David A Hughes is a former academic who woke up. He is the author of “Covid-19,” Psychological Operations, and the War for Technocracy, Volume 1 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2024) and Wall Street, the Nazis, and the Crimes of the Deep State (Skyhorse, 2024). These provide the big picture for what is going on: the Omniwar against mankind by ruthless, totalitarian, technocratic elite.You can find him on Substack https://dhughes.substack.com/aboutYou can download a free copy of his Covid book here https://dhughes.substack.com/p/covid-19-psychological-operations↓Monetary Metals is providing a true alternative to saving and earning in dollars by making it possible to save AND EARN in gold and silver.Monetary Metals has been paying interest on gold and silver for over 8 years.Right now, accredited investors can earn 12% annual interest on silver, paid in silver in their latest silver bond offering. For example, if you have 1,000 ounces of silver in the deal, you receive 120 ounces of silver interest paid to your account in the first year.Go to the link in the description or head to https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/ to learn more about how to participate and start earning a return on honest money again with Monetary Metals.↓ ↓ How environmentalists are killing the planet, destroying the economy and stealing your children's future.In Watermelons, an updated edition of his ground-breaking 2011 book, James tells the shocking true story of how a handful of political activists, green campaigners, voodoo scientists and psychopathic billionaires teamed up to invent a fake crisis called ‘global warming’.This updated edition includes two new chapters which, like a geo-engineered flood, pour cold water on some of the original’s sunny optimism and provide new insights into the diabolical nature of the climate alarmists’ sinister master plan.Purchase Watermelons by James Delingpole here: https://jamesdelingpole.co.uk/Shop/↓ ↓ ↓Buy James a Coffee at:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/jamesdelingpoleThe official website of James Delingpole:https://jamesdelingpole.co.ukxxx
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 of 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 scam 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 skull juggery that went on in these seats of learning where these supposed experts were informing us, we've got to act now.
I rumbled their scam.
I then asked the question, okay, if it is a scam, 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 out.
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 just go to my website and look for it, jamesdellingpole.co.uk.
And I hope it helps keep you informed and gives you the material you need to bring around all those people who are still persuaded that, oh, it's a disaster.
We must amend our ways and appease the gods, appease Movick Diet.
There we go.
It's a scam.
Welcome to the Delling Pod with me, James Dellingpole.
And I know I always say I'm excited about this big special guest, but I really am actually.
Before we meet in there, let's have a quick 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're actually, 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.
So if you want to buy gold and silver through monetary metals, you go to monetary metals, monetary-metals.com forward slash delingpoll.
You can find out more about it.
Monetary-metals.com forward slash delingpole.
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 via their bond offerings.
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 prices at 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 forward slash dellingpoll to earn more.
Welcome to the Delling Pod, David A. Hughes.
Is that to distinguish you from all the other David Hughes out there?
It is.
There are many David A. Hughes as I feel particularly sorry for the chemistry professor in the United States by the name of David A. Hughes, who received a lot of abuse in 2020 after I published my 9-11 article, which didn't go down well in the academic community.
And he received a lot of abuse over Twitter.
Thankfully, I'm not on Twitter, so I didn't have to cop any of it.
We did actually have trouble tracking you down because of the plethora of David Hughes's.
I mean, I think more than one in academe.
Yeah, for sure.
Yeah, it's a very common name.
So I've tried to distinguish myself slightly.
It helps a bit.
Now that I'm vaguely familiar with what you do, which is amazing, by the way, and I'm so looking forward to this chat we're going to have.
I'm wondering, have you still got a job in academe?
No, no, no.
I quit in September.
I was going to say, I couldn't see how what you're saying about the world is tenable for anyone who is stuck in a key part of the brainwashing system.
Well, that's exactly why I quit.
I joined the profession originally because I've always loved learning, loved knowledge.
The pursuit of the truth has always been fundamental to me.
I've devoted my entire adult life to it.
But particularly since 2020, I've come to the very clear realization that the one place that you can't do that, ironically, is academia.
So it was with a sense of peace that I decided to leave the profession and do work that really matters.
You've clearly got a good mind.
You're rigorous.
You're the sort of person, actually, that if academia did the sort of thing it was supposed to do, you'd be great.
I mean, you'd be a model professor to have.
What was your notional speciality?
International relations.
I was getting on fine in the profession.
You know, there were no kind of professional issues or anything like that.
It's just that I came to realize that there are boundaries in terms of the kinds of questions that can be asked, the kinds of subject areas that can be investigated.
And given what has been taking place in the world since 2020, I think it's unacceptable really not to be speaking truth to power at this stage when so much is on the line.
Well, I salute you for your suicidal, career-killing bravery.
Which I would agree with.
The bridges are well and truly burned, that's for sure.
I love the smell of burning bridges in the morning.
Smells of victory.
Pyrrhic victory, maybe, but victory of some kind.
Tell me about your journey, as they say on TV.
I mean, were you always down the rabbit hole or were you suddenly mugged by reality?
I was mugged by reality on the 8th of December 2016.
Tell me.
I can name the exact date.
So I was teaching US foreign policy at the time.
I was reflecting on the similarities between the Vietnam War and the war in Afghanistan.
Very long wars, very costly wars, PETSD for the soldiers and so on.
And then I thought, well, the Vietnam War major escalation in 1964 through the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which we now know was a false flag, and the war on terror, you know, got...
I thought, hold on a minute.
You're not telling me that 9-11 was also a false flag because, you know, we know about all those crazy conspiracy theorists, right?
But for the first time, I actually took about one hour to look into it.
And that's all it took.
And at that time, you could still find worthwhile videos on YouTube regarding 9-11.
And it's so patently obvious to anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity that the Twin Towers did not come down in the way that we were told.
And once I realised that, that was the beginning of my journey, really.
And, of course, since 2020, COVID and psychological operations and the Manchester Arena incident and much else besides.
It's interesting that point you make about intellectual integrity.
And I'm inclined to agree with you.
I spent, I don't know whether you know anything about me, I spent about 30 years as really quite a successful journalist in the mainstream media.
And I had lots of powerful politician friends and people whose intellects I really respected.
People like Douglas Murray, Michael Gove, Charles Moore.
People that I kind of, who I thought were probably a bit cleverer than me.
Although I didn't think I was stupid.
And I look at all these people now.
Andrew Roberts, historian, very successful historian.
And I think, I look at them and I think, how can you not know that 9-11 was an inside job?
Your position that it was done by a man in a cave is not remotely tenable once you've spent, as you say, an hour at best looking at the evidence.
Yeah, it's about social conditioning and condition.
They don't know, or they just haven't bothered to ask.
I think they've been conditioned not to know and not to ask.
I believe that one thing that you and I have in common is that we both went to Christchurch.
And the business isn't that funny.
Yes.
I've sometimes reflected on precisely the humorous aspect of this because for those who don't know, Christchurch is the largest Oxford college.
It's an absolute bastion of power.
It's produced more British Prime Ministers than any other Oxbridge college.
I think 13 compared to five for Trinity College, Cambridge.
And 11 Viceroys of India.
Yes.
So this is about as establishment as it comes.
And of course, the very essence of a place like Christchurch is do not question power.
So the idea that you and I are sitting here now recording this podcast shows that times are, in fact, are changing.
But I think part of the essence of that is that much more than anything that you learn academically or intellectually at a place like that are the kind of the social mores for how to get along and how to find your way into the top professions and so on.
And all of that comes with a certain socialization.
And you talk about very bright people.
One of the very brightest people that I know, very, very witty, very sharp intellectually, is one of my best friends from Christchurch.
But he went into the law.
He became a barrister.
He took that very kind of establishment route.
And he visited me last year.
And I quickly realized that all this time later, despite being such a smart bloke, he just is completely in that normie mindset.
He thinks that chemtrails aren't real.
He doesn't believe in false lag terrorism.
And just about as kind of straight down the road as they come.
And I just thought that is quite remarkable, really.
And, you know, I saw the similar kind of thing in academia.
I find it a remarkable sociological phenomenon that you have this profession which is operating worldwide.
And goodness knows how many academics there are in academia.
So why is it that virtually none are asking the critical questions?
And you see that through professionalization, institutionalization, socialization, smart people learn how not to ask the questions, how not to go down the rabbit holes.
And that's part of the reason that we're in the problem, in the state that we're in now, where many of those who do are kind of ridiculed through the propaganda term conspiracy theorist and so on.
When in actual fact, there are some very serious questions to be asked, mountains of evidence to be looking at.
And it's really the moral responsibility of intellectuals to be doing this kind of work.
This is the whole idea of the public intellectual as it emerged in the 20th century, speaking truth to power.
There's a civic duty here.
And when so much of the tyranny in the world today is premised on lies and deception, the first people exposing that should be academics.
But they're not doing it.
Yeah.
And then we get these people presented to us as intellectuals, be they the French structuralist photographers who mess with the heads of a generation, several generations of smartass students, to the so-called intellectual dark web, where you get these fake guru heroes being presented to us like Jordan Peterson.
