July 10, 2025 • 62 mins
In this conversation, David A. Hughes, a British academic and author known for his critical analysis of psychological operations and power structures, discusses the intricate web of psychological operations that shape public perception and control narratives, particularly around major events like 9/11 and the COVID-19 pandemic. He stresses the importance of recognising these operations, the role of misinformation, and the need for individuals to take personal responsibility in resisting the growing technocratic agenda. David argues for a collective awakening to the realities of power dynamics, the necessity of building a positive vision for the future, and tackles the challenges of perception management and political control.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/understanding-psychological-warfare
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:38):
David Hughes, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
Well, thank you for having me back and congratulations on your
new UK column slot. I participated in a 9/11
symposium back in 2020 I think it was, which went out on UK
columns, so not my first time. I'm glad to be back.
Gee, there's a really good starting point 911.
(01:04):
I mean, if we're talking about psyops and mind control, that is
a gem, isn't it? It's, well, it's one of the very
biggest, isn't it? I mean, I was struck when I
first woke up and inverted commas and realized the extent
of the lie. I was struck very much by the
question, why is it that most people don't see it when
(01:26):
actually it's blindingly obvious.
And that has to do very much with the power of psychological
operations, with propaganda, with the use of the term
conspiracy theorist and so on. And it's absolutely vital that
the public understands how theseoperations work.
So much of my research since then has been devoted to
(01:47):
exposing the various techniques that they use to get away with
it. Essentially.
Like what? Well, I mean, in my COVID book,
I cover all kinds of different techniques of psychological
warfare that were involved. But I mean, returning to 911,
some of the techniques are very crude in terms of shock the
(02:09):
population with a traumatic event and then just use
propaganda to beat them around the head with every nightly news
broadcast talking about terrorism and and and so on and
Al Qaeda that that's really all there was for years after the
event. But then of course, there are
deeper levels. I think there's a a kind of
(02:31):
something called it a mainstreamalternative media position.
I, I call it Camp 2 in my 3 camps framework, but the idea is
that there's a, a group of people out there I'm sure
probably has military intelligence connections whose
role it is to deliberately mislead even the skeptics.
(02:52):
And so in my view, that is very much the case with the Nano
Thermite narrative which has been proposed down the years,
which I and many others think isbogus.
We find that the characters who promote that narrative to be
untrustworthy and dishonest. And there's certainly a
(03:14):
groundswell, a growing group of people out there now who think
that the truth lies neither withthe official explanation nor
with the Nano thermite explanation, but broadly in the
direction of the work of Judy Wood.
I had the great privilege of interviewing her, I think back
in 2021 and I found her work mind blowing, utterly mind
(03:39):
blowing. Her book is something like I've
never seen in terms of an investigation into into 911 yet
David speak to the average person around you about what she
concluded, which is effectively directed energy weapons and
people will the eyes will glaze over and they'll call you a
(04:01):
clown. Yeah, and this is precisely what
I'm talking about in terms of the power of the psychological
operations to cover up the truth.
I mean, in the case of Doctor Wood, she's never been allowed
to have a Wikipedia page. Now, this is quite interesting
because it's often the case thatWikipedia will give people pages
(04:23):
just in order to promote misinformation about them.
But obviously Wood's ideas are so dangerous actually to the
establishment that she's never been allowed even to have a page
of that nature. And I've seen very few people
smeared and attacked and ridiculed to the extent that she
(04:45):
has been down the years. And again, I think that says
something very significant. And obviously people then, you
know, if they fall for that, they don't want to be associated
with someone who's been painted in those terms.
But all of this is about making sure that the very important
(05:07):
evidence that is presented in Where Did the Towers Go doesn't
come to light or isn't taken seriously.
And one of the important points that Doctor Wood makes in that
book is that she's not trying topresent a, a hard theory per SE,
but she is presenting the evidence.
And there's 500 pages of evidence in that book.
(05:28):
And it's a, a high quality production.
It contains all kinds of photographs and, and, and
diagrams and much else besides. There's, there's a whole
treasure trove for readers to delve into there.
And some of that evidence, I'm not sure would ever have come to
light or ever have been taken seriously were it not for Doctor
(05:50):
Wood. Some of it is quite
extraordinary when you take, forexample, what she calls the
toasted cars. I mean, what on earth would
cause this to happen? So for anyone who's not familiar
with it, I'm sure virtually all of your audience is.
But many cars in the in the vicinity of the Twin towers were
(06:11):
found apparently burned out, certainly very peculiar kind of
what, what appear to be burn patterns on them.
And yet you have to ask, well, why would 2 collapsing
buildings? Of course the buildings didn't
collapse per SE, but you know, officially, why would 2
collapsing buildings 'cause thatkind of damage to cars.
(06:32):
And in particular, there was a car park a few blocks away from
the few blocks northwest of the of the towers.
And you can find photographs before and after the event
occurred. Whatever did this to the cars,
and you can see there in pristine condition beforehand
and then afterwards most but notall strangely, of the cars are
(06:53):
badly damaged. So what caused that?
And in a sense, these are still open questions, but the evidence
itself is undeniable and we really must look at it.
You talk about various camps andthis doesn't only apply to 911
and it applies to psychological,psychological warfare as a
(07:16):
whole, doesn't it? Yes, it does, absolutely.
And particularly during the COVID era.
I mean, one of the unfortunate realizations that I personally
have come to over the last 12 months or so is that those in
what I call Camp 2, which is it's designed for skeptics of
(07:40):
official narratives. They've, they, they learn to
question the official version ofevents and then they enter Camp
2 and they are greeted there by a battalion of fake dissidents,
essentially people whose role itis to mislead, distract pied
pipers essentially that will provide them with plenty of
truth, plenty of relevant facts,but will fundamentally mislead
(08:04):
them about the most important truths.
It takes an awful lot of work actually to get out of Camp 2,
both in terms of research and also psychologically and, and
emotionally and to find one's way into what I call Camp 3,
which is essentially the truth. And it's a, it's an ugly and
difficult place to be and it's avery small place to be.
(08:27):
And the, the unfortunate realization I've come to is that
Camp 2 relative to Camp 3 is enormous.
So when fighting the, the, the battle for ideas, unless I join
you in the trenches, it's for me, it's really all about trying
to, to find your way into Camp 3and it's, it's extremely,
(08:47):
extremely difficult. So a more contemporary example
of what you're speaking about, if I may, would be the COVID
era. And Kid Knightley from Off
Guardian refers to something similar as fake binaries or the
sort of false dichotomy of, of A&B thinking.
So let's look at the COVID era. So you've got the the Biden
(09:12):
camp, so to speak, that will argue that there was a pandemic
and it came from a wet market inin China.
You'll get the Trump camp that will argue there was a pandemic,
but it comes from a lab in China.
Both are arguing that there was a pandemic and both are arguing
that China was involved. So they're ultimately arguing
(09:34):
the same thing, which means thatthere's still space for the
third option, which is what you refer to as Camp C, which is
that there wasn't a pandemic andthe whole thing was a
psychological operation. Yes, and I get into that in
chapter 6 of my book COVID-19, Psychological Operations and the
War for Technocracy. And Mike Eden also proposed this
(09:59):
argument, which I agree with, which is very much as you've
you've outlined, did the virus escape from a lab?
Was it natural? It doesn't matter which side you
take. Ultimately, you are subscribing
to the idea that there was, in fact, a novel virus.
Yeah. When really, I mean, the kinds
(10:23):
of questions you should be asking is, is that, is that
true? And I argue in the book that the
onus was on the authorities to provide irrefusable evidence
that it was true. And to my mind, they didn't do
so. But even separate from that
question, even if there had of been such a virus, could the
(10:44):
measures that were taken ever have been justified?
You know, shutting down the mostof the economy, locking people
in their houses, creating incredible levels of
psychological stress, which of course then led to physical
debility in many cases. I mean, the effects on so many
(11:05):
people's lives were so bad, depriving children of their
education, putting people in masks, etcetera.
I mean, it was an awful time by design.
Now, could any of that really have been justified even if
there were a virus? No, because the whole point here
(11:26):
is that it wasn't about a publichealth crisis.
That's the camouflage, that's the facade, that's the decoy.
And I'm using military language on purpose here because this, as
I argue in the book, the whole thing was a psychological
operation. And the purpose of that
operation as we move towards thetruth, in my view, was to
(11:51):
initiate what I have called the war for technocracy.
And so there is a much broader project going on here which
involves the gradual dismantlement of liberal
democracy and its replacement with a novel form of
totalitarianism, which, as Patrick Wood has amply
demonstrated over the years, goes by the name of technocracy.
(12:16):
And so all of this business about virus, no virus, public
health, science, the science trademark, etcetera, the whole
thing is 1 massive distraction. And I was very pleased recently
to, to watch Sasha Latapova's latest presentation.
And she's pulled no punches overthe years about this being a
(12:36):
military operation. And it's a military operation,
which is essentially ongoing because we still have the same
transnational deep state that was behind this, that was behind
9/11 and behind so much else is still active and is still
pushing towards technocracy regardless.
(12:57):
And this is what the public really has to get wise to now,
because if this technocratic system is brought in, well, I
mean, it's not just the end of democracy, as far as I can tell,
it would be the end of, of humanfreedom.
I think it was around 2016 when I effectively swallowed my first
(13:20):
red pull, and then around 2020 Ithink I swallowed a whole bottle
of red pulls. Yeah.
When did you start opening your eyes and why?
Strangely enough, exactly the same time frame, really in
exactly the same ways. So that's a strange coincidence.
(13:42):
Yeah. I mean, for me it was December
2016 and and and my wake up in inverted commas was 911 and it
was the destruction of the Twin towers.
It came in the context of of teaching US foreign policy.
Wait, wait, wait, wait. On the day 2001, you, you, you,
you woke up. No 2016.
Oh, I beg your point. OK, so so so but but but the
(14:05):
9/11 was. The trick was the yes was the
trick, exactly. So I gotcha.
Yeah. So I'd been teaching US foreign
policy to my students, and we'vebeen dealing with the war in
Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan.
And I've been reflecting on someof the parallels and
continuities between those two wars, very long wars, very
costly wars, PTSD for the soldiers, and so on.
(14:30):
And I thought, well, we know that the major escalation in the
the Vietnam War came about as a result of the Gulf of Tonkin
incident, which we now know to have been a lie and to have been
a false flag. And then, you know, you think to
the war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror.
How did that all kick off 911? Well, surely, surely that was
everybody knows that, you know, conspiracy theory rights.
(14:52):
I think that 911 was a a false flag.
But I thought, well, I better just check.
And of course, it doesn't take very long, does it, for anyone
who's honest about this to actually look at that evidence
and to very quickly realize thatthat the manner in which the
buildings were destroyed could not possibly have had to do with
jet fuel. 911 was a big moment. I mean, it was pivotal, but it
(15:19):
wasn't really global in the sense that COVID was.
