January 26, 2024 • 26 mins
"People went a little crazy, a little fascist, during the so-called Covid pandemic. And now, here we are. There are two roads ahead. We have to choose ... you, me, all of us."—CJ Hopkins Out of the blue, I'm putting out a short podcast—short by my standards, that is; it's still almost half an hour—in which I simply talk about three recent (related) events that I think are important to note. And I'm calling it "Three Crumbings" because each item, in its own way, symbolises the ongoing crumbling of the old covid narrative as it tries to slope off into the distance in the hope of being forgotten. I won't reveal what items one and two are here—you'll probably know them anyway—but item three (which maybe fewer of you know about, and which is the main reason for doing this) concerns the extraordinary case of CJ Hopkins, the American playwright, author and political satirist living in Berlin whose court case has just ended with his being found not guilty of something that it was patently obvious he wasn't guilty of in the first place! "Kafkaesque" he calls it, and rightly so. Anyway, that's what it's about. [For show notes please visit https://themindrenewed.com]
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:19):
Hello everybody, Julian Charles here ofthe Minds Renewed dot Com, coming to
you as usual from the depths ofthe Lancashire countryside here in the UK,
and welcome to the second episode oftwenty twenty four. Yes, given that
the New Year's Eve show actually comesout on the first of January, this
is officially the second show in whichI'm basically saying hello, so hello,
(00:40):
I'm still here, and in whichI'm also sharing three pieces of good news
or potential good news, three crumblings, as I'm calling them, crumblings of
narratives, lies, deceptions that havebeen kind of hanging on for a while
as the covid era continues to slopeoff in the hope of being completely forgotten.
I think these three things are tobe celebrated. What will come of
(01:03):
them ultimately, I don't know,because each is challengeable or changeable, but
I think they're good signs, allrecent and I want to mark them,
even though you may be aware ofthem already or some of them, but
not everybody will be aware. Sohere we go. Number one, ted
Ross, That is ted Ross adanumgabriezos. Is that how you pronounced it?
I'm not sure how you pronounced it. We know who we mean.
(01:26):
The WHO Director General is reportedly alittle mift that the negotiations over what they
call pandemic preparedness are not going quiteas smoothly as he had hoped. So
that's the general chin wagging over theamendments to the WHO International Health Regulations and
(01:46):
the so called Pandemic Treaty that we'vetalked about with James Ruguski on this program
a couple of times last year.So the WHO power grab, as Ruguski
calls it, is not going toowell, just at the moment it seems.
Indeed it is. And I'm quotinghere of The Guardian, which I
don't often do. It is quoteat risk of falling apart amid wrangling and
(02:10):
disinformation. And they quote Ted Rossas complaining that this is due to quote
a torrent of fake news, liesand conspiracy theories end quote. So not
because people are concerned about bureaucratic overreach, lack of transparency and lack of democratic
oversight, not just because of naughtylies by deplorable bloggers who should leave important
(02:35):
matters to important people in important placeswearing important suits and ties. However,
He is reported as saying one thingthat might have something to it, That
is, he might be technically correct, but which I think is nevertheless a
bit disingenuous. He says that theidea that these negotiations threaten national sovereignty is
(02:58):
completely false. Now, this isa point that I've never fully clarified in
my conversations with James Ruguski or inmy general reading about this. To what
extent would these who document changes,etc. Actually threaten national sovereignty? Now
they sound that way. They dogive that impression, you know, with
the removal of terms like non binding, which of course implies that what was
(03:22):
hitherto non binding is going to bebinding. But what's the force of that
legally, I've never quite got ananswer to that. What would actually what
would that actually look like in practicein a new declared so called emergency,
would nation states really have no choicebut to obey ted Ross's every dictator.
(03:42):
I'm not sure. It's not clearto me. Now a possible answer to
this has come my way. Isaid it's only possible. I'm still thinking
this through, but I do wantto share it. Thanks to a recent
article. This is the eleventh ofJanuary at the Brownstone Institute, and it's
called The Who's Managerial Gambit by BrucePardy, who is a professor of law
(04:05):
at Queen's University. I'm not surewhich Queen's University. There are lots of
them, but one of them calledQueen's University. And in that article,
which I recommend people to read,he says, what's going on here has
less to do with actual loss ofnational sovereignty than it has to do with
governments willingly seeking to hide behind theappearance of having no choice in the future.
(04:29):
He calls it a shell game.So let me just give you some
quotes from this article. Quote technocratslearned a lot from COVID, not how
to avoid policy mistakes, but howto exercise control. Public authorities discovered that
they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their
businesses, made them wear masks,and herded them to vaccination clinics. In
(04:55):
some countries, people endured the mostextreme restrictions on civil liberties in peace time
history. The WHO is now proposinga new International Pandemic Agreement and amendments to
the International Health Regulations. These proposalswill make next time worse, not because
they override sovereignty. But because theywill protect domestic authorities from responsibility, states
(05:19):
will still have their powers. TheWHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny
of their own people. Under theproposals, the WHO will become the directing
mind and will of global health.It will have authority to declare public health
emergencies. National governments will promise todo as the WHO directs. Lockdowns,
(05:42):
quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travelrestrictions, and more will be on the
table. That sounds like a lossof sovereignty, but it is not.
Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in theirown territory. The WHO proposals are a
shell game. Now listen to this. The scheme will provide cover to domestic
(06:04):
public health authorities. Power will beubiquitous, but no one will be accountable.
Citizens will lack control over the governanceof their countries, as they already
do. The danger that confronts usis still our own sprawling, discretionary administrative
state, soon to be boosted andcamouflaged by an unaccountable international bureaucracy. And
(06:29):
then he gives us an idea ofwhat that might sound like in practice.
On the lips of a politician Oh, the WHO has called for lockdowns,
so we must order you to stayin your home. Sorry, but it's
not our call, it's not ourcare. We have no choice. Now.
I found that quite helpful. Pleasedo read that the Who's managerial gambit
(06:51):
by Bruce Party that's on the BranstoneInstitute website. It's only a six minute
read. As I said, I'mstill thinking this through, but that does
present a possible understanding of what mightbe going on here. But whatever is
going on here, reportedly Ted Rossain't pleased with the way things are going
at the moment. So that's goodbecause I don't want in future either to
(07:13):
be pushed around by an unelected globalbureaucracy or to be pushed around by my
own government hiding behind an unelected globalbureaucracy amounts of the same thing. I
don't want it. So if it'snot going very well at the moment,
If indeed that's the case, thenthat's good news as far as I'm concerned.
And I hope it doesn't get anybetter for Ted Ross at al with
respect to that particular project number two. As you almost certainly will have heard,
(07:38):
but I'm going to repeat it anywayhere because I think it's symbolic of
this crumbling that I'm talking about.The Federal Court of Canada has recently concluded,
so that's on the twenty third ofJanuary, that Justin Trudeau was not
justified in using Canada's Emergency Act toclamp down on the trucker's protest in twenty
(07:58):
twenty two. And in the concludeof the judgment, so this is section
three seventy two of the relevant document, a certain Justice Richard Moseley says,
quote, I have concluded, I'llsay it in a judicial way. I
have concluded the decision to issue theproclamation, by which he means, of
course, the use of the EmergencyAct. I have concluded that the decision
(08:20):
to issue the proclamation does not bearthe hallmarks of reasonableness, justification, transparency
and intelligibility, and was not justifiedin relation to the relevant factual and legal
constraints that were required to be takeninto consideration. So they have it it
was not reasonable. He does saythat he understands the pressure that the Canadian
(08:43):
government was under at the time thathe might well have agreed with what they
did had he been in their position, et cetera, et cetera. But
he says, with the quote thebenefit of hindsight and a more extensive record
of the facts and law unquote,he's now reaching this decision. So it
wasn't reasonable. The Canadian government isgoing to appeal this decision. I believe
maybe they won't bother but whatever,it's a significant blow, I think,
(09:05):
a well deserved significant blow to theTrudeau government. They act in in a
way that was not reasonable, andI think most people who are following that
story of the trucker's protest back thenwould heartily agree it was a justified people's
protest and Trudeau wanted to shut itup and break it up. So there
(09:26):
you go, in my view,not only not reasonable, but indeed despicable.
Number three, and this is theone that I particularly want to draw
attention to, which I think fewerof you may be familiar with the case
of C. J. Hopkins,whose work I've mentioned on the podcast many
times and whose books I very muchenjoy. I have three of them here,
(09:48):
Consent Factory Essays, Volumes one,two, and three. The first
one is called Trumpocolypse, the secondone is called The War on Populism,
and the third one, which isarticularlyrelevant to what I'm going to talk about
here, is called The Rise ofthe New Normal Reich, which has got
some he has got some language init, but language which is absolutely essential
(10:09):
for the year for its purpose asbeing extremely cathartic during the COVID times.
So. C. J. Hopkinsis an American playwright and author living in
Berlin who was unbelievably placed under criminalinvestigation last year by the Berlin State Prosecutor's
office, with the threat of imprisonmentor a fine hanging over his head for
(10:31):
allegedly, quote disseminating propaganda the contentof which is intended to further the aims
of a former national socialist organization.End Quotelet me just say that again,
for allegedly, quote disseminating propaganda,the content of which is intended to further
the aims of a former national socialistorganization. Okay, so obviously the Nazis.
(10:58):
And that was because, ostensibly becauseof two tweets that he'd made in
August twenty twenty two. Now,the first tweet showed the front cover art
of his book, The Rise ofthe New Normal Reich, which shows a
face mask, you know, theone that we're all familiar with a face
(11:18):
mask under which you can just aboutmake out a swastika, accompanied by the
words the words originally in German,but here they are in English. Quote
the masks are ideological conformity symbols.That is all they are. That is
all they ever have been. Stopacting like they have ever been anything else,
or get used to wearing them unquote, and the hashtag translates as masks
(11:41):
are not a benign measure. Andthe second tweet shows a photo of Karl
Lauterbach, that's Germany's health minister,along with a quote by mister Lautebach which
reads, the masks always send outa signal. And for those two tweets,
he faced criminal charges, even thoughthroughout his career as a playwright and
(12:05):
satirist he has clearly opposed authoritarianism ingeneral and Nazism in particular, And eats
quite clear to anyone who has abrain or who is free to use their
brain, that those tweets were exactlythe opposite of what those charges were claiming.
