How to Save Humanity — with Prof Gloria Moss (Part 3 of 3)

Prof Gloria Moss spoke with Prof Diane Rasmussen McAdie about the evil transhumanist agenda that has existed over time, and what can be done to stop it.Read the interview notes: https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/how-to-save-humanity-part-3

Episode Transcript

(00:08):
Hello everyone, this is Diane Rasmussen Mccaddy with UK Column
News. I'm really happy to be here for
part three of our interview series with Professor Gloria
Moss. We'll put links to Part 1 and
two in the write up for this interview.
So Part 1 was Gloria and I talking about the horrible
things that have happened to theuniversity system here in the
UK. And Part 2 was an interesting

(00:29):
discussion between Gloria and Ben Rubin about what has been
happening in the Gloria's research career, looking at the
differences between men and women.
And part three, I will have it. I will say in advance that this
is going to be a very serious discussion, but we do hope to
end with some lightness and somethings that we can all do to

(00:49):
fight the darkness it that is present and what we're going to
call the trans agenda. So Gloria, welcome back again
once again to UK column. Thanks for joining me again
today. So I'm really happy to to expose
this amazing amount of information that you have found
and looking forward to getting into it.
So where where would you like tostart today?

(01:12):
Well, we're going to talk about the transhumanist agenda today,
and I think it's worth going back in time really, and saying
that this is based on the presumption that humans are not
perfect. And that goes back a very long
way, actually, that presumption.So I think it's useful to sketch

(01:33):
in the background before we moveup to the current day and the
transhumanist agenda that's playing out before our eyes now.
So if we go back in time, of course in the Book of
Revelations 1318, we find the statement that the man has the
mark of the beast, 666. That's not a positive way of

(01:56):
looking at man. And when it's rather interesting
that in modern day terms the carbon atom that man is
substantially made up from man being a carbon based life form,
is made up of 6 protons, 6 electrons and six neutrons.
There we have it, 666. And so mark of the beast in

(02:21):
Revelations. Carbon, of course, is the target
of many global institutions, organisations, governments,
vilified. And here we are, made up
substantially of carbon. Around the same time, more or
less as Revelations appear, we find the secret Gospel of John

(02:44):
about the 2nd century. ADI Think, which gives us a very
good account of Gnostic thinking.
And I do think that understanding Gnostic ideas is
really enlightening in looking at the transhumanist agenda and

(03:08):
providing A context, if you like, for the transhumanist
agenda. So very briefly, the Gnostics,
they posited that there was a light source that created
everything, including ten Aeons who created kindness, which

(03:29):
created the first perfect. Remember that the first perfect
human being and this light source then created for
Illuminaries who in turn createdthe 12 eternal dimensions at one
of these eternal dynamensions has the name Sophia and the the

(03:56):
story goes that Sophia became unbalanced and was expelled
because of the unbalance into a dark dimension becoming
paranoid, egotistical and aggressive.
And the Demiurge as as it's known that was in charge of

(04:21):
Sophia then force Sophia. This is one of the 12 eternal
dimensions into a low energy dark creation which is the
material universe. This is the first time we hear
of the material universe that created humans, the material,

(04:47):
and that also created, accordingto Gnostic belief, a hierarchy
of controlling rulers, dark forces known as Archons.
ARCHONS. And what the Demiurge and the
Archons then proceeded to do wasto attempt to create a slave

(05:11):
worker, a different version of the human created, the perfect
human created by the light source.
And well, the higher dimensionalforce, we're told, stepped in to
mitigate the harm by imbuing these slave workers with

(05:35):
thinking and spiritual power. Sounds good, doesn't it?
But the Archons think of them asdark forces.
They retaliated by using diversemeans to control and suppress
these slave workers. And the kind of tools they used
were the imposition of false religious beliefs, the

(05:59):
eradication of higher knowledge in all subjects.
That's something that we talked about, Diane, when we were
talking about universities and to some extent what's happening
in schools, mindless entertainment and genetic
manipulation. These were the tools of the

(06:19):
archons, the dark forces to control the slave workers that
had been modified in a good way by the light source.
And so here we have Gnostic thinking, which I think provides
a useful backdrop when we look at the transhumanist agenda.
And just to complete the picture, according to this

(06:43):
vision of the Gnostics, 1/3, sorry, not as much as that 1% of
the human population, think of it this as a continuum at one
end, 1% of the human population are aligned with the light
multiverse. That's extremely positive.

(07:04):
And those people have an innate sense of right and wrong and are
creative. Are light workers at the other
end of the continuum? 1% are those who on birth
receive a fixed counterfeit spirit is the term used.

(07:25):
So we have light workers at one end.
Counterfeit spirit at the end ofbalanced Gnostics put it at 1%.
Now these counterfeit spirits suffer from paranoia.
Total service to self and are non creative and psychopathic.
Not a very pleasant combination.So vibrationally speaking, these

(07:48):
are very much opposites. Well, you might be asking what's
in the middle. Well, according to Martin
Colburn, who's spoken at severalof my conferences I've run,
questioning history and questioning science conferences,
he had a bit of a download and was told that the people in the
middle are dubbed empty vessels.And according to Martin Coburn,

(08:15):
they have no innate spiritual orientation, no innate sense of
right or wrong. They remain materially
orientated, but they can be moved in either direction
depending on how powerful the 1%at either end are.