Yeah, I, I think it shows that over the intervening years, what
I have called the transnational deep state has become
increasingly global. And I mean, maybe it was already
(15:41):
before this, but what COVID showed with the extremely high
degree of transnational cooperation all over the world
and the apparent assassination of the, the few African leaders
who dissented, is that really the, the power structure that
we're looking at now is a globalpower structure which has
(16:04):
managed to capture seemingly allstates, all governments, all
major institutions, all of the major media outlets, the banks,
and you name it. All of the major institutions in
society now seem to be captured by and aligned with a
transnational deep state, which is working on behalf of a
(16:28):
transnational ruling class to replace liberal democracy with
global technocracy and thereby to subjugate the entire global
population. So when I refer to a war for
technocracy in the title of my book, I mean that in a very
literal sense, because you cannot achieve social
(16:50):
engineering on that scale historically without World War.
And So what we're looking at nowis a third World War, in my
opinion, which was initiated, though undeclared, in 2020.
It's a war being waged by the few against the many.
(17:11):
It's a war being waged by a numerically miniscule proportion
of the world's population, essentially the ruling class
that owns the means of production.
It can manipulate the financial system.
It can manipulate the the propaganda.
It can manipulate what happens in the skies.
It's a war that is being waged from the cell to the
(17:33):
stratosphere by this tiny but very powerful group against the
rest of humanity. And I've referred to this as an
Omni war because it the very logic of that war means that it
has to take on its own peculiar characteristics.
And so it has to be waged by stealth, because if the public
(17:54):
gets wise to what's going on, there could be revolution
overnight. And it's a war which is waged
across every conceivable domain of human life.
And as indeed it it has to be ifyou are trying to subjugate the
entire of humanity. So these are really
(18:15):
extraordinary times that we are living through.
I mean, this is a, a, a moment of world historical
transformation. And we don't know at this stage
what direction it's going to go in.
But what's interesting about this is that for decades this
very powerful group of people has tried to do things
incrementally. It's tried to remain hidden in
(18:37):
the shadows so that it can effect change slowly, gradually,
in a way which isn't noticed. But with 2020, it really to some
extent came out of the shadows. And it was so major and so
massive what happened that for anyone paying attention, it's,
it's impossible to ignore. So they're pushing hard now for
(18:59):
Technocracy. And we see it in all kinds of
different respects from the, youknow, the digital currency drive
to facial recognition software to AI technologies being tested
in war in places like Ukraine and and Gaza.
All of this is, is, is going on.And unfortunately it's coming
(19:23):
for us if we don't resist and ifwe don't if if if what?
What's required is mass non compliance essentially with with
all aspects of this technocracy.The whole thing relies on
technologies for subjugation purposes.
And what the public has to do isto learn to recognize those
technologies and to reject. Them Mathias Desmet has written
(19:47):
a lot about totalitarianism and and I I tend to agree with with
some of what he says, particularly around the idea
that approximately 30% of peopleat any given time will will
reject or push back. Yeah, I mean, I don't think that
it was Desmond's idea per SE. It is in his book.
(20:07):
But I mean, for example, you cango back to Aldous Huxley's
writings in the in the 1950s andand find similar claims.
So I don't think there's anything terribly original in
that claim, but nevertheless it seems to be true.
And you can see it also in, for example, the the vaccination in
inverted commas data from the UKHealth Security Agency from July
(20:29):
2022 after the rollout of the injections was mostly complete.
And when you analyze that data, you find that in terms of the
adult population in the UK, 23% of the UK adult population
refused to take a single shot. So again, that's kind of in line
with what we're talking about, you know, roughly 1/5 or 1/4 or
(20:49):
so of the population for whatever reason, and we don't
know necessarily does seem to beimmune to the hypnosis, the
programming, the, the, the propaganda.
I mean, the good news is I, I think that that percentage is
slowly growing over time. I think more and more people are
(21:09):
in inverse of Commons waking up.And once you see these things,
there is no going back. You seem skeptical.
Are you sure? Are you sure?
I don't know. I'm I'm noticing people going
backwards. Well, the as I, as I argue in
the book, the that the COVID operation, as I call it,
military operation, one key element of it did involve trauma
(21:32):
based mind control. And as Mary Holland has stated,
populations at one level could be forgiven for feeling as
though they experienced or they're living through a kind of
PTSD en masse because of what happened and because of what was
(21:52):
done to them. And, and therefore the traumatic
aspect of it means that people are psychologically disinclined
to revisit what happened. And one of the reasons that I
wrote my book, as I put in chapter 1, is precisely to
revisit it. And it's a form of anamnesis.
It's all about remembering in granular detail exactly what
(22:15):
happened and exactly what was done because there are
perpetrators here. This was done by design for very
nefarious purposes. So it's important that we don't
forget that now. Yes, I am confident actually
that more and more people are seeing through this.
I mean, it's very interesting that it will probably be in the
(22:37):
next few days that my book will will pass a quarter of a million
accesses and downloads on the publishers official website
alone, which for an academic book is, is almost unheard of.
So what that shows is that thereis a public interest and
appetite for this information. People do want to know.
I've had plenty of people now telling me that I, for whatever
(23:00):
reason, you know, I don't know manner of delivery, the nature
of the information I'm presenting or whatever, but that
I've been able to reach some of their friends and family that
they've not been able to reach and to help them to, to see
things. I think that the, I mean, it
might be a painstakingly slow process from our perspective,
but I think more and more peopleare very gradually starting to
(23:24):
come round. And I've seen this even in my
own family. You know, even certain people
who I thought would never in a million years be able to
psychologically process this information are now starting to.
So I'm still hopeful in that regard.
And I mean, ultimately the truthis the truth.
I mean, it always comes out in the end.
(23:47):
And just coming back to those percentages that you mentioned a
few minutes ago, I mean, if we're looking at 1/4 of the
population being immune to this stuff anyway, you've only really
got to get to 51% for things to start to swing.
You know, we don't need to be able to convince everybody or
even a large majority if we could just get another, you
(24:10):
know, 30% or so, maybe not even that, then things could start
changing very, very quickly. You know, there could, there
could be a tipping point. So I remain optimistic.
I think you actually make some good points there and maybe I
should rephrase what I was asking a little bit, because
(24:32):
it's not A or B in the sense, you know, when I say waking up,
I'm not talking about every aspect of every conceivable
talking point. You know, some people, for
example, will, will agree that there was no pandemic, but they
won't agree that Direct Energy weapons were used on 9/11, for
example. And I think this is the nature
(24:55):
of the human condition that we can compartmentalize various
vectors. So, So when we say waking up or
opening our eyes, I guess it depends on what we're talking
about. Yeah, I mean, in a sense, it's a
process, isn't it? And it's about learning to
identify the mechanisms that areinvolved.
(25:17):
And I mean, I don't expect everyone to agree on everything,
and I don't expect everyone to agree with everything that I or
anyone else has to say. That's not what it's about.
You know, you're right, it's notan A or B thing.
But it is about people learning to distrust the information
that's provided by mainstream sources and to develop a sense
(25:41):
that the authorities which are ostensibly there to serve and
protect them are doing nothing of the kind and, as COVID amply
demonstrated, are in fact now attacking them and are, in my
view, at war with them. It's about understanding that
(26:05):
even once you've developed that consciousness, there are levels
of perception and levels of awareness and that once you
start to ask the questions, there will be even more
challenges put in your way in terms of the fake dissident
camp, two kind of characters that I have mentioned.
(26:26):
And it's about learning that, you know, this is a, a difficult
and painstaking process. It involves, I mean,
psychologically you have to abandon some fundamental ideas
that you've been propagandized with really ever since birth
that the inherent virtue of Western liberal democracies, you
(26:48):
know, the idea that vaccines aresafe and effective and so on.
The idea that we're fighting a virtuous War on Terror against,
you know, foreign non state actors that are that are out to
get us all of these things, which we've really been
conditioned just to accept go out the window.
(27:08):
And that that's quite difficult because it's a very
disorientating process And it's it's a scary process.
It's a frightening process. It removes the kind of
psychological security that you you may may have had.
So it's not about getting peopleto believe XY or Z, but it's
(27:29):
about getting them to engage in that process, to understand that
process and to actually have thethe courage and the integrity to
to start treading that path. The problem, David, though, is
the pendulum always seems to swing in a really wonky fashion
(27:50):
because we'll talk about Camp A and Cam B, right?
And Cam B would be opposition tothe official narrative in many
respects. So let's say 911.
OK, so Cam B would be argue that, I don't know, there was
demolition and all sorts of other things going on, right?
And on the face of it, it's great to see the rejection of
(28:13):
the mainstream narrative. But now what happens is you have
you have arguments within Camp Band Camp C about what the actual
truth is, and it weakens the overall opposition, which would
be B + C And so now you have Camp A looking at B&C and
(28:38):
laughing going, well, they're just a bunch of clowns because
they don't even know what's going on.
And yeah, we are maintaining theofficial narrative.
Everything that you've just described is by design.
If you go back to a 2009 paper by Cass Sunstein and Adrian
Vermeul, they, this is an academic journal paper and they
(29:00):
call in that and, and you know, these are Harvard professors, by
the way, and they call in that paper for government agents to
infiltrate chat rooms, particularly in the context of
those asking critical questions about the events of 9/11 and
essentially to sow disruption. So we know that this is by
(29:23):
design. We know that these bad actors
are out there. We know that their task is to
create confusion, to turn peopleagainst one another, to promote
silly or ludicrous narratives, to promote more credible sounded
but false narratives. We know that this has been going
(29:44):
on and it was incredibly effective in the so-called 911
truth community. I mean, as you say, there is no
community. It's, it's been completely
shattered and disparate. And in that sense, the the the
perception management operationswere successful.
However, again, I think more andmore people are starting to
(30:07):
understand how the game works now.
And in the case of COVID, for example, or in the case of the
kind of the bots on X or Twitteras it used to be, more and more
people are realizing that, for example, in the UK, there are
things like the 77th Brigade whose role is precisely to do
(30:32):
with perception management through online means that was
specifically deployed to enforcethe COVID narrative in various
ways. And I forget what was his name,
was it Mike Williams? I may have got that wrong.
But anyway, as one of the seniorgenerals in relation to the 77th
(30:54):
Brigade came out back in March, April 2020 and said, yeah, we've
got, you know, 3000 of our members working on this and we,
you know, we could call up 20,000 if we want.
So when I'm talking about battalions of kind of
misinformers, I, I mean that in a quite literal military sense,
because we know that this is what's going on.
And of course, a lot of people now do refer to the 77th Brigade
(31:20):
online, you know, or, or when they're being trolled by bots
and, and, and so on, which apparently now is most Internet
traffic. People are starting to
understand the scale of the misinformation and the
deception. And I think people are becoming
more critical and more discerning in terms of the kind
(31:42):
of information that they're looking for.
But I don't underestimate the scale of the challenge.
And of course, it's getting evenworse now with AI and deep fakes
and so on, where soon it may become virtually impossible to
distinguish what's what's real and what's not real online.
And that is a particular concern.