It's incredible to me and to anybodyelse has been following this case that
the German authorities pursued this, Butthey did pursue this all the way to
(12:30):
the court where just a few daysago, twenty third of January, he
was acquitted. Absurd, Kafka esquemockery of justice, he calls it rightly,
so, having in reality nothing todo with the charges lodged against him,
and everything to do with the factthat he criticized the authorities during COVID
(12:50):
and they didn't like it and theywanted to make an example of him.
So I am delighted, of course, and relieved that he's been acquitted,
although they apparently could appeal the decision, but C. J. Hopkins thinks
they probably won't bother with that.But I do want to read out the
rather wonderful statement that he made incourt in front of the judge and in
(13:13):
front of the prosecutor, which ismade available for anyone to share or republish
it. So I shall republish itby reading it, because it says so
much about him C J. Hopkinshimself, the absurdity of the charges,
and it really captures the irony ofthe situation. You know that this case
against him is itself was itself aliving example of exactly the authoritarianism that he's
(13:37):
been complaining and warning about. Sohere It is his statement to the Court
Berlin District Court, January the twentythird, twenty twenty four. My name
is C. J. Hopkins.I am an American playwright, author,
and political satirist. My plays havebeen produced and received critical acclaim internationally.
(14:00):
Sclesatire and commentary is read by hundredsof thousands of people all over the world.
Twenty years ago, I left myown country because of the fascistic atmosphere
that had taken hold of the USAat that time, the time of the
US invasion of Iraq, a warof aggression based on my government lies.
I emigrated to Germany and made anew life here in Berlin because I believe
(14:22):
that Germany, given its history,would be the last place on Earth to
ever have anything to do with anyform of totalitarianism. Again, the gods
have a strange sense of humour.This past week, thousands of people have
been out in the streets all overGermany protesting against fascism, chanting never again
(14:43):
is now. Many of these peoplespent the past three years twenty twenty to
twenty twenty three unquestioningly obeying orders,parroting official propaganda, and demonizing anyone who
dared to question the government's unconstitutional andauthority actions during the so called COVID pandemic.
Many of these same people, thosewho support Palestinian rites, are now
(15:07):
shocked that the new form of totalitarianismthat they helped usher into existence is being
turned against them. And here Iam in criminal court in Berlin, accused
of disseminating pro Nazi propaganda in twotweets about mask mandates. The German authorities
have had my speech censored on theInternet and have damaged my reputation and income
(15:31):
as an author. One of mybooks has been banned by Amazon in Germany.
All this because I criticized the Germanauthorities, because I mocked one of
their decrees, because I pointed outone of their lies. This turn of
events would be absurdly comical if itwere not so infuriating. I cannot adequately
express how insulting it is to beforced to sit here and affirm my opposition
(15:56):
to fascism. For over thirty years, I have written and spoken out against
fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, etcetera. Anyone can do an Internet search,
find my books, read the reviewsof my plays, read my essays,
and discover who I am and whatmy political views are in two or
three minutes, and yet I amaccused by the German authorities of disseminating pro
(16:22):
Nazi propaganda. I am accused ofdoing this because I posted two tweets challenging
the official COVID narrative and comparing thenew nascent form of totalitarianism that it has
brought into being, i e.The so called new normal to Nazi Germany.
Let me be very clear, inthose two tweets, and in my
essays throughout twenty twenty to twenty twentytwo, and in my current essays,
(16:47):
I have indeed compared the rise ofthis new form of totalitarianism to the rise
of the best known twentieth century formof totalitarianism, i e. Nazi Germany.
I have made this comparison and analyzedthe simi polarities and differences between these
two forms of totalitarianism over and overagain, and I will continue to do
so. I will continue to analyzeand attempt to explain this new emerging form
(17:11):
of totalitarianism and to oppose it andwarn my readers about it. The two
tweets at issue here feature a swastikacovered by one of the medical masks that
everyone was forced to wear in publicduring twenty twenty to twenty twenty two.
That is the cover art of mybook. The message conveyed by this artwork
(17:33):
is clear. In Nazi Germany,the swastika was the symbol of conformity to
the official ideology. During twenty twentyto twenty twenty two, the masks functioned
as the symbol of conformity to anew official ideology. That was their purpose.
Their purpose was to enforce people's compliancewith government decrees and conformity to the
official COVID pandemic narrative, most ofwhich has now been proven to have been
(17:57):
propaganda and lies. Mask mandates donot work against airborne viruses. This has
been understood and acknowledged by medical expertsfor decades prior to the spring of twenty
twenty. It has now been provento everyone and acknowledged by medical experts.
Again. The science of mask mandatesdid not suddenly change in March of twenty
(18:18):
twenty. The official narrative changed,the official ideology changed, the official reality
changed. Karl Lauterbach was absolutely correctwhen he said the masks always send out
a signal. The signal they sentout from twenty twenty to twenty twenty two
was I con form, I donot ask questions, I obey orders.
(18:41):
That is not how democratic societies function. That is how totalitarian systems function.
Not every form of totalitarianism is thesame, but they share common hallmarks.
