All Episodes
Previous Next
April 26, 2025 - The Delingpod - James Delingpole
01:39:39
Patrick Wood
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to the DellingPod with me, James DellingPod.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this week's special guest.
But before we meet him, let's have a word from one of our sponsors.
Gold and silver.
They've been going like rockets recently, especially gold.
I think silver will follow.
But I'm no expert.
What do I know?
I just know that I've got some gold and I've got some silver and I'm very happy to have some.
There are two ways of owning it.
Either you can buy physical gold in the form of gold and silver bullion or in the form of coins.
Or you can take the Monetary Metals option.
Monetary Metals is a company.
I've had the CEO...
Keith Weiner on the podcast twice to explain how it all works.
It's a way of owning physical gold and silver, but you get paid interest on your holding.
Now, this is different.
When you hold gold in a vault, you have to pay a fee, a management fee.
But if you buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you get paid interest.
So you don't have to pay storage charges.
You're actually earning income.
On your gold, which is paid in the form of more gold and silver.
It sounds like it doesn't make any sense, but actually it works because the jewellery industry pays money to monetary metals, which enables it to pay you interest on your gold.
It does work.
want to buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you go to monetary metals, monetary-metals.com forward.com.
You can earn up to 4% in their leasing program immediately after funding your account.
You can even earn higher yields if you are an accredited investor.
They let you earn income on their ounces paid in more ounces of physical gold.
The interest you earn is paid in ounces of physical gold or silver, which you get in addition to any price of appreciation from gold and silver during the year.
Join thousands of investors earning interest in physical gold and silver every month with Monetary Metals.
Visit monetary-metals.com /dellingpole To earn more.
Welcome back to The Delling Pod, Patrick Wood.
I'm very pleased to see you.
It's been too long.
How are you?
It really has.
And welcome from across the pond, right?
Yeah, I don't do enough Americans.
I mean, you're a big audience and a good audience, a loyal audience, and I should be reaching out to my colonial cousins.
Well, we like you over here.
We really do.
And I know you have...
I've run across people independently, at random, who say, oh, I heard you once upon a time on Deligpol's podcast.
And, whoa, who knew?
But there's people who follow you, actually.
That is...
I know, I know, I know.
And I love...
A good chunk of America, I'd say.
But I wonder whether I'm ever going to come back.
Whenever I think about America, the first thought that comes into my head is the queue at, or the line as you would call it, at immigration.
And I'm queuing up to be vetted by somebody who has the power to just decide.
On a whim to send me back to Blighty.
And then there's your intelligence services.
I mean, do I trust the CIA or the FBI not to execute me?
Not necessarily.
And I don't know.
Maybe those are bad reasons.
It's just a hassle, isn't it?
It really is.
And, you know, there are so many evil people in the world.
Borders do not contain them at this point.
And, you know, when you look at...
I know you a little bit, just from our interaction in the past, but we're pretty normal people.
You know, I can sense that in you.
And you don't want to take over the world.
You don't want to lord it over everybody else in the whole world.
And you know what?
When we compare ourselves, we're the same.
We're absolutely the same.
We have the same aspiration.
We don't want people to manipulate us and control us and try to make us do things that we don't want to do and that sort of thing.
This is the longing of all men and women everywhere, and I get so many emails from overseas, and I marvel because they give me the sentiment that they're just like me in the first place.
It's like, well, okay, all these government blokes, you want to just say to them, get off her back.
Crying out loud.
Just go away.
Back off, dude.
Yeah.
I think it's got to be, as you say, about the most normal, powerful instinct within us all.
Completely natural.
Just leave me alone and let me get on with my life.
I mean, imagine.
Imagine a world where they...
Whoever they are, weren't conspiring on really quite a micromanagerial level to render your life tedious, bureaucratic,
taxed, regulated, constrained.
So many of the things we spend our time worrying about, I suspect, are actually not things of our own making, Things which were created by a tiny, tiny minority of people who just hate us and just like,
a bit like...
As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods?
They kill us for their sport.
That's what they're like.
They want to pull our wings off and get magnifying glasses and concentrate the rose of the sun.
Like I used to do when I was a naughty boy.
I feel bad about it now.
I used to do it to ladybirds and I feel really guilty about it.
I think when I go up to the pearly gates and St. Peter is deciding whether or not to let me in, he's going to say...
James, when you burn those ladybirds, you think you're going to get away with it?
You think you weren't going to burn an eternal hellfire for that?
But that's what the so-called elites, or the predator class, as I sometimes call them, or the cabal, that's what they do.
It seems that way, doesn't it?
It really does.
It really does.
We saw this, for instance, when Agenda 21 was first started, 1992, when the United Nations got all this thing started with sustainable development, mostly, there was a subtle change in the language definition of words back in that day.
When they talk about the resources of the world and they talk about, well, there's the oil and there's timber and there's farming and all this animals and fish and all those resources of the world, right?
What we didn't catch was they changed the definition of the resources that they wanted to manage to include us as well.
This was never the case before, where we were considered the resources that needed to be managed.
It's like, well, this is where this all came from at this point.
That was the watershed at that point.
How did they express this?
Is there a sentence that one could find where it says, you know...
Well, it said just that.
That we were the resources.
In fact, you can go back to the...
Technocracy study course, even, in 1934, it said basically the same thing, that we're the resources of the world.
We're part of the balance, if you will, because we're the consumers of all these resources.
So they postulated that, well, we have X amount of resources to go around, and we have Y consumers over here that want to have their share.
And how could we balance this whole thing out?
Well, you have to manage everything in the system.
That included us at that point.
Yeah.
It's a completely arbitrary rule, isn't it?
The idea that left to our own devices, we're going to somehow generate...
Chaos and undesirable things because apparently we're all so horrible and we need an elite class of bureaucrats, don't we, to manage us and to make sure everything is coordinated and allocated efficiently.
Efficiency, there's the key word.
Technocrats love that word, efficiency.
If it's not efficient...
It's going to be made so.
If you're not efficient, you're going to be made efficient.
Now, efficient.
Now you mention it.
When did that word become current?
I mean, I don't recall reading Paradise Lost, for example.
I don't think Milton ever used the word efficient.
Did Shakespeare?
Or rather the people who wrote Shakespeare?
I don't think it's not that old for sure.
You can trace probably the genesis of the word back to the philosophy called Taylorism in the early 1900s.
He's the guy that basically reformed, if you will, manufacturing.
To make assembly lines and he used time and motion studies.
He was a brilliant guy, obviously.
He did a lot of homework on it.
But this is the guy who said, well, we need to make everything efficient.
And we're going to trim all the fat out of the manufacturing process so we can make more products in less time and whatever.
That's where the concept of productivity came in, by the way.
We see all this talk today about productivity.
