All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 13, 2022 - Jim Fetzer
18:51
NEIL OLIVER - “...DIGITAL ENSLAVEMENT IS COMING…”
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
She gave a speech, Jacinda Ardern, recently in front of the United Nations, UN, where she declared that freedom of speech was a weapon of war.
That people, that's people like me, people like you, depending on what it is that you're saying, are as dangerous as anyone weaponised in any other way, just on account of the things we say.
And she was on a bit of a rant, a smiling rant, about misinformation, as she called it.
And misinformation is another of the words, the many words that have been utterly devalued in recent times on account of misuse. - Yes.
You'd think misinformation meant things that were factually incorrect, but in the hands, in the mouths of people like Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau and Canada and so on, what they really mean is dissent.
Misinformation is a proxy for not agreeing with them.
And rather take on the debate, the argument, rather than seek to prove the rightness of their cause by the use of effective argument and discussion and debate.
They just want those they don't agree with to shut up and go away.
More of our speech was about the way in which if people are allowed to continue to use the weapons of free speech that will end up in chaos.
And it's the obligation of governments and organisations like the UN to restore order by bringing to bear the technology that's now at everyone's fingertips to control the information that goes out there. - Famously, during the part of the Covid pandemic in New Zealand, which was a disaster in New Zealand, an absolute disaster.
She pursued zero Covid, which really worked out well for her, in that she had absolutely zero chance of having zero Covid and that's how it worked out.
But in the midst of it all, she stood behind her little podium and said that she was to be the only trusted source of truth.
Actually, this wasn't from the UN, this was during the Covid pandemic.
She said that you must ignore information coming from anywhere else.
We, open brackets, the government, closed brackets, will be your only trusted source of truth.
Now, that's Orwellian.
That's straight out of 1984.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
1984 and Aldous Huxley's Brave New World.
Contrary to the intentions of their authors, are now being used as instruction manuals by the would-be authoritarians and petty tyrants of the world, rather than the warnings that they were meant to be.
In 1984, Orwell wrote, Whatever the party holds to be truth is truth.
It is impossible to see reality except by looking through the eyes of the party.
And that's what Jacinda Ardern has in mind.
What she holds to be the truth is truth.
No debate, no dissent.
Orwell also said, free speech is unthinkable.
This was in another context, but same author.
Free speech is unthinkable.
All other kinds of freedom are permitted.
You're free to be a drunkard, an idler, a coward, a backbiter, a fornicator, but you are not free to think for yourself.
That's increasingly where we are.
I looked on, or I listened to what she was saying there at the UN, and there's a few things.
For one, just how much are these globalist would-be tyrants, how much are they intent on taking away from people?
If they're now at the point where they've got nothing left to take away from people but the thoughts inside those people's heads, If they're now at the point where they basically want inside people's heads to tell them what to think and what not to think, and while they're in those heads, those tyrants would like a good look around to see if there's any misinformation there that they couldn't take the bleach to and clean out and wipe away.
Throughout the pandemic, there was a war waged on people's freedoms, on people's rights, people's freedom of movement, people's freedom to travel.
It was all compromised by these people.
And now, two years on, they're now looking to take away people's ability to think for themselves, to do their own research, to find their own answers to questions that occur to them.
You've just got to go cap in hand to the state for information, the same way you're supposed to go cap in hand to the state for everything else.
That's another thing.
There's a concerted effort out there to breed dependency.
We're being made increasingly dependent upon the state.
Do you remember back in 2000, I think it was, it must be about 20 years ago now, someone somewhere came across a poster, Keep Calm and Carry On, and it became a bit of a craze.
It turned out it was something that had been designed by the Ministry of Information.
Sinister sounding organisation now, but during World War, I think by the end of World War One, and certainly by World War Two, there was a Government Ministry of Information.
And this was a poster that had been released.
It was designed around 1939 when the Blitz and Total War were incoming.
And so various bits of information and propaganda were being prepared to push out to the public.
And Keep Calm and Carry On was one of them.
And it went everywhere, do you remember?
It was on posters, it was on mugs, it was on t-shirts, and then people started doing kind of humorous variations on it, you know, they started playing with the words.