Forcing people to display symbols of conformityto official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian
systems. Declaring a state of emergencyand revoking constitutional rights for no justifiable reason
(19:07):
is a hallmark of totalitarian systems.Banning protests against government decrees is a hallmark
of totalitarian systems. Inundating the publicwith lies and propaganda designed to terrify people
into mindless obedience is a hallmark oftotalitarian systems. Segregating societies is a hallmark
of totalitarian systems. Censoring dissent isa hallmark of totalitarianism. Stripping people of
(19:34):
their jobs because they refuse to conformto official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian
systems. Fermenting mass hatred of ascapegoat class of people is a hallmark of
totalitarianism. Demonizing critics of the officialideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems.
Instrumentalizing the law to punish dissonance andmake examples of critics of the authorities is
(19:59):
a hall marker totalitarianism. I havedocumented the emergence of all these hallmarks of
totalitarianism in societies throughout the West,including but not limited to Germany, since
March of twenty twenty. I willcontinue to do so. I will continue
to warn readers about this new emergingform of totalitarianism and attempt to understand it
(20:22):
and oppose it. I will comparethis new form of totalitarianism to earlier forms
of totalitarianism, and specifically to NaziGermany, whenever it is appropriate and contributes
to our understanding of current events.That is my job as a political satirist
and commentator and as an author,and my responsibility as a human being.
(20:44):
The German authorities can punish me fordoing that. You have the power to
do that. You can make anexample of me. You can find me,
you can imprison me, you canband my books, you can censor
my content on the Internet, whichyou have done. You can defame me
and damage my inc and reputation asan author, as you have done.
You can demonize me as a conspiracytheorist, as an anti vaxa a COVID
(21:07):
denier, an idiot, an extremist. Which you have done, you can
haul me into criminal court and makeme sit here in Germany in front of
my wife who is Jewish, anddeny that I am an anti Semite who
wants to relativize the Holocaust. Youhave the power to do all these things.
However, I hope that you willat least have the integrity to call
(21:30):
this what it is and not hidebehind false accusations that I am somehow supporting
the Nazis by comparing the rise ofa new form of totalitarianism to the rise
of an earlier totalitarian system, onethat took hold of and ultimately destroyed this
country in the twentieth century and murderedmillions in the process because too few Germans
had the courage to stand up andoppose it when it first began. I
(21:53):
hope that you will at least havethe integrity to not pretend that you actually
believe I am deced dominating pro Nazipropaganda when you know very well that is
not what I'm doing. No onewith any integrity believes that this is what
I am doing. No one withany integrity believes that is what my tweets
in twenty twenty two were doing.Every journalist that has covered my case,
(22:17):
everyone in this court room understands whatthis prosecution is actually about. It has
nothing to do with punishing people whoactually disseminate pro Nazi propaganda. It is
about punishing dissent and making an exampleof dissidents in order to intimidate others into
silence. That is not how democraticnations function. That is how totalitarian systems
(22:41):
function. What I hope even moreis that this court will put an end
to this prosecution and apply the lawfairly and not allow it to be used
as a pretext to punish people likeme who criticize government dictates, people who
expose the lies of government officials,people who refuse to deny facts, who
(23:02):
refuse to perform absurd rituals of obedienceon command, who refuse to unquestionably follow
orders. Because the issue here ismuch larger and much more important than my
little tweet case, we are onceagain at a cross roads, not just
here in Germany, but throughout theWest. People went a little crazy,
(23:25):
a little fascist during the so calledCOVID pandemic, and now here we are
there are two roads ahead we haveto choose you, me, all of
us. One road leads back tothe rule of law, to democratic principles.
The other road leads to authoritarianism,to societies where authorities rule by decree
(23:47):
and force and twist the law intoanything they want, and dictate what is
and isn't reality, and abuse theirpower to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
That is the road to total terrianism. We have been down that road
before. Please let's not do itagain. End quote. So there we
(24:11):
are. That is what I wantedto share that in particular. But those
three stories, three items I thinkof good news A bit sobering that speech.
Isn't it quite a remarkable speech?I shall of course include links in
the show notes. And just beforeI close, I thought I would mention
a few things that are coming uphopefully on TMR in the weeks and months
(24:34):
ahead. I should be speaking todoctor Gary Sidley, who is a former
consultant clinical psychologist, about the government'suse of nudge techniques during COVID, and
indeed the use of nudge techniques morewidely. Should be speaking again to our
good friend Anthony Ratuno for one ofour one to one conversations looking at well
(24:56):
discussing what you might call truther epistemology. Okay, so that's to do with
the so called truth movement, etc. With reference to the film The Matrix,
So not a review, but usingthat as a springboard for discussion for
obvious reasons, has becomes such animportant feature of the so called truth movement.
(25:18):
Hopefully also speaking to Vince McCann,who we've spoken to before on the
program about his evangelism amongst Jehovah's witnessesand others, asking him about his approach
to that because he's really very goodat it. Also hopefully some interviews with
Dr Martin Eldman about one or moreof his books. Another interview with Jacob
(25:41):
Hornberger, this time on the Zapruderfilm mystery, and possible interviews in the
area of world religions, philosophy ofmiracle and the orality of scripture, and
no doubt some roundtables on various moviesthat have connections to themes explored on the
TMR over the last however many years. So that's it for today, as
(26:03):
I say, essentially to keep intouch and to share those three things which
I thought were worth sharing, particularlythe last one about what happened with c
J. Hopkins. Hope you enjoyedthat, and it only remains for me
to say you have been listening tome Julian Charles, theMIND renewde dot com,
and I look forward to speaking toyou again in the very near future.