(08:37):
Currently the counterfeit controllers and perhaps the
majority of these empty vessels are veering towards that dark
end, but they have the capacity,those people in the middle, the
98%, to absorb the light or the dark of the groups around them.

(09:02):
And so we can perhaps try and dowhat we can to, without sounding
arrogant, really do the work of the light source and try and
move people gently in the direction of the 1% light
source. Keep that in the background when

(09:23):
we come on to talk about transhumanism or the trans and
the transhumanism. Meanwhile, just like to add two
other things. This comes from my research
journeys of several decades really, And the first is from my
work, which I talked about with you, Diane, on gender and
design. How person sex, biological sex,

(09:48):
influences the visual graphic creations that they produce,
having an enormous impact both on the themes and also the style
of what's produced and also on people's preferences.
It's what we were saying, but inmany studies I've conducted, the
conclusion was that quite unconsciously, males preferred

(10:12):
designs created by males, while females created preferred
designs created by females. So we have the very weird
situation where most purchases are made by an army of female
shoppers, 83% of all purchases, and yet most design is in the
hands of men who will tend to prefer male type design.

(10:34):
It really doesn't make sense at all.
We need this all needs to be changed.
But as part of that research I discovered a very rich vein of
research done over the course ofthe 20th century and a bit
beyond, comparing the drawings and paintings created by
children and young adults. Just to give you a flavour very

(10:57):
quickly because you haven't got time for anything more today.
But an early study in London by researcher Ballard, this was
1912, an enormous sample. He gathered 20,000 drawings, Can
you imagine, from children aged 6 to 10 years of age.
And what Ballard found was that 20, well more than 20% of the

(11:20):
boys drawings showed ships as compared to only 9% of the
girls. And in 1924, short while later
over in the US, another researcher McCarty with an even
bigger sample, this was 31,000 drawings of children aged just 4

(11:42):
to 8. What she found was that the boys
showed a vast preference compared to girls for drawing
vehicles and tools. So if you take the male
propensity as 100%, the girl's propensity to draw vehicles was

(12:06):
only 22%. So there was a vast disparity in
what she found in the drawings of these very young children.
4:00 to 8:00. And then moving on in TIME 1977,
a study by Hargreaves. This was up in Durham, not far,
I think from where you're livingcurrently, Diane.
We found in the, again, a comparison of the drawings of

(12:30):
girls and boys aged 10A significant difference in the
propensity to draw the mechanical with, guess what, the
boys showing a significantly greater propensity to draw the
mechanical than the girls. Well, maybe you'll see in a
little bit when we get on to thetrans and transhumanist why I'm

(12:52):
drawing attention to the male propensity for the mechanical as
against. I haven't talked about this, but
the female propensity to draw human life and life in all its
forms, including plants that comes out very strongly from
these studies. And then after after the going

(13:17):
got rather difficult to say the least.
Continuing with this research onsex and design, I moved on to
study of leadership because my background is in human
resources. I'm a fellow of the CIPD, the
main organisation for organisational psychology and

(13:39):
studied, conducted a study into best practise leadership, which
is in this book Inclusive Leadership published by
Rutledge. And what you can discover on the
literature of leadership is very, very interesting where the

(13:59):
subject of sex is concerned. Sex, I mean biological sex at
this point. It's not a salacious book in
that, in that way that's. A bit disappointing.
So you get too excited about this book, but essentially it's
been found by several researchers that men by and

(14:23):
large have a very strong preference for exercising a
style of leadership called transactional leadership.
And that's the style they like to have exercised over
themselves as well. And this, if you want to have a
picture of transactional, I was going to say what George Orwell
said, think of a boot coming down on your face.

(14:45):
But let's be more serious in terms of the competences, they
include monitoring followers performance and correcting
mistakes. It's a very hands off approach
until things go wrong. You had an interesting comment
about this time in terms of how it may have influenced the

(15:08):
university system. This this emphasis in
transactional leadership on monitoring followers performance
and creating mistakes. Yeah, I, I noticed it
increasingly during through my university career where
everything was transactional andeducation and research aren't

(15:29):
necessarily always transactional.
By then I meant things like learning objectives for
students. And I've heard other people
discuss this recently about the you're setting objectives for
the students saying this is whatthey will learn by the end of a
course or the end of a module, that these are the things that
they will learn. They might learn something

(15:50):
totally different, which is wonderful.
Whatever they learn is what theylearn.
It's also the same with how performance is measured of
academics now where you have to,you have to bring in a certain
amount of money per year that increases based on your rank.
It has to be a certain type of money.
But of course, by the time I left, it was all about getting
money from the UK research councils and only doing research

