Katherine Watt is a Mom, Catholic, and paralegal from Pennsylvania. At her Substack Bailiwicknews.substack.com she documents how since at least the Second World War, US Congress has been waging war on the people by passing legislation which makes it easier and easier for them to be destroyed - legally - by the pharmaceutical industry.
/ / / / / /
Today's podcast is in association NutraHealth365 who manufacture a superb high potency Vitamin D3 supplement called ImmuneX365.
As we approach winter, your body's defences are under constant attack from flu, respiratory diseases and the common cold. So now, more than ever, is it essential that you have a robust immune system and as we all know, Vitamin D3 plays an essential role in this.
ImmuneX365 is an exclusive and unique formulation that combines effective levels of Vitamins D3, C, and K2, as well as Zinc and Quercetin.
This unique combination of nutrients ensures efficient bioavailability of D3, thereby giving your immune system an optimum boost.
Take back your health with just two capsules of ImmuneX365 every day.
For your peace of mind, all NutraHealth365 orders come with free two day tracked delivery, Go to http://NutraHealth365.com to get yours now."
That’s http://NutraHealth365.com.
—
Following on from the grand success of last year's Delingpod event in London with guest Maajid Nawaz and earlier this year with the great Neil Oliver - James has decided to bring his popular Delingpod LIVE UP NORTH this time with his extremely special guest, David Icke!
Please note that the exact location of the event will be disclosed within 48 hours of the date.
Link to buy tickets:
https://www.tickettailor.com/events/thedelingpodlive/1012094?fbclid=IwAR1C_3Vldrr8w0ifxPL81j-6qiQa1c6QB3BZ1lFfxcoDSiLooSCeoDbU--g
↓ ↓ ↓
If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours. https://bit.ly/James-Delingpole-Gold
/ / / / / /
Earn interest on Gold:
https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/
/ / / / / /
Buy James a Coffee at: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpole
Support James’ Writing at: https://delingpole.substack.com
Support James monthly at: https://locals.com/member/JamesDelingpole?community_id=7720
I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest, but before I introduce her, a quick word about some of the events we've got coming up.
Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before I introduce her, a quick word about some of the events we've got coming up.
Hello, just a quick heads up about a couple of events I've got coming up which might be of interest to you.
One of them, obviously, you're going to be there, aren't you?
But there are still tickets left to my event, my live event with David Icke in Manchester on the 15th of November.
It's going to be great.
It's going to be really interesting.
There's another event the weekend before that on the 11th of November.
Saturday in Stroud in Gloucestershire.
It's called Net Zero the Final Frontier and there are various people talking.
I'm going to be giving a very punchy talk on something I don't normally go into these days because I've kind of had enough of it, but the whole climate change agenda and what Absolute bollocks it is.
So if you want to hear me talking about that, it's probably worth coming down to Stroud.
I'll put the details below.
And also, there's an event with Bob Moran.
Bob the Cartoonist, as I call him, which I think is going to be great.
I'm going to be going on the weekend where it's happening, on the weekend of the 5th of November.
It's going to be on the 4th and the 5th of November at the Bloomsbury Theatre.
I'm going to put the details below as well because Bob needs support.
Thank you very much.
Enjoy the rest of the podcast.
And also, of course, do please support my sponsors.
By helping them, you're helping me, and you're helping them, and you're helping the cause, and it's all good.
Thanks.
Welcome to The Delling Pod, Catherine Watt.
Catherine, I mean, I know I always say I'm excited about my special guests, but I saw a 15-minute podcast you did, or I don't know what it was on, and I thought, I have got to get Catherine on The Delling Pod, because what you said was dynamite.
Is that a cat you've got in the background?
It's a dog.
It's a dog?
I'm going to close my door so he can bark.
Sorry.
No, so I don't know where to begin.
In fact, I do know where to begin.
I want you to tell me a bit more about yourself.
All I know is that you're a paralegal.
I don't even know what a paralegal is.
And that you live in, is it Pennsylvania?
Yes.
Tell me about yourself.
Tell me about your story.
Well, a paralegal is a legal assistant, not a lawyer.
It's a person who works for lawyers and you're trained to do all of the same stuff.
Legal research, legal writing.
Looking at case information as it comes in and then trying to come up with legal strategies, you cannot sign documents and you cannot appear in court on behalf of clients.
So I have been very lucky since I got my paralegal certificate in 2003 to work for lawyers who let me do almost everything.
They let me have a lot of input into legal strategy and write briefs and write complaints and write discovery questions and everything.
So that's what a paralegal is.
Right.
The vibe I got from the information you provided in that podcast I saw.
Was that you are exactly the sort of person that the legal fraternity does not want among them because basically you're doing the stuff that all lawyers should do and almost none of them do.
Because basically they're in on it.
They're part of the Matrix.
They're corrupt.
They just won't ask the tough questions that need to be answered.
And you, it seems to me, have used your special powers for good rather than evil.
Is that a fair assessment?
That's a fair assessment.
They are not interested in working with me.
No.
Okay, so you're a paralegal and you're in Pennsylvania.
How did you come to acquire the extraordinary information that you're about to divulge?
The story that was being told did not make sense to me, like for everybody.
About what?
The story about what?
About Covid and about, especially about the vaccines, the products called vaccines.
At the beginning of 2020, I didn't have any of this information.
I had no background in vaccine hesitancy or reluctance or whatever they want to call it.
And I had no information about public health emergencies either.
And so as it came out, I was just listening to what people were saying and I I can look back now and say I fell for it or whatever, but I was just trying to understand what was happening.
And it was sort of plausible till about March when the lockdowns came.
And then I also have a background in peak oil research.
Okay.
Yeah, that was another scam.
Another scam, which I believed because I was thinking about this today.
It makes logical sense if you accept the underlying premises, but if you learn to not accept the underlying premises, then the logical sense after that doesn't matter, and it's kind of similar to all of these other scams that I now see as scams that I did not see as scams before.
Okay, so is it fair to say that before you started looking into peak oil, And certainly before you started looking into the so-called vaccines and the so-called pandemic, you pretty much believed the narrative that we're all told when we, that we grow up, that the world is essentially a benign place and if you work hard and keep your nose clean and, you know, pay off your mortgage, you'll live happily ever after.
You sort of believed the news and you trusted authority.
No, that's not fair to say.
I started not trusting authority very young, and I actually listened to part of your podcast with Miriam Finch, and you got into that with her, too.
People who have already had the experience of having their trust in authority betrayed at some point along the line by somebody who was very close to them were primed to understand what was happening here in a way that people who have not had that experience were not ready to hear it.
So I could say more about how I was involved in peak oil, but I was involved in it from roughly 2005 until the end of 2019 from the perspective of thinking the people who are looking at the geological evidence and thinking about resource scarcity and thinking about how important local control of food and water and energy are on the right track.
And they are the counter to...
to the mainstream, you can have infinite growth on a finite planet kind of thing.
So it was a little bit more nuanced, getting to the point of not believing the peak oil narrative than the way you characterized it.
But the significance of it was that there's a writer called John Michael Greer, who has a website called Eco Sophia.
And at the time, I was following that and he's very, very smart.
He's very, very knowledgeable.
He's written a lot of stuff about the, like, geology and resource management and carrying capacity kinds of things.
And his... So I trusted him.
I trusted his ability to, like, decipher information and convey it.