I was going to mention it.
They've got every base covered, haven't they?
That's the thing, these people, whoever they are, who run the world.
Yeah, they really do.
It's quite frightening.
And that kind of mainstream alternative media personality type there is very powerful.
And I think that actually the so-called alternative media is riddled with people like this.
It makes it so hard to get to the truth.
In my work, I sometimes offer a simple three-camp analogy, as I call it.
Camp one is basically the norm is.
They believe everything that they hear on the TV and what the government says.
Camp two is for the people who have doubts about the official version of events.
They get into camp two and they're met by people like Peterson and Brand and others, whose role is the kind of Pied Piper role to lead them away from truth and distract from some of the key things while nevertheless giving certain nuggets, but the really big issues not acting honestly on.
Camp three is the truth.
It's a lonely and it's an ugly place to be.
And what I've come to realize over the last 12 months or so is that camp three is actually very small compared to camp two.
So many people get out of camp one and think that they've kind of made it towards the truth, but actually there's an awful long way still to go.
Yes, it's a small camp and most people aren't in it.
It's got all the best people.
I mean, it's quite fun.
Yes.
Yeah.
You meet some great people in this line of work, that's for sure.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, I don't know about you.
It's traumatic, but I'm not complaining about seeing the world as it is.
Yeah, and I mean, the adventure I've been on for the last 12 or 13 months now, it's been completely unpredictable.
I never know what's going to come from day to day.
I don't know who I'm going to be meeting next, you know, what podcasts and so on I'll be on, what issues in the world will turn up that I need to write about.
It's, you know, completely wild ride.
It's come with a lot of uncertainty.
You know, the security of a career has now gone.
But when I look back and I think, you know, would I do it all again?
You bet I would.
I mean, this has been, you know, some of the most important work that I've done and, you know, really meaningful in a very deep way.
So again, I never know what's next, but I wouldn't be doing anything else.
But also, when you were starting out, I mean, you must have been bright because you got into Christchurch, which is not easy to get into.
And you probably thought, naively, that your mission in life was to find out the truth.
That's what kind of intellectuals did.
Yeah.
This is, yes, I mean, that is exactly right.
And I read philosophy in modern languages.
And the part that excited me once I got in was I had the chance to do philosophy.
And I did courses like Philosophy of Religion.
And I thought, wow, you know, these are going to be the really big issues about life, the universe, meaning, and all the rest of it.
And basically, I'm going to get the answers because I'm at Christchurch, Oxford, and I'm going to do these top courses.
And I'm really going to learn.
And it was, you know, perhaps the biggest intellectual disappointment of my life was doing that course.
And, you know, I learned that so much of it was so lame.
You know, the first year Introduction to Philosophy course, I mean, it's just, it's dire.
It's really, really bad.
So I actually found that my time at Oxford was quite disillusioning intellectually.
I didn't find at all what I was looking for.
It's only kind of later in life that I think I've really started to thrive intellectually.
So, yeah, I don't think Oxford did me any favours.
And my son wants to go there and try to dissuade him not to.
Yeah, I think, however, if it was ever good, I quite enjoyed my time there.
But I definitely had some kind of intellectual formation there because I had a...
He was anti-the system.
He never accepted a professorship, for example.
He just liked to be this slightly radical, like, you know, you can make up your own mind about stuff.
I'm not going to.
Was this Christopher Boff?
Yeah.
Yeah, he was.
Peter Conrad.
Conrad, Peter Conrad.
Yeah, that's right.
Yeah, he was revered by the people who did English when I went there, which I think was about 13 years later.
You know, he also taught Marina Hyde on The Guardian straight.
She's now got actually really quite a good podcast with, I mean, Normie, obviously, because it's about TV world, but with Richard Osman.
I don't think I'll be listening to it.
No, well, I had to the other day because I was on a car journey with one of my children, and my children don't share my Velt and Shaolong, let's say.
So I have to.
I know those car journeys.
Turn the podcast off, Danny.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I wouldn't even be allowed to put it on for a second.
I'm happy to say that they don't listen to my stuff, and that's fine.
So you mean in the middle of your, you were teaching a class and you had this epiphany just like that?
Well, it wasn't in the middle of teaching a class.
It was at home.
But then I thought, wow, this is amazing because one of the kind of golden rules in doing academic research, you know, there's certain key criteria.
What you do must be original.
It must be important.
It must be evidence-based.
You know, there must be rigorous methodology involved.
And I thought, well, look at this.
What issue could be more important to the 21st century than 9-11?
And look, there's masses of evidence to look at here.
And it's all amenable to rigorous analysis.
And this should be the key topic.
So I thought, you know, there must be other academics who have looked at this.
So I started researching stuff.
Oh, yeah, for sure.
And what I found when I looked into it was virtually nothing had been written.
There had been a couple of edited volumes way back in kind of 2007, 2008, a smattering of academic articles here and there about developing cancer and first responders and this kind of thing.
But really not very much and certainly nothing really between, say, 2010 and 2020, which is when I published my article.
And I just thought, this is absolutely extraordinary.
How could this be?
And so my article on it was structurally, it was fairly simple.
I said, well, why is it that, well, first of all, here's evidence that academics are not looking at it.
And I cited various papers that do address 9-11, but not these key issues.
You know, they're still on board with the official narrative.
And then here's a bunch of evidence in the middle of the paper why we should question the narrative.
And there's a lot of reasons.
And the final part of the paper was simply offering suggestions for why it is that academics have not been looking at the evidence.
So in that sense, it was quite a harmless paper on the face of it.
I wasn't trying to persuade anyone of anything.
I wasn't pushing any particular theory.
But my goodness, the response to it, as I say, over Twitter, which I wasn't on, dozens of academics from all across the world, as soon as this paper came out, literally within hours, were kicking off and they were saying, oh, this is a disgrace.
The entire editorial board of this journal should be fired.
You know, Hugh should lose his job.
And I'm like, what?
You know, this is the most unprofessional behavior you could imagine.
It's very clear that many of them hadn't even read the paper as well.
It's just the very idea of questioning the official 9-11 narrative was so anathema to so many of them that they had been programmed, they were triggered, and they just went for me online.
It was quite vicious, really.
I'm very grateful to Professor Tim Haywood at Edinburgh University.
He published a piece called Peer Review versus Trial by Twitter on his blog.
And he basically defended me and said that the conduct of these tweeting academics is completely unacceptable.
And essentially, I've published a peer-reviewed paper, past the peer review.
And of course, the proper conduct then is, if you have an issue of the paper, to reply in the appropriate form, publish a peer-reviewed reply of your own and have a proper academic discussion about it.
But do not just try to shut down debate through insults and abuse.
And of course, that was February 28th, 2020, when that paper was published.
All of this abuse was the first week of March 2020.
And we know what happened three weeks later with the lockdowns.
And we saw similar forms of behavior this time in the COVID context.
For example, open letters written against people like Professor Mark Crispin Miller at NYU, simply for asking his students to investigate the science of mask wearing.
Not trying to persuade them of anything, just saying, look into it yourself.
Or Harvey Risch at Yale for recommending hydroxychloroquine.
His own colleagues, again, wrote an open letter against him, or Scott Atlas at Stanford, another open letter with a couple of dozen academics each time signing these things.
So this is kind of herd behaviour, isn't it?
It's kind of group behaviour.
It's creating a scapegoat.
This is the opposite of what academia is supposed to be about.
So the warning signs really were well and truly on the walls in 2020.
And when you think that people are thinking that way and behaving that way, there's no kind of intellectual independence anymore.
They're just given a narrative, they subscribe to the narrative, and they defend it with all that they're worth.
This is a troubling reflection, I think, on the state of contemporary academia.
So what were the reasons you posited as to why academics weren't looking at 9-11?
There's all kinds, really.
I mean, you have funding sources, of course.
And if a university or a particular professor is publishing controversial material, there's always the danger of those sources being withdrawn.
Supposed reputational damage, Links to maintain with governments, the kinds of processes of socialization that I alluded to earlier in terms of most academics just not even thinking that way in the first place.
They lack the independent critical thinking to properly speak truth to power.
And it gets more nefarious because in certain instances it appears that the intelligence agencies will come after academics in different ways.
So if you look at the working group on Syria propaganda and I forget the last part of the title, but set up by Piers Robinson and Tim Hayward, who I just mentioned, and others.
This was a group of some two dozen academics, most of them full professors, looking at the British government's official narrative on Syria and basically poking holes in it.
And they'd published a single paper, I think, in the early part of 2017.
Just one working paper, that was it.
And a week or so later, they were plastered all over the front page of the Sunday Times and accused of being apologists for Assad.
And the article was saying things like, well, you wouldn't employ a Holocaust denier in a history department, would you?
You know, the insinuation being, well, these people should lose their jobs.
And it gets worse.
I think in Hayward's case, a student began kind of making certain allegations based on some of the things which he had been teaching, which were perfectly legitimate.