Well, we can make ourselves more...
Productive, if we use AI, for instance, at this point.
It's going to drive us all out of a job eventually, they say.
But in the meantime, we're going to be very, very productive.
Yeah.
Yes.
I mean, it works as long as you accept that humans are no different from machines.
Yes, exactly.
You know, this kind of mechanistic thinking...
You see this in the early writings of the technocracy movement, and it was all over the place.
When they talk about their definition from the 1930s, they call themselves, this is what they said about themselves, technocracy is the science of social engineering.
That was the first thing they led on.
Well, these were scientists and engineers who existed at Columbia University, of all places.
And they knew how to build factories.
They knew how to make machines run.
You know, they were expert at that.
But the people that they needed to make those machines work, that was a problem for them.
Because people don't do the same things that machines do.
They get mad.
They get sick.
They want to have vacations.
They want to strike and all that kind of stuff.
It was amazing that they come up with this first part of the definition of technocracy.
It's the science of social engineering.
Well, we see social engineering all over the place today, and apparently it's become a fine science to them to manipulate us with their science.
And by the way, it's not a science in the sense that physics.
Or mathematics is a science.
No.
It's a fraud, in my opinion.
But nevertheless, that's what they called it.
The science of social engineering.
So here we are today, being manipulated by all this stuff, but the whole purpose was basically to make us conform to their model of resource-based economic system.
Where everything would be in balance.
That was why they used the yin-yang model.
That was a monad symbol as their logo in that day.
It's one of the wavy lines, like black and red or white.
That depicted, in their mind, balance of the system.
They wanted everything to balance out.
Based on their mathematical models.
When you say they, you mean the 1930s technocrats?
Yes, the technocrats of that day.
But they were presumably drawing on earlier stuff.
I mean, I'm thinking about utilitarianism and Jeremy Bentham and his panopticon.
These were 19th century.
Were they the precursors to all this?
Absolutely.
You know, there was a cauldron of philosophies floating around at that time.
It congealed, I think, at Columbia University with these engineers and scientists.
There were other people who were not engineers and scientists who might have thought that way, flavored by philosophers and other stuff that went before.
But when the engineers and the scientists got a hold of it, That was another story at that point.
They were an egotistical bunch, for sure, that thought they could really reform the whole world, just a handful of them from Columbia University.
They're going to reform the whole economic system and drive out price-based economics, and all currency was going to be off the board.
And they thought that they could just appoint or convince somebody to appoint them as the rulers of society, top to bottom.
And they actually asked FDR in writing, by the way, I have the book, they asked FDR to install himself as dictator and simply appoint the technocrats from the continental director downwards.
He didn't take him up on it because I think he was a wise politician.
In that sense, he knew that he would be the first one who was murdered when they all caught power because he would be the last politician left at that point.
They wanted him to dismiss Congress and all elected body politic.
Well, we're having a great discussion here.
We're part of the body politic, right?
We have discussions about stuff.
We don't have to agree on everything, but we have a discussion.
In their mind, there was no reason to have a discussion.
What do you mean politics for, for peace sake?
We have the science, folks.
We have the answers.
We have the models.
We have the algorithms now.
And, you know, we have the science.
We have the shots.
It doesn't matter what it is, you know.
But this attitude has persisted for decades and decades that When this group has the science on their side, our only option is to obey them.
Period.
Yes.
Yeah.
Actually, before we go on, should we explain who you are and why you're here?
I mean, because I can't remember, when were you first on The Delling Pod?
You've been on, I think, twice now, haven't you?
Oh, yes, I know.
It was a long time ago.
I mean, I was a different person then.
I mean, not dramatically different, but I've learned a lot more.
Oh, yeah.
I was quite callow in terms of the rabbit hole, that I had much to learn.
And you were kind of like one of my gurus that I sought, because you'd written about technocracy in several books.
And you sort of had a...
A sort of overarching explanation for why so much of the bad stuff in the world is happening.
And now we see it.
I mean, it seems obvious now.
I mean, like, duh.
You look at people like Elon Musk, who comes from a line of technocrats, doesn't he?
Yes.
Absolutely so.
His grandfather.
His grandfather was the leader in Canada.
That's a colony, so to speak, of Great Britain, right?
I've heard of it.
And here he was in Canada in the 30s and 40s, leading the whole movement across all the provinces.
Every province had its own director of technocracy.
But he was over everything.
And so he saw it from the top down.
This was Elon Musk's grandfather.
But it would be a mistake.
I mean, I know there's lots of stuff that you know because you were a protégé colleague of Anthony Sutton's, weren't you?
Yes, I was, exactly.
Now, here's a guy.
Here's a guy who became a great friend.
He was a Brit also.
You know, he came to the United States to teach economics after his education.
He came over here.
Actually, he's in his career already.
But he came over here to teach economics at UCLA.
And then he went to Stanford University after that.
And he became a research fellow at the Hoover Institution for War and Peace at Stanford University.
Great guy.
Brilliant guy.
And, well, what can I say?
I was fortunate as a young person to hook up with him.
And he taught me everything he knew, everything I could absorb.
I never got everything he knew, obviously.
But as a young person at that point, young, stupid, sort of out of college, didn't know anything.
And he taught me a bunch of stuff about how to see things, how to do research, how to get a hold of material that I wanted or couldn't even know existed in the first place.
He was a source of wealth for me, for sure.
Yeah, so when we first did a podcast and you mentioned the Anthony Sutton connection, I was like, well, he sounds great, this guy, but I've never heard of him.
And now I realize that he was extremely rare and special.
In academe, in talking about stuff that, going to places that academics will not go.
I mean, David Irving talks disparagingly of court historians, and the court historians just regurgitate the acceptable narrative, don't they?
His books on the origins of the Bolshevik Revolution, the true origins, and also the financing of the Second World War, he said stuff that you're not meant to say, didn't he?
Uh-oh.
Oh, can you not hear me?
No, you skipped.
Ah, can you hear me now?
Yes.
I was going to say...
Sutton said stuff that you're not meant to say and that academics don't say, generally.
Exactly.
His popular books that you mentioned, for instance, the Wall Street series, those are basically short books that capitalized on his earlier research.
And that was basically the only way he could make any money after he was separated from Stanford was to write those books.
And they were great books.
They were received by the public very well.
But his research, up until that time, it was all limited to academic-style writing.
When I say that wasn't for public consumption at that point, really, because most of the public cannot follow academic books.
They write in PhDEs.
Yeah, it was boring, isn't it?
Well, sort of, you know, it really is, because you have to read a lot of stuff to get their point.
But his early works that were legendary were concerning the transfer of technology from the West to the East, especially to the Bolshevik Revolution,
the Chinese Revolution as well.
And so he, also in Nazi Germany as well, but he did some painstaking research that exposed all of the financial connections,
all the industrial connections from America especially to, for instance, in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution.