(32:02):
I mean, you could imagine a podcast of this nature going out
with you and I looking and sounding exactly as we do, but
saying all kinds of different things.
Now that's a that's a huge concern.
And it, you know, could lead to a kind of mass psychosis where
no one really knows what's real or not.
But nevertheless, I do think that more and more people are
(32:24):
starting to to understand how the game works and to become a
bit more discerning about the way in which they take in their
information. I think it was Noam Chomsky who
said that one of the most. Effective ways to control people
is to create the parameters of discourse and then encourage
(32:45):
very vigilant and even aggressive heated debate within
those parameters so that there would be the, excuse me, there
would be the appearance of opposing views, but they're
still within the parameters and those parameters are are.
Given yeah, you're right, that'sthat was Chomsky that said that.
(33:06):
And in a sense that's a an apartment description of
mainstream politics, isn't it? You can have as much fierce
debate as you like between red and blue, Labour and
Conservative, etcetera, but provided you don't talk about
the incoming technocracy, that'sfine.
Keep all of the attention, all of the perception, etcetera
(33:27):
focused over there and don't mention what's really going on.
That's exactly how it works. OK.
So let me push back a little bitfor the sake of this
conversation, David. There is this, we're talking
about perception management, butthere is this perception that
the perception managers are veryadvanced and very smart people.
(33:49):
Could it also be argued with thesense of nuance that there is a
lot of stupidity going on above?Yes, I mean, a couple of things
to say on that. Firstly, I think that the people
running these operations are extremely intelligent.
A lot of it of course centres around intelligence in the sense
(34:10):
of British intelligence or or CIA and it's called that for a
reason. And they do recruit some of the
most intelligent people, typically people who have a,
shall we say, a criminal bent. You know, they, they're
intelligent, but they get a kickout of being able to get away
with things that they shouldn't be able to, to get away with
(34:31):
breaking the law and, and so on.Now, that said, in Chapter 8 of
my COVID book, I've got a section called Urgency and
Desperation in which I argue that in many ways, the rollout
of the COVID operation was rushed and botched.
(34:53):
I think that although those behind it had been planning it
for many, many years, they, theymust have been given the
granular level of detail that was involved in the rollout.
But the rollout of the psychological operation, I don't
mean the injections it. Yeah, I'm convinced it was well
planned long in advance, but theactual way in which it was done
(35:18):
in many ways blew their cover inmany ways, made people wake up
at a faster rate than ever before.
They didn't succeed in getting the injections into everyone.
Technocracy is being talked about now in a way which it
never used to be before. And I think that it was very
(35:41):
interesting in January 2022 whento my mind, the, the operation
was seemingly pushing ahead at full force.
In December 2021 in the UK, there was talk about NHS
workers, the, the, the shop being being mandated for NHS
(36:03):
workers. I mean, that's, I think it's the
5th largest employer in the world.
If that had gone ahead, that would have set such a strong
precedent for other employers tofollow.
And I was so worried in December2021 and then all of a sudden in
January 2022, the whole thing asit had been taking place since
the spring of 2020 was suddenly wound down and, and put to bed.
(36:27):
And, and then in February, it all became about Ukraine.
And that was an extraordinary moment because it was an
obvious. It was a.
Coincidence, David. It moved swiftly from one to the
other. And again, I'm sure that that
was non accidental. But the, the, the key point here
is that as successful as the drive was seeming at the time to
(36:50):
just keep this injection campaign rolling on and on and
on, they must have known that they'd reached their limit
because they then stopped it andmoved on to different forms of,
of operation. So we must never overestimate
their power. And I think the, the fact that
they stopped and again, this wasaround the time of the Canadian
(37:11):
truckers convoy, right, you know, signs of mass resistance
on the ground. So I think it's important to, to
keep an eye on that and to, to remember our strength and the,
the, the level of resistance that there is, because it was
sufficient to stop the COVID operation and it can be
sufficient again in future to stop whatever they have planned
for us. You talk about our strength, OK,
(37:32):
So do we not run the risk by constantly pointing the finger
at them, taking away our own responsibility and basically
feeding into perpetual victimhood?
Well, I do the opposite in my work.
(37:54):
I mean, I'm essentially trying to spread awareness and
enlightenment of of what's happening.
And I've said repeatedly that once you see this, there is a
moral responsibility and indeed a strategic responsibility to
take action. And one of the lessons of
totalitarianism from the past, if you read the works of
(38:16):
Solzhenitsyn for example, is that staying silent is not an
option. Doing nothing is not an option.
Burying your head in the sand isnot an option.
And actually the very nature of the Omni war, as I've called it,
means that this is being directed specifically against
you personally and your family. So you have to fight, you have
(38:41):
to get up and find ways of adding to the resistance.
And of course what we do have onour side is numbers, 8 billion
people approximately stand to assuming the estimates are
correct, but stand to stand to lose from what is taking place.
And so actually, if enough people would get up and active,
(39:06):
I think this could be rolled back very, very quickly.
But it is about taking that personal responsibility.
So, yeah, I mean, I'm anything but defeatist in this.
You know, I can, I can see a wayout.
And that's why I'm encouraging people to take action, do what
they can. I mean, the fact that this Omni
war is being fought in so many different domains means that
(39:28):
there must be something that youcan do what?
Whatever your gift is, there must be something that you can
do. Find that thing and do it.
Isn't that also a danger of the whole Q thing?
You know it's the white hats arecoming to save us, so don't do
anything. It's all 55D chess.
Well, that certainly is what thepurpose was, right?
(39:48):
And the whole kind of fall of the cabal idea that, yes, you
know, you can abdicate personal responsibility because the white
hats are out there and they're already saving you.
They're already doing it for you.
I mean, it's an extremely successful song opera.
I mean, I don't know how many millions of people in the US
(40:09):
alone bought into that. Thankfully, I think the wheels
have have come off that one now and more and more people are are
seeing through that. But again, This is why it's
important to just understand thefundamentals of what's taking
place. This is a war.
It's a war that's being waged against you and its ultimate
purpose is to subjugate and enslave you through technocratic
(40:31):
means. It's happening now.
It's happening fast. The technocrats have already
moved into the White House with Doge and Teal and Musk, etcetera
and Palantir. The technologies are already
being experimented in a militarywithin the military capacity in
in Ukraine and Gaza and elsewhere.
This is all happening now. Are you going to allow it?
(40:53):
You know, with you? Do you consent?
Do you acquiesce to this path continuing?
Because if you don't, then you must resist.
You must do something. But what is that something?
Well, I offer a whole range of solutions at the end of my
Solari report titled Omni War, Exposing and Ending the
(41:17):
Invisible War Against Humanity. I mean, I'm not going to
prescribe a, you know, kind of aset thing, set series of things
that everybody must do. But the key point that I always
emphasize is that you need to look inside yourself.
You need to look inside your conscience and you need to look
inside your heart. And you need to ask yourself
honestly, what is it that you can do?
(41:39):
You know, what is it that you see?
What difference can you make? And that's going to be different
for everybody. Some people might be good at
monkey wrenching technologies. Some people might be good at
going down to the local councilsand trying to effect put
pressure on locally because a lot of these global agendas are
actually enacted at a local level.
Some people might be good at doing the kind of thing that you
(42:00):
and I do, podcasting and so on, spreading messages.
Some people might be able to write books, some people hold
yellow boards. Whatever it may be, there is an
absolute raft of things that youcan do.
Ditching your smartphone would probably be one of the most
important things that you can do.
Withdrawing from all forms of smart technologies is certainly
(42:21):
highly recommended in the context of this war.
Not putting up with ideas that you know to be wrong, having the
courage to speak out about things.
I mean, there's so much actuallythat can be done.
But you know, it's, it's you have to have a mindset of
wanting to adopt those ideas, totake them forward and to find
(42:44):
ways of making that difference in your own life.
Again, I can't prescribe what that's going to be for each
individual person, but each one of us has to take that
responsibility now. But David, we all know Donald
Trump is going to save us. Well, Donald Trump promised to
drain the swamp in his first administration and then
proceeded to do the opposite. He said that he was going to
(43:08):
arrest Hillary Clinton and then he had his assembled dinner
audience applaud her. We know that the guy is a
charlatan and a misleader, and it's incredible how many people
don't see this and have fallen for it a second time.
So he's back now and you know, day one.
(43:30):
Well, that looks OK. You know, we're going to the US
is going to withdraw from the The Who tick war against woke
tick. All right, good day 2 mRNA AI
powered mRNA cancer vaccines. So, you know, you can see these
kind of agendas just roll on regardless.
You know, the 1st 90 days, you know all about doge.
(43:54):
The you know, I dread to think how much data about the US
population has now been hooveredup by Palantir.
I mean, it must have had so muchdata before then.
But you know, the integration now of this technocracy with
government, I mean, that's incredible power that that
company and someone like Peter Thiel now now has.
(44:16):
It's very, very frightening. And as I say, those kinds of
companies and they're plenty kind of AI, venture capital
start-ups, all linked to what's called accelerationism.
The frightening thing about all of that is the military
connections and the fact that they are involved essentially in
creating this control grid wherethey can know where everybody
(44:42):
is, what they're doing, who they're friends and family are,
all of the psychographic profiling, you know, where they
like to shop, sexual preferences, you name it, a
granular level of detail about everyone.
And these same companies are also developing military
technologies like the facial recognition software like AI
(45:02):
powered drones, which can be used to hunt down and kill
people. It doesn't take a genius, does
it, to work out where this is going, which is a long standing
project. You can, you could even trace it
back to IBM and the Holocaust. You can trace it back to
Operation Phoenix using information and computing power
to be able to identify, locate and ultimately eliminate
(45:28):
dissidence. So again, this is taking place
now on a transnational, if not global level.
It's so dystopian, it's so dark,it has to be stopped.
It's weird, though, because people get so caught up in the
binary of the electoral process,For example, I mean, I think
(45:49):
any, any sane person will agree that that Biden was not pulling
the strings, yet somehow they think that now Trump is pulling
the string strings. And the funniest part is that
Trump is against the deep state.He's going to pull it apart.
I mean, how do you how do you get to the point where you think
that you become president of thecountry and somehow you are not
(46:11):
part of the system? Well, again, none of it makes
sense when you really think about it.
But the whole thing is about misleading the masses.
So Trump has made himself the figurehead of this so-called
techno populism movement. And when, you know, hundreds of
(46:34):
millions of people are buying into him as this kind of savior
type figure, and he is marching them straight into technocracy,
and they don't see it and they don't understand what's going
on. I mean, you know, Elon Musk
openly said, you know, I'm not just MAGA, I'm dark MAGA.
And the whole crowd cheers and goes wild.
(46:57):
And they've no idea what he's talking about.
You know, this is reference to something called the Dark
Enlightenment. I won't get into the details
here. I did a, a roundtable on this
with. That's the one.
I'm glad. I'm glad, you know.
Yeah, Curtis Yavin, his, his, his, his real name.