But there are reasons to think that perhaps a student had been approached to do this.
So there are all kinds of ways in which academic knowledge production is policed at the margins.
There's a lot of good academic work that does get done.
I mean, provided you're not fundamentally speaking truth to power.
There's all kinds of useful contributions that you can make, and that's fine.
But, you know, as soon as you start challenging those state narratives in particular, there are all kinds of mechanisms which are used to close it down.
I was just...
Thank you.
I mean, they sound right up my street.
One of them is free.
But I was just reading that.
Somebody did a long interview with you, which was easier to digest because I could read it rather than having to sit down and watch it, which is my preferred.
Probably like you, I bet you prefer to absorb things by reading them because you can do it quickly.
Yes.
And this fantastic phrase came up.
You describe a phenomenon called permanent social turbulence.
Which I think explains so much.
Where does that one come from?
It comes from the Tavistock Institute in the 1960s.
Yeah, no surprise, eh?
Yeah, and it's all to do with techniques of shock and stress and keeping entire societies in states which render them more susceptible to propaganda and thereby more controllable.
So, I mean, it all goes back originally to World War I and shell shock and the realization that individuals with shell shock were more psychologically susceptible and programmable, essentially.
And of course, in the mid-20th century, we then had MKUltra, which was just kind of upping the ante in terms of the brutality of experiments on individuals.
But what's significant about the second half of the 20th century, particularly with the Tavistock Institute, is attempts to apply similar techniques at the group and also the societal levels.
And they did a lot of work on this.
Later on, Naomi Klein traces some of these ideas as well in her book, The Shock Doctrine, that through wars or natural disasters, or indeed geoengineered disasters, entire societies can be disrupted and shocked.
You know, the COVID lockdowns, 9-11, you know, all of these are examples at which something extraordinary suddenly happens and the ordinary rules just go out the window.
Democracy and the rule of law go out the window and it's a kind of a momentary clean slate is created and you can write the new normal.
So this idea of permanent social turbulence was coined, I think, in 1963.
And of course, then in the 1970s, you know, had the oil price shocks and so on.
Operation Gladio, false flag terrorism, later globalized through the so-called war on terror.
And really, the entire 21st century, what has it really been?
A millennium of fear governed through emergency rule based on a series of disasters, you know, 2008 financial disaster, 2020 disease, false flag terrorism, you know, whatever it may be, there's always some excuse to have to do something that's supposedly exceptional.
But as Giorgio Agombon, the Italian philosopher, realized very early on in the war on terror, that state of exception is actually permanent.
In other words, the normal rules can just be suspended at any moment, in which case democracy is essentially a charade.
So these are the techniques by which they are essentially corrupting and dismantling liberal democracy.
I imagine that if you try to explain this to most people, they're saying, look, there are these incidents which are staged to frighten you and that in your frightened state you are susceptible to brainwashing and other forms of manipulation.
Most people would go, no, I think when I heard 9-11, I mean, obviously it was bothering that some planes flew into some towers and killed some people, but it didn't affect my brain circuitry.
But it works, does it?
What's the mechanism?
Well, I mean, there are many mechanisms.
In my book, COVID-19 Psychological Operations and the War for Technocracy, I describe only half of the mechanisms involved.
It's volume one of two.
But I mean, some of the mechanisms are extremely crude.
You know, you Shock people, you put them into that state, and then it's just wall-to-wall propaganda.
I mean, anyone old enough to remember, you know, it's nothing but terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism, terrorism in the news, you know, for years after 9-11.
And that's enough, actually, to work on most ordinary members of the public.
It's just the power of propaganda in that case.
What was scary about COVID, and what I argue in my book, is that it wasn't really a public health crisis.
It was a psychological warfare operation deployed against the public.
What's scary about it is it worked on multiple different levels involving all kinds of psychological techniques which had been developed over the course of the 20th century and beyond and used, rolled out simultaneously, all at once, against the publics of countries transnationally.
So this is what we are faced with now.
I call it a transnational deep state, which is waging what I call an omni-war against the rest of humanity in an attempt to preserve the ruling class rule.
I like your omni-war.
And of course, I think you're absolutely right.
But I wanted to sort of get there gently, to sort of work our way towards it, because it's such a mind-blowing concept to take in.
So I thought we'd go from the particular to the general.
So we start off with shell-shock victims from World War I. And the shrinks notice that these men are more susceptible than most to manipulation.
They can't be able to do it.
Yeah, Mark, what you notice is even in those early days, there was a guy called John Rawlings Rees working for Tavistock.
And straight away, you see that when dealing with patients with that condition, the thought is not about healing and making them better.
It's about psychiatry as a means of social control.
So when you realize that post-1945, John Rawlings Rees was at the center of the psychiatry profession in the US, and that his mate, what's he called, Brock Chisholm, I think, may have got that wrong.
I think that's right.
I think he was involved with the WHO very early on.
And you think these key characters, you know, put in positions supposedly to do with public health, but right from the beginning, there was a social control dimension to them.
We have to ask major questions about that entire profession, in fact.
Well, it does make you think, doesn't it, if the immediate response in 1915 we're talking about, roughly, when you've got people like Siegfried Sassoon and people being treated in that, is it Craig Lockery, the clinic up in Scotland?
Whatever.
That even then, you've got psychiatrists thinking, not how can we heal these people, but how can we advance our social control agenda?
That makes you realize that even before the First World War, there must have been forces which were studying how to manipulate society.
Yeah.
You know, of course, you know, Pavlov around the similar period of time, early 20th century, you know, mechanisms of conditioning the human mind, or fast forward to 1943 in Winston Churchill.
And he said the empires of the future will be the empires of the mind.
And so rather than controlling populations through the threat of physical violence and so on, you know, essentially mind control of various forms is the way forward.
And that's really what we saw post-1945 in all kinds of ways, psychological operations and propaganda and so on.
And the scary thing in the 21st century is, I think, as I've argued in a recent symposium that I and some colleagues did on the brain, that that might now be becoming even more advanced, that they're looking to directly manipulate the brain neurologically, not just psychologically.
So it's pretty frightening, actually, the kinds of techniques and powers that we're up against.
So basically, dear viewers and listeners, if you suddenly see David and myself doing future podcasts where we talk about how compulsory vaccinations are really good and actually a very sensible public health policy, you'll know that the final stage of the brain manipulation master plan has been completed.
Yeah, as William Casey of the CIA said in 1981, our mission will be complete when the American public, everything the American public believes is false or is a lie.
And he wasn't kidding.
That's rapidly where we're heading.
And of course, in the age of deep fakes and AI and so on, actually discerning what's true and what's real is becoming ever more difficult.
So, okay, so we've gone from the Shell Shock victims to MKUltra, which were the CIA experiments in the 1950s on individuals.
And then places like the Tavstock Institute worked out that they could do this not on an individual level, but to cover the whole of society.
Fast forward to the pandemic, where they deployed all these military-grade psychological warfare techniques on the populace.
So can you give me some examples of what they did to us?
Well, I mean, the lockdowns involved techniques of isolation, right?
Putting people in their homes.
The very term lockdown is a prison term.
These are techniques which are used against prisoners or when interrogating suspects.
Defamiliarization, creating new and strange and kind of unreal environments.
And, you know, when you had most of the population senselessly wandering around in those damn masks, you know, which are harmful on all kinds of levels, virtuously thinking that they were doing good.
But, you know, what a horrific, unreal kind of environment that that created.
So, you know, again, with prisoners and so on, you know, what do you do?
Kind of dawn raids, get them out of their home early, shock them, put them in a strange and unfamiliar environment, disrupt their normal routines, which again is what happened with a lot of people just being furloughed or whatever, you know, complete change to life.
The psychological stress that was created, Dennis Rankor has written very well about that and the kind of physical debility that that in turn creates.
I mean, these ideas go back to the CIA torture manuals from the MKUltra project, when, you know, dealing with chronic stress.
The masks themselves, I think, also can be traced back to psychological torture programs.
And I get into all of this in chapter three of my book.
So, for example, when was the only previous time that we've seen people being forced to wear blue surgical face masks?
The only time that I know of is Guantanamo Bay.
And there's photographs there of prisoners with these masks on.
There are also photographs from Guantanamo Bay of prisoners wearing industrial strength earmuffs and gloves and goggles.
Now, this is all about sensory deprivation.
And again, that goes back to the CIA torture manuals from the 1950s.
So they were clearly experimenting on these prisoners through various means of psychological torture.
And then the next thing you know, everyone's in a mask in 2020.
And part of the awful nature of it is that strictly no one's forcing a person to wear a mask.
But they kind of feel like they should, and they're kind of doing it to themselves.
So it's the idea of self-inflicted pain.
So again, in prisons and so on where abuse happens, one effective technique is to simply tell a prisoner to go and stand on the stool and do not get off.
And that's it.
And then the prisoner stands on the stool and they're too afraid to get off.