It amazed me that back then, in a time of war, the government department in charge of information wanted people to remain calm, even in the face of bombs raining down out of the sky.
They wanted people to remain calm and go about their business as normally as possible.
And now fast forward a lifetime and we're to be kept in a state of perpetual anxiety.
The Government admits, when provoked, that they have nudge units.
They have departments of psychologists and social scientists and other specialists coming up with ways in which to influence the behaviour of the population, to nudge people in whatever direction the Government want them to go.
And the nudge units are intent on keeping all of us in this non-stop state of anxiety.
As soon as Covid appeared, it was about be afraid of the disease.
Be afraid of each other.
Be afraid of your extended family.
Wear a mask.
Socially distance.
Don't go near anybody, even people you know and love.
Don't touch them.
And then they wrung every last drop of juice out of that one.
And then, while Covid was still there, war.
War in Europe, war in Ukraine.
That's another favourite of George Orwell in 1984 in Big Brother.
The never-ending war.
That's something that's very useful.
But war, that keeps everyone on edge.
The threat of nuclear war is back.
We're being told that Vladimir Putin at any given moment is going to press the big red button on his desk and it'll all be over.
There's the ever-present threat of climate crisis, the so-called climate crisis, that if we don't do something, anything, everything, as soon as possible the world's going to catch fire.
The whole thing.
And now Covid's back.
Covid's come back around again.
They're already saying that everyone's got to go and get a combined flu and Covid-19 vaccination.
So that's come back around again.
More anxiety, more anxiety.
How did we get from keep calm and carry on in 1939 to, you know, a perpetual state of pant-wetting anxiety in 2022?
It's because there's been a 180 degree shift in government thinking.
That what they don't want are calm, independent, self-sufficient people thinking for themselves.
They want panic-stricken cattle, wide-eyed with terror, just waiting for instructions from the farmers, you know, to tell us where we're supposed to go and what we're supposed to do when we get there.
It's not the first time in history that people have operated in this way.
Obviously, for a start, you can go back to propaganda is a Russian word.
Obviously, the Leninists and the Stalinists We're in the, you know, I had a profound understanding of how important it was to control information.
Goebbels, you know, of the Nazi Third Reich, it was all about controlling information.
You know, that has been a big part of the toolbox of every would-be totalitarian or authoritarian regime.
But you go back into, you go back into deeper history, you go back to the Aztecs in South America.
In the 14th and 15th centuries, they were the dominant tribe, they were the dominant group in that part of South America.
And what they did was keep the neighbouring tribes and peoples conquered, but not quite pacified.
They kept the neighbouring subservient populations in a state of simmering unrest They encouraged anxiety and unrest because at any given moment it meant that the Aztecs had an excuse to go in and batter them and round up more prisoners that they could take away for human sacrifice.
So it was in the interests of the Aztecs to keep everyone around them that they wanted to control.
Not pacified, not peaceful, not calm, but perpetually on edge.
You know, that was the stated objective of the Aztecs, was to keep people on edge.
Because then you could, at any given moment... The Spartans in ancient Greece, the city-state, they kept an enslaved population called Helots.
They were fellow Greeks, but the Spartans kept them to do all the domestic chores, all the farming, all the labouring in their city-state, while the Spartan men spent all their time practising the arts of war, and Spartan women spent all their time having and raising and Spartan women spent all their time having and raising children, preferably boys who would, in their adulthood, become yet more soldiers for the army.
And the helots, every year the Spartans would ritually declare war.
on the helix.
It To remind them that at any moment if they looked at a Spartan the wrong way or if there was a whiff of rebellion they would be annihilated and they would go and get more.
So this technique of applied anxiety is an old one.
It's been used in different places at different times, but always because anxious, disconnected, atomised populations are easier to control.
And I suppose in some respects, I feel as if at the heart of all of this, there's something anti-human.
I felt for a long time that the would-be globalists, you know, Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum and the rest of them, the likes of Ardern, Trudeau and others, Bill Gates, I don't think they like people.
I don't think they get Do you know, we live in a culture of upgrades now, don't we?