You know, these are neo reactionary figures which have
(47:18):
kind of produced a a philosophy,if you like, which serves as an
intellectual legitimization of what these technocrats are
trying to do. And what Ian Davis and I both we
both reach the same conclusion, having read some of this work
first hand, that intellectually it's tremendously flimsy.
(47:39):
I mean, it's just dreadful that the ideas are awful, the
arguments are terrible, doesn't hang together.
But Musk and others are perfectly happy to allude to it,
to legitimize what they're trying to do.
And again, seeing as that you'veyou've just mentioned Yavin
there in 2008, Curtis Yavin cameout with what he called, and I
(48:04):
quote, a humane alternative to genocide.
And he was arguing back in 2008 that the advancing technologies
would render more and more people unemployed and redundant.
And So what do you do with this mass of people?
(48:24):
And he came out of this horrificidea.
He referred to the kind of a lava, a cocoon that you wrap
them in. And he invoked Ray Kurzweil's
idea of fully immersive virtual reality.
And so essentially you, you, youput them in this state where
they're living in a, you call ita fake reality.
You know, it seems real to them,but it's 100% fake.
(48:44):
And, and this is, this is his idea of morality.
You know, this is better than just exterminating them.
He said, I mean, these are the kind of characters and ideas
that we're dealing with. But again, you see, this comes
back at us in 2020 with Yuval Noah Harari, and he's talking
about what he calls the useless class.
You know what? What are we going to do with all
these people once, once the AI takes their jobs?
(49:05):
And what did he say? Drugs and video games.
I mean, these are horrendous, horrendous.
People and horrendous ideas. Can I jump in there?
I've I've thought about this andI've asked a few people those
questions I'll ask you also. I don't think I've ever heard,
and I'm not in any way taking their side, but I've not in any
(49:28):
way ever heard Ferrari or Javan or Schwab would ever say I would
like to see this. Are they not merely projecting
what they think is coming? No, I, I, what they're trying to
(49:49):
do is to find ways of legitimizing the kind of plans
that they have in place. And ultimately this is what
technocracy entails. It is about taking away personal
liberty and control over 1's life and placing it in the hands
(50:09):
of the technocrats, which is a very small group of people which
are at the controls. They have the joysticks, they
are in charge of the scientific management of society.
They get to decide what resources you are allocated and
how far you can straight from your 15 minute city and so on.
It is ultimately a, a slavery system.
(50:32):
And so even though they might not openly come out and say,
yes, this is what I want to see,I'm pretty confident that it is.
It's, it's a necessary part of what they're trying to achieve.
Now, one of the rhetorical devices that they use is to talk
about things as though they're inevitable.
(50:53):
So technological determinism is a key part of this, quite apart
from politics and society, et cetera, technology just has its
own logic and it just kind of advances regardless, and it
always has done. And it's the technology that
drives history. And that's a very kind of
convenient position if you're one of them.
But of course, it's not true. I mean, if you think about
(51:13):
nanotechnology and all of the nefarious purposes to which that
could be put, this didn't just happen.
You know, technology just didn'tkind of naturally evolve in this
way. There were deliberate political
decisions taking taken around the turn of the Millennium to
start investing massive amounts of money into nanotechnology
research. There were agendas behind this.
(51:35):
In other words, it was by design.
And so they can hide all they like behind these narratives
about, oh, this is just happening, we can't stop the
March of AI, we can't etcetera, etcetera.
But actually it's all planned and it's all part of the attempt
to place all power globally in the hands of very, very few
people. But then is is the inevitable
(52:03):
outcome inevitable? No, absolutely not.
The outcome is always determinedin the struggle.
And This is why I am very keen in my work to always reiterate
the class relations behind this.And of course they've, you know,
they, they do all they can to deflect away from thinking in
(52:24):
class terms through kind of wokeand gender politics, identity
politics and, and all of this kind of stuff so that people
think of themselves kind of individualistic terms.
But fundamentally, as I say in the 1st 5 words of my book, this
is a global class war that is now happening.
And there is the the the the capitalist system has become
(52:47):
disproportionately skewed so that a tiny proportion of the
world's population controls the vast majority of its wealth.
And it's skewed almost exponentially as you go up
towards the top 1%, the top nought .1%, nought point nought
1% and so on. So, so much of the wealth now is
contained in just the hands of those very few people, and
(53:10):
they're trying to subjugate everybody else.
So the outcome is far from determined.
They want us to think that it is.
They want us to think that it's hopeless.
This is all part of the psychological operations.
Again, I've got sections on thisin my work on COVID.
You know, at the time, one of the things that they kept doing
is to just try and convince us. It was, it was endless.
(53:32):
It was never going to, it was never going to stop.
You know, was it Susan Mickey, for example, when she was asked
in an interview, how long do youthink the public should keep
wearing masks? And she just said, oh, forever.
These kinds of tricks were were used repeatedly to create this
demoralization, the sense of despair, the sense that things
are never going to end. And it's always this way, you
(53:54):
know, to create the sense that we can't win, that we are like
children. They use a lot of infantilizing
rhetoric. And meanwhile, they're kind of
like these omnipotent gods that have the power to just shut down
most of the world's economy overnight.
This is what they want us to believe.
But actually the the objective reality is completely different
(54:14):
that you have a bunch of very desperate people trying to pull
off something which is so audacious.
I mean, trying to collapse liberal democracy and replace it
with technocracy. I mean, you are attacking human
freedom. You're attacking nation, you're
attacking family, you're attacking all of the values that
(54:35):
both left and right stand for. I mean, nobody has anything to
gain from this. So I think that the more people
see it, the more pushback there will be and the more futile
these these technocratic agendaswill become.
So again. I'm optimistic, but you've
mentioned liberal democracy a few Times Now.
(54:56):
I personally am not a fan of democracy at all.
Why do you think the destructionof liberal democracy is a bad
thing? Well, that's a a really
interesting question, and I agree that liberal democracy as
it has developed over the courseof the 20th century has
(55:18):
essentially been a cover for capitalist relations, which are
tremendously exploitative and predatory and legitimized also.
Voting. Voting is just theatre.
Yes, it is. Yeah, I I agree.
I mean, yeah, I mean, it's, it'sfar from an ideal system.
(55:40):
It's certainly a lot better thanthan Technocracy.
Either way. I, I think it's finished
because, I mean, the powers thatbe have, have have used liberal
democracy as their their chosen kind of form of political regime
for for many decades. And even they are now trying to
dismantle it. So quite apart from the fact
(56:01):
that it's really always been a sham and it's always been, you
know, the, the manufacturing of consent, you know, these ideas
were around 100 years ago. It's amazing, you know, just how
successful this has been over the course of a century to
persuade people that this is really in their interests.
But either way, it's, it's on its way out now.
The, the, the big question is what comes next?
(56:23):
And this could go in multiple different directions.
I mean, yes, the the the dystopian hellish vision of a
global technocracy is 1 outcome chaos as as things spiral out of
control is, is another option. I would like to think that
collectively we are able to comeup with a more positive vision
(56:45):
towards which we can build and work.
And that is what I think is sadly lacking at the moment.
There's so much talk about the darker aspects, what they are
doing about their psychological operations, etcetera.
What's really needed is a positive narrative of our own.
I mean, if you think about Bob Moran's picture, the good Reset,
(57:07):
yeah. I mean, that's an example of, of
of trying to do this, imagining what the world could look like,
providing some kind of positive vision for us to aspire to.
So if I were to kind of, you know, be thinking strategically
about what's needed next, you know, I, I think that we need
the best thinkers out there to be actually coming up with that
kind of a vision and something that people can really, really
(57:30):
buy into because there's too much negativity, There's too
much kind of. Blackpilling.
Blackpilling, Exactly. But again, you know, you think
about what we've got here. The technologies that exist in
the world today, even though they are being put to very
nefarious purposes, could do a tremendous amount of good.
I mean, if you have that amount of information about everybody,
(57:53):
surely it becomes possible to distribute wealth more equitably
among society. You know, what need is there
for, for, for wars, really, if, if this technology were to be
expropriated from the hands of this kind of minuscule, very
nefarious group, the world couldbe so much better, unimaginably
(58:13):
better. You know, there'd be an
abundance of wealth. I mean, Katherine Austin Fitz
has talked about this very oftenthat the lengths that they go
to, to suppressors, I mean, justthe amount of money it must
cost, just maintain this, you know, these relentless
propaganda campaigns and the psychological operations and and
so on. You know, they have to go to so
much effort and cost to keep theglobal population in check.
(58:40):
Imagine what we could do withoutall of those constraints.
I mean, the future could be incredible, but how many people
ever really think that way? I think we need to start
adopting a much more positive mindset if we're to bring people
with us. I think it was Yuri Besmanov in
his interview with G Edward Griffin back and was it 83 or
(59:00):
8484? We spoke about various
characteristics of, of of control mechanisms, which I
think you've echoed in your work, things like demoralization
and destabilization and disorientating people and that
sort of thing. So one obvious way to look at
this is to make sure that you are not demoralized and that
(59:23):
you're not disorientated. Know who you are, know what your
meaning and purpose is when you wake up in the morning.
And for goodness sake, don't doom scroll.
You know, get fit, go into the sun, eat healthy, strengthen
your your family connections andyour friendships and your
networks. It seems pretty obvious.
(59:46):
Yeah, it does. And again, they've done their
best to make sure that we do none of those things.
I mean, you know, the whole lockdown idea, you know, stay
indoors, don't see the sun, don't exercise, don't see your
family. I mean, you know, it's
horrendous what they tried to do, the addictive power of
social media. Highly, highly problematic.
(01:00:07):
I mean, I don't know how much time the average person spends
on social media per day instead of real social connections.
And the doom scrolling is a, is a, is a terrible phenomenon.
I mean, this is all known to have, you know, bad effects on
people's mental health. And even worse than that, you
are essentially trapping yourself in their technocratic
(01:00:30):
system because the news feeds that you see, etcetera on
Facebook and X or what you know,wherever you're getting in news,
they're all manipulated through algorithms.
Whatever tweets or whatever you put out, you've no idea how many
people they're reaching. And indeed, it's becoming pretty
obvious now, you know, with the Linda Yacarino principle of
(01:00:51):
freedom of speech, but not reach.
You can say whatever you like. Yeah, free speech go, man, but
no one's going to hear you. So why?
You know, why would you deliberately put yourself in
that kind of digital prison space?
I mean, I'm deliberately not on social media for that very
reason. The amount of time that people
spend on their smartphones and the fact that people, you can't
(01:01:14):
live without them. I mean, this is a form of
addiction. You know, if you can't drive
from A to B without using a sat NAV, you, you've got a problem.
You know, if you can't go to bedwithout taking your phone with
you, you've got a problem. If you can't lead your life
without using multiple apps all the time, you've got a problem.
(01:01:35):
Because you are increasingly youare consenting and acquiescing
and integrating yourself into that technocratic system.
And the more you do so, the moreeasier it becomes to manage you.
And that's before we get into the, the whole area of, of
technologies going under the skin and, and intercorporeal
technologies. So people have to take that
(01:01:56):
responsibility again and withdraw from the everything
that that points towards technocracy and do the kind of
things that you were just describing.