And he very early found several papers about antibody-dependent enhancement and several papers and had his own historical knowledge of how, like, actual regular pandemics of respiratory illnesses go.
And he said, This is a nothing thing.
This is going to peak in about six weeks and then decline and be done with in about three months just by sweeping through people in the way that respiratory illnesses always have.
And these vaccines ideas that they're kicking around are a very bad idea.
And so that was stuff I was following February, March, April 2020.
And by May, when the lockdowns had already come in, in March, and they were just still ramping up the fear and the things that you could see around you about who was getting sick and that they were getting better, most of them.
By May, I was in 2020, I was really, really, really like, what, what is happening?
What's going on?
Yeah.
Did you, you presumably didn't take the vaccine?
I did not.
Sorry, the kill shot I meant.
I did not take the kill shot, but I did take most of the ones up until the end of 2019.
Yeah, same, same.
I too believed in the system up until that point.
I really thought that doctors were there to cure us.
Right.
You know, it's only a jab.
It won't hurt.
It means I get to go to Africa, you know, once I have my cholera jab or whatever, whatever line they spin.
Yeah.
Okay.
So, so you were starting to smell a rat by the middle of 2020?
Yes.
Um, and then was that when you started doing your deep dive research?
That was when I started, yes, because I live in Pennsylvania, and that also is significant to the story because there was a good case in Pennsylvania called Butler v. Wolfe.
It was a bunch of business owners and county governments who sued the governor, at the time was Tom Wolfe, about the executive orders that had shut down schools and that had put capacity limitations on businesses and Government offices changing how they had to do business.
So they sued the governor to say this is not okay.
Constitutionally, it is not okay for the governor to have these executive orders that seize property without due process and obstruct people's right to go to school and go to work and all this stuff.
And then there was a really, really good order.
A federal judge in September 2020, so like three months later, Agreed with the plaintiffs, the business owners and the county and said, sure, there's an emergency, but the constitution is strong enough to withstand an emergency and people still have all of these constitutional rights, civil liberties.
And so you must, I, the judge was saying, am halting these executive orders and taking them off the table.
And I thought, hooray!
And then three weeks later, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the level above him, reversed his order and left all of the executive orders in play.
And I couldn't figure out what was going on there either.
I was like, why?
Why did the Third Circuit come in and do this strange thing?
And so that case was playing out through 2020 through 2021.
I think that's one that They tried to appeal to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court just wouldn't hear it.
And that was happening with tons and tons of cases like this all over the country.
They were just like, nope, that's not.
We're not even going to entertain discussion about these things.
And so by the end of 2021, I was still following this stuff while I was dealing with all the stuff in my own family and the mandates and my husband and my kids like at their schools and workplaces.
And then it was in January 2022 that I heard the podcast by Todd Callender, who's a U.S.
attorney.
Where he talked about the World Health Organization, International Health Regulations, 2005 amendments and how that connected to what was happening in the domestic law in each country and like the relationship between the treaties and the domestic laws.
And so that was the point at which I did the deep dive and found the timeline of how it came into place in the United States.
Right, yeah.
Well, you seem to have quite a good memory.
I'm going to ask you to take me through that timeline in a moment.
But you see, this is one of the things that appeals to me about you, Catherine.
That I, well particularly in the last three years, I've become I'm excruciatingly aware of the true nature of the world and the corruption and manifest evil of the system.
It is not the version of events that is sold to us by our parents, by our teachers and stuff.
It's altogether different.
But what I love about what you've done, Is that you've gone to the trouble of looking at the really boring stuff, the boring but important detail, the stuff that demonstrates this isn't a, this isn't some kind of tinfoil hat nutcase stuff.
This is, this is real.
Yeah.
I actually don't find it boring at all.
I find it extremely interesting.
So.
Oh, well, thank you, Catherine, for finding it interesting.
We need people like you.
So tell me, tell me what you found.
So what I found is that, um, Starting roughly in during World War II, I mean, you could trace it back a little farther than that.
But I tend to start there when I'm talking about it, because it seems clear that during World War II, they, the globalists, the monster, whatever you want to call them, came up with this idea to sort of shift their worldwide war programs and depopulation programs, enslavement programs,
From the overt, like bombs and tanks and armed invasions, to the public health system and the medical system and the pharmaceutical industry.
And they did some of, I think of them now as like pilot projects, is what Auschwitz and the other concentration camps and the Aktion T-44 for the eugenics programs.
And then there was a pushback.
And they did the Nuremberg trials that seemed to send the message to the world, this is not okay.
But at the same time, they were just embedding those programs more Covertly into the laws and the public health programs, especially in the United States That's the one I know the best because that's where I live.
But I think I think it's happened in Countries all over the world and you can probably track the laws back to the mid 40s in most countries as well Probably also the United States is like the model version of it so that was the 1944 Public Health Service Act and then another sort of
Milestone in it was the 1969 transfer of the biological and chemical warfare program.
Which, again, they had this surface level thing going on, like, oh, we don't think biological warfare is good.
We don't think chemical warfare is good.
We're going to have these UN conventions, and then we're going to have the countries comply.
But they just moved it over gradually into the public health program, and they called what had previously been the biological and chemical weapons stockpiles and production systems, the Strategic National Stockpile for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing and Pharmaceutical Storage and Pharmaceutical Deployment or distribution systems.
So they conflated very obvious bioweapons with pharmaceutical products with a kind of a stroke of the pen.
Pretty much.
Yeah, that's right.
And nobody noticed this at the time?
I don't know who noticed it, and I think they were really good at reframing, and they are very good at...
presenting the argument that there are these terrible threats, there are these terrible communicable diseases, there are these terrible people who might come up with chemical and biological weapons, and we need to have these things as defensive prophylactics or treatments in case these terrible things actually happen, when in fact those are pretextual.
Like, they're just making weapons, but to get people on board, they say it's defensive.
And that you will take them to protect yourself from this external, invisible threat.
Yes.
But I think you said before, they cannot but be offensive weapons by nature.
They are not defensive.
Right.
Because of the complexity of the human body, because of all of the things about how chemical and biological things interact with living organisms, and the uniqueness
And mostly the complexity, the fact that the human body is understood to some level by thousands of years of doctors and people trying to understand how it works, but we don't understand it in like any sort of complete way, as far as all of the ways that the systems interact with each other and the signaling pathways and everything.
Yeah, yeah, I can see that.
So, okay, so in the 1960s they passed this legislation turning bioweapons into pharmaceutical products.
What was the next stage?
The next milestone was 1983.
They added the Public Health Emergency Section to the Public Health Service Act.
And then in 1986 was when they did the National Vaccine Program and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
And that was where they first separated out the pharmaceutical industry from most other industries as far as you don't have any product liability anymore.
For the products that you put into people's bodies, they cannot sue you, the pharmaceutical company, They can only go through this vaccine injury compensation program, which is very small.
It's controlled directly by the federal government.
And the standards for getting compensation and proving causality between a vaccine and an injury is incredibly high.
So very few people get money out of that system.
And that later became the model for the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program, which is where they're channeling all of the injured people from these products.
Okay, so what was the legislation you mentioned before, the year before that?
The 1983 one was the Public Health Emergencies Program, and that was the one where they added public health emergencies to the collection of things like wars and like natural disasters that you could suspend other legal frameworks like the Constitution, like the Criminal Code, because the federal executive branch says, emergency!