They don't know what's going to happen to them if they do.
And so they kind of do it to themselves the longer they stand there.
And it gets more and more uncomfortable.
And they really want to get off, but they keep it going.
They keep the pain going.
So it's just a little thing.
You know, no one's forcing them to be there.
Similar kind of principle with the masks.
You know, obviously people found these oppressive and uncomfortable to wear.
That's why we saw so many people wandering around with them under their noses, under their chins and so on.
You know, quite pathetic, obviously not being used for health reasons.
And again, no one's enforcing that compliance.
But it's the fact that people would voluntarily do this to themselves for eight hours a day.
You know, quite extraordinary.
And this is all apart from the physical harms that come from inhaling, the kind of re-inhaling the exhaled bacteria that gathers in that stale zone between the mouth and the mask.
This was very, very dark stuff.
And so far I've only got up to chapter three of my eight-chapter book.
I could go on for a long time about these techniques, but I'll pause here.
Yeah, one of the abiding horror moments for me during that weird period was when my old mucker, fellow Telegraph columnist Dan Hannon, posted a picture of himself travelling on the train wearing his Garrick Club face mask.
I mean, it sounds like something I made up, doesn't it?
That the Garrick Club, the sort of the bastion of the sort of lovey establishment, is the one that gets all the actors and stuff.
Lots of people want to get into the Garrick Club.
It's got a quite distinctive tie.
And the Garrick Club actually had its own face mask.
And you're thinking, hang on a second, you've got a conservative columnist who bangs on endlessly about freedom, freedom of speech, liberty, yada, yada, yada.
Reinventing this oppressive measure as this rather jaunty thing that the well-dressed, fashionable chap is wearing on his train journey.
Yeah.
These things these operations run deep, don't they?
They really do.
And, you know, hindering speech is just another of the many evil aspects of the masks.
Some critics refer to them as muzzles.
Understandably so.
You know, if you're in a restaurant and the waiter's got a mask on, often quite difficult to hear exactly what they're trying to say.
Or, you know, school children struggling to hear what the teacher is saying.
I mean, this was really bad.
And so the fact that so many people didn't see this and went along with it, again, a lot of it has to do with the pressure to conform.
You think back to the ash conformity experiments.
You know, when most people are behaving in a certain way, if you place an individual in that setting, it's overwhelmingly difficult to behave contrary to what the group is doing.
As anybody will know who tried walking into a store in 2020, 2021 without a mask or deliberately going the wrong way around the stores against the stupid arrows that were pointlessly pointing people in particular directions.
Really, really hard to do.
And so it shows the success of the psychological operation, the very multi-layered, very ferocious psychological operation, that they managed to get so many people behaving in this way.
And then, of course, once you reach a critical mass, it becomes self-amplifying.
And anybody who's not behaving in that way is regarded as fringe, which is another psychological technique because most people feel most comfortable when being with the majority, being part of the herd.
You know, that's just instinctually, anthropologically how people are.
So it was really evil, actually, what they did to us.
How much of it was micromanaged and planned in every detail?
And how much of it was they sort of set the outline for the plan and then let idiot individuals...
Do you think that was part of the plan?
It was a pre-generated Headline, or was it?
I think in cases like that, it's police officers getting carried away with themselves.
But at the same time, I think it's quite predictable actually that that kind of thing would happen once you had set these guidelines down.
Now, at the start of our discussion, you talked about the fact that I'm a very kind of evidence-based thinker.
When you get to read my COVID book, it's 400 pages long and it is absolutely dense with evidence.
I think something like a third of the book is just a bibliography.
There's so many sources.
Every claim is referenced and backed up.
My view on this operation is that it had to have been planned for years down to a very fine level of detail because all of this could not happen by accident.
You know, for example, when you think about the stigmatization and the demonization of the so-called unvaccinated in 2021, the stages that that passed through, as I describe in chapter 7 of my book, were so systematic, so progressive, so carefully coordinated transnationally.
First attacks through the media, then attacks through politicians.
This was clearly all by design.
The whole thing had been planned down to a very minute level of detail.
So I think that all of this has been in the works for a very, very long time.
Explain why Kill Granny was so effective.
Because it goes back to MKUltra.
And one of the things about MKUltra, first of all, it was often used on children because it's believed that the younger you are, the more programmable you are.
And one of the aspects of trauma-based mind control is either killing somebody else or seeing somebody else killed in front of you or believing that you've killed someone else or believing that you've seen someone killed in front of you, even when that's not the case.
So if you take that logic that these things put people in considerable states of trauma, and you then tell young people, as the media did, as politicians did, and as certain academics did,
that if you go home for Christmas in 2020 and you have a positive test result using a meaningless test and your grandmother happens to die around that time, you're responsible.
Yeah, this is traumatizing stuff.
I actually had one student to whom this happened.
Went back for the Christmas break, tested positive, granny dies.
She thought she killed a granny.
This is dark.
This is very, very dark.
I'm not a disappointer of this notion.
No, I didn't.
You know, what can you possibly say?
I'd not publish anything at that time.
Yeah, dreadful.
Just absolutely dreadful.
But this is just one of many techniques.
This is how it's done.
Do you remember all of the government NHS signs and advertisements and that kind of radioactive red-yellow tinge?
Yeah, look into his eyes and tell him that.
Yeah.
Don't go out to parks.
You could kill people.
I mean, just all lies.
Lies, the whole lot.
But nevertheless, it traumatised the population and it made people really afraid, really fearful, and really susceptible to taking on board that programming from the government and from the media that then led to them, you know, not just wearing the masks, but about 72% of the population, adult population, taking injections as well.
So if it was planned on such a scale and down to such detail, a lot of people are going to be thinking, well, why did nobody blow the whistle?
I mean, how many people must have been briefed for this operation to work?
Yeah, it's an interesting question, isn't it?
Compartmentalization, of course, plays a role in these things.
If you think about a global multinational, let's take PricewaterhouseCoopers.
It's operative in most countries.
It has many thousands of employees, and they work at various levels of hierarchy within the company.
But really, it's only those at the very, very top that really know what the fundamental ambition and purpose and plans of the company are.
Everybody else is operating at lower levels.
So that's certainly one possible way in which these things are concealed.
But nevertheless, the transnational nature with which this was carried out, and you find similar things happening in different countries, you know, when you think about the kind of the fraudulent nature of the PCR tests and Christian Drosten in Germany.
I mean, but that's happening all over the West.
You know, that's happening across these different countries.
And they were culturally adjusted as well, weren't they?
Sort of tailored to each particular culture.
Yeah, that's right.
I mean, I used to teach about globalization and, you know, how you can go into McDonald's.
And on the one hand, McDonald's is a global brand you can go into in most countries.
But on the other hand, the menu is subtly adjusted in China compared to France, compared to the United States.
So yeah, that's exactly how they do it.
I thought that the banging the pots and pans for the NHS was a particularly egregious trick they played on us.
That is what applied behavioural psychology, as in the MindSpace document of 2010, calls signalling commitment.
And the idea behind this is it's kind of like a foot-in-the-door thing.
Seems like a small, innocuous gesture, but once you have banged your pots and pans in public, and it's the public part that's important, and your neighbours have seen you doing this, you have publicly declared that you are on board with the narrative.
Once you have done so in public view, it's psychologically very difficult to go back on that.
So that's just a very small thing to start with.
And of course, it then gradually builds and builds and builds, and the public is expected to buy into it in more and more and more ways.
So, yep, quite primitive, quite simple, but also effective in achieving compliance.
And what about, do you remember Captain Tom?
Yes, I do.
Yeah.
Turned out to be fraud, didn't he?
Yeah.
The bloke.
Well, I think he repaired motorbikes in India during the war, which doesn't really make him a war hero in my book.
But there were sort of conflicting stories.
So he had this very pushy daughter who knew her way round PR, who obviously made a mint, because I think she bought an extension for her house off the back of it, which he presented as a, I don't know, I can't remember the details.
I think the story was more than a case of a woman on the make spotting an opportunity to market her dad.
Do you not think that there was...
Yes.
I mean, on the one hand, they were killing people with midazolam in care homes and beginning a new phase of euthanasia and eugenics, which belongs firmly in the Nazi past.
And on the other hand, they were in the media, the mainstream media, eulogising this 100-year-old guy called Captain Tom for, what did he do, walked around in his garden a bit to raise money for charity on behalf of COVID causes, I think, and making out that we should all care for the elderly.
So, I mean, it's certainly a very useful deflection, distraction from what they were really doing to the elderly at that time.
And if memory serves, there were questions to be asked ultimately where that money went.
And the whole thing ended up to me looking like a scam.
Yes.
I've read you mention that they've learned these propaganda techniques from the Nazis, from the Soviets, from the Communist Chinese, etc., etc.
But I was thinking, Captain Tom was our British version of Stachanov, the heroic tractor manufacturer in the...
I forget.
Stakhanoff was like, well, he was either a miner or a tractor builder.