David, how can I follow you? Best place is on sub stack D
hughes.substack.com or David A hughes.net.
(01:02:17):
David A Hughes, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
Pleasure, Joe. Thanks very much.
David Hughes, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
Well, thank you for having me back and congratulations on your
new UK column slot. I participated in a 9/11
symposium back in 2020 I think it was, which went out on UK
columns, so not my first time. I'm glad to be back.
Gee, there's a really good starting point 911.
(01:04):
I mean, if we're talking about psyops and mind control, that is
a gem, isn't it? It's, well, it's one of the very
biggest, isn't it? I mean, I was struck when I
first woke up and inverted commas and realized the extent
of the lie. I was struck very much by the
question, why is it that most people don't see it when
(01:26):
actually it's blindingly obvious.
And that has to do very much with the power of psychological
operations, with propaganda, with the use of the term
conspiracy theorist and so on. And it's absolutely vital that
the public understands how theseoperations work.
So much of my research since then has been devoted to
(01:47):
exposing the various techniques that they use to get away with
it. Essentially.
Like what? Well, I mean, in my COVID book,
I cover all kinds of different techniques of psychological
warfare that were involved. But I mean, returning to 911,
some of the techniques are very crude in terms of shock the
(02:09):
population with a traumatic event and then just use
propaganda to beat them around the head with every nightly news
broadcast talking about terrorism and and and so on and
Al Qaeda that that's really all there was for years after the
event. But then of course, there are
deeper levels. I think there's a a kind of
(02:31):
something called it a mainstreamalternative media position.
I, I call it Camp 2 in my 3 camps framework, but the idea is
that there's a, a group of people out there I'm sure
probably has military intelligence connections whose
role it is to deliberately mislead even the skeptics.
(02:52):
And so in my view, that is very much the case with the Nano
Thermite narrative which has been proposed down the years,
which I and many others think isbogus.
We find that the characters who promote that narrative to be
untrustworthy and dishonest. And there's certainly a
(03:14):
groundswell, a growing group of people out there now who think
that the truth lies neither withthe official explanation nor
with the Nano thermite explanation, but broadly in the
direction of the work of Judy Wood.
I had the great privilege of interviewing her, I think back
in 2021 and I found her work mind blowing, utterly mind
(03:39):
blowing. Her book is something like I've
never seen in terms of an investigation into into 911 yet
David speak to the average person around you about what she
concluded, which is effectively directed energy weapons and
people will the eyes will glaze over and they'll call you a
(04:01):
clown. Yeah, and this is precisely what
I'm talking about in terms of the power of the psychological
operations to cover up the truth.
I mean, in the case of Doctor Wood, she's never been allowed
to have a Wikipedia page. Now, this is quite interesting
because it's often the case thatWikipedia will give people pages
(04:23):
just in order to promote misinformation about them.
But obviously Wood's ideas are so dangerous actually to the
establishment that she's never been allowed even to have a page
of that nature. And I've seen very few people
smeared and attacked and ridiculed to the extent that she
(04:45):
has been down the years. And again, I think that says
something very significant. And obviously people then, you
know, if they fall for that, they don't want to be associated
with someone who's been painted in those terms.
But all of this is about making sure that the very important
(05:07):
evidence that is presented in Where Did the Towers Go doesn't
come to light or isn't taken seriously.
And one of the important points that Doctor Wood makes in that
book is that she's not trying topresent a, a hard theory per SE,
but she is presenting the evidence.
And there's 500 pages of evidence in that book.
(05:28):
And it's a, a high quality production.
It contains all kinds of photographs and, and, and
diagrams and much else besides. There's, there's a whole
treasure trove for readers to delve into there.
And some of that evidence, I'm not sure would ever have come to
light or ever have been taken seriously were it not for Doctor
(05:50):
Wood. Some of it is quite
extraordinary when you take, forexample, what she calls the
toasted cars. I mean, what on earth would
cause this to happen? So for anyone who's not familiar
with it, I'm sure virtually all of your audience is.
But many cars in the in the vicinity of the Twin towers were
(06:11):
found apparently burned out, certainly very peculiar kind of
what, what appear to be burn patterns on them.
And yet you have to ask, well, why would 2 collapsing
buildings? Of course the buildings didn't
collapse per SE, but you know, officially, why would 2
collapsing buildings 'cause thatkind of damage to cars.
(06:32):
And in particular, there was a car park a few blocks away from
the few blocks northwest of the of the towers.
And you can find photographs before and after the event
occurred. Whatever did this to the cars,
and you can see there in pristine condition beforehand
and then afterwards most but notall strangely, of the cars are
(06:53):
badly damaged. So what caused that?
And in a sense, these are still open questions, but the evidence
itself is undeniable and we really must look at it.
You talk about various camps andthis doesn't only apply to 911
and it applies to psychological,psychological warfare as a
(07:16):
whole, doesn't it? Yes, it does, absolutely.
And particularly during the COVID era.
I mean, one of the unfortunate realizations that I personally
have come to over the last 12 months or so is that those in
what I call Camp 2, which is it's designed for skeptics of
(07:40):
official narratives. They've, they, they learn to
question the official version ofevents and then they enter Camp
2 and they are greeted there by a battalion of fake dissidents,
essentially people whose role itis to mislead, distract pied
pipers essentially that will provide them with plenty of
truth, plenty of relevant facts,but will fundamentally mislead
(08:04):
them about the most important truths.
It takes an awful lot of work actually to get out of Camp 2,
both in terms of research and also psychologically and, and
emotionally and to find one's way into what I call Camp 3,
which is essentially the truth. And it's a, it's an ugly and
difficult place to be and it's avery small place to be.
(08:27):
And the, the unfortunate realization I've come to is that
Camp 2 relative to Camp 3 is enormous.
So when fighting the, the, the battle for ideas, unless I join
you in the trenches, it's for me, it's really all about trying
to, to find your way into Camp 3and it's, it's extremely,
(08:47):
extremely difficult. So a more contemporary example
of what you're speaking about, if I may, would be the COVID
era. And Kid Knightley from Off
Guardian refers to something similar as fake binaries or the
sort of false dichotomy of, of A&B thinking.
So let's look at the COVID era. So you've got the the Biden
(09:12):
camp, so to speak, that will argue that there was a pandemic
and it came from a wet market inin China.
You'll get the Trump camp that will argue there was a pandemic,
but it comes from a lab in China.
Both are arguing that there was a pandemic and both are arguing
that China was involved. So they're ultimately arguing
(09:34):
the same thing, which means thatthere's still space for the
third option, which is what you refer to as Camp C, which is
that there wasn't a pandemic andthe whole thing was a
psychological operation. Yes, and I get into that in
chapter 6 of my book COVID-19, Psychological Operations and the
War for Technocracy. And Mike Eden also proposed this
(09:59):
argument, which I agree with, which is very much as you've
you've outlined, did the virus escape from a lab?
Was it natural? It doesn't matter which side you
take. Ultimately, you are subscribing
to the idea that there was, in fact, a novel virus.
Yeah. When really, I mean, the kinds
(10:23):
of questions you should be asking is, is that, is that
true? And I argue in the book that the
onus was on the authorities to provide irrefusable evidence
that it was true. And to my mind, they didn't do
so. But even separate from that
question, even if there had of been such a virus, could the
(10:44):
measures that were taken ever have been justified?
You know, shutting down the mostof the economy, locking people
in their houses, creating incredible levels of
psychological stress, which of course then led to physical
debility in many cases. I mean, the effects on so many
(11:05):
people's lives were so bad, depriving children of their
education, putting people in masks, etcetera.
I mean, it was an awful time by design.
Now, could any of that really have been justified even if
there were a virus? No, because the whole point here
(11:26):
is that it wasn't about a publichealth crisis.
That's the camouflage, that's the facade, that's the decoy.
And I'm using military language on purpose here because this, as
I argue in the book, the whole thing was a psychological
operation. And the purpose of that
operation as we move towards thetruth, in my view, was to
(11:51):
initiate what I have called the war for technocracy.
And so there is a much broader project going on here which
involves the gradual dismantlement of liberal
democracy and its replacement with a novel form of
totalitarianism, which, as Patrick Wood has amply
demonstrated over the years, goes by the name of technocracy.
(12:16):
And so all of this business about virus, no virus, public
health, science, the science trademark, etcetera, the whole
thing is 1 massive distraction. And I was very pleased recently
to, to watch Sasha Latapova's latest presentation.
And she's pulled no punches overthe years about this being a
(12:36):
military operation. And it's a military operation,
which is essentially ongoing because we still have the same
transnational deep state that was behind this, that was behind
9/11 and behind so much else is still active and is still
pushing towards technocracy regardless.
(12:57):
And this is what the public really has to get wise to now,
because if this technocratic system is brought in, well, I
mean, it's not just the end of democracy, as far as I can tell,
it would be the end of, of humanfreedom.
I think it was around 2016 when I effectively swallowed my first
(13:20):
red pull, and then around 2020 Ithink I swallowed a whole bottle
of red pulls. Yeah.
When did you start opening your eyes and why?
Strangely enough, exactly the same time frame, really in
exactly the same ways. So that's a strange coincidence.
(13:42):
Yeah. I mean, for me it was December
2016 and and and my wake up in inverted commas was 911 and it
was the destruction of the Twin towers.
It came in the context of of teaching US foreign policy.
Wait, wait, wait, wait. On the day 2001, you, you, you,
you woke up. No 2016.
Oh, I beg your point. OK, so so so but but but the
(14:05):
9/11 was. The trick was the yes was the
trick, exactly. So I gotcha.
Yeah. So I'd been teaching US foreign
policy to my students, and we'vebeen dealing with the war in
Vietnam and the war in Afghanistan.
And I've been reflecting on someof the parallels and
continuities between those two wars, very long wars, very
costly wars, PTSD for the soldiers, and so on.
(14:30):
And I thought, well, we know that the major escalation in the
the Vietnam War came about as a result of the Gulf of Tonkin
incident, which we now know to have been a lie and to have been
a false flag. And then, you know, you think to
the war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror.
How did that all kick off 911? Well, surely, surely that was
everybody knows that, you know, conspiracy theory rights.
(14:52):
I think that 911 was a a false flag.
But I thought, well, I better just check.
And of course, it doesn't take very long, does it, for anyone
who's honest about this to actually look at that evidence
and to very quickly realize thatthat the manner in which the
buildings were destroyed could not possibly have had to do with
jet fuel. 911 was a big moment. I mean, it was pivotal, but it
(15:19):
wasn't really global in the sense that COVID was.