We have to consolidate all of the power into the executive branch.
Right, and who gets to decide what constitutes a medical emergency that triggers that legislation?
The way the law is written, it's entirely in the hands of the Health and Human Services Secretary, or the Homeland Security Secretary, or the Defence Secretary.
There's actually four There's four starting points that they can do that all converge on this same public health emergency.
And in the case of COVID, the person who did it was the HHS secretary.
Right.
So basically, if you've got a placeman in the relevant position, that gives the US government carte blanche to treat the country as if it is in a state of war and it can do anything it likes.
Correct.
This, I don't think they had this in place in 1983, but that Public Health Emergencies Framework, they have built up piece by piece over the last, what would that be, 40 years.
And at some point they put in How the HHS Secretary can do it, the fact that Congress has no oversight over it once it's happened, the fact that the federal judiciary has no right to review or nullify or void any of the information that the HHS Secretary says is relevant,
So they knocked out Congress, they knocked out the federal judiciary, and they also said that these declarations by the HHS Secretary preempt anything that a state government or a tribal government might want to do differently within their political jurisdictions.
And so all three, those are the three main mechanisms by which anybody could Whoa!
That is extraordinary!
Yes it is!
look, what the HHS secretary is saying is not true.
This evidence is bad.
We have other evidence.
The law, the legal argument they're making is bad.
All of those were knocked out preemptively by an act of Congress.
Whoa, that is extraordinary.
Yes, it is.
I'll bet, Catherine, if you ask most Americans about what makes their country so special, they would say, well, we've got all these checks and balances and the founding fathers and the Constitution, states' rights, they'd go.
Isn't it marvelous that we can- Federalism.
They would talk about federalism.
Yeah, they would.
Yeah.
So, okay, given that that is so, and given that there are supposedly these people, well, you are a nation of lawyers, let's face it.
Given that every other person in America is a lawyer, pretty much.
And given that the people who care about the Constitution and care about states' rights and stuff, how come nobody in the 1980s looked at this legislation and said, hang on a second, this is a recipe for totalitarianism?
That's a good question.
And it has to do with what I said before about they were properly primed to be terrified and to think that this is a good circumstance under which to throw all of that out.
Probably because of the disease.
Yes, exactly.
Probably bribery and blackmail and extortion play a pretty big role.
Profiteering plays a pretty big role.
In the mid-2000s, a lot of the pieces came in, especially one called the Project BioShield Act, and that was the one where they put most of the emergency use authorization Stuff into place with that law.
And they had hearings.
Henry Waxman was a congressman at the time and had hearings in late 2003, maybe early 2004.
So I've read some of the transcripts and he specifically brought up these things.
He said, like, this seems to me like.
It might be a bad idea, because Congress doesn't even get to look at the financial records under this law.
Congress can't do this.
Also, nobody can sue.
It seems like there's a lot of potential for abuse here.
And then they just passed it.
Anyway.
And some of it is because of when they did it, like they did a lot of these things during the week between Christmas and New Year's.
Oh!
Yeah.
Like the Federal Reserve, the founding of the Federal Reserve.
Yes, and so, and they tagged it on to other bills, like the, I'm gonna get this, the PrEP Act is the other main one from the mid-2000s.
And that one was the last 14 pages of a supplemental appropriations bill related to the Department of Defense and Hurricane Katrina.
And so it was stuff that they had had written long beforehand, and then they found this, like, Hurricane Katrina, that was in 2005, oh, we need to give extra money, blah, blah, blah.
And so they just tacked it on, and it got passed on, like, December 31st, 2004, or something like that.
I might have the date wrong, but it was, it was like New Year's Eve, pretty much.
And just remind me again what the legislation in 1986 was.
1986 was the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
And presumably there are lots and lots of vaccine injured in the US right now who are not getting compensation because of the strictures of that, because of the, it has been so arranged that They wouldn't get pants.
Yeah, it's a tiny, like it's a special master program, which I don't even know that much about how special master programs work, but it's outside the regular civil court.
There are only certain lawyers who are allowed to appear there.
There's only certain types of evidence that are heard there.
It's not as public as a theoretical civil trial process would be.
So yes, it's extremely narrow as to who can get compensated and that the amounts of compensation are tiny.
So I'm going to ask you the same question because, okay, 86, you would have had, did you have the thalidomide problem in America?
We did.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Okay.
So everyone knew, everyone of our generation knows about thalidomide.
Everyone in the 1980s would have known about this.
They wouldn't have been thinking that pharmaceutical companies were these unmixed blessings.
They would have recognized that Yeah, I mean, there is the regular stuff about profiteering and stuff.
Surely there should be more scrutiny to legislation which gave pharmaceutical companies carte blanche to produce these experimental treatments and not face any consequences if they got it wrong.
Yeah, I mean, there is the regular stuff about profiteering and stuff.
There is the stuff about telling people this other thing is more scary.
And so we need these products to respond to this other thing that's more scary.
And the way that they put it then was, if you don't give the pharmaceutical companies the liability exemption, there's not enough profit in it for them to do the R&D, which they didn't actually end up doing most of that, as we now know.
But the argument was, We have to take that obstacle out of their way so that they will produce these things.
And we, the government, will promote them and require them on the childhood schedule and get people doing it.
Now, looking back, you can tell that what it was was just a covert way of injecting people with poison over a long period of time.
So that's what they were really doing.
And some of the people who were writing these laws knew that, and some of them didn't.
And the ones who didn't found it plausible that you needed to incentivize the companies to do this by telling them you're not going to have to face any consequences if your product injures or kills people because the people who knew that that was the purpose of it knew that that was going to happen and wanted to like make this shield.
Yeah, they're really... I mean, I suppose they've got so much money they can buy the most devious lawyers and PR people to... And politicians.
Politicians, yeah.
Okay, so that was the one in 86, and then what's the next legislation that... So then there was the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, 9-11 was... I can now look back and see like 9-11
Setting aside the planes, there was the anthrax attacks on Congress and those were mostly sent to Congress members and to the media because that was a pretextual terror campaign to drive this next sequence of congressional laws that came in 2000, 2001, right on up to now.
2001, right on up to now.
And so the ones I talked about already are Project BioShield Act in 2004 and the PREP And then at the website, I have the timeline with many, many more of them, but they're all reinforcements or expansions of those two programs, the Public Health Emergencies Act and the, originally they called it the Expanded Access to Unapproved Drugs.
That was in the late 90s.
And then that's the foundational one on which the Emergency Use Authorization System was built.
So it's those two.
42 U.S.C.
247D is the Public Health Emergencies one, and 21 U.S.C.
360BBB is the Expanded Access to Unapproved Drugs, which is basically just expanded deployment of prohibited bioweapons, renamed so that people would think it was not a war crime.
This stuff, it sounds so crazy.
I know!
It does.
Every time, like, I'm not, I'm past the point of thinking it's crazy anymore, but for, like, the first whole year, I would be, like, reading this stuff, and being like, oh, that's what that, no, that can't be what that means.
No, that is what that means.
Like, your own mind says, this is too crazy to believe, and then you keep going, and then you look around at what's happening, and like, they did do mask mandates, they did do Yes.
vaccine mandates, they did all this stuff.
That is what these laws enable.
And so it comes together between what you can see in the world and what you can see in the laws.
And after quite a long time of struggling with it, you're like, okay, yeah, that is what it is.