(16:12):
that supported the development of the UN Sustainable
Development Goals. But that's a different issue
the, the pass rate of students so that you could have a
wonderful group of students and everyone passes, you could have
a horrible group of students andeveryone fails, but you had to
have a certain pass rate, which is like, you know, 67% or
whatever it is, the target was that they set for you.
So basically you're, you're creating transactions about

(16:35):
absolutely everything, as well as the type of research in my
field that was, that was meant to be the best was only anything
that was statistical. Never mind the fact that a lot
of people using statistics didn't know how to use them
appropriately and they would usethe wrong test, which, you know,
basically using things the wrongway.
But as long as they had statistics there, it was still

(16:57):
OK. Because that was more valuable
than the type of qualitative research that I used to do,
which was actually interviewing and engaging with people to find
out how they worked with information and what kinds of
communications that they preferred.
That was again to me because I created rapport with the people
that I worked with and learned more from them than I ever would
have learned from doing a statistical test with them.

(17:19):
That was, I guess, I guess you could say a more female approach
because of the relational engagement aspect, but that was
considered to not have been as useful as well.
OK, but what percent of people said this or when you ran at
Test what happened or whatever the issue was?
So I was seeing it as well that sort of the more, I guess you
from what you're saying, sort ofthe more female approach

(17:40):
potentially to research and teaching was not as valued as
highly as it should have been. And you know, we all have
important things to add, but notapparently not anymore in the in
this sort of university model that we're now facing.
Unfortunately, really interesting that you talk about
a series of transactions becausethat's very much part of what

(18:03):
how a transaction or leader would view the task of
leadership or management. Not not in human terms, but as a
series of transactions. And, and, and the the finding
that males and females have verydifferent preferences both in
how they are led and how they lead themselves has come out of

(18:26):
many, many people's work. First of all, there was a
Rosener in the States, followed by Eadley 2023 and then in
Britain over here, Beverly AlimaMetcalf did some fabulous work.
She was based up at Leeds University showing the
differences in, by and large, male and male preferences.

(18:49):
So think of the male preference in leadership terms as
transactional, as as a desire toimpose, as you say, darling,
objectives to control the territory.
Control I think is very much thegoverning principle of
transactions rather than, as yousay, just letting students learn
whatever they choose to learn. So control is the name of the

(19:12):
game, I think now skipping several centuries on from the
Gnostics in the Book of Revelations, We'll, we'll we'll
now chart, I think the movement,the progressive movement that
has has got us to where we are today in terms of the
transhumanist agenda. And some people would say that

(19:35):
transhumanism represents the mesonic aim of assisting
humanity in evolving to merge with a cosmic consciousness,
with a similar idea as we'll seeemerging from the Fabian
Society. And we ask ourselves, ah, is

(19:59):
this work, this transhumanist journey?
Is this continuing the work of the Archons that we mentioned as
part of? The Gnostic description of the
framework in which humans find themselves is the true

(20:20):
transhumanist agenda. Continuing the work of the arch.
You be the judge. So let's begin by charting the
journey. I I've put Mary Shelley's
Frankenstein at the beginning because I didn't think we could
really talk about transhumanism without consideration of that.

(20:40):
We all know the story of how Frankenstein creates a monster.
Well, doesn't create a monster, creates a being out of dead
parts of people in cemeteries, and then this rather unsightly

(21:00):
individual becomes rejected by society and so develops
monstrous psychological characteristics.
Now apparently this book was written while Mary Shelley was
in Switzerland, in the company not only of Shelley, who became
her husband, but also Lord Byron.

(21:20):
And they took it in turns to write ghost stories because the
weather was bad and they were cooped up and, and, and thought
that would be a good thing to do.
And Lord Byron's father was a Freemason.
And could it be that her novel was a critique of the merger of

(21:44):
the human with this wider consciousness?
Who knows? But certainly you wouldn't come
away from reading Frankenstein thinking that the creation of a
mechanical, a mechanical, part mechanical, part human creature
with something to emulate. I don't.

(22:05):
Think no. Yeah.
Well, next we we come to HG Wells, author of The Time
Machine and the 1940 book New World Order, a non fiction work
which outlines plans for a socialist one world government.

(22:31):
That book includes the Human Rights Declaration, which served
as the basis for the UN Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. But I wrote an article on the
Fabian Society for UK column. Maybe it's about a month ago.
It was excellent. Thank you again for it.
Well, no, thank you, thank you Don.

(22:53):
And he was a member of the Fabian Society.
And so this does this doesn't have a good feeling to to when
you've read the article and found out about some of the
agendas of the Fabian Society have, which includes the

(23:13):
eugenics agenda and a pseudo communist agenda and a New World
order agenda. You might might say, well, this
isn't again, something terribly desirable.
But he also wrote Absolester Notebook 1896.

(23:34):
That was the island of Doctor Morrow MOREAU, and that's about
a mad scientist creating human animal hybrids.
So is that a template for some of the thinking that's going on
today? And you talked to me a bit about
that before we came on Air Dine,the animal human hybrid.

(24:00):
Yeah, and they're starting it very early in childhood.
So for people that know my coverage and my, my work around
trying to protect children from all of this, there are, for
example, picture books 1 is called a boy who wanted to be a
deer. For example, it's a picture book
obviously meant for very young children who starts out with a
boy saying, oh, I would be so much happier if I were a deer.