And he had this heroic industrial output.
Hence the adjective stakanovite.
Yes, they need these figures for the public to rally around.
They need key symbols for the public to rally around.
Once they've got the public on the hook like that, it's very easy to move and manipulate the public en masse.
And I think Captain Tom, didn't he have a number one hit single as well?
Was he the oldest person ever in the UK to have a number one hit single?
I mean, you know, it just smacks of propaganda, right?
Yeah.
And all the influencers that they roped in, but they've paid them to use their Twitter feeds and stuff.
Yeah.
We've had a lot of problems with this, because these deals are secret, but.
In part, yeah.
but there is a publicly accessible WHO document from the 15th of July, 2020, I think, um, which describes a contract with Hill and Knowlton, which is the U S public relations firm that was responsible in 1991 for pushing the Deera, the daughter of the Q80 ambassador in front of that committee to, to cry about the dead babies on the cold floor.
All lies, but used to legitimize US involvement in the First Gulf War.
Same PR company hired by the WHO in 2020.
And when you read the details in that document, it talks all about different levels of influencer.
So you can have the real big guns and you pay them millions all the way down to your kind of D-list celebrities who just get the scraps.
But I had read that document and I was thinking about, you know, the dreadful stuff with like, what's that awful guy's name, James Corden, dancing around with, was it Ariana Grande, you know, just terrible propaganda, you know, and all of the stuff we saw on the telly, you know, grown men wearing, you know, dressed up as vaccines, prancing around on, you know, in front of an audience trying to encourage people to take it.
Again, there is a system behind this.
There are companies that arrange this.
There are large amounts of money involved.
And that's why all of a sudden, this same messaging just spread right throughout the various kinds of media.
And it hit young people on TikTok and it hit older people watching the nightly news or whatever.
But it was all very coordinated fundamentally at a central level.
You mention Ariana Grande, which enables us to segue neatly into another of your appalling, inexcusable claims.
That the Manchester Arena bombing, in which little Saffi Russos tragically lost her life and several others, was faked, are you saying?
How dare you, sir?
I don't know what happened to Saffi Rose Roussos.
I don't have the evidence.
I don't know what happened to any of the 22 named fatalities.
22, though.
You know, there's a special number.
Yes, there was a lot of the 22, as Nick Collestrom has argued, 22 crops up everywhere.
But what we do know is that there is a mountain of primary observable empirical evidence to indicate that a TATP shrapnel bomb was not detonated in the city room, which is the foyer next to the Manchester arena.
As we were told, I've actually just come off a different podcast with Paul Hellier and Ian Davis and I did another three-hour discussion of this presenting all of the evidence.
I've written a 20-part series on it on my sub stack.
This is very, very serious stuff.
And when you tease out the implications of it, it's particularly dark.
Well, that's it, isn't it?
Most people simply cannot conceive that their trusted authorities.
They know politicians lie, but they kind of think ambulance crews, police, they're not all wrongs.
They'll be thinking elements of the media.
Somebody in the media would find out.
Someone would blow the whistle.
They cannot conceive that an operation on the scale of the Manchester Arena bombing could be carried out as a false flag.
And that particular attack, one of the things that makes it disturbing is not only do you have the attack itself, which appears to implicate the intelligence agencies, you have the failure of the emergency services, which implicates the top command structures in those services.
You have a police investigation, which appears deeply suspect.
Several of us suspect that evidence was fabricated.
And you have a three-year-long public inquiry that costs the British taxpayer over £31 million, where, again, very serious questions are to be asked.
And the narrative is constantly being pushed in the mainstream media with photos of the 22 victims and so on, in the sense that you're not allowed to question this.
And then you have the law courts, in fact, the High Court of Justice, so-called, persecuting Richard D. Hall for his real investigative journalism into this.
The disturbing element, therefore, is that we are looking at a coordinated kind of statewide operation here to make sure that this narrative does not fall and is not unpicked.
This is terrible because it means even three years before COVID, you can see that fundamentally the power structure is deployed against the people.
So there is no social contract in any meaningful sense.
And as I argue in my COVID book, I think that the transnational deep state, the entity that really is this power structure, is now quite literally at war with the people in very clever, hidden, nefarious ways.
So we can't say that we live in liberal democracy in any meaningful sense when all of this is going on.
What you have are various elements of the state, which I think have been infiltrated by rogue networks.
It's certainly not everyone who works in these organizations.
But they are certainly conspiring together to manufacture events like this, which are then used as the pretext to roll out ever more draconian and repressive measures at home, as well as legitimizing foreign interventions and wars abroad.
If the public understands that that's really what is taking place, that it's being lied to in order to further its oppression, Actually, the implications are revolutionary because the entire social contract has been torn up.
Not by us, not by the people, but by the authorities.
We are living in historically precarious times, and that's why they're going to such desperate lengths to secure narratives like the Manchester narrative, and are so desperate to stop this awareness from spreading.
Because I think if enough people understood, there would be revolution overnight.
Yes, but not being too much of a misery guts, too black-pilled.
But I haven't seen much evidence of this mass awakening.
I mean, you know, I've added a few more listeners to the podcast here and there, and you probably have had similar success on a case-by-case basis.
But most people are just falling for it, aren't they?
Because these people, whoever they are, are really good at what they do.
Yes, they are.
Yes, they are, and they have been for a long time.
Having said that, I think that the so-called awakening is proceeding at an ever faster rate.
I think that these power structures, which like to operate in the shadows, successfully remained hidden for many decades, rolling out their measures so incrementally that the public doesn't really see.
Not anymore since 2020.
I mean, it's all going on now.
There's so much.
I think most people understand that there's something, you know, not right about the world at some fundamental level.
It's worth bearing in mind that even according to the official UK Health Security Agency data from July 2022, 23% of UK adults didn't take the shot, which might not sound like much.
It's almost a quarter.
The statistics were routinely massaged, as we know, so it's likely higher.
And actually, in order to achieve a kind of tipping point, we only need to get to 51%.
So, again, the truth is what it is.
Objective reality is what it is.
The question is, will enough people awaken to it in time before this technocratic system, which is coming down the tracks hard now, is successfully rolled out?
I don't have a crystal ball.
I couldn't give you the answer.
But what I do know is that there are very, very bad people in the world who are seeking to replace liberal democracy with the novel form of totalitarianism, which is technocracy.
In its worst instantiation, it could be bio-digital.
We could all be connected.
You know, our bodies could be connected to the control grid.
This is horrific, what they have planned for us.
There's plenty of evidence to support all of this.
If enough people see it, it can be stopped.
Mass non-compliance is the way forward.
And it's in the interests, the objective interests of humanity to see it.
Now, I agree with you that sometimes it's disheartening when you look around and there's not much kind of obvious evidence.
But then again, I've done a lot of work on the parallels between the present and 1930s Nazi Germany.
One of the things you find reading that literature is that one of the unsettling aspects of living in Nazi Germany, especially if you're a dissident, is that you never really knew how many people thought like you.
Because everybody was kind of too afraid to say anything.
And yet, there is this kind of potential, invisible groundswell out there.
So one of the reasons I do this kind of work is to try and help people remember that and to try and kind of keep spreading the information and keep spreading the awareness.
And one of the most gratifying parts of doing the work is that people have said to me that I have been able to reach their friends or family members who they have not been able to reach for years.
Now, I don't know why that is.
You know, whatever it is about my style, my delivery, the information I'm providing, I don't know.
But the fact is, I know that it is having a difference.
And the final thing that I would say on this is that once you see this stuff, you can't unsee it.
And so incrementally, the process is only building in our favor as more and more people see and more and more people start spreading the awareness.
It's not going to go in reverse.
So I actually have a certain optimism about this.
And when you think about what the technocrats are trying to achieve, essentially it's a system of totalitarian control over a global population of 8 billion people.
Nobody has anything to gain from what they're trying to achieve.
And I think it's going to reach the point where the pushback will be considerable and it will be immense.
And I think that we are approaching a historical inflection point here where some major change one way or the other is due in the coming years.
So let's go to the big picture.
I don't know whether this is a good question you feel comfortable answering or even feel equipped to answer, but who's behind all this?
Well, I mean, there's multiple ways of addressing this, of course.
I look at the global capitalist system and think that those at the top are ultimately finance capital.
So I look in the first instance to banks, central banks, the Bank for International Settlement above the central banks, which has diplomatic immunity, sovereign immunity.
But of course, the network is more complicated than that.
You have the think tanks, the Chatham Houses, the CFRs, the World Economic Forum, and the billionaires like Gates and Ted Turner and others.
This is very much their influence can be demonstrated.
We know, I get into this a lot in my Wall Street book, Wall Street: the Nazis and the Crimes of the Deep State.
I trace what I call the transnational deep state back to the US in the late 1940s, and it turns out that basically it's Wall Street.
Wall Street lawyers and bankers are one and the same with the intelligence agencies, and so we can trace those lineages as well.