Yes.
You mentioned in your other podcast that when people tried suing Pfizer, Pfizer came back with the no, we're legit, we're bulletproof because we're legit, we're bulletproof because of this legislation.
Can you Can you take me through that a bit?
Yeah, that's Brooke Jackson's case.
There's a third piece that I did not talk about so much called the Other Transactions Authority that has to do with the financial side, how the contracts are written outside of the normal federal contracting provisions.
And so the three pieces that came into play In Brooke Jackson's case against Ventavia, which is a subcontractor.
Brooke Jackson was the whistleblower, wasn't she?
Yes, she's a clinical trials manager who got hired by Ventavia, a subcontractor to Pfizer, to manage three clinical trial sites in Texas.
And she got hired in, I think, late August of 2020.
So this was during Operation Warp Speed.
And she was only there for about three weeks before, like immediately when she got there, she noticed that all kinds of things were wrong.
She knew what a clinical trial was supposed to look like and she knew that what she was seeing there was absolutely not what a clinical trial should look like.
Safety problems, recording problems, everything.
So she went to her immediate bosses at Ventavia and she said, Hey, I'm a clinical trials manager.
This is not right.
We got to fix this stuff.
And they said, blah, blah, blah, nothing.
Then she went to Pfizer.
I think, or the Ventavia people reported Pfizer and Pfizer is like, no, no, it's okay.
So then she did an anonymous, um, so-called anonymous hotline call or email to the FDA on September 25th, I think.
I could have the date wrong, but it's 24th or 25th.
And she was fired six hours later because someone at FDA immediately called Pfizer who immediately called Ventavia and said, get this woman off of your staff.
Um, So she went to the Department of Justice with her evidence and an attorney, like she had a private attorney, I think, who helped her like try to negotiate on her way to the Department of Justice.
And they notified the Department of Defense in December of 2020, just as the products were being rolled out.
There's a letter that she sent to the Department of Defense that said, hey, this product that you're buying has not gone through any of the clinical trials things it's supposed to go through.
It's not safe.
There's no way to know if it's effective.
You should not be buying this.
You are being defrauded by Pfizer.
And the DoD ignored her.
So then she filed her False Claims Act case in January 2021 under a law that is about defrauding the U.S.
government Through which somebody who works at a company and sees the fraud can go to the government and say, look, this company is like scamming you.
You can't buy their stuff.
The Department of Justice sat on it for an entire year and told her, they gagged her.
They said, you can't talk about what you've seen.
You can't warn people that this product is bad.
And she actually, I have found out since, thought that it was specific to Pfizer.
She didn't think that it was as big as she now knows that it is.
Um, and so in January 2022, yes.
Losing my dates.
The US government finally said to the judge, we've looked at this stuff.
We don't think there's a case here.
We're not going to investigate further.
We're not going to prosecute Pfizer.
And at that point, she had the option under the False Claims Act to take on the case herself.
With a private attorney, which she did, that was when she hired Robert Barnes to be her attorney.
So they refiled in February 2022.
And then Pfizer did their motion to dismiss in April, 2022.
And that was where they said, Pfizer said, we did not defraud the government at all because under the terms of our contract with the army to produce these prototypes or demonstration products, clinical trials were not part of it.
They were not required to be part of it.
We didn't have to demonstrate anything about the product to get payment from the army.
For making these products and distributing them, so we can't have defrauded anybody because we were never required to do anything in compliance with any regulations about clinical trials or about product safety.
And they, they put that in their motion to dismiss in April 2022.
Six months go by and the U.S.
government in October 2022 came back into the case on Pfizer's side and said, yeah, that's true.
We didn't hire Pfizer to do clinical trials.
We never cared whether what they said about the drugs or safety efficacy.
We never cared about whether there were clinical trials that were valid that proved any of this stuff.
We were always going to pay.
And we did pay, and we're still going to pay because we still stand by what we're doing.
And so that case went forward until March 2023.
And the judge in Texas said, okay, yeah, if the government says it's not defrauded, And that this information was never material or necessary to its decision about what to do with these products or whether to use them or whether to buy them, then it's not for Brooke Jackson or anybody else to come in and say, that's wrong because you're just a private citizen.
You're not the purchaser.
You're not the US government.
You, you are irrelevant to this whole story.
And so, yeah, that's where it was at the, by the end of.
March 2023.
She has since filed a second amended complaint.
But her attorneys did not add any of the material that I have been talking about and Sasha Latifova has been talking about for the last year and a half.
They continued with the same argument and just tried to make it slightly expanded.
So.
My guess, my speculation, is that the judge is going to say, no, you've already tried this argument and I've already said, if the government is not unhappy with what it's bought and doesn't believe it's been defrauded, then this private citizen has no standing and no fraud has occurred.
That is, it's the kind of story which, if newspapers did their job, would be huge.
Sure would, yeah.
Because essentially it actually admits that you have the US government admitting in court or admitting to a court that these injections, which are supposedly vaccines and no such thing, they are a bioweapon and that they are governed by regulations made with the military-industrial complex.
It's got nothing to do with medicine.
Tell me about, I think it's time that we introduced the other angle that shocked me, well I kind of half knew it, about the kill box.
Like the guy in the ladder behind your house.
Yes, I'm having my, yeah.
Yeah.
Having our windows done.
Yes.
The, the whole, just big picture stuff.
How do you, how do we know that this really is a plan to reduce population, that it, that it's a military operation against us?
Give me, give me the background.
The background there goes back to the World Health Organization International Health Regulations of 2005, which went into effect in 2007.
Although, as I said before, there were earlier versions of that.
And it is now undergoing another round of amendments, which is something that James Roguski and Meryl Nass and a lot of People in that sphere talk about, like, they're tracking the amendments process.
They've learned a lot about how the World Health Assembly works.
But the 2005 ones, which went into effect in 2007, were the ones that added requirements on member states to adopt and enforce their own communicable disease surveillance, quarantine laws, Treatment development laws.
And so those are the things that I say this in as much as I can.
I think it's a two way kind of a thing.
Like, it looks as though the World Health Organization is imposing these things on the United States in some ways, but also the United States is probably the The place where it starts as far as like the writing of these things and the pushing them through the World Health Organization.
So it's like a feedback loop.
Well, we we know that the World Health Organization was essentially the creation of JD Rockefeller's offspring.
Yeah, and it was never about health, right?
Tell us tell me but tell me what you know about that.
I don't know a whole lot about the specific Rockefeller piece.
The part of it that I focus on is the legal interconnections between the treaties and the treaty-like legal instruments and the ratification or pseudo-ratification, sometimes what the US Congress does to get the United States to be a member state in things like the UN and the World Health Organization.
And other organizations is not the same as a ratification process.
It's there.
There's like subsets of legally binding international agreements that can or they argue they can be done just by presidential signature.
So some of them are like that.
And the big picture part I have learned recently is because a reader pointed me to the work of a woman named Nikki Rapona, who actually died last year.
And her daughter is carrying on her work and publishes her books.
But she, Nikki Rapana, between like 1999 and now, through the lens of things like the CAFTA agreements and NAFTA agreements and the World Trade Organization, identified this whole other layer of something called communitarian law.
Yeah.
My work sort of converges on the same conclusion, and I'm very glad that the reader pointed me to this because it's like, aha, another person, like, got to the exact same conclusion from a different path.