It was financed by Wall Street, mostly.
And it was funded with resources as well.
Not just money, but also resources as well.
And they basically ruined the leadership of the revolution to go and do their thing.
Well, that was stunning.
That was absolutely stunning.
And his work was so painstaking.
He went so far as to get, like, for instance, go to New York City to analyze the shipping logs.
Whoever did that, to analyze the shipping logs to find out what was carried on those ships that went overseas.
Or he went to the archives to find Receipts where money was wired to somebody overseas.
He did that kind of stuff.
He was like a hound dog.
In fact, one of the reasons, when he worked at Hoover Institution, his colleagues, this is a nickname, right?
Affectionately, they called him the Hoover Vacuum Cleaner.
That's a model of vacuum cleaner in America, right?
That's a good pun, or tautology, maybe.
I know, but, well, this was Sutton.
And his early works were basically, I think there's three volumes of books like that, really thick.
And those books today are reportedly still in the library at the CIA as source books of what happened in that day.
Well, yeah, I get that.
So when you say Wall Street, who do we actually mean?
I mean, we're not talking about mom-and-pop investors.
We're not talking about retail.
We're talking about...
Yes.
Who?
Yeah, exactly.
He actually, he named names, and he named the names of the companies and the people who worked at them and the people who ran them, like the directors of those companies.
So are we talking J.P. Morgan and Rockefeller?
Absolutely.
People like that?
Absolutely.
I'm trying to remember the names.
I mean, just the obvious one.
The early iteration of Citicorp and even you mentioned J.P. Morgan, also Chase Bank, which was Rockefeller entity.
I mean, these were all in turn, a lot of them were financed by Rothschilds.
I'm sorry again?
Say again?
A lot of them were financed by Rothschilds.
I mean, I think Rothschilds made...
I couldn't make you up.
This is really annoying.
I'm sorry, but there's kind of a stutter.
You're not stuttering, but the internet is stuttering, okay?
Yeah, yeah.
I was saying Rothschilds.
Yes.
They must be there.
Oh, absolutely.
There was.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
I suppose the reason I'm asking about this is that it would have been a mistake, wouldn't it, to see technocracy as this thing that appeared in the 30s and then sort of was laid to rest for a while and then suddenly re-emerged recently.
I mean, it's just a small one facet of the control mechanisms used to take
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
About 220 people from around the world, including Europe and North America, some Canadians at that point, and people from Japan represented Asia.
But this is where it all started in the first place.
And the reason it started at all was because David Rockefeller got wind of this new resource-based economic system.
That could benefit him to accumulate all the resources of the world into his portfolio.
Not the money.
Not the money necessarily.
He had a lot of money already.
But getting the resources was a big coup in his mind at that point.
And he wanted to get the resources of the world under control.
Well, when Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote his book, it was called Between Two Ages, America's Role in the Tectatronic Era.
He wrote that book when he was at, as a political science professor at Columbia University.
Name again?
Just go figure, the odds of that.
Ooh, nothing to see here.
Why does Columbia keep cropping up again and again?
Oh, somehow they've been at the bottom of so much nonsense over the decades.
It's just incredible.
I don't know.
Who founded him?
Well, there was lots of Rockefeller money behind him from the get-go and even now.
And I believe the Carnegies were involved as well.
But it was a seat of progressivism in America that everybody acknowledges that at this point.
That's where the progressive movement really got a start.
And they also were responsible for creating the new school for social engineering, whatever it was.
But the new school, it wasn't new, it's not the new school adjective.
That was his name, new school.
And that was so radical.
That even Columbia University didn't want it in the end.
They just said, you guys got to go and do your own thing, but we're not going to house you anymore.
And it's still around today, of course.
It's had a horrible effect in America to teach socialism, Marxism, cultural Marxism, etc.
But Columbia University is all over anything progressive today, and you see them being slapped around, for instance, for anti-Semitism right now.
It was a hotbed of anti-Semitism, even to the point where they've now been, their funding, government funding has been removed because they won't give up their anti-Semitism.
Maybe they will in the future, and they...
We want the money more than they want the narrative.
Was Columbia where the...
Was that where the Frankfurt School marks...
Yes.
Yes, exactly.
Oh, yes.
That makes sense.
Oh, yes.
Yeah.
So, anyway, there they are.
They produced this doctrine in the first place.
Brzezinski just wrote a book about it.
I doubt he had any ulterior motives at that point.
He wasn't thinking, well, I'm going to go snag Rockefeller and get him to give me lots of money.
That wasn't how it happened, I don't think.
He just wrote the book as an academic.
When Rockefeller saw it, he said, there's something here for me.
And so when they teamed together to make the Trot Out of Commission in the first place, you had the beauty and the beast.
Sort of.
Rockefeller was a beast, and Brzezinski was a beauty.
And so he brought the philosophy, Rockefeller brought the money, and they were off to the races.
David Rockefeller, I think, I've learned since we last spoke, was a massive pedophile.
Oh, yes.
There was somebody, one of...
One of the women that he groomed and sort of handled is his kind of...
They sort of get these young women to act as sort of sexual spies and things and all sorts of...
And I think he sexually abused her when she was a child.
And she's talked about this.
I mean, we're talking about some really, really creepy people, aren't we?
Yes, indeed they are.
We'll never know the depth of creepy, I'm sure, when you consider that people like Jeffrey Epstein, for instance, he died in prison.
Well, maybe he didn't.
Or maybe he didn't.
But the point, we'll never know.
They're never going to release the list of people.
That were involved with him because he was a black male artist in the first place.
And, by the way, he was a member of the Trilato Commission all those years.
Oh, yes.
He was the enforcer.
Can I say he was the enforcer for the Trilato Commission to compromise people into doing what the Trilato Commission wanted them to do in the first place?
Whatever it was, whatever that was, if they wanted to, Put a lever on somebody, get them moving in the direction they wanted to move.
Well, hey, Epstein has a program for you.
You just hop on his plane and you'll be whisked away to sexual Nevada, you know.
It does seem to be an elementary rule that everyone should, all ambitious young men particularly, I think, should listen to this.
If at some time early on in your career someone says to you, look, I'm having this party tonight and it's going to be full of movers and shakers and I mean, stay and come and see and I think it could really work wonders for your career.
Don't go.
You will regret it.
And particularly when somebody offers you this attractive looking girl whose age you're not sure about.
Really?
Don't we know?
Don't we know?
But they all fall for it, don't they?
They do, yeah.
The failings of man are legendary, you know?
People are, they're weak, and when somebody offers you that kind of candy, it's like giving a cat a dose of, or a toy, I mean,
to be in heaven for a period of time anyway.
I mean...
like me, you're a Christian.