(24:23):
And then his family and everyonesays, oh, that's so wonderful.
You can be whatever you want to be.
And then I think by the end of the book, he's wearing antlers
that he's placed on his head or something like that.
And he's so much happier and hisfamily is so happy that he has
found out who he really is. And so we see this in in and
there's a lot of other examples of this as well.

(24:43):
There's there was also reports of, I believe it might have been
last year in 2024, maybe before that, reports in Scotland of
someone allowing a child to identify as a cat bringing
litter trays into schools. And there was one who was
identifying as a wolf, I believesomewhere in the Highlands.

(25:05):
I'll try to find some leaks and I'll put them in the write up
for this interview just so that people see that I'm not making
this up. That this is actually the
parents and the schools being sobrainwashed by the state that
they're pushing this agenda on to children, thinking that
they're doing the right thing for them.
And obviously the rest of us cansee the kind of harm it's going
to do to them when they grow up believing that they can actually

(25:28):
become an animal and that that'sOK.
And we're supposed to go along with this delusion.
It's it's absolutely despicable.So there was HG Wells writing
The Island of Doctor Morrow, that was 1896, about a scientist
creating a human animal hybrids.Moving on, when we meet Aldous

(25:54):
Huxley, a fellow member of the Fabian Society, along with his
brother Julian Huxley, and it's thought that in his work, for
example, Brave New World 1932 and with George Orwell, who has

(26:16):
been described also as a member of the Fabian Society, he was
taught by Aldous Huxley at Eton.It's thought that what both of
these men were doing was merely fictionalising the globalist,
transhumanist plans of their fellow Fabians.

(26:38):
And they're very different, these two books.
Obviously The Brave New World in1984 of George Orwell.
And we'll talk about that more in a little bit when we look at
a lecture that Aldous Huxley gave in 1962 in Berkeley where

(26:59):
he picks up on that. But just sort of remember that
for the time being, so if you like, these are forays into the
world of mingling, mixing the human with something non human,
interfering with human biology in one way or another.

(27:23):
Brave New World does this in in in a very obvious way by talking
about breeding centres that havebeen set up.
There is no normal reproduction between males and females.
No longer happens in Brave New World.

(27:44):
It's all done in laboratory conditions.
Yes, was the. Director of hatcheries or
something like that. Who's in charge of it?
Yeah. And so that so that 1932 Brave
new World on my chronology, I put next Simone de Beauvoir and

(28:06):
her work The Second Sex, which was published in 1949.
And here we're moving into a study of what it is to be a
human through a different lens. I would suggest in that book,
Simone de Beauvoir wrote, one isnot born but becomes a woman.

(28:28):
Sociologists might interpret that as meaning that femininity
is is a construct, a social construct.
But it's a strange statement to say the least, because every one
of the 70 trillion cells with a nucleus in the human body is

(28:50):
stamped either XX or XY. So let me just say that phrase
again. One is not born but becomes a
woman, a biologist or anybody with the same mind, I would say
would not, could not possibly buy into that statement.
One is born a female from a biological standpoint, from a

(29:13):
biological standpoint. And I did suggest when we were
talking about design and the shoulder, I think talked about a
photo that I've seen of Simone de Beauvoir with her partner
Jean Paul Sartre, that she towered over him.

(29:36):
And I just asked the question whether Sidman de Beauvoir was
actually born female. Because if if that were not the
case, then this sentence would take on a whole new meaning. 1
is not born but becomes a woman.Maybe we have here a statement
about somebody becoming a trans woman.

(30:01):
I, I would, yeah, I would beg todiffer for any of these people
who are now trying to become women or saying that they are
women and whether or not they'veever lived through a monthly
period, because that's, that's definitely something that I
think crosses into belief. And I, I just wanted to mention
these. I just thought of these Gloria,

(30:23):
the Protect and Teach conferencethat you and I both spoke at
with Kathy Mudge and her group earlier this year.
This lady was passing out some some stones with writing on
them. And she makes a lot of these so
that people can leave them around at at bus stops or
wherever. And just a couple I wanted to
share with the audience. 1 here says trans ideology is a belief.

(30:43):
It is not fact. And that's what I think, you
know, that's what an ideology is, right?
It's belief. And this one is stop gender
affirming butchery. So I'm afraid that what we're
about to cover with the transhumanism elements, we're
not just butchering, you know, reproductive organs, but we're

(31:04):
also looking at butchering the, the essence of what it is to be
a human and, and, and where thisleads to.
So it, it, it's very dark, but we have to, we have to look at
what they're doing so. And we're looking at the
chronology and the history, if you like, of, of that's LED us

(31:26):
to where we are today with the transhumanist agenda.
Important to note, I think that Simone de Beauvoir and Jean Paul
Sartre were both part of the Faun de Libajacion de paedophile
acronym FLIP. FLIP, very disturbing back then

(31:47):
and many pillars of of the French community.
Likewise were supporters of FLIPwere in favour of reducing the
age of consent of children. The next landmark I've noted
down here, certainly where gender is concerned, we'll come
back to the transhuman in a minute, is 1957 with the work of

(32:13):
Doctor John Money, who has pushed the trans ideology in in
a very big way. He stated that biology does not
matter in relation to gender andthat people are born gender
neutral. His phrase?
Not my phrase, which defies biology.