And she has a name for this, this other system of law called communitarian law that comes down onto and then pushes aside constitutional law and criminal codes.
In countries for so long as they are participating member states in these global organizations like the UN and like the World Health Organization.
And so the participation as a member state obligates them to do these things in their domestic law.
And that's what I've documented that they did what they were supposed to do.
They passed the statutes, they passed the regulations to implement the things that are in these treaties as far as surveillance and quarantine and control of populations and killing of populations under public health pretexts.
Right.
I mean, it is a big claim, isn't it?
That this stuff is being done deliberately as an act of war against the people of the world by a kind of narrow, I call them the predator class.
How would you back that claim up?
I back that claim up in the most parsimonious way I possibly can, which is that if it were not that, it would have stopped by now.
It would have stopped at the point where Brooke Jackson said, These clinical trials are totally messed up.
It would have stopped before that, because it was already known that this particular product line, the mRNA lipid nanoparticle product line, had been looked at as a really good bioweapon platform.
And it was already known from the studies from the late 1990s on up, when they tried to use it on people who were in, like, Very narrow, rare genetic diseases that, like, they were desperate, they knew they were going to die in, like, three months, and they would say, okay, fine, we're going to try this thing, and this thing would kill them faster.
So the government already knew all of the stuff that we are now learning about the mRNA and DNA and lipid nanoparticles and that stuff before they did this.
And had it ready to go anyway as the platform technology they were going to introduce through the disaster known as COVID-19 under the fog of people being terrified by this coronavirus outbreak.
And so as people, like normal people who are not insane and not trying to kill everybody, Looked at it from very early in 2020, like, what is going on?
Like the person I was talking about, John Michael Greer, was like, there's tons of stuff about antibody-dependent enhancement that you can't vaccinate against a coronavirus or a flu or anything else because they'd mutate too quickly.
And then your system is unprepared to deal with whatever the next thing is.
So the fact that it was Possible for normal people to go and look at scientific papers and look at history and look at all these other things and say, this doesn't make any sense.
It shouldn't be done.
And they were shut down and they were suppressed.
And this massive propaganda machinery came into place to control what could be said and what couldn't be said.
That to me is the most efficient way to explain that it's intentional, that it was planned, that it's being coordinated.
And also that it happened in the same way in all the countries around the world, like same way, same time, same words, same programs.
I'm glad you said that, Catherine, because it reflects a frustration I've long had about those, the COVID so-called years.
Well, very, very early on, sort of before it became a sort of news story, I bought into the idea that this was a genuine health threat.
I thought that because I'd been, you know, looking at stuff coming out of China and I mean, I'm sure it was all kind of part of the PSYOP, but I believed it for a couple of weeks and I was worried about it.
But in the space of about two months, I would say, I spoke to enough people To form a completely different perspective on it.
I knew about ADE.
I knew about the hydroxychloroquine and, you know, potentially effective treatments because I knew that hydroxychloroquine, I found a paper that hydroxychloroquine had been used successfully against SARS-CoV-1, which is quite similar.
So and I'm not a I'm not a virologist.
I'm not a one of these one of these ology names that sort of gives you sort of special privileges apparent makes you an expert.
I was just doing very rudimentary research which anyone could have done.
So I'm very unpersuaded by the people who say, well, the reason that the government's behaved, you know, the reason the government behaved and behaved in the way it did and the reason no politicians questioned it, it was because they were too trusting of the experts.
They they look, I'm not Mr. Research.
I'm not Mr. Deep Dive.
This stuff was available to me.
So the idea that it wasn't available to our politicians strikes me as just utterly implausible.
Yeah, it's completely implausible.
Yeah.
So therefore, I agree with you.
Ergo, it has to be that there was an ulterior motive.
Yes.
It was not a public health issue.
Yeah.
When I tried to figure out what some of the coercion mechanisms might be, you could see the low-level coercion mechanisms were, do this thing or you will lose your job, do this thing or you will get kicked out of school.
And then, through the work of Catherine Austin Fitz and John Titus and a bunch of other people, You can trace that same coercion mechanism all the way up to the international level through the Bank for International Settlements, the Central Banks, the Treasury Departments, and the Congress.
And so the people in Congress, I suspect, and eventually maybe we will find this is confirmed, were told in quiet meetings right at the beginning, go along with this program or the Treasury and the Federal Reserve will cut off all of the money supply to the federal government.
And that will be the end of your Activity is Congress, you will collapse your government, that will be the end of your political careers, you're done for.
Which is kind of what they're doing anyway, but they're doing it as a slow collapse.
And I think what they told the Congress members, if they had any questions or doubts, was suppress those doubts and keep quiet, because this is the consequence if you don't go along with the program.
And I talk about this occasionally, too.
They demonstrated how that works in 2012 and 2013 in Cyprus, in Greece, and with the Vatican, where overnight, for non-compliance, their monetary systems and currencies were collapsed.
They demonstrated it even earlier with the Asian Asian Tigers, that was the late 90s.
And there's another person who has, I think she's also passed away now, Joan Veon, V-E-O-N, who has done a ton of work around how that financial manipulation through, led by the Bank for International Settlements, carried out at the nation state level by the federal central banks, and imposed upon the Congress and the courts and states works.
It's a dangerous occupation, this, isn't it, Catherine, for people who are researching this stuff?
You haven't mentioned Rosa Croyer, if that's how you pronounce her name.
She also was... I was a fan of Nikki Rapano.
I didn't realise that she died.
What did she die of, allegedly?
I don't know, but the GoFundMe page for her daughter uses the word unexpectedly, and it was in the summer of 2022, so...
Yeah.
A lot of unexpected deaths among people who research this kind of stuff.
Yeah.
Do you ever worry about that?
I don't.
They're... No.
They're much happier to ignore me than do anything.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I get that feeling as well.
I mean, obviously, it doesn't sort of bother me because I get to go to heaven early, which would be great.
You know, I get to become an angel and I probably I'll come back and, you know, join St.
Michael's Army and just sort of… but yeah.
Particularly in this area, I've noticed though, it really is people who've worked out the mechanisms.
Rosa Quarry, sorry, poor Rosa.
I don't want to misrepresent her name.
I don't know how to pronounce her name either.
Nikki Rapana.
It seems you need a kind of weird name to get in this game.
And who was the other one you mentioned?
Well, Catherine Austen Fitz.
No, no, she's still with us, happily.
But also, let's not forget President Magufuli of Tanzania.
Yes.
And the two other African heads of state who died mysteriously in that period.
They're very good at sending signals that if you don't toe the line, it's not going to turn out well for you.
Yes, they are.
Especially to the politicians and people like that.
Yeah.
The Bank of International Settlements, is that the one with that enormously fat man, Augusto Carstens?
Yeah, Augustin Carstens.
Augustin Carstens, yeah.
So tell me about them, are they the top, the big thieves?
I think they're the top, I think he's, the administrators there are the frontmen for the top, the owners, whose names are generally not known, and I don't put any effort into trying to find their names.
Um, are the ones driving the project through the mechanisms that they have built through the Bank for International Settlements and the treaties and international conventions that control participation in the Bank for International Settlements.
I, I tend not to put a lot of effort into the names and the other identifying features of the people who own the central banks and the BIS because I don't think they are gettable, and I do think that their next level down is gettable.