Podcast music by the brilliant Anthony Rayjakovattributed non commercial share like four point
(26:27):
zero. International show notes for thisprogram can be found at the mind Renewde
themindneude dot com
Hello everybody, Julian Charles here ofthe Minds Renewed dot Com, coming to
you as usual from the depths ofthe Lancashire countryside here in the UK,
and welcome to the second episode oftwenty twenty four. Yes, given that
the New Year's Eve show actually comesout on the first of January, this
is officially the second show in whichI'm basically saying hello, so hello,
(00:40):
I'm still here, and in whichI'm also sharing three pieces of good news
or potential good news, three crumblings, as I'm calling them, crumblings of
narratives, lies, deceptions that havebeen kind of hanging on for a while
as the covid era continues to slopeoff in the hope of being completely forgotten.
I think these three things are tobe celebrated. What will come of
(01:03):
them ultimately, I don't know,because each is challengeable or changeable, but
I think they're good signs, allrecent and I want to mark them,
even though you may be aware ofthem already or some of them, but
not everybody will be aware. Sohere we go. Number one, ted
Ross, That is ted Ross adanumgabriezos. Is that how you pronounced it?
I'm not sure how you pronounced it. We know who we mean.
(01:26):
The WHO Director General is reportedly alittle mift that the negotiations over what they
call pandemic preparedness are not going quiteas smoothly as he had hoped. So
that's the general chin wagging over theamendments to the WHO International Health Regulations and
(01:46):
the so called Pandemic Treaty that we'vetalked about with James Ruguski on this program
a couple of times last year.So the WHO power grab, as Ruguski
calls it, is not going toowell, just at the moment it seems.
Indeed it is. And I'm quotinghere of The Guardian, which I
don't often do. It is quoteat risk of falling apart amid wrangling and
(02:10):
disinformation. And they quote Ted Rossas complaining that this is due to quote
a torrent of fake news, liesand conspiracy theories end quote. So not
because people are concerned about bureaucratic overreach, lack of transparency and lack of democratic
oversight, not just because of naughtylies by deplorable bloggers who should leave important
(02:35):
matters to important people in important placeswearing important suits and ties. However,
He is reported as saying one thingthat might have something to it, That
is, he might be technically correct, but which I think is nevertheless a
bit disingenuous. He says that theidea that these negotiations threaten national sovereignty is
(02:58):
completely false. Now, this isa point that I've never fully clarified in
my conversations with James Ruguski or inmy general reading about this. To what
extent would these who document changes,etc. Actually threaten national sovereignty? Now
they sound that way. They dogive that impression, you know, with
the removal of terms like non binding, which of course implies that what was
(03:22):
hitherto non binding is going to bebinding. But what's the force of that
legally, I've never quite got ananswer to that. What would actually what
would that actually look like in practicein a new declared so called emergency,
would nation states really have no choicebut to obey ted Ross's every dictator.
(03:42):
I'm not sure. It's not clearto me. Now a possible answer to
this has come my way. Isaid it's only possible. I'm still thinking
this through, but I do wantto share it. Thanks to a recent
article. This is the eleventh ofJanuary at the Brownstone Institute, and it's
called The Who's Managerial Gambit by BrucePardy, who is a professor of law
(04:05):
at Queen's University. I'm not surewhich Queen's University. There are lots of
them, but one of them calledQueen's University. And in that article,
which I recommend people to read,he says, what's going on here has
less to do with actual loss ofnational sovereignty than it has to do with
governments willingly seeking to hide behind theappearance of having no choice in the future.
(04:29):
He calls it a shell game.So let me just give you some
quotes from this article. Quote technocratslearned a lot from COVID, not how
to avoid policy mistakes, but howto exercise control. Public authorities discovered that
they could tell people what to do. They locked people down, closed their
businesses, made them wear masks,and herded them to vaccination clinics. In
(04:55):
some countries, people endured the mostextreme restrictions on civil liberties in peace time
history. The WHO is now proposinga new International Pandemic Agreement and amendments to
the International Health Regulations. These proposalswill make next time worse, not because
they override sovereignty. But because theywill protect domestic authorities from responsibility, states
(05:19):
will still have their powers. TheWHO plan will shield them from the scrutiny
of their own people. Under theproposals, the WHO will become the directing
mind and will of global health.It will have authority to declare public health
emergencies. National governments will promise todo as the WHO directs. Lockdowns,
(05:42):
quarantine, vaccines, surveillance, travelrestrictions, and more will be on the
table. That sounds like a lossof sovereignty, but it is not.
Sovereign states have exclusive jurisdiction in theirown territory. The WHO proposals are a
shell game. Now listen to this. The scheme will provide cover to domestic
(06:04):
public health authorities. Power will beubiquitous, but no one will be accountable.
Citizens will lack control over the governanceof their countries, as they already
do. The danger that confronts usis still our own sprawling, discretionary administrative
state, soon to be boosted andcamouflaged by an unaccountable international bureaucracy. And
(06:29):
then he gives us an idea ofwhat that might sound like in practice.