(32:37):
Interesting to note that he was a public supporter of
paedophilia and inset. He was apparently a deviant
child abuser and so he has that in common.
If you like the the the support of paedophilia with Simone de
Beauvoir and who was a leading exponent of the notion that we

(32:59):
are not the sum of our biology. And then just to log this on the
timeline in 1950, we're back to the transhumanist here.
And I do think the trans agenda feeds into the transhumanist
because it provides the origin for the idea that the human body

(33:22):
as gifted, if you like, by the light source.
It provides the the idea that that can be interfered with.
It's legitimate in some way to interfere with that.
In 1950, Julian Huxley, another member of the Fabian Society,
coined the term transhumanist inhis book New Bottles for New

(33:47):
Wine. Let's just pick up a little bit
on the trans agenda before we move on and focus exclusively on
the transhumanist. And when I was at the conference
with you, Diane, I talked about how how about the attempt to

(34:13):
deny the biological basis of sex.
And as part of that, I mentionedthe work of Martine Rothblatt,
used to be Martin, but now Martine, who in 1995 wrote the
book The Apartheid of Sex. So I'm just going to read very

(34:35):
couple of sentences, that's all from this book by Martine
Rothblatt. It stated there that the general
rules don't determine your sex and that you can choose
whichever gender you want. There is a gender fluidity that
crosses the entire continuum from male to female.

(34:57):
The book talks about separate male and female genders as a
constructed fiction. Maybe you should be showing
those stones again. What do you think?
Trans ideology is a belief. It is not fact.
And stop gender affirming butchery.

(35:21):
It that's, you know, it's, it's interesting because this whole
idea of gender being on a spectrum is one of the things
that I lost my academic career over speaking out against,
against this ideology and what it was doing to people.
And you know, I guess there's different models, but there's, I
think the most common one. I think it's 72 genders that

(35:42):
exist. There's maybe there's more I
haven't checked in a few months,but the idea that all of these
these things are, are different genders and it's, you know, I,
I, I really, I feel it's, it's, they call it being progressive,
but I personally, I don't know what you think find it
regressive because it it, it, it's, it's making a lot of

(36:04):
assumptions. I think that if you don't, if
you don't fit into certain boxes, then, you know, then you
need to be trans. And I think that's one of the
things that's happening to children that obviously I grew
up to be a woman in every way possible.
But when I was younger, I had interest in science.

(36:25):
So even though I wasn't maybe, you know, a boy in other ways,
which I obviously wasn't, my interests were in science and
space and computers, but I stillobviously have the all of the
feminine characteristics. So I think it's one of those
things where if you believe, andI never believed I was a boy and

(36:46):
I never felt masculine, I just had different interests.
But it goes back to what Doctor Jenny Cunningham has said.
And I've been to her interviewedhere previously on UK column
where she says that this idea ofgender dysphoria that we're
feeding into children, that you need to maybe change your gender
because of this. Or that because you have you
feel like a boy or felt like you're born in the the wrong

(37:08):
body is actually something to dowith the state of our brains.
Whether it's a result of some people believe it's it has to do
with autistic traits. Some people believe it has to do
with other mental health conditions.
But she said it's the only thingin the NHS where they are using
something that is affecting through through your brain and
responding to it by the physicalprocess of giving you hormones.

(37:32):
Or, or as we get more and more intense about it, removing body
parts and adding new ones, Whichagain, actually is rather
transactional, isn't it? That if you just decide that
you're going to remove your breasts and, and you know, what
they do is they, they, you know,RIP skin off your arm to create
a male body part and attach it to you.

(37:54):
But you are now a man That is actually.
I just thought of that as actually try rather
transactional isn't? It it's very true and it's a
focus on the mechanical, whereasin fact I kind of talked about
this in our last interview. Differences across all 5 senses
are strongly manifested and and Professor Geary wrote a whole

(38:20):
book on that of a cognitive sex differences looking at their
manifestation across all 5 senses.
Changing boobs, other body partsisn't going to change any of
that. As I said the visual which is
the area I focused on for over 20 years.
Psychologists are saying that men's eyes are spaced on average

(38:44):
5 millimetres further apart thanthan females, giving them better
stereoscopic vision. Well that may have been well
adapted to hunting females. 4th colour pigment, allegedly
therein 50% of women, may have been an adaptive mechanism for

(39:04):
Berry picking. Hunter gathering is is what we
were doing apparently for 99% ofhuman history.
But you're not going to change any of that by removing boobs or
other body parts. Yeah, those, those, those
differences will will remain. But going back to Martine
Rothblatt, if I may for a minute, didn't stop at that

(39:27):
book, went on to write another one in 2011.
It termed transgender transhuman.
And this is where we see the waythat trans can be a stepping
stone to the transhuman. And in fact, we can read
explicitly in this book the following statements.