Yeah, I, I think it shows that over the intervening years, what
I have called the transnational deep state has become
increasingly global. And I mean, maybe it was already
(15:41):
before this, but what COVID showed with the extremely high
degree of transnational cooperation all over the world
and the apparent assassination of the, the few African leaders
who dissented, is that really the, the power structure that
we're looking at now is a globalpower structure which has
(16:04):
managed to capture seemingly allstates, all governments, all
major institutions, all of the major media outlets, the banks,
and you name it. All of the major institutions in
society now seem to be captured by and aligned with a
transnational deep state, which is working on behalf of a
(16:28):
transnational ruling class to replace liberal democracy with
global technocracy and thereby to subjugate the entire global
population. So when I refer to a war for
technocracy in the title of my book, I mean that in a very
literal sense, because you cannot achieve social
(16:50):
engineering on that scale historically without World War.
And So what we're looking at nowis a third World War, in my
opinion, which was initiated, though undeclared, in 2020.
It's a war being waged by the few against the many.
(17:11):
It's a war being waged by a numerically miniscule proportion
of the world's population, essentially the ruling class
that owns the means of production.
It can manipulate the financial system.
It can manipulate the the propaganda.
It can manipulate what happens in the skies.
It's a war that is being waged from the cell to the
(17:33):
stratosphere by this tiny but very powerful group against the
rest of humanity. And I've referred to this as an
Omni war because it the very logic of that war means that it
has to take on its own peculiar characteristics.
And so it has to be waged by stealth, because if the public
(17:54):
gets wise to what's going on, there could be revolution
overnight. And it's a war which is waged
across every conceivable domain of human life.
And as indeed it it has to be ifyou are trying to subjugate the
entire of humanity. So these are really
(18:15):
extraordinary times that we are living through.
I mean, this is a, a, a moment of world historical
transformation. And we don't know at this stage
what direction it's going to go in.
But what's interesting about this is that for decades this
very powerful group of people has tried to do things
incrementally. It's tried to remain hidden in
(18:37):
the shadows so that it can effect change slowly, gradually,
in a way which isn't noticed. But with 2020, it really to some
extent came out of the shadows. And it was so major and so
massive what happened that for anyone paying attention, it's,
it's impossible to ignore. So they're pushing hard now for
(18:59):
Technocracy. And we see it in all kinds of
different respects from the, youknow, the digital currency drive
to facial recognition software to AI technologies being tested
in war in places like Ukraine and and Gaza.
All of this is, is, is going on.And unfortunately it's coming
(19:23):
for us if we don't resist and ifwe don't if if if what?
What's required is mass non compliance essentially with with
all aspects of this technocracy.The whole thing relies on
technologies for subjugation purposes.
And what the public has to do isto learn to recognize those
technologies and to reject. Them Mathias Desmet has written
(19:47):
a lot about totalitarianism and and I I tend to agree with with
some of what he says, particularly around the idea
that approximately 30% of peopleat any given time will will
reject or push back. Yeah, I mean, I don't think that
it was Desmond's idea per SE. It is in his book.
(20:07):
But I mean, for example, you cango back to Aldous Huxley's
writings in the in the 1950s andand find similar claims.
So I don't think there's anything terribly original in
that claim, but nevertheless it seems to be true.
And you can see it also in, for example, the the vaccination in
inverted commas data from the UKHealth Security Agency from July
(20:29):
2022 after the rollout of the injections was mostly complete.
And when you analyze that data, you find that in terms of the
adult population in the UK, 23% of the UK adult population
refused to take a single shot. So again, that's kind of in line
with what we're talking about, you know, roughly 1/5 or 1/4 or
(20:49):
so of the population for whatever reason, and we don't
know necessarily does seem to beimmune to the hypnosis, the
programming, the, the, the propaganda.
I mean, the good news is I, I think that that percentage is
slowly growing over time. I think more and more people are
(21:09):
in inverse of Commons waking up.And once you see these things,
there is no going back. You seem skeptical.
Are you sure? Are you sure?
I don't know. I'm I'm noticing people going
backwards. Well, the as I, as I argue in
the book, the that the COVID operation, as I call it,
military operation, one key element of it did involve trauma
(21:32):
based mind control. And as Mary Holland has stated,
populations at one level could be forgiven for feeling as
though they experienced or they're living through a kind of
PTSD en masse because of what happened and because of what was
(21:52):
done to them. And, and therefore the traumatic
aspect of it means that people are psychologically disinclined
to revisit what happened. And one of the reasons that I
wrote my book, as I put in chapter 1, is precisely to
revisit it. And it's a form of anamnesis.
It's all about remembering in granular detail exactly what
(22:15):
happened and exactly what was done because there are
perpetrators here. This was done by design for very
nefarious purposes. So it's important that we don't
forget that now. Yes, I am confident actually
that more and more people are seeing through this.
I mean, it's very interesting that it will probably be in the
(22:37):
next few days that my book will will pass a quarter of a million
accesses and downloads on the publishers official website
alone, which for an academic book is, is almost unheard of.
So what that shows is that thereis a public interest and
appetite for this information. People do want to know.
I've had plenty of people now telling me that I, for whatever
(23:00):
reason, you know, I don't know manner of delivery, the nature
of the information I'm presenting or whatever, but that
I've been able to reach some of their friends and family that
they've not been able to reach and to help them to, to see
things. I think that the, I mean, it
might be a painstakingly slow process from our perspective,
but I think more and more peopleare very gradually starting to
(23:24):
come round. And I've seen this even in my
own family. You know, even certain people
who I thought would never in a million years be able to
psychologically process this information are now starting to.
So I'm still hopeful in that regard.
And I mean, ultimately the truthis the truth.
I mean, it always comes out in the end.
(23:47):
And just coming back to those percentages that you mentioned a
few minutes ago, I mean, if we're looking at 1/4 of the
population being immune to this stuff anyway, you've only really
got to get to 51% for things to start to swing.
You know, we don't need to be able to convince everybody or
even a large majority if we could just get another, you
(24:10):
know, 30% or so, maybe not even that, then things could start
changing very, very quickly. You know, there could, there
could be a tipping point. So I remain optimistic.
I think you actually make some good points there and maybe I
should rephrase what I was asking a little bit, because
(24:32):
it's not A or B in the sense, you know, when I say waking up,
I'm not talking about every aspect of every conceivable
talking point. You know, some people, for
example, will, will agree that there was no pandemic, but they
won't agree that Direct Energy weapons were used on 9/11, for
example. And I think this is the nature
(24:55):
of the human condition that we can compartmentalize various
vectors. So, So when we say waking up or
opening our eyes, I guess it depends on what we're talking
about. Yeah, I mean, in a sense, it's a
process, isn't it? And it's about learning to
identify the mechanisms that areinvolved.
(25:17):
And I mean, I don't expect everyone to agree on everything,
and I don't expect everyone to agree with everything that I or
anyone else has to say. That's not what it's about.
You know, you're right, it's notan A or B thing.
But it is about people learning to distrust the information
that's provided by mainstream sources and to develop a sense
(25:41):
that the authorities which are ostensibly there to serve and
protect them are doing nothing of the kind and, as COVID amply
demonstrated, are in fact now attacking them and are, in my
view, at war with them. It's about understanding that
(26:05):
even once you've developed that consciousness, there are levels
of perception and levels of awareness and that once you
start to ask the questions, there will be even more
challenges put in your way in terms of the fake dissident
camp, two kind of characters that I have mentioned.
(26:26):
And it's about learning that, you know, this is a, a difficult
and painstaking process. It involves, I mean,
psychologically you have to abandon some fundamental ideas
that you've been propagandized with really ever since birth
that the inherent virtue of Western liberal democracies, you
(26:48):
know, the idea that vaccines aresafe and effective and so on.
The idea that we're fighting a virtuous War on Terror against,
you know, foreign non state actors that are that are out to
get us all of these things, which we've really been
conditioned just to accept go out the window.
(27:08):
And that that's quite difficult because it's a very
disorientating process And it's it's a scary process.
It's a frightening process. It removes the kind of
psychological security that you you may may have had.
So it's not about getting peopleto believe XY or Z, but it's
(27:29):
about getting them to engage in that process, to understand that
process and to actually have thethe courage and the integrity to
to start treading that path. The problem, David, though, is
the pendulum always seems to swing in a really wonky fashion
(27:50):
because we'll talk about Camp A and Cam B, right?
And Cam B would be opposition tothe official narrative in many
respects. So let's say 911.
OK, so Cam B would be argue that, I don't know, there was
demolition and all sorts of other things going on, right?
And on the face of it, it's great to see the rejection of
(28:13):
the mainstream narrative. But now what happens is you have
you have arguments within Camp Band Camp C about what the actual
truth is, and it weakens the overall opposition, which would
be B + C And so now you have Camp A looking at B&C and
(28:38):
laughing going, well, they're just a bunch of clowns because
they don't even know what's going on.
And yeah, we are maintaining theofficial narrative.
Everything that you've just described is by design.
If you go back to a 2009 paper by Cass Sunstein and Adrian
Vermeul, they, this is an academic journal paper and they
(29:00):
call in that and, and you know, these are Harvard professors, by
the way, and they call in that paper for government agents to
infiltrate chat rooms, particularly in the context of
those asking critical questions about the events of 9/11 and
essentially to sow disruption. So we know that this is by
(29:23):
design. We know that these bad actors
are out there. We know that their task is to
create confusion, to turn peopleagainst one another, to promote
silly or ludicrous narratives, to promote more credible sounded
but false narratives. We know that this has been going
(29:44):
on and it was incredibly effective in the so-called 911
truth community. I mean, as you say, there is no
community. It's, it's been completely
shattered and disparate. And in that sense, the the the
perception management operationswere successful.
However, again, I think more andmore people are starting to
(30:07):
understand how the game works now.
And in the case of COVID, for example, or in the case of the
kind of the bots on X or Twitteras it used to be, more and more
people are realizing that, for example, in the UK, there are
things like the 77th Brigade whose role is precisely to do
(30:32):
with perception management through online means that was
specifically deployed to enforcethe COVID narrative in various
ways. And I forget what was his name,
was it Mike Williams? I may have got that wrong.
But anyway, as one of the seniorgenerals in relation to the 77th
(30:54):
Brigade came out back in March, April 2020 and said, yeah, we've
got, you know, 3000 of our members working on this and we,
you know, we could call up 20,000 if we want.
So when I'm talking about battalions of kind of
misinformers, I, I mean that in a quite literal military sense,
because we know that this is what's going on.
And of course, a lot of people now do refer to the 77th Brigade
(31:20):
online, you know, or, or when they're being trolled by bots
and, and, and so on, which apparently now is most Internet
traffic. People are starting to
understand the scale of the misinformation and the
deception. And I think people are becoming
more critical and more discerning in terms of the kind
(31:42):
of information that they're looking for.
But I don't underestimate the scale of the challenge.
And of course, it's getting evenworse now with AI and deep fakes
and so on, where soon it may become virtually impossible to
distinguish what's what's real and what's not real online.
And that is a particular concern.
(32:02):
I mean, you could imagine a podcast of this nature going out
with you and I looking and sounding exactly as we do, but
saying all kinds of different things.
Now that's a that's a huge concern.
And it, you know, could lead to a kind of mass psychosis where
no one really knows what's real or not.