On the lips of a politician Oh, the WHO has called for lockdowns,
so we must order you to stayin your home. Sorry, but it's
not our call, it's not ourcare. We have no choice. Now.
I found that quite helpful. Pleasedo read that the Who's managerial gambit
(06:51):
by Bruce Party that's on the BranstoneInstitute website. It's only a six minute
read. As I said, I'mstill thinking this through, but that does
present a possible understanding of what mightbe going on here. But whatever is
going on here, reportedly Ted Rossain't pleased with the way things are going
at the moment. So that's goodbecause I don't want in future either to
(07:13):
be pushed around by an unelected globalbureaucracy or to be pushed around by my
own government hiding behind an unelected globalbureaucracy amounts of the same thing. I
don't want it. So if it'snot going very well at the moment,
If indeed that's the case, thenthat's good news as far as I'm concerned.
And I hope it doesn't get anybetter for Ted Ross at al with
respect to that particular project number two. As you almost certainly will have heard,
(07:38):
but I'm going to repeat it anywayhere because I think it's symbolic of
this crumbling that I'm talking about.The Federal Court of Canada has recently concluded,
so that's on the twenty third ofJanuary, that Justin Trudeau was not
justified in using Canada's Emergency Act toclamp down on the trucker's protest in twenty
(07:58):
twenty two. And in the concludeof the judgment, so this is section
three seventy two of the relevant document, a certain Justice Richard Moseley says,
quote, I have concluded, I'llsay it in a judicial way. I
have concluded the decision to issue theproclamation, by which he means, of
course, the use of the EmergencyAct. I have concluded that the decision
(08:20):
to issue the proclamation does not bearthe hallmarks of reasonableness, justification, transparency
and intelligibility, and was not justifiedin relation to the relevant factual and legal
constraints that were required to be takeninto consideration. So they have it it
was not reasonable. He does saythat he understands the pressure that the Canadian
(08:43):
government was under at the time thathe might well have agreed with what they
did had he been in their position, et cetera, et cetera. But
he says, with the quote thebenefit of hindsight and a more extensive record
of the facts and law unquote,he's now reaching this decision. So it
wasn't reasonable. The Canadian government isgoing to appeal this decision. I believe
maybe they won't bother but whatever,it's a significant blow, I think,
(09:05):
a well deserved significant blow to theTrudeau government. They act in in a
way that was not reasonable, andI think most people who are following that
story of the trucker's protest back thenwould heartily agree it was a justified people's
protest and Trudeau wanted to shut itup and break it up. So there
(09:26):
you go, in my view,not only not reasonable, but indeed despicable.
Number three, and this is theone that I particularly want to draw
attention to, which I think fewerof you may be familiar with the case
of C. J. Hopkins,whose work I've mentioned on the podcast many
times and whose books I very muchenjoy. I have three of them here,
(09:48):
Consent Factory Essays, Volumes one,two, and three. The first
one is called Trumpocolypse, the secondone is called The War on Populism,
and the third one, which isarticularlyrelevant to what I'm going to talk about
here, is called The Rise ofthe New Normal Reich, which has got
some he has got some language init, but language which is absolutely essential
(10:09):
for the year for its purpose asbeing extremely cathartic during the COVID times.
So. C. J. Hopkinsis an American playwright and author living in
Berlin who was unbelievably placed under criminalinvestigation last year by the Berlin State Prosecutor's
office, with the threat of imprisonmentor a fine hanging over his head for
(10:31):
allegedly, quote disseminating propaganda the contentof which is intended to further the aims
of a former national socialist organization.End Quotelet me just say that again,
for allegedly, quote disseminating propaganda,the content of which is intended to further
the aims of a former national socialistorganization. Okay, so obviously the Nazis.
(10:58):
And that was because, ostensibly becauseof two tweets that he'd made in
August twenty twenty two. Now,the first tweet showed the front cover art
of his book, The Rise ofthe New Normal Reich, which shows a
face mask, you know, theone that we're all familiar with a face
(11:18):
mask under which you can just aboutmake out a swastika, accompanied by the
words the words originally in German,but here they are in English. Quote
the masks are ideological conformity symbols.That is all they are. That is
all they ever have been. Stopacting like they have ever been anything else,
or get used to wearing them unquote, and the hashtag translates as masks
(11:41):
are not a benign measure. Andthe second tweet shows a photo of Karl
Lauterbach, that's Germany's health minister,along with a quote by mister Lautebach which
reads, the masks always send outa signal. And for those two tweets,
he faced criminal charges, even thoughthroughout his career as a playwright and
(12:05):
satirist he has clearly opposed authoritarianism ingeneral and Nazism in particular, And eats
quite clear to anyone who has abrain or who is free to use their
brain, that those tweets were exactlythe opposite of what those charges were claiming.
It's incredible to me and to anybodyelse has been following this case that
the German authorities pursued this, Butthey did pursue this all the way to
(12:30):
the court where just a few daysago, twenty third of January, he
was acquitted. Absurd, Kafka esquemockery of justice, he calls it rightly,
so, having in reality nothing todo with the charges lodged against him,
and everything to do with the factthat he criticized the authorities during COVID
(12:50):
and they didn't like it and theywanted to make an example of him.