Like, I think people like the administrators and cabinet secretaries in the United States who are carrying out the orders are the ones who are visible.
Their names are on the orders that have been signed.
They go into offices and present themselves as being representatives of the U.S.
government.
Congress members, I think, are gettable.
And so I think that's a more useful place to put time and energy.
And so that's where I put it.
But I think the crime category that is being committed is treason.
And so that's what I'm focused on.
I agree with you that there's probably In my limited expertise, a case, a strong case against them.
But the question is, given that your legal system, I mean, you saw as the Third Circuit, was it Third Circuit you say?
All the circuits are doing the same basic thing.
But yeah, the one in Pennsylvania is the Third Circuit that came in and yeah.
But see, there you have a federal judge not getting the memo, doing the right thing.
Exactly.
It was too early in the process, I think.
I think about him a lot, like, wow, nobody told him.
And so in September of 2020, he was like, huh?
And then they were like, no, no, come over here, read this memo.
And he's like, oh, gotcha.
So, okay, so there are good guys, even among the lawyers, there are still some good guys, but they're not the ones that get promoted to the appeals courts.
And you look at the Supreme Court, I mean, you know, you've got, I think the head of the Supreme Court was a regular at Epstein Island.
So, I suppose what I'm asking you is, how do you think in a corrupt system, how are you going to get recourse against even the people whose names you know?
So one of the things I found recently or started thinking about recently more is the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which is like the treaty that governs treaties.
And it has provisions for getting out of treaties that have to do with, um, I'm going to lose, not remember.
It's basically if circumstances change in such a fundamental way that it's not the same situation that it was when you signed the treaty, then you have grounds to withdraw from it.
So I advocate with James Rogoski and Meryl Nass and a bunch of other people, get out of the World Health Organization, get out of the UN, get out of the World Economic Forum, all that.
And on the other side, It's called federalism here in the United States.
It's the 10th Amendment.
So it's part of the Bill of Rights that all the powers not specifically granted to the federal government under the Constitution are reserved to the states and to the people.
And so there are lots of different organizations here who are trying to educate and encourage and embolden
County level officials like sheriffs and county commissioners and state level officials like governors and state legislatures and state courts to really understand that what has been put in play is a constitutional crisis, not a public health crisis, and to re-look at everything that's happened from that constitutional crisis point of view and do the things that they can do, acting as if their constitutions are still operative and as if the U.S.
Constitution is still The Supreme law of the land to say we're nullifying the effect of these laws in our state or in our county.
We're avoiding these laws in our state or account.
We're passing new laws that say.
You can't do these things that the federal government is telling you to do.
You can't do them in this county.
You can't do them in this state.
And so that's having some.
There is movement on that in.
Several states.
Yeah, in Idaho, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, there's movements and there's people who are bringing the lawmakers in each state and in each county up to speed and helping them to really grasp the scale of what's going on.
So, the thing that's useful about federalism, and the Catholic term for it is subsidiarity, It's the idea that you cannot morally have a higher level organization or institution carrying out functions that can be carried out by the lower level all the way down to the individual.
If an individual can be responsible for that thing themselves, then they should be responsible for that thing themselves.
Is this sort of natural law?
Yeah, it's part of natural law and it's part of Catholic Teaching pre-Vatican II.
And so what I think is plausible and useful is to keep pushing those county and state level campaigns to set up these bulwarks or firewalls or whatever.
Say, like, we're taking back this.
We're saying for the purposes of public health emergencies, for the purposes of these products, the federal government has gone Off the rails.
And we can no longer morally defer to what they're doing, because we have to protect the people who live within our political jurisdictions, our county, our state.
And to the extent that that spreads and works, there is then a foundation to reconstitute the federal government from the states getting back together and Putting different people in the federal government positions.
And this is also connected to, at some point I realized you can't be suing the federal officials in their official capacity because of sovereign immunity.
Not because actual living people don't do bad things and have bad intentions, but because by definition, if somebody is holding sovereign power, It's very hard to explain, but I have advocated that you need to go after them in their personal capacity as imposters who are illegitimately occupying federal official positions.
And from that point of view, the federalism is kind of like an amazing thing because The original federal government was formed by the consent and participation and action of the states coming together saying, okay, here's they're going to be a federal government and these other things are reserved to the states.
And that same thing can happen again as a sort of pull it back to the states and then have them reconstitute a new one from the foundation.
And this is the point where I diverge from The Sovereign Citizens Movement.
I don't know if you've heard about them.
Yeah, I've heard of it, yeah.
Yeah, they are some of the most frequent commenters at my site, for obvious reasons, because they think about these exact same things.
But I think there needs to be a credible chain of transmission of power over time, political power.
And they, at least some of the ones I've talked to, don't think there has been any legitimate government anywhere in the world since about 900 AD.
And I think there was a legitimate government until about January 2020.
Even if it's corrupt.
Yes, it's corrupt.
Yes, they're blackmailed.
Yes, they're extorted.
They're profiteering.
They're doing all these things.
But the structure was okay until this public health emergency constitutional crisis thing slammed down.
And four years of events is not too far to have it Get pulled back to the states and the counties as they realize what's gone on and then have the states and the counties refill those vacated offices later.
And it also depends on saying the Constitution really has to stand how it is.
Like, there are also people who are like, let's have a new constitutional convention.
Let's start over.
And I don't think that's a good idea either, because the same people who have manipulated this entire series of events going back to the 1940s are more than capable of manipulating a constitutional convention to say we're just going to subordinate everything in the United States is now under the United Nations.
End of story.
And that is not good.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Did I infer that you are a sort of pre Vatican II type Catholic yourself?
Yes.
So give me your take on, your big picture take on what's going on.
I mean, do you think, do you share my view that ultimately this is a spiritual war between good and evil?
Absolutely.
Yeah.
And if I had not come to that conclusion, I would have collapsed in a puddle on the floor in 2020 and been unable to do any of the stuff that I've done.
I, I, I clawed my way back and God came to meet me in 2021.
And yeah, I, that's why I've been able to like, look at this stuff and really look at it and see what I'm seeing and talk about it.
Because, because it's, yeah.
Because once you start drilling down, um, well, once you get down the rabbit hole, frankly, And you realize just how big this thing goes, and how long this has been going on, and the level of the corruption, and the depths of the evil.
It can only be, surely, that As it says in, as Paul says in Corinthians, that the devil is the God of this world.
I mean, he's calling the shots temporarily, I think.
Yeah.
Prince of this world.
Yeah.
Yes.
That is my understanding of, there's a lot of good passages in C.S.
Lewis that I like about, like, we're Jesus Christ's secret army in occupied territory.
Yeah.
It's Occupied Territory, it's not, like, and so, and he puts it in a passage about, like, going to church is like listening in on the secret wireless about what you're supposed to be doing as a member of this, like, resistance movement in Occupied Territory, and that's why they discourage you from going to church, because they don't want you to get the messages about how to be an effective form of resistance in enemy Occupied Territory.
Well, yes, and whenever I have doubts about my own, the grounds for my own faith, which is not that often, but it one occasionally gets a bit of a sort of shake, I look what the other side are doing, look what the enemy are doing.
Yes, yeah.
And seeing who it is that they worship.
I mean, you say you haven't, you know, troubled yourself too much to discover the names of the people at the sort of the top of the pyramid.
Well, or rather at the bottom of the inverted pyramid, you might say.