(39:49):
Here's a quote. In Transcending Biology,
technology offers an explosion of sexual identities and human
identities, leading to transhumanism and hybrid human
computer species. So you can see how the trans can

(40:12):
be a stepping stone. Well, quite explicitly,
according to Martine Rufflapp tothe Transhuman, and just to echo
what you were saying, it is anomalous that mental health is
dealt with through physical interventions in the way that
you described, whereas normally mental health is not dealt with

(40:35):
in that way. Today we see reference to gender
affirming care. That's the phrase that's used
and it's thought that by 2032 that this will be worth, it's a
big industry, this will have a value of $1.9 billion.

(40:55):
Let's hope that that projection doesn't come to pass.
And certainly there's a massive rise in the numbers of people
who are experiencing what used to be called gender identity
disorder in the DSM. That's the Bible of mental and
health conditions and is now referred to as gender dysphoria.

(41:19):
The the numbers have skyrocketedfrom figures from the London
Tavistocks Gender Identity Disorder Service back in 2000
and 9/10/77 patients to the figure for 2021 to 2022.
You might those listening want to hazard a guess as to what

(41:43):
that has increased to the 77. It's now it's increased to 3585,
which is an explosion, increasedby over 4000% in that period of

(42:04):
more or less 10 years. So something is happening here,
something's perhaps being pushed, being being given the

(42:25):
imprimatum of how can we put it down normal, it's being
normalised. Oh, absolutely it is.
And, and, and, you know, on the,on the political side of this
with the Supreme Court ruling that we had earlier this year
about the reality of biological sex.
It, it, it, what I, what I have seen happening, just

(42:47):
anecdotally, just watching the news and watching social media
and, and watching the people whoare supporting this is that it's
actually made them a bit stronger about supporting
transgenderism and changing genders.
And because they're very angry at all all of the sides, you
know, which is, and it's interesting, considering that

(43:09):
Keir Starmer is our Prime Minister when this all happened,
that they're even angry at Keir Starmer, the Fabian, who is a
Fabian and all of these other, you know, I think you've, you
were the one who pointed out that half of our cabinet
currently are Fabians potentially.
And that are, you know, around half of all of the Labour MPs
are somehow associated with the Fabians.

(43:31):
But this still happens in the Supreme Court, which, you know,
you have to wonder why is it that obviously the people that
really believe in it or are toldthey have to believe in it
because of their BlackRock ESG scores and their companies or
whatever it is that is making them do this or in the schools.
But they're still even, I think pushing down on this even harder

(43:51):
to make it a reality, even though the country has now the
Supreme Court has now ruled, no,this is not a thing.
But they're, they're making it even more of a thing now.
So it's actually had, I think, backlash rather than relief for
those of us on the side of it tosee how how evil it is.
I think there is, there are signs of change, but the, you

(44:14):
know, NHS is changing some of its practises now, but it's
slow. Yeah.
Anyway, continuing the timeline,because we want to get up to the
present day, I suppose I'd put Aldous Huxley's talk lecture
that he gave at Berkeley in 1962on this timeline myself.

(44:35):
Well worth listening or reading the transcript of the talk he
gave, which he termed the Ultimate Revolution and ACA a
blueprint to Enslave the masses.And what he describes here is

(44:59):
how we can improve on previous revolutions which used violence
and shift in the environment as the main modus operandi
operandi. We can improve on that by
focusing our attention not on the environment around the
individual, but on the individual themselves.
And that's basically the theme of the lecture that Aldous

(45:23):
Huxley, another member of the Fabian Society, gave in 1962.
Just reading directly from what he said, we can contemplate, he
said the ultimate final revolution when man can act
directly on the mind body of fellow man.

(45:46):
And so this is what he sketches.And it's, it's extraordinary
really. What, what, what, what he states
here. Be sure to put the the full text
of that talk in the the write upfor this interview so people can
read the full. Just to give you a few a few
pointers, he states that scientific dictators,

(46:08):
dictatorships of the future willbe closer to the pattern of
Brave New World than 1984 by Georgia.
Well, because it is more efficient, he says You're likely
to have a much more lasting and controlled society than in the
Orwell type society because he'stalking about taking over the

(46:30):
minds of human beings rather than their environments, and
getting people to enjoy their slavery rather than impose the
slavery on people through violence.
You will own nothing and be happy.
Yes, shades of that, I think definitely in this lecture of

(46:54):
Aldous Huxley. So he writes dictators will
become more interested in the type of techniques employed in
Brave New World and this will bethe ultimate revolution,
scientific dictatorship. So he talks about how do you

(47:15):
induce consent, how do you get people to love their servitude?
And I've just noted down 3 aspects that he refers to. 1st
is very interesting Pavlovian conditioning, which we all know
about, you know, Pavlov and the dog.
He so says that the power of, ofconditioning is enhanced by

(47:39):
states of psychological or physical distress or fatigue.
Psychological distress. I I think we had a lot of that
in the years 2020 to 2024, whichmight have enhanced the
Pavlovian conditioning. He talks about the way Hitler