So I am delighted, of course, and relieved that he's been acquitted,
although they apparently could appeal the decision, but C. J. Hopkins thinks
they probably won't bother with that.But I do want to read out the
rather wonderful statement that he made incourt in front of the judge and in
(13:13):
front of the prosecutor, which ismade available for anyone to share or republish
it. So I shall republish itby reading it, because it says so
much about him C J. Hopkinshimself, the absurdity of the charges,
and it really captures the irony ofthe situation. You know that this case
against him is itself was itself aliving example of exactly the authoritarianism that he's
(13:37):
been complaining and warning about. Sohere It is his statement to the Court
Berlin District Court, January the twentythird, twenty twenty four. My name
is C. J. Hopkins.I am an American playwright, author,
and political satirist. My plays havebeen produced and received critical acclaim internationally.
(14:00):
Sclesatire and commentary is read by hundredsof thousands of people all over the world.
Twenty years ago, I left myown country because of the fascistic atmosphere
that had taken hold of the USAat that time, the time of the
US invasion of Iraq, a warof aggression based on my government lies.
I emigrated to Germany and made anew life here in Berlin because I believe
(14:22):
that Germany, given its history,would be the last place on Earth to
ever have anything to do with anyform of totalitarianism. Again, the gods
have a strange sense of humour.This past week, thousands of people have
been out in the streets all overGermany protesting against fascism, chanting never again
(14:43):
is now. Many of these peoplespent the past three years twenty twenty to
twenty twenty three unquestioningly obeying orders,parroting official propaganda, and demonizing anyone who
dared to question the government's unconstitutional andauthority actions during the so called COVID pandemic.
Many of these same people, thosewho support Palestinian rites, are now
(15:07):
shocked that the new form of totalitarianismthat they helped usher into existence is being
turned against them. And here Iam in criminal court in Berlin, accused
of disseminating pro Nazi propaganda in twotweets about mask mandates. The German authorities
have had my speech censored on theInternet and have damaged my reputation and income
(15:31):
as an author. One of mybooks has been banned by Amazon in Germany.
All this because I criticized the Germanauthorities, because I mocked one of
their decrees, because I pointed outone of their lies. This turn of
events would be absurdly comical if itwere not so infuriating. I cannot adequately
express how insulting it is to beforced to sit here and affirm my opposition
(15:56):
to fascism. For over thirty years, I have written and spoken out against
fascism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, etcetera. Anyone can do an Internet search,
find my books, read the reviewsof my plays, read my essays,
and discover who I am and whatmy political views are in two or
three minutes, and yet I amaccused by the German authorities of disseminating pro
(16:22):
Nazi propaganda. I am accused ofdoing this because I posted two tweets challenging
the official COVID narrative and comparing thenew nascent form of totalitarianism that it has
brought into being, i e.The so called new normal to Nazi Germany.
Let me be very clear, inthose two tweets, and in my
essays throughout twenty twenty to twenty twentytwo, and in my current essays,
(16:47):
I have indeed compared the rise ofthis new form of totalitarianism to the rise
of the best known twentieth century formof totalitarianism, i e. Nazi Germany.
I have made this comparison and analyzedthe simi polarities and differences between these
two forms of totalitarianism over and overagain, and I will continue to do
so. I will continue to analyzeand attempt to explain this new emerging form
(17:11):
of totalitarianism and to oppose it andwarn my readers about it. The two
tweets at issue here feature a swastikacovered by one of the medical masks that
everyone was forced to wear in publicduring twenty twenty to twenty twenty two.
That is the cover art of mybook. The message conveyed by this artwork
(17:33):
is clear. In Nazi Germany,the swastika was the symbol of conformity to
the official ideology. During twenty twentyto twenty twenty two, the masks functioned
as the symbol of conformity to anew official ideology. That was their purpose.
Their purpose was to enforce people's compliancewith government decrees and conformity to the
official COVID pandemic narrative, most ofwhich has now been proven to have been
(17:57):
propaganda and lies. Mask mandates donot work against airborne viruses. This has
been understood and acknowledged by medical expertsfor decades prior to the spring of twenty
twenty. It has now been provento everyone and acknowledged by medical experts.
Again. The science of mask mandatesdid not suddenly change in March of twenty
(18:18):
twenty. The official narrative changed,the official ideology changed, the official reality
changed. Karl Lauterbach was absolutely correctwhen he said the masks always send out
a signal. The signal they sentout from twenty twenty to twenty twenty two
was I con form, I donot ask questions, I obey orders.
(18:41):
That is not how democratic societies function. That is how totalitarian systems function.
Not every form of totalitarianism is thesame, but they share common hallmarks.
Forcing people to display symbols of conformityto official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian
systems. Declaring a state of emergencyand revoking constitutional rights for no justifiable reason
(19:07):
is a hallmark of totalitarian systems.Banning protests against government decrees is a hallmark
of totalitarian systems. Inundating the publicwith lies and propaganda designed to terrify people
into mindless obedience is a hallmark oftotalitarian systems. Segregating societies is a hallmark
of totalitarian systems. Censoring dissent isa hallmark of totalitarianism. Stripping people of
(19:34):
their jobs because they refuse to conformto official ideology is a hallmark of totalitarian
systems. Fermenting mass hatred of ascapegoat class of people is a hallmark of
totalitarianism. Demonizing critics of the officialideology is a hallmark of totalitarian systems.