You used to buy a radio or a record player and you endeavoured to keep it.
That might be your only record player for 20 years, maybe for a lifetime.
And the radio would just be sitting in the kitchen forever.
And so you looked after it and you spent as much as you could to make sure you got the best one you could afford because it was going to have to see you out.
And so you didn't mess around with it and you were careful with it.
But of course now, with technology, that's not the way anymore.
Everything is temporary.
It's all about planned obsolescence.
Your phone, your laptop, your desktop, your television, everything becomes obsolete in a year, or two years at the most.
And then you're supposed to throw it away and get another one, a better one, that's got a better camera, or more processing power, or faster download speeds, or whatever.
There's a culture of The next one along will be better.
And I think it has infected the way some of these technocrats finally think about the human species.
By that I mean the simple human being that's been available for 200,000 years, you know, still running on its original operating system, you know, we're still running Hunter software.
But these people like Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab and Yuval Noah Harari, you know, the Israeli public intellectual that seems to be Klaus Schwab's right-hand man, I think they've decided for themselves that the human being is sub-prime and at the very least it's time for an upgrade.
They think they've worked out at last how to upgrade us.
Human 2.0.
They've decided that they can hack us.
Yuval Noah Harari has talked about human beings as being hackable animals.
And that they can get in amongst the...
They understand the DNA, they understand the genome, they understand our biochemistry, to the extent that they're getting ready to upgrade us.
And it comes, I think, from a place of feeling contempt towards the mass of the human population.
And they think they can make us better.
So they're not going to leave anything alone.
And so I was triggered.
That's a word we use all the time now, isn't it?
I was triggered by Jacinda Ardern saying what she said about freedom of speech, which is closely allied to freedom of thought.
And I would say that that determination to take over people's thought and speech comes from the same place.
It's anti-human.
And that anti-human aspect of the world in which we live now is fueling this transhumanism, this idea that we can be augmented with technology to make us not better.
I think ultimately it's to make us something more manageable.
You know, digital enslavement is absolutely coming down the line.
The central bank digital currencies, you know, allied to digital IDs and all part of a social credit system, a social credit score, where because we're such Inadequate creatures.
It's no longer appropriate that we make our own decisions about what we spend money on.
How we spend money.
At the moment if you use cash and to some extent if you use a debit card there's a little bit of anonymity there.
There's total anonymity if you do your transaction with cash.
And if you use a debit card, those transactions only balance up once a day.
All the banks, all the high street banks, they all kind of confer at the same moment.
And via the Bank of England, the various monies all get moved en masse.
The only institution that actually knows what you spent and where you spent it is your own bank that holds your account.
But in the future of central bank digital currencies, the central bank would know in real time what you were thinking about buying, how much you'd spent on it, where you'd bought it, and those central bank digital currencies are programmable.
So you get into a situation where potentially, if they need to lock us down, let's say they need to lock us down, they change everybody's digital wallet, bank digital wallet, so that it won't work more than half a mile from your house.
So, you can't go anywhere.
Suppose I wanted to go to London.
I couldn't.
I couldn't disobey because I wouldn't have any means of paying for the train ticket or buying food or anything else more than half a mile from my house.
Likewise, if it was deemed that I had put too much fuel in my car this month, then my digital wallet would be adjusted so that I couldn't buy any more fuel.
If I hadn't taken my vaccine, my 19th booster, my digital wallet might not work at all until I remedied that situation.
So, I would say that freedom of speech is crucially important to us as human beings, but I would say outranking it is the freedom to transact.
If we cannot Buy and sell what, when and how we want with, if we require it, anonymity, then we are lost.
It doesn't matter what you were planning to say, you know, in that auditorium or on that TV channel, if you can't get there.
The freedom to transact is the central one.
So Jacinda Ardern, seeing what she said, in the place that she said it, in the United Nations, presumably in expectation of a warm welcome for her sentiments, it's the ongoing infantilisation of the human species.
Having taken away so many of our rights, they now want to tell us what to think and what to say and what to trust and what to believe.
The whole thing is getting completely out of control.
It's anti-human.
It's anti-human.
▲
Export Selection