In chapter 8 of my COVID book, I provide a long list of the various actors that are involved in this.
Of course, you have to list key politicians and key media figures and so on.
You could look at it as Peter Phillips did in his 2018 book, Giants.
He argues that just a few hundred people really are controlling the world.
Of course, power desires to remain hidden, so it's entirely possible that the most powerful people we may never have heard of, but to me that doesn't matter.
There are enough people out there doing enough bad things visibly where we can point the finger.
There are enough lying politicians.
There are enough kind of heads of investment banks and so on that have been responsible for great financial crimes.
We know enough to know who many of the key bad figures in this are.
And I think that's where the pressure needs to be applied.
Okay, so they are this fairly small number of people.
What, maybe 5,000, 10,000?
Who knows?
Yeah, not many anyway, not relative to 8 billion.
Proportionately tiny, yes.
They are waging an omni-war against us, the people.
And their most successful operation so far was Operation COVID, where they successfully...
So that was just a warm-up for their next stage, presumably.
How else are they conducting this war against us?
Well, the idea of the OmniWar is that it's a war which is being waged across every domain of human life, but by stealth as far as possible, so that the public doesn't notice.
Because if the public gets wise to this, again, the whole thing fails.
So it has to be waged through deception.
So I published a long report for Solari last autumn called OmniWar, Exposing and Ending the Invisible War Against Humanity.
It's available for my Substack-based subscribers.
And in that, I lay out all of the different elements of the OmniWar.
But as the name suggests, it's everywhere.
It's all around us.
It's in the media that we consume.
It goes kind of from the cell to the stratosphere to use one of our strap lines, so kind of biological engineering, so-called vaccines, all the way up to whatever is happening in the skies.
It works through financial manipulations.
It works through propaganda and psychological warfare.
Pretty much everywhere you look, you can find this.
And its purpose is to keep the population down, to keep the population in check, to keep the population passive and compliant, while liberal democracy is gradually dismantled and the new technocratic control system is instituted.
And so when you think back to COVID, you know, the extreme stress levels that were created, the psychological and physical damage that was caused, and then, of course, all of the vaccine damage as well, plus the fact that the whole thing was traumatic and people, you know, we're almost living in populations that are characterized by PTSD at some basic level as a result of all of that.
This is literally war against the population.
I think it's a silent, undeclared World War III, because what they're trying to do is to achieve social engineering at the global scale.
That's only been done before through World War.
If you want to achieve that level, that scale of change, it does require World War.
But of course, this World War looks nothing like the Second World War.
The Second World War really looked nothing like the First World War.
The aims and the strategies, the tactics, the participants, the methods, the weapons, pretty much all different.
But nevertheless, it fundamentally is a war.
It has a clearly defined objective in terms of global technocracy.
And how will you achieve that?
How will you stop global revolution actually while trying to achieve change on that audacious scale?
You have to resort to every single means at your disposal and weaponize everything.
Every control over the means of production, be it the banks, the newspapers, the universities, whatever it may be, you have to weaponize all of it in order to essentially pacify the population.
The genius of it is that most people don't see it.
You know, there's no tanks, there's no planes dropping bombs or anything like this.
Most of it is invisible and done by stealth.
Yes, I was thinking, given all the bizarre impositions and the widespread public acceptance of this stuff during COVID, it's amazing how people are in denial about their behaviour now.
It's as if this is a period that they didn't live through and they never behaved in this way.
Is that some sort of psychological thing as well?
I think so.
In the introduction to my COVID book, I mentioned that one of the reasons for writing the book has to do with anamnesis, which is basically remembering.
Because to the extent that trauma-based mind control was used, and to the Extent the entire populations were traumatized.
One of the things that this does is that people don't want to revisit trauma for obvious reasons.
They shut it off, they blank it out.
This is well known.
And so, of course, most of the population won't want to revisit what was done.
This is why the abuse is so effective, actually.
But it's essential for human freedom that we do understand exactly what took place, that we document it, that we provide the evidence, and that we expose the various forms of abuse that were perpetrated against us.
Because there are perpetrators.
This was done by design.
We need to understand this.
We must not be gaslit into thinking that it was somehow our fault or that the public was in some way responsible for this.
Absolutely not.
So the whole point of my book, really, is to revisit those horrible events in detail so that there is a historical record now of what took place.
And I put it in a theoretical framework.
Happily, almost a quarter of a million people now have downloaded the book in the first 12 months.
It's available for free on the publisher's website.
This is great.
I mean, academic books don't normally achieve this, but it shows that people are resonating with the content.
It shows that there must be something in there of value.
So long may that continue.
It's available for free.
I don't make a penny out of it, but please do download it and read it for free.
You can get it either on my substack, dehues.substack.com, or the Springer Nature publishing website.
If people want to buy a copy, though, can they?
Yep.
They can.
If they really want to spend £109.99 on one book, I wouldn't, personally, but I know many people have done because they want the hard copy that badly.
Then, yes, you can go to Amazon and you can give all of that money straight to the publisher.
That's fine.
You'll have your hard copy.
I would prefer it if you would download the book for free and maybe buy me a coffee or take out a subscription or whatever so that I actually get at least a little bit of kickback from it.
But, you know, so far I've had very little.
That's what I was kind of angling.
Which is fine.
It was never about the money.
I was angling on your behalf to try and find a way of monetising all this effort that you've put in.
Because you should be rewarded for...
I mean, look, you think of all the spongy academics who've been...
The professors who just so happen have connections with the PPE or whatever it's called.
Was that what they called?
The health equipment, PPE equipment?
Yes.
Saying that you've got to get vaccinated or you can't go out anywhere in a granny and stuff.
Academics did not cover themselves in glory, generally.
No, and Neil Ferguson has spent the entire 21st century just doing the same shtick over and over and over.
You know, for swine flu, for the original, what was it called?
Foot and mouth.
And for COVID.
It's the same thing over and over.
Oh, it's dreadful.
Here's my mathematical modelling.
Everything's going to be terrible unless we take measures.
Everyone knows how bogus it all is.
But still, top of his profession at Imperial College London.
Government listens to him.
Why does he not get punished?
Because he serves the system.
He serves the system.
Not truth, but power.
And that's the problem that we're faced with.
Yes.
Well, that sort of leads me on to the thing I wanted to ask you next.
Because, okay.
So we're talking about a tiny, tiny, tiny handful of ultra-baddies.
And they've got this scam to turn us into slaves, basically.
It's like sort of Babylon revisited.
How have they persuaded all the people on the tier just below them, people who aren't really going to benefit, but who are actively participating in this program, who must know what's going on?
How have these high-tier administrators been persuaded that what they're doing makes sense and is in their interests?
Yeah, it's difficult to know, isn't it?
The extent to which certain figures have been bribed, blackmailed, bullied, potentially rewarded, a promise of rewards.
The mechanisms are complex.
I mean, a lot has come out since 2020 about the really dark nature of the power structures that are operating.
When we're looking at paedophilia and so on, it seems to be a kind of inherent part of the closer you get to the top and that can be used to extort people.
Essentially, what we're dealing with is a criminal cartel on a global level.
And it will go to any lengths.
Indeed, it has to.
It has to go to all lengths in order to achieve its objective.
And that, I think, necessarily requires a psychopathic mindset, which at some fundamental level is empathy deleted, to be able to do this to people.
And they get away with it in large measure by hiding in the shadows.
But yes, in terms of that kind of tier, you know, it's like layers of the class system almost that, you know, historically the middle classes and upper middle classes have thrown in their lot with the upper class because they know that, you know, that will tend to benefit them.
And meanwhile, it's the majority working class that will lose out.
What's interesting really since the 2008 financial crisis has been what some critics have called the de-bourgeoisification of the West, that the middle class is also shrinking and also getting worse off as this kind of super rich end of the spectrum creams off more and more wealth.
So we're looking at an increasingly skewed and disproportionate ownership and control over the world's wealth.
I cite some of the figures in chapter one of my COVID book.
And those arrangements create, again, a very precarious system.
And we've seen different elements of the control network going into crisis.
More and more people are seeing through the propaganda.
More and more people are seeing through the war on terror.
The fiat currency system looks as though it's on its last legs, you know, according to figures like Mark Carney and BlackRock and so on.
Major protests in one in five countries in 2019, just before COVID.
Symptoms everywhere for those looking that the existing control structures are no longer working or at least will not continue to work adequately.
And therefore, in order to maintain control, you need that new system and you need to then start what I call a war for technocracy.
I think that fundamentally, to get people on side with that war, they need to see that their interests are best served by it.
But that's difficult when it's such a small proportion of the world's population that's actually waging the war.
I thought the scariest part of your writings that I've come across concerns the sort of the what's it called when we become sort of post post-human.
Transhumanism.
And when the stuff is inserted into our systems and we become well, tell me about that.
Well, it's a huge topic.
And again, I have a whole section on subsequent.
Tell me about the defense capabilities and these killer drones and all this system.