Instrumentalizing the law to punish dissonance andmake examples of critics of the authorities is
(19:59):
a hall marker totalitarianism. I havedocumented the emergence of all these hallmarks of
totalitarianism in societies throughout the West,including but not limited to Germany, since
March of twenty twenty. I willcontinue to do so. I will continue
to warn readers about this new emergingform of totalitarianism and attempt to understand it
(20:22):
and oppose it. I will comparethis new form of totalitarianism to earlier forms
of totalitarianism, and specifically to NaziGermany, whenever it is appropriate and contributes
to our understanding of current events.That is my job as a political satirist
and commentator and as an author,and my responsibility as a human being.
(20:44):
The German authorities can punish me fordoing that. You have the power to
do that. You can make anexample of me. You can find me,
you can imprison me, you canband my books, you can censor
my content on the Internet, whichyou have done. You can defame me
and damage my inc and reputation asan author, as you have done.
You can demonize me as a conspiracytheorist, as an anti vaxa a COVID
(21:07):
denier, an idiot, an extremist. Which you have done, you can
haul me into criminal court and makeme sit here in Germany in front of
my wife who is Jewish, anddeny that I am an anti Semite who
wants to relativize the Holocaust. Youhave the power to do all these things.
However, I hope that you willat least have the integrity to call
(21:30):
this what it is and not hidebehind false accusations that I am somehow supporting
the Nazis by comparing the rise ofa new form of totalitarianism to the rise
of an earlier totalitarian system, onethat took hold of and ultimately destroyed this
country in the twentieth century and murderedmillions in the process because too few Germans
had the courage to stand up andoppose it when it first began. I
(21:53):
hope that you will at least havethe integrity to not pretend that you actually
believe I am deced dominating pro Nazipropaganda when you know very well that is
not what I'm doing. No onewith any integrity believes that this is what
I am doing. No one withany integrity believes that is what my tweets
in twenty twenty two were doing.Every journalist that has covered my case,
(22:17):
everyone in this court room understands whatthis prosecution is actually about. It has
nothing to do with punishing people whoactually disseminate pro Nazi propaganda. It is
about punishing dissent and making an exampleof dissidents in order to intimidate others into
silence. That is not how democraticnations function. That is how totalitarian systems
(22:41):
function. What I hope even moreis that this court will put an end
to this prosecution and apply the lawfairly and not allow it to be used
as a pretext to punish people likeme who criticize government dictates, people who
expose the lies of government officials,people who refuse to deny facts, who
(23:02):
refuse to perform absurd rituals of obedienceon command, who refuse to unquestionably follow
orders. Because the issue here ismuch larger and much more important than my
little tweet case, we are onceagain at a cross roads, not just
here in Germany, but throughout theWest. People went a little crazy,
(23:25):
a little fascist during the so calledCOVID pandemic, and now here we are
there are two roads ahead we haveto choose you, me, all of
us. One road leads back tothe rule of law, to democratic principles.
The other road leads to authoritarianism,to societies where authorities rule by decree
(23:47):
and force and twist the law intoanything they want, and dictate what is
and isn't reality, and abuse theirpower to silence anyone who disagrees with them.
That is the road to total terrianism. We have been down that road
before. Please let's not do itagain. End quote. So there we
(24:11):
are. That is what I wantedto share that in particular. But those
three stories, three items I thinkof good news A bit sobering that speech.
Isn't it quite a remarkable speech?I shall of course include links in
the show notes. And just beforeI close, I thought I would mention
a few things that are coming uphopefully on TMR in the weeks and months
(24:34):
ahead. I should be speaking todoctor Gary Sidley, who is a former
consultant clinical psychologist, about the government'suse of nudge techniques during COVID, and
indeed the use of nudge techniques morewidely. Should be speaking again to our
good friend Anthony Ratuno for one ofour one to one conversations looking at well
(24:56):
discussing what you might call truther epistemology. Okay, so that's to do with
the so called truth movement, etc. With reference to the film The Matrix,
So not a review, but usingthat as a springboard for discussion for
obvious reasons, has becomes such animportant feature of the so called truth movement.
(25:18):
Hopefully also speaking to Vince McCann,who we've spoken to before on the
program about his evangelism amongst Jehovah's witnessesand others, asking him about his approach
to that because he's really very goodat it. Also hopefully some interviews with
Dr Martin Eldman about one or moreof his books. Another interview with Jacob
(25:41):
Hornberger, this time on the Zapruderfilm mystery, and possible interviews in the
area of world religions, philosophy ofmiracle and the orality of scripture, and
no doubt some roundtables on various moviesthat have connections to themes explored on the
TMR over the last however many years. So that's it for today, as
(26:03):
I say, essentially to keep intouch and to share those three things which
I thought were worth sharing, particularlythe last one about what happened with c
J. Hopkins. Hope you enjoyedthat, and it only remains for me
to say you have been listening tome Julian Charles, theMIND renewde dot com,
and I look forward to speaking toyou again in the very near future.
Podcast music by the brilliant Anthony Rayjakovattributed non commercial share like four point
(26:27):
zero. International show notes for thisprogram can be found at the mind Renewde
themindneude dot com
Popular Podcasts
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.