(48:02):
organised a lot of the rallies at night when people were more
tired so that the conditioning had a greater effect.
So that's the first point. The second point he signposts is
suggestion and hypnosis. And of course in in the book
that I wrote with Kathy and Oratich on critical thinking, I

(48:26):
added a section on the television after I realised the
power that it has to put people into hypnotic states.
So actually the television is animmensely powerful tool of
suggestion and hypnosis. But what Walters Huxley states
about hypnosis is fascinating. I think he's he talks about the

(48:49):
fact that 20% of the population are easily suggestible and by
contrast another 20% of the population is it cannot be
easily hypnotised, cannot be hypnotised with ease.
So you have these polar opposites, the suggestible and

(49:10):
those who are not suggestible. Could that mirror in some ways
the continuum that the Gnostics presented us with?
Do you remember that the light workers one end 1% and then the
dark forces the other represented in the same numbers?

(49:30):
Perhaps that's what we're seeingin these 20 percents that Aldous
Huxley is talking about. And he suggests that we can
actually categorise humans according to their
suggestibility. And maybe what the Gnostics said
wasn't really wrong at all, thatwe we should think in terms of a

(49:54):
continuum of counter spirits at one end and light forces at the
other. And the third thing he talks
about is electrodes. Already when he was writing in
1962, UCLA was conducting experiments with rats that had
electrodes implanted into the pleasure centres of their

(50:16):
brains. It's quite funny actually at
this point, because he said thatthe rats were so delighted by
the effects of the electrodes that they could press on a bar
18,000 times a day. But should they should should a
day go by when the the possibility of pressing on the

(50:37):
bar elapsed, then the the day following the rats would press
36,000 days to deliver the pleasure to those centres of the
brain in which the electrodes were placed.
Sounds. Like the rats had an addiction
problem. But then she was talking about

(50:59):
this in 1962, about how best to control the human race.
Is this rather transactional, this whole emphasis on
controlling humans rather than, as you said earlier, Diane,
allowing people to learn in whichever way they'd like?
Well, and you know, we, we saw this as well, you know, Brian

(51:20):
Garish covered this so well in 2020.
And on the, the, the Mindspace document, the, the behavioural
insights team, the Spidey team, all of these agencies that were
working in the background on behalf of the government to
figure out the best ways to control us in 2020 and 2021.

(51:41):
And that's, that's all easily findable online.
It's all there, all of the plansthat they had for the nudge
unit, the behavioural changes and then the media campaign that
followed. And I've presented on this
before. I, I presented on this, on the
Common Knowledge Edinburgh talk that I did at the Scottish
People's COVID Inquiry, showing exactly how this was done based

(52:03):
on examples from the media as well as examples from these
policy documents. It's, it's all, it's all very
much out there. So this was all all planned much
earlier, I think we're seeing before 2020.
And the name of the game is control.
Control of human beings rather than their ability to flourish

(52:25):
in environment that affords themfreedom.
Well, the next thing I have on my chronology is the
establishment of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute,
Miri. Miri in 2005 and leading lights,
if you can call them that, in, in in.

(52:47):
Miri included Ray Kurzweil, a head of engineering at Google
and one of the modern prophets of transhumanism.
He believes that we are partly organic tissue and partly or can
become partly mechanical parts. He foresees would like to see a

(53:08):
merger of biology and technology.
Also on the Advisory Board of Miri is Doctor Nick Bostrom,
Swede who's a philosopher at Oxford University who's written
about personality pills and super intelligent machines.

(53:31):
And would you want this on your CV?
He's Co founded the World Transhumanist Association.
Oh oh, I wonder if that got him promoted.
I don't think I'd want that on mine but anyway and also
connection with Mary is PayPal Co founder Peter Thiel.

(53:52):
That's THIEL. And he's also CEO of data
analytics firm Palantir Technologies, and they have lots
of government contracts. That company in June last year
only he was asked in an interview, this is Peter Thiel,
whether he thought the human race should survive.

(54:17):
And after a long pause, he replied, yes.
But so that Miri was establishedin 2005 and 10 years later, we
have another book popping up. That's by Yuval Harari, who is a

(54:40):
professor and closely associatedwith the WEF.
His book has the striking title Homo Deus Man of God, A Brief
History of Tomorrow. And essentially what he
describes in this book, which you can access free freely

(55:01):
online, is how Homo sapiens has survived starvation, plagues,
wars. And now the next stage beckons.
He says I'll just read you his words without the without the
accent that goes with it. Having having reduced mortality

(55:24):
from starvation, disease and violence, we will now aim to
overcome old age and even death itself.
Having saved people from abject misery, we will now aim to make
them positively happy again. Shades of you will earn nothing
and be happy and having raised humanity above the beastly level

(55:48):
of survival struggles, we will now aim to upgrade humans into
gods and turn Homo sapiens into Homo Deus IE divinity.
He adds that it will be necessary to change our
biochemistry and re engineer ourbodies and minds.
A a small price to pay for the agreat project of the 21st

(56:13):
century to ensure global happiness, which involves re
engineering Homo sapiens so thatit can enjoy everlasting
pleasure. Death.
Just a technical problem that can be overcome.
So what can we say in seeking bliss and immortality?