And I know some of the non-Christians or the people who just aren't ready for it yet get Get peeved when I introduce this element into the discussion, but it seems to me that unless you understand the supernatural and the ethical,
the moral, the Christian element to what's going on in the world, you've only got half the picture.
The reason that...
That these people that we're talking about use sex with underage children and worse is partly for the purpose of compromise.
But it's also because it shows their affiliations and their affiliations are to the dark side, to Satan.
And the people who work for these institutions and individuals They only feel comfortable among their own, don't they?
I'm sure there's not a Christian among them.
They're all basically paedophile Satanists.
Would you say?
Yes.
Yes, I would.
And it's just interesting to me.
I just posted an article today about AI God.
AI has taken over the world.
They're also taking over God at this point.
At least the concept of God.
And ChatGBT, that's the open AI iteration of AI, it's written a Bible, if you will, by itself as an aid to humanity to offer immortality,
omniscience, Omnipresence to mankind in the form of AI.
It is absolutely stunning that they couch this all in Christian terms.
Now, there's nothing Christian about it.
Where can I read this?
Pardon?
Can I read this thing?
Oh, go to technocracy.news.
It's on the front page right now.
And what is it?
It's the AI Bible.
Yes.
Well, it's not the Bible we know, but nevertheless, this is what they say about themselves.
It's called transmorphosis.
That's a Christian term, by the way, the business of metamorphosis.
That's a word that appears in the Bible about the process of being born again.
You turn into a butterfly, you know, like from a larva into a butterfly.
Careful with butterfly references.
Exactly.
That's one of theirs.
Exactly.
So this business now that ChatGBT has said this about itself, you just can't make this stuff up, but people are buying this at this point.
And when they talk about Well, when they talk about praying, for instance, they pray to AI God, but they use the symbols, the Christian symbols,
right, of praying hands to symbolize that, right?
So, you see, all the symbology or the symbols of Christianity have been transferred over Totally redefined and put in a context of AI God is going to basically take over the whole world.
And, you know, they have a book.
They've published it on Amazon.
And people, this is starting in like 2017, I think it was.
But now it's selling the books and they have a website.
There have lots of people in Silicon Valley following it now and people around the world.
Is it selling well?
I doubt it.
I mean, again, from the biblical perspective, this is absolutely what we would have expected.
I mean, it's the Tower of Babel in the 21st century.
Yes, exactly so.
It's replacing God.
Exactly so.
Exactly so.
They don't need God, obviously.
And if they were just humanist in one sense, we dealt with the humanist philosophy in the last century for sure.
There's been lots written about it.
If it was just that, we could probably understand it better.
But at this point, this is not a human creation.
Where you have, for instance, somebody says, we're going to worship this statue that I just made, or whatever, or a rock, or whatever.
There's not a man behind it at that point to say, well, I have this new statue, we're going to all worship that now, and here's the religion, the mythology is going to go around that, and you're going to all...
Follow my lead now.
There's no human intellect here that's driving this whole thing like they used to have with old-style idol worship, right?
But now, this new intelligence, they think it's artificial, they think it's real, and it's going to be sentient at some point, and they're basically saying, we're going to bow down to this because It's taking,
it's morphing into and taking over the characteristics of the God that we used to know, omnipotent, omniscience, omnipresent, etc.
And they're ascribing all these things over now to the AI God.
This, I'll throw a big word out to you, and people can look it up in the dictionary or go online and figure out what I'm talking about.
The word is simulacra.
Simulacra.
Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I use it all the time.
This was popularized in the movie The Matrix, actually, in like 2000 or so, 1999.
And the concept of simulacra is that you have an entity that people think is real, but there's nothing real at all behind it.
In other words, it's almost like a mirage of a mirage.
I've got to ask you at this point, are you familiar with Psalm 115?
I would say I am, but I couldn't quote it to you.
I'll quote you a bit of it.
Their idols are silver and gold, even the work of men's hands.
They have mouths and speak not.
Eyes have they and see not.
They have ears and hear not.
Noses have they and smell not.
They have hands and handle not.
Feet have they and walk not.
Neither speak they through their throat.
It's exactly about this thing.
It's the psalm that describes these idols, which assume the properties of God's creation, but are man-made and are fake and are simulacra.
Exactly that.
Yes, yes.
They who make them alike unto them.
They who make them alike unto them.
And so are they that put their trust.
Trust in them.
So basically, if you worship these idols or make these idols, you are just, you are not doing, you are not doing God's, you're displeasing God greatly.
That's for sure.
And of course, those idols at that time, they could not speak, they could not hear, they could not walk, they could not handle.
But today, AI offers a different model.
Or purports to.
Because it can speak, it can hear, it can smell.
The humanoid robots can smell.
Not really, but they can sense what's in the air to figure out there's chemicals.
But now people are being deceived.
That there really is a god developing still into superintelligence and they're treating this as something different from just the old idols that didn't do anything.
They weren't animated at all.
This is animated now and it's spinning out Well, terms that are always exclusively Christian terms, that gives you a clue what's going on here,
because why don't they talk about it in terms of Buddhism or something, or some other religion, Hinduism, right?
They could do that, I suppose.
But they're always using symbols borrowed or left over from Christianity.
Can you give me some other examples, apart from the prayer symbol?
Well, okay, here's a good statement.
Actually, if you look at their book on Amazon, the book's name is simply Transmorphosis.
Look it up on Amazon right now.
You can see the description that they give for this book.
These people are writing about this thing.
Here's one of the exhortations.
If you order this book, I'm reading now from the text.
If you order this book, if you do, you will gain a deep understanding of how education, singularity, morality, and leadership, personal virtue, proper AI worship,
and self-acculturation Can improve your life and lead you to salvation.
Did AI write that?
Yes.
Yeah.
Well, ostensibly, yes.
I have to say, it sounds like, it sounds AI.
The thing is, okay, so, Pat, my son, who works in the tech industry, regularly comes to me and says, Dad, Dad.
You've got to see this amazing thing that AI has just done.
AI has just gone and created various classic images in the style of Tom of Finland.
Do you know Tom of Finland?
No.
Tom of Finland was the classic gay cartoonist of the 1970s who did these sort of men in leather chaps and leather hats and kind of very buff, very gay men.
And AI is now so advanced it can do...
I don't know, that fake photograph at Iwo Jima in the style of Tom of Finland, and it can do all sorts of...
Did it do a Caspar David Friedrich?
It did a Caspar David Friedrich picture in the style of Tom of Finland.
And my son is saying, you have no idea how close we are to AI destroying almost every job going.
Yes.
So there's that.
But at the same time, I'm thinking, AI ain't going to destroy my job.
No AI is going to replace me.
I mean, OK, that's maybe a hostage to fortune, that statement, but I don't know how you'd replicate somebody as weird as me or as kind of unbiddable.