Yeah, well, I mean, what we do know before we get onto that is that the first couple of decades of the 21st century have seen the rise of what's called network-centric warfare.
So essentially, it's internet-enabled.
All different elements of the USDOD are placed on a grid.
They call it the Global Information Grid.
It's all networked.
The idea is that information creates greater speed, improved response times, greater efficiencies, and so on.
Drone warfare is a good example of this.
You don't need massive, great military vehicles necessarily to achieve your objective when you can use it in a much more precise and targeted way through kind of smaller things like drones.
This is all known.
And incidentally, those networks are increasingly being powered by AI.
Now, the frightening suggestion then becomes, what happens when the nodes on the control grids are no longer pieces of military equipment, no longer computers, but human bodies and technologies within human bodies.
So if everybody becomes trackable and traceable on the network through intracorporeal nanotechnologies, we have a real problem because there's no privacy, there's no escape, there's no hiding.
Dissidents could, in theory, be targeted if there is some kind of interconnection between EMF frequencies of whatever kind and whatever's in the body.
So, you know, it could be used to cause pain, it could be used to cause torture, it could be used for assassination potentially.
Now, you know, the targeted individuals community, for example, say this kind of thing is already going on.
But what's really troubling is the extensive literature on what's called the Internet of Bio-Nano Things since 2015.
We know for a fact that this has been in development for a long time.
You can even trace the ideas right back to a 2001 NASA document, in fact.
There's huge amounts of funding being thrown at it across the two OmniWars symposiums that we've done.
We discuss a lot of that.
The intent is clearly there to create what NASA's chief scientist in 2001 called the IT bio-nano era.
And what that really means is connecting human bodies, bio, via nanotechnology, to IT, making us part of the network.
This has been the overarching plan for the whole of the 21st century.
So it would have sounded crazy back then, but not anymore.
And of course, you know, as smart technologies become ever more ubiquitous, the idea is to connect everything with everything.
So Cambridge University, for example, while we've been on the theme of universities and power and serving power, it recently set up something called its Internet of Everything Center.
And it doesn't seem to realize how dark and how bad this could get if you really do connect everything with everything because somebody somewhere has a joystick.
And somebody somewhere is in control of all of this.
And this is the disturbing thing.
So information has long been used for killing purposes.
If you go back to Operation Phoenix in 1968, it was information about key leaders that was used to locate and eliminate them.
And the retired professor of international political economy, Case van der Peyl, he calls this the information liquidation model.
Now, again, if human bodies become nodes on a network, the information about everyone is everywhere.
They've already built these kind of psychographic profiles on all of us.
And if they can just get some technology inside the body, which may contain all of this information, yes, you have a kind of super secure network, but ultimately it is a totalitarian control system.
And it's much worse than anything that Hitler or Stalin could have imagined.
There is no escape from it.
It is the end of human liberty.
The technocrats win at that point.
And I think that we are closer than anybody would like to admit.
And I'm particularly disturbed by all of the independent investigations into the contents of the so-called COVID-19 Vaccines, which have shown all manner of peculiar undisclosed ingredients, chemical elements that shouldn't be there, structures which appear to self-assemble, which are EMF sensitive, whatever it was that was shot into 5.55 billion people, it's certainly not what we were told.
So, you know, that is a global crime against humanity, a global violation of the Nuremberg Code.
So again, I want people to be going into this with their eyes open.
One of the things we tried to do in the last OmniWar symposium was to kind of ask, well, what do we know is possible?
What do we know they're trying to do?
What funding agendas are there?
You know, what are we not sure is possible?
What are the known unknowns?
It takes you into classified military technology.
And you also have to allow for the unknown unknowns.
So kind of epistemologically, it's quite difficult teasing all of this out and what's actually feasible and what's actually going on.
But the direction of travel and the overarching logic, to me, seems perfectly clear.
And I think there needs to be a lot more attention on this.
Yes.
It's not like they're not telling us what the plan is.
I mean, you've even got Elon Musk.
He's a pretty unashamed fan of transhumanism, isn't he?
Yes.
He's, what did James Corbett call him?
Technocratic hookster.
He's a salesman, isn't he?
And he's being used to, I mean, most recently with Doge, of course, to connect the technocrats, people like Peter Thiel with his Palantir company, to the heart of the US government.
You can see Trump's so-called AI-powered vaccines.
Horrendous idea.
You can see the technocracy moving in.
And if it's taking over the United States, presumably everywhere else will follow.
This is happening now.
Tell me about Palantir.
It's originated from the CIA venture capital firm, what's it called, Incutel.
For the first few years, I think Incutel was its only client as this was developed.
So we mustn't think this is just like a business venture of some kind.
It was linked to the intelligence agencies from the start.
And this is true, actually, of pretty much all of these companies, Apple, Microsoft, Oracle, etc.
They are one and the same with the intelligence agencies, always have been.
And essentially, of course, it's named after that kind of Lord of the Rings, what Sauron has, he calls it the Palantir, that kind of orb that allows him to see everything.
So kind of dark magic.
Sauron was great, wasn't he?
He was our friend.
Right.
So anyway, this dark magic is now being coupled to what Elon Musk calls dark MAGA.
And it's linked to something called the Dark Enlightenment as well, which is another concept.
But it's all very dark, you'll notice.
And what Poverty specialises in is being able to harvest and analyze just massive amounts of information.
And of course, information is power.
Data is the new oil, etc.
So if you have all of this information about the population, quite granular detail even, you know, where they shop, what they like to buy, what their sexual preferences are, etc., there's huge amounts that you can do with that information for social control purposes.
So this is a particularly important company.
And of course, it has entered the weapons space and the AI space.
And, you know, it's been supplying weaponry and facial recognition software and such in places like Gaza and Ukraine.
So we mustn't assume that this is just some kind of innocent company.
It has an obviously military dimension.
And again, if we allow this kind of technology to be running our societies, there is no more democracy.
It is ruled by technocrats.
It's the scientific management of society.
Yeah, but Trump's fighting woke, so it's all okay.
Well, yeah, on that topic, I'd recommend viewers and listeners watch the recent roundtable I did with Courtney Turner, Patrick Wood, and Ian Davis.
And we discussed Trump and techno-populism in that roundtable.
The Powers that Be have done a very good job of getting people who might otherwise have been skeptical of technocracy to cast their lot in with Trump.
And Trump, as he did the first administration, people never learn.
He makes all kinds of false promises, delivers on hardly any of them, maybe a few at the start.
And meanwhile, the baddies in the background, the technocrats have surrounded his administration and are getting all kinds of data from government sources and so on.
Trump is, you know, he is not the friend, unfortunately, of his base.
He is there to win their trust, mislead and ultimately betray them.
So this is how technocracy is being rolled out at such a rate in the United States, all being done under the guise of Trump and essentially through deception.
Yes, which is what comes back to your original theme, which is that a tiny, tiny handful of people is waging war, an omni-war, on us, 8 million people, or however many of us there are, we don't know because we can't trust their figures.
But the secret is, or their secret is, that we don't know they're at war with us.
And they use all these manipulation techniques.
And I was thinking, sometimes you have to...
So during the period where Biden stole the presidential election in real time on TV, we saw it happening.
And some of us thought, this is Outrageous.
Trump was a popular president.
He should have won.
And we were probably puzzling about how did anyone allow this period where this incontinent child molesting guy with Hunter as his son with this laptop, how did this brain-dead person being impersonated by various people in masks, how was he allowed to run the US?
What was the point of all this?
And of course, with hindsight, it makes sense that the reason for the Biden era, apart from they love to mock us, having an incontinent brain-dead man as supposedly the most powerful guy in the free world, apart from that,
they were deliberately rubbing our faces in it so that even anti-Trump people started to be desperate for Trump as the savior, so that he could then usher in this technocrap.
Is that right?
I think that's certainly one level to it.
I think the mockery is another level.
I think getting the public to gradually distrust liberal democracy will be an essential part of its eventual demise.
So, as you say, how can anybody take this guy seriously as the supposed leader of the free world when he's clearly going senile?
And also, I have a section in chapter five of my COVID book on, I think I called it fundamental irrationality in the system, that people need to believe that the system at some sense makes sense and that the government is fundamentally there for them.
Now, this is a very difficult thing to believe when you look at people like Biden and Pelosi apparently losing their marbles quite openly.
You know, how can you believe that there's anything really rational about the system?
And that's another source of distress, I think, which was inflicted on the population.
And then, as you say, the kind of the switch all of a sudden.
And then Trump comes in and starts kind of railing against the woke agendas of the Biden era and so on.
And everybody's, you know, well, hundreds of millions of people, it seems, in the U.S. are cheering this on.
And as I say, their memories are short.
You know, he pledged to drain the swamp in the first administration and then assembled the most wealthy cabinet in U.S. history.
Again, this time around, what's he actually doing, the first 100 days or whatever, have been really stamped by Doge, the idea of AI-powered vaccines, and getting Peter Thiel very, very close to the heart of power in the US.