But nevertheless, I do think that more and more people are
(32:24):
starting to to understand how the game works and to become a
bit more discerning about the way in which they take in their
information. I think it was Noam Chomsky who
said that one of the most. Effective ways to control people
is to create the parameters of discourse and then encourage
(32:45):
very vigilant and even aggressive heated debate within
those parameters so that there would be the, excuse me, there
would be the appearance of opposing views, but they're
still within the parameters and those parameters are are.
Given yeah, you're right, that'sthat was Chomsky that said that.
(33:06):
And in a sense that's a an apartment description of
mainstream politics, isn't it? You can have as much fierce
debate as you like between red and blue, Labour and
Conservative, etcetera, but provided you don't talk about
the incoming technocracy, that'sfine.
Keep all of the attention, all of the perception, etcetera
(33:27):
focused over there and don't mention what's really going on.
That's exactly how it works. OK.
So let me push back a little bitfor the sake of this
conversation, David. There is this, we're talking
about perception management, butthere is this perception that
the perception managers are veryadvanced and very smart people.
(33:49):
Could it also be argued with thesense of nuance that there is a
lot of stupidity going on above?Yes, I mean, a couple of things
to say on that. Firstly, I think that the people
running these operations are extremely intelligent.
A lot of it of course centres around intelligence in the sense
(34:10):
of British intelligence or or CIA and it's called that for a
reason. And they do recruit some of the
most intelligent people, typically people who have a,
shall we say, a criminal bent. You know, they, they're
intelligent, but they get a kickout of being able to get away
with things that they shouldn't be able to, to get away with
(34:31):
breaking the law and, and so on.Now, that said, in Chapter 8 of
my COVID book, I've got a section called Urgency and
Desperation in which I argue that in many ways, the rollout
of the COVID operation was rushed and botched.
(34:53):
I think that although those behind it had been planning it
for many, many years, they, theymust have been given the
granular level of detail that was involved in the rollout.
But the rollout of the psychological operation, I don't
mean the injections it. Yeah, I'm convinced it was well
planned long in advance, but theactual way in which it was done
(35:18):
in many ways blew their cover inmany ways, made people wake up
at a faster rate than ever before.
They didn't succeed in getting the injections into everyone.
Technocracy is being talked about now in a way which it
never used to be before. And I think that it was very
(35:41):
interesting in January 2022 whento my mind, the, the operation
was seemingly pushing ahead at full force.
In December 2021 in the UK, there was talk about NHS
workers, the, the, the shop being being mandated for NHS
(36:03):
workers. I mean, that's, I think it's the
5th largest employer in the world.
If that had gone ahead, that would have set such a strong
precedent for other employers tofollow.
And I was so worried in December2021 and then all of a sudden in
January 2022, the whole thing asit had been taking place since
the spring of 2020 was suddenly wound down and, and put to bed.
(36:27):
And, and then in February, it all became about Ukraine.
And that was an extraordinary moment because it was an
obvious. It was a.
Coincidence, David. It moved swiftly from one to the
other. And again, I'm sure that that
was non accidental. But the, the, the key point here
is that as successful as the drive was seeming at the time to
(36:50):
just keep this injection campaign rolling on and on and
on, they must have known that they'd reached their limit
because they then stopped it andmoved on to different forms of,
of operation. So we must never overestimate
their power. And I think the, the fact that
they stopped and again, this wasaround the time of the Canadian
(37:11):
truckers convoy, right, you know, signs of mass resistance
on the ground. So I think it's important to, to
keep an eye on that and to, to remember our strength and the,
the, the level of resistance that there is, because it was
sufficient to stop the COVID operation and it can be
sufficient again in future to stop whatever they have planned
for us. You talk about our strength, OK,
(37:32):
So do we not run the risk by constantly pointing the finger
at them, taking away our own responsibility and basically
feeding into perpetual victimhood?
Well, I do the opposite in my work.
(37:54):
I mean, I'm essentially trying to spread awareness and
enlightenment of of what's happening.
And I've said repeatedly that once you see this, there is a
moral responsibility and indeed a strategic responsibility to
take action. And one of the lessons of
totalitarianism from the past, if you read the works of
(38:16):
Solzhenitsyn for example, is that staying silent is not an
option. Doing nothing is not an option.
Burying your head in the sand isnot an option.
And actually the very nature of the Omni war, as I've called it,
means that this is being directed specifically against
you personally and your family. So you have to fight, you have
(38:41):
to get up and find ways of adding to the resistance.
And of course what we do have onour side is numbers, 8 billion
people approximately stand to assuming the estimates are
correct, but stand to stand to lose from what is taking place.
And so actually, if enough people would get up and active,
(39:06):
I think this could be rolled back very, very quickly.
But it is about taking that personal responsibility.
So, yeah, I mean, I'm anything but defeatist in this.
You know, I can, I can see a wayout.
And that's why I'm encouraging people to take action, do what
they can. I mean, the fact that this Omni
war is being fought in so many different domains means that
(39:28):
there must be something that youcan do what?
Whatever your gift is, there must be something that you can
do. Find that thing and do it.
Isn't that also a danger of the whole Q thing?
You know it's the white hats arecoming to save us, so don't do
anything. It's all 55D chess.
Well, that certainly is what thepurpose was, right?
(39:48):
And the whole kind of fall of the cabal idea that, yes, you
know, you can abdicate personal responsibility because the white
hats are out there and they're already saving you.
They're already doing it for you.
I mean, it's an extremely successful song opera.
I mean, I don't know how many millions of people in the US
(40:09):
alone bought into that. Thankfully, I think the wheels
have have come off that one now and more and more people are are
seeing through that. But again, This is why it's
important to just understand thefundamentals of what's taking
place. This is a war.
It's a war that's being waged against you and its ultimate
purpose is to subjugate and enslave you through technocratic
(40:31):
means. It's happening now.
It's happening fast. The technocrats have already
moved into the White House with Doge and Teal and Musk, etcetera
and Palantir. The technologies are already
being experimented in a militarywithin the military capacity in
in Ukraine and Gaza and elsewhere.
This is all happening now. Are you going to allow it?
(40:53):
You know, with you? Do you consent?
Do you acquiesce to this path continuing?
Because if you don't, then you must resist.
You must do something. But what is that something?
Well, I offer a whole range of solutions at the end of my
Solari report titled Omni War, Exposing and Ending the
(41:17):
Invisible War Against Humanity. I mean, I'm not going to
prescribe a, you know, kind of aset thing, set series of things
that everybody must do. But the key point that I always
emphasize is that you need to look inside yourself.
You need to look inside your conscience and you need to look
inside your heart. And you need to ask yourself
honestly, what is it that you can do?
(41:39):
You know, what is it that you see?
What difference can you make? And that's going to be different
for everybody. Some people might be good at
monkey wrenching technologies. Some people might be good at
going down to the local councilsand trying to effect put
pressure on locally because a lot of these global agendas are
actually enacted at a local level.
Some people might be good at doing the kind of thing that you
(42:00):
and I do, podcasting and so on, spreading messages.
Some people might be able to write books, some people hold
yellow boards. Whatever it may be, there is an
absolute raft of things that youcan do.
Ditching your smartphone would probably be one of the most
important things that you can do.
Withdrawing from all forms of smart technologies is certainly
(42:21):
highly recommended in the context of this war.
Not putting up with ideas that you know to be wrong, having the
courage to speak out about things.
I mean, there's so much actuallythat can be done.
But you know, it's, it's you have to have a mindset of
wanting to adopt those ideas, totake them forward and to find
(42:44):
ways of making that difference in your own life.
Again, I can't prescribe what that's going to be for each
individual person, but each one of us has to take that
responsibility now. But David, we all know Donald
Trump is going to save us. Well, Donald Trump promised to
drain the swamp in his first administration and then
proceeded to do the opposite. He said that he was going to
(43:08):
arrest Hillary Clinton and then he had his assembled dinner
audience applaud her. We know that the guy is a
charlatan and a misleader, and it's incredible how many people
don't see this and have fallen for it a second time.
So he's back now and you know, day one.
(43:30):
Well, that looks OK. You know, we're going to the US
is going to withdraw from the The Who tick war against woke
tick. All right, good day 2 mRNA AI
powered mRNA cancer vaccines. So, you know, you can see these
kind of agendas just roll on regardless.
You know, the 1st 90 days, you know all about doge.
(43:54):
The you know, I dread to think how much data about the US
population has now been hooveredup by Palantir.
I mean, it must have had so muchdata before then.
But you know, the integration now of this technocracy with
government, I mean, that's incredible power that that
company and someone like Peter Thiel now now has.
(44:16):
It's very, very frightening. And as I say, those kinds of
companies and they're plenty kind of AI, venture capital
start-ups, all linked to what's called accelerationism.
The frightening thing about all of that is the military
connections and the fact that they are involved essentially in
creating this control grid wherethey can know where everybody
(44:42):
is, what they're doing, who they're friends and family are,
all of the psychographic profiling, you know, where they
like to shop, sexual preferences, you name it, a
granular level of detail about everyone.
And these same companies are also developing military
technologies like the facial recognition software like AI
(45:02):
powered drones, which can be used to hunt down and kill
people. It doesn't take a genius, does
it, to work out where this is going, which is a long standing
project. You can, you could even trace it
back to IBM and the Holocaust. You can trace it back to
Operation Phoenix using information and computing power
to be able to identify, locate and ultimately eliminate
(45:28):
dissidence. So again, this is taking place
now on a transnational, if not global level.
It's so dystopian, it's so dark,it has to be stopped.
It's weird, though, because people get so caught up in the
binary of the electoral process,For example, I mean, I think
(45:49):
any, any sane person will agree that that Biden was not pulling
the strings, yet somehow they think that now Trump is pulling
the string strings. And the funniest part is that
Trump is against the deep state.He's going to pull it apart.
I mean, how do you how do you get to the point where you think
that you become president of thecountry and somehow you are not
(46:11):
part of the system? Well, again, none of it makes
sense when you really think about it.
But the whole thing is about misleading the masses.
So Trump has made himself the figurehead of this so-called
techno populism movement. And when, you know, hundreds of
(46:34):
millions of people are buying into him as this kind of savior
type figure, and he is marching them straight into technocracy,
and they don't see it and they don't understand what's going
on. I mean, you know, Elon Musk
openly said, you know, I'm not just MAGA, I'm dark MAGA.
And the whole crowd cheers and goes wild.
(46:57):
And they've no idea what he's talking about.
You know, this is reference to something called the Dark
Enlightenment. I won't get into the details
here. I did a, a roundtable on this
with. That's the one.
I'm glad. I'm glad, you know.
Yeah, Curtis Yavin, his, his, his, his real name.
You know, these are neo reactionary figures which have
(47:18):
kind of produced a a philosophy,if you like, which serves as an
intellectual legitimization of what these technocrats are
trying to do. And what Ian Davis and I both we
both reach the same conclusion, having read some of this work
first hand, that intellectually it's tremendously flimsy.
(47:39):
I mean, it's just dreadful that the ideas are awful, the
arguments are terrible, doesn't hang together.