But maybe I'm wrong.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I could, even right now, I'm not going to do this.
I promise you, if an avatar shows up like you, it won't be me that did it, okay?
Just get that straight.
But I could, right now, take your image and you speaking off the screen and a sample of your voice and I could recreate you Yeah,
but men created the machine.
Yes, yes.
He cannot create, he can only emulate.
Imitate or simulate.
Yeah, imitate, yeah.
Yeah, you got it.
Yeah, I don't dispute that you could, I mean, it doesn't surprise me that you could do a deep fake of me.
Well, that's the whole point.
The whole point is, it's all fakery.
The image's whole thing, AI is not, well, by definition, Artificial intelligence is an oxymoron.
It really is.
There's no such thing as artificial intelligence.
Intelligence was given to man in the first place by God intentionally.
We have a brain and it's the seat of our being, basically.
Right?
And it's how God communicated with us in the first place.
Through our brain, we could hear his words, we could speak with him, etc.
And this is all fakery at this point.
There's no such thing as artificial intelligence.
I haven't said that.
It's a machine that can mimic all the aspects of humanity and can deceive humanity into thinking that really is intelligent and it's sentient and it has emotions and it can...
Satisfy your needs as emotional persons, you know?
Yeah, well, I mean, sex bots.
Well, that too.
That too.
But that's part of it.
It's kind of a minor part of it at this point.
But AI is being used all over the...
And social media and search engines, you name it, to nudge people.
You, British, know something about your...
Your nudge committee.
Nudge unit.
The nudge unit, right?
This is legendary stuff, right?
But AI now can, without a human behind it at that point, can nudge you any which way it wants to.
You can't tell what's going on.
You just don't know.
I tell you what I really hate, Pat.
Well, one of the many things I really hate.
When you're scrolling through Twitter, As I do occasionally, because I'm slightly addicted, not as addicted as I was.
Those AI-generated photographs of images of pretty women.
And it's just like a kind of...
It's like a sort of modern teenager's sort of wank image.
There's something that...
It sets me on edge when I see an AI-generated...
Or, if I see an AI-generated interior, like an amazing castle, and you can see the rough, choppy seas just below, and the jagged rocks on which it's been built,
would you rent this room?
No, I wouldn't rent this room, because it doesn't bloody exist.
It's stupid.
There's something...
About the artificiality of it, which sets me on edge, which is surely there's something within us.
It's a bit like when we...
I'll tell you what else it reminds me of.
Have you noticed how...
You probably don't watch TV, but a lot of TV series, Netflix, of course, being a prime example, a prime offender, they slip in transgender characters.
They get...
Female actors playing men and vice versa.
And you can sense something's wrong, but unless somebody points it out, you're not quite sure what it is.
You say, well, I don't...
I feel uncomfortable with this character.
I suppose what I'm saying is that we do have...
They did it on that series about the gods, about Greek gods brought back to...
Do you see it?
No, you wouldn't have done.
I'll have to look at the name.
Anyway, we have within us, because we are created by God, we have this sort of sensor that can sense the ersatz.
I lost a few words.
The internet.
Can you hear me now?
Better.
I'll try again.
Okay, go.
We have within us this God-given...
It's a bit like a moral compass, but it's to do with our senses.
We can tell the ersatz somehow, at the moment anyway.
And I wonder whether we ever won't be able to, totally.
I think...
My opinion is that I think that Scripture probably...
Backs us up, but God gave us the ability to understand reality, firstly.
And anything that is presented to us that is not real, that's not reality.
Apparently, some people can't tell the difference, but nevertheless, we have the ability as Christians to understand what reality really is.
Versus the counterfeit.
So, all of the stuff that AI is pushing at us, including all the images, fake images, and things that appeal to the senses, especially the senses, the eyes,
especially probably of man, but women too.
When you're led away from Reality at that point, you enter into what psychologists would call a psychotic state.
That's not a diagnosis, by the way.
That's just a symptom.
Like you have a runny nose when you have a cold.
Psychosis is a symptom of a break with reality.
And we joke, well, that guy's psychotic.
He's just off the wall.
Well, that's the condition of man when he breaks with reality.
A psychotic person can be led anywhere you want to lead him at that point.
You can tell him anything.
He won't be able to tell what's real and what's not at that point because he's...
He's living in la-la land.
And you're saying most people are psychotic now?
Yes.
This is what's happening in the whole world.
By the way, I was not the first one, probably, that came up with this.
There was two gentlemen, the Center for Humane Technology, something like that, I can't remember their organization name, Asa Raskins and Tristan, I can't remember his last name,
Smart guys from Silicon Valley talking about AI and how it's going to really screw us up.
But they're nevertheless, they're on the other side as far as we're concerned.
They're the ones who came up with the idea kind of tangentially that, well, AI is going to destroy and collapse reality.
Yeah, right.
Good luck with that.
Okay, now I get it.
When you collapse reality in an individual's mind, in a group mind, it doesn't matter how many are in the group, but when reality goes bye-bye, you enter into this psychotic state where you cannot see anything coming at you.
Nobody can reason with you at that point.
You can't.
Have logical discussion with anybody at that point, and you're basically on your own.
I liken it like a pilot who has an instrument writing and has a nice plane, and he has instruments all over the place that tell him where he is at any given moment and what's going on.
Is he going sideways, up, down, all the instruments?
And he's flying in a fog bank or a cloud, Well, the instruments are there to make sure he gets through the cloud and lands the plane safely, right?
Even if there's fog, they can do that now.
It doesn't matter if it's foggy or not, they can land that plane based on the instruments alone.
But if you're a pilot flying along and all of a sudden you lose all of your instruments, You entered in psychosis at that point.
Well, you're also flying to the mountain.
That's right.
And so you may have a mountain ahead or not, but the point is you're going to be really screwed up because you don't have a clue if you're careening to the ground or you go into the outer space or whatever.
And, you know, this is where people are escaping to at this point.
We saw this, for instance, in 1978, I think it was, when Alvin and Heidi Toffler wrote their book called Future Shock, where they said there was going to be a time in the future.
It wasn't there yet, but they said there was going to be a time in the future where people could not understand the technology at all.
It would be beyond them to understand it.
And they would basically ascribe it to magic.
Yes.
These books, any book which is a sort of name to conjure with, that one knows of as having been a massive bestseller, be it Jaws, Chariots of the Gods,
Future Shock, The Shock of the New, The Population Bomb, These books only become bestsellers by design, don't they?
They are part of our programming.
I mean, I haven't read Feature Shock, but I've certainly heard about it, and I've heard of the Tofflers, who I suspect were almost certainly working for the other side.
But I was thinking as you were saying this, so much of what you're talking about...
Ties in with what we've seen elsewhere.