But I mean, you know what, who they worship and what they get up to in their sort of rituals.
Yes.
When we talk about stuff like this, do normal people think we're just crazies?
Some of them do, some of them don't.
Some of them look at it and say, huh, a lot of stuff that did not make sense without this framework does make sense with this framework.
And that comes in even at a lower level without going into the supernatural God versus Satan.
Occupied Territory thing.
There are many things that are not explained well by just saying Pfizer captured the FDA, or the FDA is incompetent, or there's profiteering going on and they just want to make a lot of money.
And those things do make sense once you understand that Pfizer and the FDA and the US military are all working together on this intentional killing program.
That they don't talk about being an intentional killing program because they don't want people to know that it's an intentional killing program.
Um, so I think, I think there's a lot of people who are, yes, there are people who listen to it and are like, you guys are nuts.
But there are also a lot of people who think that the whole situation is nuts and this helps make sense of it.
Yeah.
Yeah, it does.
Why do you think they want to kill us?
Well, one thing is they want souls to go to hell.
On the lower, like more like practical earthly plane, They want all the money, and they don't want to provide money for housing and food and... Yeah, it's... It's weird.
It's just very weird.
Yeah.
You say that they want souls, which I get, but do you mean they want the souls of the people who go along with the evil, or they want the souls of the people who... They want that too, and they want the souls of the people who would have had time to make their way to a better connection to God, but won't have that time because their lives have been shortened.
Right.
I think the budget thing is part of how they sell it to people.
They're like, well, there's this massive debt and there's these massive entitlements, there's pensions and everything like that.
Your budgets at the state level, your budgets are messed up.
And I think on some level they have been able to persuade some of the state.
governments in the same way that they persuaded the federal governments.
Like, you can't keep going like this.
There's too much debt.
And the debt is because of the same way that the central banks have, like, manipulated everything.
So it's another one of these self-reinforcing loops where they make the problem and then they say the solution to this problem is to get rid of your people.
The solution of the to the problem is to reduce the lifespans of your people so that they're not and also like solution to the problem that we created by messing up the economy by like offshoring industrial jobs and everything like that is that now you have all these people on unemployment.
Well, if you can Make them kill themselves with opioids or alcohol or suicide or whatever, then they will be off your books and your books will look better and your government will feel more stable to you.
So that those are more of the reasons that that are put forward for why they're doing it.
Yes.
That's how they persuade the minions to go through with this, what would otherwise be abhorrent.
It's practical.
It's for the greater good.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
And they use that a lot.
They use the, I mean, the thing about do this or you'll be putting your grandma at risk, or do this or you're putting your grandchildren, you'll be able to see your grandchildren if you do this, is this total perversion of the common good.
This total inversion of what is actually good is not hurting yourself.
What is actually good is not hurting other people.
It is actually good to help other people, not to hurt themselves.
Well, you're familiar with the concept of satanic inversion.
I mean, that's how the world... Yeah.
That's it in a nutshell, isn't it?
Yep.
I'm curious without... I don't want to be prurient, but I'm curious about your kind of... your awakening.
Well, I call it going down the rabbit hole.
I don't know what you would call it.
But was there ever a time in your life when you trusted the system?
No, because the injury to my trust and authority was super early.
Right, right, I see.
And super close, like, yeah.
Okay, so you've spent your life knowing this stuff, so you've actually never been through the stage where you lose friends, because you've always been like this?
I've always been like this, but I did lose I lost acquaintances and people that I did things socially with through COVID in a way that I didn't before.
I've never been very good at being close to people anyway, because I'm an introvert and all of these other temperamental trust things.
But I did have friends that I did things with, and I could go places and do things with them.
And then this happened.
And because of the extreme break in terms of perception of reality.
I can't talk about it with very many people other than the people I've met through doing this work, who I don't tend to live around where I live.
And I find it very hard just to even be around the other people because I can't say any of the things that are the things that I think about and that I work on.
So that part of the social isolation and loss has been Severe and yeah, very perfect.
I'm I've got to ask you about about peak oil because before I before I sort of got into all this stuff.
My first big moment was realizing that the whole climate change thing was a scam and I wrote a book about it and I looked into the origins of the kind of the scare narrative that was, which as you know, goes back at least to the 1950s.
Yeah.
You could even argue that it goes back to the German Romantics and it goes back to people like Ernst Haeckel.
They had wind farms or wind towers as they were called in Germany, in Nazi Germany.
And there were the great blueprints for these enormous wind towers and all the kind of... So you see that the environmental movement goes back many, many decades.
And one of the things I looked at was M. King Hubbard.
Yes.
Who was behind P. Coyle.
This idea that there are these scarce resources which, unless we, it's sort of Malthusian isn't it?
Yeah, and the limits to growth and the Club of Rome stuff.
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
What do we know about that guy?
I mean, apart from he's a charlatan.
I don't know that much about that guy, because my connection to the peak oil thing was that in 2005, I read Richard Heinberg's book, The Parties Over Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Nations, or something.
Right.
And I found it very plausible, because I thought at the time, Yes, geologists probably can measure how much oil there is and how much is left and how difficult it is to get it out and the energy return on energy invested.
And if they are correct that this is the reason underlying the economy going down in the 70s because of the oil crisis, Then they are correct that the proper response is to relocalize things and to have people growing more of their own food in their backyards, having more of their own farm raised food in farms that are right around where they live, taking care of their water supplies, taking care of their small businesses.
This all makes sense to me.
I will work on this.
And then that was what led me into working with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund.
Which is an organization that came out of another project called the Program on Corporations, Law, and Democracy.
And the people who started that in like the early 2000s, mid-2000s, well, no, actually they started in the mid-90s, came upon the preemption doctrine and the merger of the corporate interests with the state interests and how that was suppressing and blocking local communities' ability To like protect their own water and protect their own food supply and protect their own economies because the corporations would come in and say, we're going to do this thing.
The local community would try to pass a law saying, no, don't do that thing.
We're not going to let you do that thing.
That's a thing that's bad for our people right in this town.
And then the state would come in and say, no, you're going to let them do that thing.
They're the corporation.
We're the state that like gives the corporate charters.
And under that system, your local town has no say in this matter.
So that was.
An organization that I was involved with from 2005 for several years, and I worked on local rights-based ordinances to try to preempt the preemption or block the preemption.
And it wasn't until the whole story collapsed around COVID and the The vaccines and all of the data that had been presented as being true that I was like, this is not true.
This is not true at all.
What else is not true?
And I know this is what a lot of people have gone through.
So then I went back and I was like, okay, they could be totally lying about everything they say about the geology and the oil capacity.
They could be lying about all kinds of other energy supplies, like all the things that people.
That I was around were like, it's a conspiracy theory that you could ever have something beyond oil that also provides energy, but is not nuclear, whatever.
I just, the whole thing collapsed at that point, but not because I don't think local control of food is important.
I do think local control of food is important.
I do think local control of water, like quality is important.
I do think protecting your small local businesses is important and having your local.
Like currencies that are segregated from the global currencies.
And central bank digital currency, all of that is still true.
It's just the peak oil part that is not.
Yeah.
And because I could see like, in whose interest is it that everybody believed this?
It's not in the interest of the people who push these stories to have people actually doing local food and local water.
And they don't tend to support organizations that are on the ground doing that.
They support organizations that say fluffy things about communitarian law, like Putting everything up to the UN, putting everything up to the World Health Organization.