But Musk and others are perfectly happy to allude to it,
to legitimize what they're trying to do.
And again, seeing as that you'veyou've just mentioned Yavin
there in 2008, Curtis Yavin cameout with what he called, and I
(48:04):
quote, a humane alternative to genocide.
And he was arguing back in 2008 that the advancing technologies
would render more and more people unemployed and redundant.
And So what do you do with this mass of people?
(48:24):
And he came out of this horrificidea.
He referred to the kind of a lava, a cocoon that you wrap
them in. And he invoked Ray Kurzweil's
idea of fully immersive virtual reality.
And so essentially you, you, youput them in this state where
they're living in a, you call ita fake reality.
You know, it seems real to them,but it's 100% fake.
(48:44):
And, and this is, this is his idea of morality.
You know, this is better than just exterminating them.
He said, I mean, these are the kind of characters and ideas
that we're dealing with. But again, you see, this comes
back at us in 2020 with Yuval Noah Harari, and he's talking
about what he calls the useless class.
You know what? What are we going to do with all
these people once, once the AI takes their jobs?
(49:05):
And what did he say? Drugs and video games.
I mean, these are horrendous, horrendous.
People and horrendous ideas. Can I jump in there?
I've I've thought about this andI've asked a few people those
questions I'll ask you also. I don't think I've ever heard,
and I'm not in any way taking their side, but I've not in any
(49:28):
way ever heard Ferrari or Javan or Schwab would ever say I would
like to see this. Are they not merely projecting
what they think is coming? No, I, I, what they're trying to
(49:49):
do is to find ways of legitimizing the kind of plans
that they have in place. And ultimately this is what
technocracy entails. It is about taking away personal
liberty and control over 1's life and placing it in the hands
(50:09):
of the technocrats, which is a very small group of people which
are at the controls. They have the joysticks, they
are in charge of the scientific management of society.
They get to decide what resources you are allocated and
how far you can straight from your 15 minute city and so on.
It is ultimately a, a slavery system.
(50:32):
And so even though they might not openly come out and say,
yes, this is what I want to see,I'm pretty confident that it is.
It's, it's a necessary part of what they're trying to achieve.
Now, one of the rhetorical devices that they use is to talk
about things as though they're inevitable.
(50:53):
So technological determinism is a key part of this, quite apart
from politics and society, et cetera, technology just has its
own logic and it just kind of advances regardless, and it
always has done. And it's the technology that
drives history. And that's a very kind of
convenient position if you're one of them.
But of course, it's not true. I mean, if you think about
(51:13):
nanotechnology and all of the nefarious purposes to which that
could be put, this didn't just happen.
You know, technology just didn'tkind of naturally evolve in this
way. There were deliberate political
decisions taking taken around the turn of the Millennium to
start investing massive amounts of money into nanotechnology
research. There were agendas behind this.
(51:35):
In other words, it was by design.
And so they can hide all they like behind these narratives
about, oh, this is just happening, we can't stop the
March of AI, we can't etcetera, etcetera.
But actually it's all planned and it's all part of the attempt
to place all power globally in the hands of very, very few
people. But then is is the inevitable
(52:03):
outcome inevitable? No, absolutely not.
The outcome is always determinedin the struggle.
And This is why I am very keen in my work to always reiterate
the class relations behind this.And of course they've, you know,
they, they do all they can to deflect away from thinking in
(52:24):
class terms through kind of wokeand gender politics, identity
politics and, and all of this kind of stuff so that people
think of themselves kind of individualistic terms.
But fundamentally, as I say in the 1st 5 words of my book, this
is a global class war that is now happening.
And there is the the the the capitalist system has become
(52:47):
disproportionately skewed so that a tiny proportion of the
world's population controls the vast majority of its wealth.
And it's skewed almost exponentially as you go up
towards the top 1%, the top nought .1%, nought point nought
1% and so on. So, so much of the wealth now is
contained in just the hands of those very few people, and
(53:10):
they're trying to subjugate everybody else.
So the outcome is far from determined.
They want us to think that it is.
They want us to think that it's hopeless.
This is all part of the psychological operations.
Again, I've got sections on thisin my work on COVID.
You know, at the time, one of the things that they kept doing
is to just try and convince us. It was, it was endless.
(53:32):
It was never going to, it was never going to stop.
You know, was it Susan Mickey, for example, when she was asked
in an interview, how long do youthink the public should keep
wearing masks? And she just said, oh, forever.
These kinds of tricks were were used repeatedly to create this
demoralization, the sense of despair, the sense that things
are never going to end. And it's always this way, you
(53:54):
know, to create the sense that we can't win, that we are like
children. They use a lot of infantilizing
rhetoric. And meanwhile, they're kind of
like these omnipotent gods that have the power to just shut down
most of the world's economy overnight.
This is what they want us to believe.
But actually the the objective reality is completely different
(54:14):
that you have a bunch of very desperate people trying to pull
off something which is so audacious.
I mean, trying to collapse liberal democracy and replace it
with technocracy. I mean, you are attacking human
freedom. You're attacking nation, you're
attacking family, you're attacking all of the values that
(54:35):
both left and right stand for. I mean, nobody has anything to
gain from this. So I think that the more people
see it, the more pushback there will be and the more futile
these these technocratic agendaswill become.
So again. I'm optimistic, but you've
mentioned liberal democracy a few Times Now.
(54:56):
I personally am not a fan of democracy at all.
Why do you think the destructionof liberal democracy is a bad
thing? Well, that's a a really
interesting question, and I agree that liberal democracy as
it has developed over the courseof the 20th century has
(55:18):
essentially been a cover for capitalist relations, which are
tremendously exploitative and predatory and legitimized also.
Voting. Voting is just theatre.
Yes, it is. Yeah, I I agree.
I mean, yeah, I mean, it's, it'sfar from an ideal system.
(55:40):
It's certainly a lot better thanthan Technocracy.
Either way. I, I think it's finished
because, I mean, the powers thatbe have, have have used liberal
democracy as their their chosen kind of form of political regime
for for many decades. And even they are now trying to
dismantle it. So quite apart from the fact
(56:01):
that it's really always been a sham and it's always been, you
know, the, the manufacturing of consent, you know, these ideas
were around 100 years ago. It's amazing, you know, just how
successful this has been over the course of a century to
persuade people that this is really in their interests.
But either way, it's, it's on its way out now.
The, the, the big question is what comes next?
(56:23):
And this could go in multiple different directions.
I mean, yes, the the the dystopian hellish vision of a
global technocracy is 1 outcome chaos as as things spiral out of
control is, is another option. I would like to think that
collectively we are able to comeup with a more positive vision
(56:45):
towards which we can build and work.
And that is what I think is sadly lacking at the moment.
There's so much talk about the darker aspects, what they are
doing about their psychological operations, etcetera.
What's really needed is a positive narrative of our own.
I mean, if you think about Bob Moran's picture, the good Reset,
(57:07):
yeah. I mean, that's an example of, of
of trying to do this, imagining what the world could look like,
providing some kind of positive vision for us to aspire to.
So if I were to kind of, you know, be thinking strategically
about what's needed next, you know, I, I think that we need
the best thinkers out there to be actually coming up with that
kind of a vision and something that people can really, really
(57:30):
buy into because there's too much negativity, There's too
much kind of. Blackpilling.
Blackpilling, Exactly. But again, you know, you think
about what we've got here. The technologies that exist in
the world today, even though they are being put to very
nefarious purposes, could do a tremendous amount of good.
I mean, if you have that amount of information about everybody,
(57:53):
surely it becomes possible to distribute wealth more equitably
among society. You know, what need is there
for, for, for wars, really, if, if this technology were to be
expropriated from the hands of this kind of minuscule, very
nefarious group, the world couldbe so much better, unimaginably
(58:13):
better. You know, there'd be an
abundance of wealth. I mean, Katherine Austin Fitz
has talked about this very oftenthat the lengths that they go
to, to suppressors, I mean, justthe amount of money it must
cost, just maintain this, you know, these relentless
propaganda campaigns and the psychological operations and and
so on. You know, they have to go to so
much effort and cost to keep theglobal population in check.
(58:40):
Imagine what we could do withoutall of those constraints.
I mean, the future could be incredible, but how many people
ever really think that way? I think we need to start
adopting a much more positive mindset if we're to bring people
with us. I think it was Yuri Besmanov in
his interview with G Edward Griffin back and was it 83 or
(59:00):
8484? We spoke about various
characteristics of, of of control mechanisms, which I
think you've echoed in your work, things like demoralization
and destabilization and disorientating people and that
sort of thing. So one obvious way to look at
this is to make sure that you are not demoralized and that
(59:23):
you're not disorientated. Know who you are, know what your
meaning and purpose is when you wake up in the morning.
And for goodness sake, don't doom scroll.
You know, get fit, go into the sun, eat healthy, strengthen
your your family connections andyour friendships and your
networks. It seems pretty obvious.
(59:46):
Yeah, it does. And again, they've done their
best to make sure that we do none of those things.
I mean, you know, the whole lockdown idea, you know, stay
indoors, don't see the sun, don't exercise, don't see your
family. I mean, you know, it's
horrendous what they tried to do, the addictive power of
social media. Highly, highly problematic.
(01:00:07):
I mean, I don't know how much time the average person spends
on social media per day instead of real social connections.
And the doom scrolling is a, is a, is a terrible phenomenon.
I mean, this is all known to have, you know, bad effects on
people's mental health. And even worse than that, you
are essentially trapping yourself in their technocratic
(01:00:30):
system because the news feeds that you see, etcetera on
Facebook and X or what you know,wherever you're getting in news,
they're all manipulated through algorithms.
Whatever tweets or whatever you put out, you've no idea how many
people they're reaching. And indeed, it's becoming pretty
obvious now, you know, with the Linda Yacarino principle of
(01:00:51):
freedom of speech, but not reach.
You can say whatever you like. Yeah, free speech go, man, but
no one's going to hear you. So why?
You know, why would you deliberately put yourself in
that kind of digital prison space?
I mean, I'm deliberately not on social media for that very
reason. The amount of time that people
spend on their smartphones and the fact that people, you can't
(01:01:14):
live without them. I mean, this is a form of
addiction. You know, if you can't drive
from A to B without using a sat NAV, you, you've got a problem.
You know, if you can't go to bedwithout taking your phone with
you, you've got a problem. If you can't lead your life
without using multiple apps all the time, you've got a problem.
(01:01:35):
Because you are increasingly youare consenting and acquiescing
and integrating yourself into that technocratic system.
And the more you do so, the moreeasier it becomes to manage you.
And that's before we get into the, the whole area of, of
technologies going under the skin and, and intercorporeal
technologies. So people have to take that
(01:01:56):
responsibility again and withdraw from the everything
that that points towards technocracy and do the kind of
things that you were just describing.
David, how can I follow you? Best place is on sub stack D
hughes.substack.com or David A hughes.net.
(01:02:17):
David A Hughes, thank you for joining me in the trenches.
Pleasure, Joe. Thanks very much.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.