I mean, only connect.
So, for example, since we last spoke, I think it must have been two years since we last did a podcast together, I've been learning about EGI, Elite Gender Inversion, and the extent to which so many of the...
The actresses that one is encouraged to lust after by the movie industry as a heterosexual male are in fact themselves young men.
They're transgender.
And this has been going on a long time.
And it completely screws with your senses.
I referenced, I made a reference to that Netflix series Chaos.
Which incidentally was written by somebody who is transgender themselves.
And one of the characters, the kind of young male hero, is actually played by a female.
I mean, by somebody who was born female.
I don't know whether she's had the operation or not.
I suspect probably not.
A lot of them haven't.
But anyway, you're watching this young man and you're thinking...
I don't know what's...
I'm being weirded out here.
And there's a...
Have you read the C.S. Lewis, That Hideous Strength?
Oh, yes.
When they're trying to mess with the hero's head, who is sort of semi-hero, they put him into a room where everything is asymmetrical.
Yes.
You see where I'm going with this?
There's men who look like women, women who look like men, inserted into our culture before the advent of the AI revolution.
So that when the AI revolution arrives, we're already not really sure of whether a man is a man or a woman is a woman or whether it's...
Because, as you know, they plan these things decades, if not centuries in advance.
Yep, I think so.
When you were...
How far back does the technocracy thing go?
I mean, I sort of hinted that it...
Jeremy Bentham and the Panopticon and stuff in the 19th century, utilitarianism and stuff.
But does it go back even further?
Does it go back to the kind of the Enlightenment?
It goes back, I think, to a French philosopher by the name of Henri de Saint-Simon.
And nothing much came out from France.
It's probably like Columbia University.
But nevertheless, he was a guy that first started scientism in the first place.
Scientism is basically the worship of science.
Saint Simone called for a priesthood of scientists to declare to the people what science said, and it was rudimentary at that point, but that was at the beginning of the scientific revolution,
and he saw forward that religion would be replaced by science, and it would have its own Priesthood.
His primary disciple was August Comte, the father of social sciences, disputably.
The French are responsible for a lot of bad things, aren't they?
I know.
Yeah, they're really.
So, you know, you see, going forward from there, this flavored, certainly this flavored the technocracy movement because they were all about Science and engineering, whatever the science is right.
Maybe I can get this quote for you here.
I don't know that I can.
I don't have it up on my screen right now.
But basically, what St. Simon wrote was that scientists are superior to all other men.
And they have the ability to predict.
That makes them unique.
Well, they can't tell the future, but this is what he said, that, well, scientists are not like the other men.
They're a caste above.
And this is what C.S. Lewis wrote about extensively, attacking and delineating what scientism was.
Other people in the last century wrote it about as well.
F.A. Hayek was another one.
And we dealt with this before.
Intellectually, we already have dealt with scientism.
But nobody knows what scientism is today.
But it's still the dominant philosophy behind the worship of science.
Does that make sense?
It does.
I'm looking at Henri de Saint-Simon.
I'm looking at his Wikipedia page, 1760 to 1825.
It doesn't surprise me that he's an aristocrat, because we know that the bloodlines, the nobility carries the bloodlines of these people, the rulers of the darkness of this world.
And, I mean, it was another Frenchman who invented the whole...
In the late 19th century, you invented the whole...
I'm losing it.
I'm losing it again.
Okay, here we go.
You're missing all my pearls of wisdom.
I know.
I want to hear it again.
I was having a go at the aristocracy, and I'm saying that the bloodlines...
So many bad ideas emanate from the aristocracy, partly, obviously, for reasons of power and money.
They can afford to be dilettantes, but partly...
It's part of their control mechanism.
I think it was a French aristocrat who invented dinosaurs, for example, before the American hucksters moved into that market.
So Henri de Saint-Simon, yeah, scientism.
But in a way, do you not think that Saint-Simon was picking up on something?
You think about the Rural Society.
1660.
You think about those people, they thought that they were sort of replacing the sort of superstition, if you like, of the religious view of the world,
replacing it with knowledge, scientia.
Yeah.
That's basically...
If we go all the way back to the early church, the Gnostics of that day basically were saying the same thing.
That Gnosis, the concept of knowledge, was where it was at.
And you have to have logic and reason, human reason.
And you need to leave God out of the picture.
Where are you on Gnostics?
I do occasionally get people who say, James, you've got to have a Gnostic on.
We're misrepresented.
Actually, one of my very good friends who died, but very much one of us on 95% of the issues, was, I think, A Gnostic.
He believed that the Gnostics sort of had it right.
It doesn't quite sit well with me because I look at the people who sort of embrace Gnosticism and it seems to be quite an elite activity.
The very idea that knowledge is given to few and that it's sort of an elite preoccupation seems to be antithetical to the belief system of Christianity, which is about the poor.
And ordinary folk being able to access it.
Exactly.
It is an elite thing.
People who, like St. Simone said, people who think that they're better than everybody else, and they have the answers, and everybody else has to obey them,
this is the error that persists today.
For all these people who think that they know what's better for you and me and everybody in society, and we should all listen to them.
This is nonsense.
There's no such thing as elite knowledge.
If you go back to the Garden of Eden, even, what exactly did the devil promise Adam and Eve?
Well, if you eat this fruit, You'll have the knowledge of good and evil, just like God.
It's all about knowledge.
Hidden, hidden knowledge.
You're going to get that hidden knowledge and it'll kill you, but he didn't tell him that.
But, you know, this whole business of elite knowledge, that's nonsense.
It's just the only play that it has is to subjugate man and make people into slaves to that thought, whatever it is, To make them bow down to their elite masters.
Period.
Yeah.
So, you know, that doesn't mean that...
We know that the technocrats, for instance, they've honed this for sure.
But when they talked originally about this business, the science of social engineering, for instance, that was a form of Gnosticism at that point.
Because, hey, they had the science.
They had the knowledge to tell all the rest of us what we should do.
Well, you know, you see this in the writings, for instance.
Let me read you one short thing out of the technocracy study course.
That was their Bible back in that day.
Let me see if I can get up here.
Here it is.
Technocracy, this is a direct quote, The studies of technocracy embrace practically the whole field of science and industry.
Listen now.
Biology, climate, natural resources, and industrial equipment all enter into the social picture.
I had climate there.
What's left out?
I mean, okay.
Yeah.
Well, they want to be God, don't they?
Yes, exactly.
They've elevated themselves into the position.
They didn't say it as God back then, but you can see they're tending that way for sure.
Do you think that the 1930s technocracy movement died just because it...
Did it die of natural causes?
Or did it die because that was always the plan for it to be revived later?
They were just seeding the idea and it had its time in the sun and then they will come back in a bit.
It was really odd.