And I found that out firsthand, too, because I started community gardens and small organizations around, like, learning how to do more stuff for yourself.
And those kinds of things did not get any, like, local, like, when there were grants available at the local level.
My organizations that were doing these things did not get the money, but this other one that was about co-working and, like, we're gonna have this space where everybody can come with their laptops and work, they got, like, huge amounts of free, like, commercial space to put in their thing that they didn't have to pay any rent on.
And I looked at that, like, why?
Why is that?
They're not coming up with any way for people to like feed themselves in the event of a food shock or whatever.
So yeah, that's kind of the story of where the Peak Oil and I parted company.
And did you come across the notion of abiotic oil, that it's not a fossil fuel at all, that it's abundant?
I have heard the term and I've looked at it super briefly, but yeah, I'm pretty I'm pretty quick about trying to keep myself on the rabbit hole segment that I work on because I know there are so many other rabbit holes and I think I'm better off sticking with the rabbit hole that I have started down.
But I do know about some of the other ones and that's one that I've heard of.
Yeah.
I think it's not even a fossil fuel, that that's just part of the myth.
Because people go, oh, if it comes from fossilised trees and there are only so many fossilised trees, therefore it makes sense that it should be finite.
But if it's not, that's not how it comes.
So, has your work affected your employment?
Have you suffered for your art?
I have suffered emotionally.
I have suffered socially.
I have not suffered financially.
Substack is a pretty amazing platform, actually.
I was looking for a long time for some way, but I have no...
Very good skills in business management or coming up with ways to make independent investigative reporting financially sustainable and sub stack for so long as it's not.
co-opted by people who would like to co-opt it has been great.
I've actually got an income from Substack writing that I never had before.
Well, that's great.
And I mean, I'm probably pretty unemployable now as a paralegal and stuff, especially locally.
But I mean, I was doing a lot of independent contracting type work there anyway.
The basic story is that I've never been much of a money-making entity, and so it couldn't get a whole lot worse than it was before, and it has gotten better.
supports our family so that's that's cool yeah um and he supports what i do like he he has never said to me you know it'd be much better if you stop going down these rabbit holes and started going to like an office job he's like no i think it's good what you do and our family's doing fine we have a roof over the head so that's keep going so um i think you've done you've done great work katherine uh and it's been lovely lovely talking to you uh a quick final question how
How many lawyers do you think can pass through the eye of a needle?
I have no witty answer to that.
I'm sorry.
That's a good question though.
Well, I just it just seems to me I've always I've always, when I was a boy, when I was about 12, I had this idea that I would want to become a barrister.
But then I also wanted to become a kind of a hero in the SAS and stuff, and I wanted to be an archaeologist.
So it was one of a range of options.
But as I've got older, I've looked at the legal profession and seen what it does to people.
Yeah.
And what you've been talking about today.
And it seems to me that these people are amoral at best.
The same thing I think happens to them in their legal training that happens to doctors in their medical training, that the training process itself is intended to separate them from their consciences and built to do that and it's very effective at doing that and that one of the things that's been It's odd that I'm gradually getting more comfortable with it.
When I started doing it, I thought of myself as like, okay, pretend you're a paralegal for a lawyer who will be interested in this because you will save them a lot of time.
If you come up with all this information and compile it and make it understandable, then when a lawyer shows up or a group of lawyers that's like, huh, what's going on?
It won't take them at all long to read this stuff and be like, oh, okay.
And then carry on from there.
They have not showed up.
They are not interested.
Many of them know about it.
I talked to them and they're just like, nope, not going down that road.
So.
But it's going to affect them as well.
It's going to affect their families.
I know.
And I think they've just decided like, OK, well, we'll just make the best of it till it's over.
I don't know.
I mean, some people have told me it's because they need to make a living and I understand they need to make a living.
Like, I have the luxury of I can do what I do because of the way my life is set up.
And if you have to earn a paycheck, then you have to do it.
Some people have said it's because the commercial or corporate product liability approach, like Big Tobacco and like OxyContin, looks to them like the way that there's going to be a payoff.
And this legal structure that I talk about is completely outside of that.
It's a constitutional Um, like foundational legal challenge situation, constitutional crisis.
It's not a product ability thing.
So there is no like possibility of a settlement.
And the other thing I've heard is lawyers have tried to go after the department of defense and the military industrial complex, and it never gets anywhere.
So they're not going to try anymore.
Um, and, and that goes back to what I was saying.
Like, I think there's potential.
To have the momentum for the constitutional restoration come from the states and the counties through the Federalist system more so than, but I think there's an important place for litigation.
Because litigation is a communication tool also.
It's a way to get information to judges, and it's a way to get information to the public that helps people understand this is a constitutional crisis, not a public health crisis.
This is a war, not a medicinal product campaign.
And if you don't use that litigation Communications channel then it takes longer for people to understand what's happening.
So that's that's the missed opportunity.
That's most frustrating to me about the disinterest of the legal community.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, I wish you all the best.
It does sound like the way forward in my own country as well the local level because the higher institutions are just damaged beyond repair.
But I think Brexit is also a cool thing that you have going for you there.
I think about that a lot.
We thought it's not really, because it's the same people.
We never got Brexit in any meaningful way.
By design, by design.
But yeah, we've got to clutch at these straws, haven't we really?
Yes.
Catherine, it's been great having you on The Gelling Pod.
I have a Rumble channel, KG Watt, but there's not even that much stuff there, so.
Right, okay.
Substack.
I'll put a link below.
Well, enjoy the rest of your Pennsylvania day.
Thank you!
Are you surrounded by kind of evergreen trees?
No, I'm in a...
The town that we have mixed hardwoods.
What is interesting is that I'm in a kind of Amish area.
And the Amish, do you know about the Amish?
I love the Amish.
I love the Amish, yes.
We have a lot of Amish, and it was really beneficial to see how they handled it, because they were another real-time counterexample.
They were like, okay, it's a cold.
Let's get on with it.
They all got sick, they all got better, and that was the end.
And they don't take the vaccines, and they don't have to because they're not The way they're connected to the regular economy is by gig work of like construction and farm stands and stuff like that, so they don't have the same pressure to conform.
So it's been really great to be in Pennsylvania with the Amish.
They're going to do quite well when the apocalypse comes, apart from the fact they haven't got any guns, have they?
Right, that is the one drawback to their...
But they've got all the survival skills.
Yes.
They can build houses out of logs.
And the rest of us have all the guns, so it should be fine.
Cool.
You team up.
Good.
Yes.
Well, Catherine, thank you very much for telling us all this stuff, and good luck with your substack, and good luck with the fight.
Thank you.
Thank you for inviting me.
Good luck to you.
Thanks a lot.
Okay.
Bye.
Oh, and it only remains for me to thank my viewers and listeners.
Please continue supporting me on Patreon, Subscribestar, Substack.
Locals, locals all buy me a coffee.
I really appreciate it.
It's getting harder as the powers that be.
Strengthen their grip on us.
It's getting worse, isn't it?
It is.
They are coming after Substack.
I can definitely see it, so... Oh, they're coming after us all in every which way.
Yeah.
I don't know how much longer we've got.
Anyway, thanks.
Alright, thank you.
Delingpole meets Ike.
In Manchester, November the 15th.
You'll find the details below.
I'm really looking forward to seeing you all there.
