you for help giving me ammunition in the early days of this war for truth.
	Thanks very much.
	If you've enjoyed this podcast, as how could you possibly not, do remember you can support me on Patreon, on Subscribestar, on Substack, and on Locals, where I'm building up a community.
	Thank you very much.
	Look forward to seeing you on the next podcast, and thank you so much.
	Thank you, James.
	Thanks for having me.

▲