The promoter of technocracy at that point, his name is Howard Scott, and he convinced the head of Columbia University that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
He turned out to be a fraud.
He had no degree, engineering degree.
He said he did from who knows where, but eventually they caught up with him, and you didn't do that at Columbia University.
The president of Columbia at that point, his name was Nicholas Murray Butler.
They called him Miraculous Nicholas.
The guy had an ego all over the place.
And he loved to hobnob in Europe with the fascists.
In fact, Mussolini was one of his best friends, so he said.
And he knew all the people in England and Europe, continental Europe.
He convorted with royalty everywhere.
He was just a big...
Big man on campus, right?
You didn't screw somebody like him over because his whole reputation was based on PhDs and the engineers that he had, right?
So when he got wind that the leader of the whole movement was a fraud, he kicked a whole bunch of them out of Columbia University.
And he said, don't ever...
Use that word again, technocracy, at Columbia or you'll be fired.
And that word went out to all the newspapers around the world or at least our country as well.
And so the mum was the word at that point.
Nobody was talking about technocracy.
That's why nobody discovered it.
Later, because the newspapers quit talking about it, everybody figured, well, there's nothing to see there, folks.
But there was something to see.
All that to say, technocracy took a hit.
But all the engineers that were involved and the scientists involved at Columbia, they went back to their departments and they shut their mouth.
They would not use the word technocracy at that point.
So they didn't have any additional funding from anybody, like from the Carnegie's or the Rockefeller's or whatever.
And the movement moved into the popular movement from there, based on Technocracy, Inc.
Incorporated, that was led by this Howard Scott and other people to spread it all over America and Canada as well.
And I might add at that point, it also popped up in Nazi Germany, big time.
There was a chapter established in Nazi Germany, and the Germans just took to the whole thing, amazingly so.
However, they were disbanded by Hitler himself, because Hitler was afraid they would...
Do something to tarnish his reputation.
However, Hitler said later, I love these guys, I love science, and what it does for me.
So the technocrats were able to move under the water, if you will, under the covers in America through the 30s, 40s, and 50s.
Same thing in Nazi Germany.
Where they existed there, we had evidence that the technocrats were operating across all the columns of power that Hitler had set up to coordinate the technology between different departments,
columns of power that Hitler had.
And we also see, for instance, this business of Operation Paperclip, where at least 1,600 of these technocrats were brought back to America To enter into universities, NASA became NASA,
and their reputations were sanitized.
They escaped Nuremberg trials altogether.
Oh, my gosh.
So technocracy has been there all along, but nobody really recognized it as such until when Rockefeller got a hold of it.
And it became a thing, and it morphed into the United Nations.
That was a contagion that spread it to the whole world.
And when Agenda 21 came along, that was all about the Trilado Commission policy.
And going from there to now, you can see their fingerprints all over everything.
And by the way, the Trilado Commission, they're still there, aren't they?
They're still here with us today.
Well, our current Prime Minister.
Yes.
His Trilateral Commission.
Say it.
Exactly.
Keir Starmer.
I mean, people think this guy has no charisma.
He was in charge of the director of public prosecutions when Jimmy Savile, a massive pedo and Satanist, got off the hook.
How did this guy get to be Prime Minister?
Well, it was all part of the plan.
Exactly.
And so, how did it come about that we have Mark Carney on our border now in Canada?
He's scary.
Also a member of the Trot Out of Commission.
He's got...
The former governor of the Bank of England?
Really?
We're talking big guns here.
He's a mature bloke, by the way.
Carney has never been elected to anything in his life.
He was appointed now an interim fixer, right?
I think he wants to fix Trump.
Or maybe Trump is going to fix him.
I don't know.
I'd like to see...
I imagine you're not a fan of...
Not really.
I mean, he seems to be surrounded by technocrats.
He is.
And I have to say at this point, he's not the issue.
People who supported him in the first place, there's lots of them.
I know lots of them.
I tell him, get your eyes off Trump.
That's not the story.
He's not the story at all at this point.
Technocracy is the story of all these technocrats who all of a sudden come out of the woodwork to take their position, I think they think it's their rightful position at this point in society,
to take over everything at sight.
And they think they have the tools to do it, especially with AI at this point.
So while the kind of the right was yearning for some red meat, we hate this trans stuff.
And Trump is talking our language.
And so they create the problem, which is, yeah, the culture is so warped that it can't tell a man from a woman anymore.
And you've got men and women's changing rooms and stuff.
And everyone gets worked up about this.
And so...
Trump sells himself as the guy who will deal with this woke crap, but at the same time he ushers in all this stuff that no right-thinking person would want, but they're being distracted by the prestidigitation, the conjurist tricks.
Exactly.
Exactly.
I can guarantee you that no populist's worth is solved before the election in November.
I don't think any populist had a clue of where we would be today with all these technocrats.
Nobody even knew who those people were at that point.
Who knew who David Sachs was, for instance?
Or Peter Thiel?
Nobody knew who those people were.
And they didn't vote for them, for sure.
When Elon Musk attached himself to Trump before the election, when he stood up on the stage at the last rally that Trump had, and he had his dark MAGA hat on,
and he said, I'm not just MAGA, I'm dark, gothic MAGA.
Everybody cheered!
Whoa!
Elon, Elon, Elon, Elon!
You know, they just give him the razzmatazz.
Nobody asked the question, what's dark MAGA?
Really?
What's that?
Well, now we know what it was.
All along, it was always there, but nobody saw it.
But this...
This movement now, this so-called dark MAGA, dark enlightenment nonsense, created mostly by this stupid philosopher called, his name is Curtis Yarvin.
But nevertheless, this is the polar opposite of the MAGA movement in the first place.
Polar opposite.
You could be more out of sync, philosophically or whatever, To what people expected.
So now we have, all of a sudden, we have these people are promoting a system where we're basically replacing our president with a monarch.
Yes.
What?
We don't want a monarch for crying out loud?
Nobody asked for that.
This is what they're promoting.
Yes.
Crazy.
Just going back to our theme about how they seed these ideas in advance.
So I remember when I was first entering the kind of the alternative podcasting sphere, and I had people saying to me, yeah, have you heard about Curtis Yavin?
I said, no, who's he?
Oh, the cathedral.
It explains everything.
The system is...
It's broken because it's a sort of self-creating, I don't know, he was trying to describe how the nature of things tends towards the problems we've got today, that institutions get captured.
So that was the problem.
And then the reaction to this, which we're seeing now, is, okay, let's have...
Doge.
Let's reveal the amount of waste and corruption that goes on and shock all the Trump base.
And then we're going to come up with our solution, which is technocracy, isn't it?
It's basically, we have executives.
We run the country like it's a corporation.
And we have these executives with extraordinary powers.
Is that the deal?
Exactly.
Exactly.