So people need to get beyond this kind of childish idea that he's some kind of savior figure or some kind of leader of a populist movement that will make America great again and all of the rest of it.
What's really going on is, well, I was going to say behind the scenes, it's actually becoming more and more overt now.
But the technocracy is literally installing itself as we speak.
And people need to understand this.
Yes.
I was thinking, I really like your analogy about there being three rooms.
The first room is for, what would you call them?
Normies?
Yeah, anyone who just blindly believes the mainstream narratives.
Okay, and then you've got the second room, which is quite interesting, the alternative mainstream, where you've got Jordan Peterson and other...
But I was thinking, when I first started waking up, certain people started talking to me about...
Curtis Yarvin.
He's great.
He's got this fantastic concept that explains everything.
It's called the Cathedral.
And you think, oh, hey, Cathedral, that sounds like a good concept.
Tell me more.
And it sounds, you know, whatever.
It sounds like an interesting alternative theory that you might want to know more about.
And now we realise that he's been...
Yes, and again, I would encourage people to watch the roundtable with me, Courtney Turner, Patrick Woodney and Davis, because we actually discussed Curtis Yarvin in there and some of his ideas.
And Ian and I in particular have been reading some of the original literature here.
And we are both struck by how intellectually shallow it is and how flimsy these ideas are.
And yet they are now being used to legitimise the push for technocracy by the likes of Musk and Thiel.
So when Musk says that he's dark MAGA, you know, this is a reference to the so-called dark enlightenment and accelerationism.
And these are philosophies which underpin technocracy and have been formulated by people like Curtis Yarvin and like Nick Land.
Now, Yarvin, I read out a quote during the roundtable from him, which I found so shocking and I thought really revealed his true colours.
And it came from 2008.
And he referred to what he called, quote, a humane alternative to genocide, end quote.
And the idea was that technology, as it accelerates, is going to put an increasing number of people out of work.
And so what do you do with them?
And he says, you need to kind of wrap them up.
You know, he used the metaphor of a lava, get them wrapped up in these kind of individual cocoons.
And He was alluding to the Ray Kurzweil idea of fully immersive virtual reality.
So you cocoon them and then you put them in this fake reality, this virtual reality, which seems real to them, but actually it's fake.
And then you just leave them to it.
Now, this is really horrific, but the point about it is it comes back at us again in 2020 or 2021 when Yuval Noah Harari is talking about what he calls the useless class.
Again, those who will be rendered redundant by the new technology.
And he says, what do we do with the useless class?
And he says, basically, give them drugs and video games.
You know, similar kind of ideas.
Which is actually what George Bernard Shaw was talking about.
In about 1931, there's an interview of him talking about how people, in his imaginary utopia, that people would go before boards which would assess whether they were useful contributors to society or not.
And those who weren't, he suggested, might be eliminated.
So that's what the Fabian Society was talking about in the 1930s.
They've probably sort of refined their act since then and made it a bit cozier.
No, we're not going to kill them.
We're going to make them play Tour of Duty 24-7.
But you're quite right that the eugenics aspect here is palpable.
And in my book, Wall Street, the Nazis and the Crimes of the Deep State, particularly chapter 2, which I've just kind of released as a video series on my sub stack, I get into all kinds of parallels and continuities between 1930s Nazi Germany and what's been taking place across the West since 2020.
And the return of eugenics is absolutely part of that.
And again, you have the same kind of actors involved in both eras in terms of, you know, for example, Rockefeller funding behind a lot of this.
But they're quite serious that there will be certain people who no longer serve any useful purpose in society.
What do you do with them?
They don't want to talk about genocide, but they're perfectly happy to just say, oh, yeah, let's just give them more video games.
But it's the same kind of mindset.
You don't have to go here if you don't want to, because you already do enough interesting stuff anyway.
But do you think there's a supernatural element into all this?
do you take your biblical version of events seriously?
I mean, And Catherine Austin Fitz has recently said that she thinks that it's that who runs the world is a combination of intergenerational wealth, I think she said, and interdimensional beings.
Do you give that any credence?
You broke a bit of a motion.
You mean, by the way, not aliens.
Right.
Yes, I mean, I've spoken in previous interviews about how fundamentally this is a battle between good and evil.
And I was...
It was an awful experience.
And, you know, when I'm looking at, I don't know, the images of children being forced to wear masks all day long, you know, attempts to coerce people to take experimental substances into their body, the lockdowns, which the World Economic Forum described as the world's largest ever psychological experiment,
and could just see, you know, all of society just being treated like guinea pigs on so many different levels, you know, with absolute contempt, all of the psychological abuse through the techniques that we've discussed, all of this going on at once in 2020, you know, the threat to human freedom and everything else.
And I was really struck really powerfully more than any other time in my life by the sense of I am just faced with raw evil at this point.
And so, yeah, there's clearly a religious dimension in this.
I don't know how you could look at these things and find any legitimacy in them.
They are just bad, bad, bad, bad.
And yeah, in those days, you know, I was kind of casting around really and wondering what to do.
I'd already resolved to try and write this COVID book.
I made that decision in July 2020.
And then I came across a podcast by the Canadian journalist, Laurelny Tyler Thompson, who is Christian.
And it was the first time that I'd been introduced to that passage in Ephesians about putting on the armor of God.
And I thought, yeah, that is what is required because what we are faced with here is so enormous and it's so dark, it's not something that we as individuals can face alone.
If you're serious about facing this, it requires divine support.
And so at a basic level, the work that I've been doing since 2020 has been very much rooted in those principles.
And I wrote a Substack piece last year in which I also observed, I was reflecting on the fact that I used to regard myself as left-wing and most left-wing commentators I just lost all respect for in 2020.
I think much as you lost most respect for right-wing, most of the right-wing commentators.
Similar kind of journey from opposite directions.
Yeah.
So I had a similar thing.
Sure respect.
Just from the left, but at the same time, I realized that there are a lot of individuals emerging that I'd never heard of before, but who were saying things that really resonated with me.
And I couldn't understand why.
And I was thinking, there's a very disparate collection of people here.
Is there anything at all that they've got in common?
And then I started looking and I realized that nearly all of them were Christian.
And this was in the dark days.
And so it seemed to me that most of the voices that were speaking up the strongest when it really mattered were Christian.
So I thought that was a very powerful thing to have noticed and observed.
And I'm under no doubt whatsoever that, yeah, I mean, we're dealing with the kind of horizon of ultimate meaning here.
And I, you know, I often reflect, you know, what will it be like when I'm on my deathbed?
You know, how will I look back?
What did I do?
You know, at the moments when I had a chance, what decisions did I make?
And did I just stay silent?
Did I just comply?
Or did I actually do something?
You know, did I speak up and try and make a difference and try and change things for the better?
And as far as possible, I've tried to take that latter path.
But as I say, it can't be done just at an individual level.
You do need that divine support.
Well, obviously, I agree with everything you say, although I think you're being optimistic if you think you're going to get a deathbed, because what's going to happen is they're going to flick the nanobot kill switch and you'll be going to be walking on the street.
You're just going to go.
We'll have stopped them by then.
You should have joined the Yuval Harare Club or the Douglas Murray Club or whatever.
It's nice on the Cabals gravy train.
Comfortable, just not for me.
Yeah, yeah.
but it's been really great talking to you i i look i i know from from well And we didn't really go into the transhumanism stuff as much.
It's partly that I kind of find transhumanism so scary and horrible that I don't want to spend life doing it in short bursts.
Yeah, indeed.
But yeah, let's continue this conversation sometime.
Tell us where we can find you and your stuff.
Yeah, there's really only a couple of places.
The main place is Substack, of course, dhughes.substack.com.
So if you appreciate the content on there, most of it's put out for free.
Please do consider taking out a paid subscription.
Since leaving academia, I'm entirely reliant now on the public support, so please do bear that in mind.
Other means of support can be found at davidahughes.net forward slash support.
That's great.
Thank you, David.
And if you've enjoyed this podcast, as of course you have, A, obviously subscribe if you don't subscribe already.
Subscribe to my Substack or Locals or my Patreon.
I mean, go old school.
If you can become a paid subscriber, that would be great.
It does help.
People like David and me are totally dependent on your generosity.
And more than that, you're being asked to go through that tedious process.
Because they don't make it easy for you to become a paid subscriber.
I know this.
So I know how much trouble you have to go to make it work.
But if you can do it, really appreciate it.
I must think of some nice perks to offer you, you paid subscribers, because you kind of deserve extra treats.
And I'm not very good at this tiered system, but I should be.
Anyway, I'll think of something.
In the meantime, buy me a coffee if you don't want to commit to subscription.
That's nice.
Support my sponsors and help David as well.
He's doing some great work.
Thank you again, David A. Hughes.
Not to be confused with the other academics called David A. Hughes.
And yeah.
I'm looking forward to having you back one day.
Thanks a lot.
I'd like that, James, and thanks very much for having me on.