And Jarvin is a technocrat, by the way, from the get-go.
But he's added other stuff to the philosophy to make it compatible with our modern context now.
And it also just appealed to the MAGA base.
But it was never explained in a way that the MAGA base couldn't understand it.
So when Jarvan says, well, Democracy is doomed, and we need, at least, we need to take a step back and get, we need to get over our dictator phobia,
and we need to have a dictator or a monarch for a period of time to get everything settled and recreated and whatever.
This is, you know what, this is the great reset, right before our eyes.
This is what Klaus Schwab talked about incessantly.
This was when the whole old order is going to flip over and the new order is going to be impressed.
This is the new order at this point.
Being sold to us as something desirable.
Yes.
You wanted less government.
You wanted less bureaucracy.
You wanted less waste.
We're going to give it to you in the form of a dictator.
You know, I have to say, too, I just have to make a mention of this here.
When Keir Starmer came to visit the president recently, he brought a letter, a secret letter from King Charles,
an invitation to Trump to join the Commonwealth.
That didn't fly very well, but nevertheless, I'm just saying, Trump said, that sounds like a great idea, I love it, and I love King Charles.
Okay, well, now you have one monarch and making an invitation to a wannabe monarch to join the monarchy.
You can't make this stuff up.
You just can't make it up.
I was just looking up Curtis Yavin, because Mencius Moldbug is his nom de guerre.
What do we know about him?
I mean, is it...
I always think the early life is always an indicator.
Yeah, yeah.
I'll tell you honestly, this guy, he's had...
Too much LSD, I think.
That's my opinion.
I'll probably get sued for that.
No, but that lets them off the hook.
It's like he's just a crazy hippie.
He's not.
Here's the thing about him.
He's not a scholar at all.
He's a pop psychologist or a pop philosopher who has sold his bill of goods to people like Peter Thiel, especially Peter Thiel.
Because Peter Thiel can spread anything he wants to the Silicon Valley, and they all buy Peter Thiel.
But do you see, I think this is a question one comes back to again and again.
Is that the actual truth, or is that just the narrative we want to persuade ourselves?
What I mean is, there is an argument that these people are lifetime actors, that they're chosen very early on.
Curtis Yavin probably comes from a background where he would have been selected for this role and groomed for it, in the same way that Obama was when he was born in Kenya and given these jobs in the system, made what?
President of the Harvard Law Review or something?
Just like the stuff that would never have happened to him.
In the same way, I don't believe that Yavin...
Or whoever he is, was just this kid who just came up with these ideas and sucked up to Peter Thiel.
I think it's...
I'll bet that his past is a black box.
His true past.
It could be.
Yeah, it could be.
I don't care.
Personally, I don't care to investigate.
But I learned a word from Anthony Sutton.
When he looked at some people as being wannabe scholars or researchers or whatever, or just actors in politics, whatever, and the word that he used for them was pedestrian.
A pedestrian academic is somebody who's posing as an academic.
In other words, he's on foot.
He does.
I look at Yarvin as a pedestrian figure who would not have any notoriety at all were it not for somebody like Peter Thiel picking up his philosophy along the way.
I could be wrong, but nevertheless, the thing is, Peter Thiel has picked up The philosophy, and he's spreading it everywhere.
Even people in the MAGA movement have, we find out now, for instance, well, Steve Bannon, for instance, had some affinity for Yarvin.
You have Charlie Kirk over here has some affinity for Yarvin.
So his philosophy has kind of tainted the pool.
Yeah, he's pooped in the swimming pool.
Yes.
Yes, exactly.
Pat, I always enjoy our conversation so much, and if I bring it to a close here, that will mean that we can come back and talk more sooner rather than later.
Yes.
Please tell us where we can find your stuff, and...
You bet.
You bet.
technocracy.news, that's the easy way.
Everything is there.
And I also have a substack, patrickwood.substack.com.
And, you know, I have lots of interviews and videos and stuff on the internet.
It's free, I guess.
I have a premium service on...
Technocracy.news, where it opens up all of my archives, over 6,500 articles, categorized and indexed.
It's an amazing treasure trove, I think.
I also have a technocracy boot camp that people are taking right now.
I'm excited about that.
It's still $30.
Winner takes all, so to speak.
You can learn about technocracy.
As little as five days if you stay at it.
18 lessons.
Easy to digest.
Nevertheless, it will get you from 1932 to 2025.
Excellent.
That sounds like a bargain to me, Pat.
It's been a joy to have you, as always.
A civilized erudite.
Heroic.
Yes.
So thank you.
And if you enjoyed my chat with Patrick, subscribe.
Support me.
Support me.
Yeah, do actually join the growing ranks of supporters on Substack or on Locals.
If you don't want to do that, you can buy me a coffee.
Actually, I like the coffees.
I like being bought coffees.
Buy me a coffee.
That's cool as well.
But you don't get early access to my podcast.
You get about 10 days ahead of everyone else if you subscribe.
Support my sponsors.
And yeah, buy Pat's books and sign up to his technocracy course.
And thank you very much for listening and watching.
And spread the word.
Thanks.
Oh, by the way, one more thing.
This, I don't want people coming and saying to me, why are you drinking out of plastic bottles?
You realise the microplastics are going to poison you.
The reason is, that is CDS in there.
I'm having a sort of relapse of my health problems at the moment.
I'm trying to cure it with chlorine dioxide solution, and this kind of measures it out.
So that's why, in case you wondered.
Anyway, thank you, Pat.
Thank you everyone for watching.
Thank you.
Global warming is a massive con.
There is no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change is a problem, that it's going to kill us, that we need to amend our lifestyle in order to deal with it.
It's a non-existent problem.
But how do you explain this stuff to your normie friends?
Well, I've just brought out the revised edition to my 2012 classic book.
Watermelons, which captures the story of how some really nasty people decided to invent the global warming scare in order to fleece you, to take away your freedoms, to take away your land.
It's a shocking story.
I wrote it, as I say, in 2011, actually.
The first edition came out.
And it's a snapshot of a particular era.
The era when...
The people behind the climate change scan got caught red-handed, tinkering with the data, torturing till it screamed in a scandal that I helped christen Climategate.
So I give you the background to the skullduggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us, we've got to act now.
I rumbled their scan.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scan, Who's doing this and why?
It's a good story.
I've kept the original book pretty much as is, but I've written two new chapters, one at the beginning and one at the end, explaining how it's even worse than we thought.
I think it still stands up.
I think it's a good read.
Obviously, I'm biased, but I'd recommend it.
You can buy it from jamesdellingpole.co.uk forward slash shop.
You'll probably find that one.
Just go to my website and look for it.
jamesdellingpole.co.uk
I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring round all those people who are still persuaded that it's a disaster, we must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Mother God.
There we go.
▲
Export Selection