(56:36):
He's in track, in fact, trying to upgrade Homo sapiens into
gods. Well, what's to say we're not
gods already? And I'll come to that at the
end. What's to say we're not already
gods? What's to say that we don't
already have divine qualities that the control in society has?

(56:57):
I can't. I'm trying to think of the right
verb has diminished, has substantially diminished, has
not allowed allowed to flower. And he talks about the three

(57:20):
paths to the upgrading as if we're computer systems of
humans, biological engineering, Cyborg engineering and the
engineering of non organic beings.
So you can read about that in his book.
We'll talk about right at the end, we'll have a discussion

(57:43):
about is he missing the point here?
Are are we not already divine beings that don't need any of
this upgrading, we just need to have the control pedal relaxed?
This is what I would say anyway.And I would also say that I
think many of his assumptions onwhich he builds his case are

(58:05):
completely wrong. Just to make 3 points this he
suggests that famines and plagues which beleaguered humans
over centuries were all natural.But what's to say that these
were not all engineered events as you might say of current day

(58:25):
plagues and pandemics? He suggests that hammer sapiens
is part of an evolutionary process, but a lot of voices are
debunking evolution. He suggests that human health

(58:47):
could be improved by re engineering humans, but what
about improving human health by not disallowing certain
treatment protocols and by reforming mainstream medicine?
He doesn't consider any of thoseaspects to the presumptions that

(59:08):
he makes. So it's, I would say it's a very
misguided text, but it's an important one to be aware of if
we're trying to understand the transhuman agenda.
Sorry, I think I you wanted to say something, Diane.
No, no, no. That's I was just thinking if I

(59:30):
don't know if you have any more to go past this because it
sounds like we're getting prettyclose to the present day.
So I'm wondering, just watching the time, if we could maybe?
Yeah. Talk a little bit about, you
know, where do we go from here? We're coming.
We're coming very close to the present day.
On my timeline, I've included Klaus Schwab's book The 4th
Industrial Revolution 2017. That's just two years after

(59:53):
Harare's. He talks about the fusion of
biological systems with technical systems to create a
whole new world. Then we've got Elon Musk
neurolink, very similar ideas there in 2018.
We can put we can upload a link to the Provost of Ghent

(01:00:14):
University, Petra Desuter, who you might describe as a trans
person describing Aldous Huxley's book Brave New World as
visionary. That's basically the theme of a
Ted talk that Petra de Suta gavein 2018, how technological

(01:00:40):
reproduction could replace what is described as old fashioned
reproduction. Then we go back to the director
of Hatchery's Brave New World and, and then we go into the
current day where, you know, if you are a couple of the same
sex, then there's technology available to make you a child

(01:01:01):
that you don't even have to havea man and a woman together.
This is the theme. This is the theme of the Ted
talk by Promised of Ghent University.
Petra Desuta even talks about the world of Tetlo technological

(01:01:22):
reproduction in which three or four people could create a child
extraordinary. And we're coming very close to
the present day. 20. I just want to signpost the fact
that the Welcome Trust which is the U KS largest provider of non

(01:01:46):
governmental funding for scientific research.
They're also a publisher of books and two books published
which might, which might, which you might not be aware of.
Which I discovered by by accident one day when I was

(01:02:08):
having coffee in the Welcome Trust centre in the Houston Rd
in London and there was a table stacked stacked with books and I
took a look. Here are two of the titles on
that table. 2021 After the Storm, Post Natal Depression and
the Utter Weirdness of New Motherhood by Emma Unsworth.

(01:02:31):
This book. I went back the next day to take
a close look at these books. This book refers to the quotes
alienation, desperation and exhaustion after birth.
Some people say it's a joyous, it's a joyous time after that.
I mean, I had a caesarean after I gave birth to my son.

(01:02:52):
It, it was painful, but I, you know, very, very joyous time.
Then another book on this pile was published 2023, just two
years back, the title Eve the Disobedient Future of birth.
Yep, you heard that right Eve, The Disobedient Future of Birth

(01:03:13):
by Claire Horne. They obviously like this book at
the Welcome Trust Centre becauseit was on the doors in the
women's toilets. Just to give you a a very quick
sense of this book, Chapter 6 entitled The Tyranny of Biology.

(01:03:35):
The real tyranny is our inability, she says, to
relinquish archaic ideas of sex and gender.
She says that the view that there are only two sexes is so
entrenched. Well, it's biologically correct

(01:03:55):
and on page 179 states that the idea that artificial wombs could
be used to address gendered inequity in reproductive labour
is compelling. So this chimes with the raptures
belief that Brave New World is visionary, that we need to move

(01:04:17):
to a world of technical reproduction and have it old
fashioned. The Handmaid's Tale as well
right where you have the you have the handmaid stepping in as
I don't know if you know the Handmaid's Tale.
We have the handmaid's stepping in because the the wealthy wives
that are married to the the commanding husbands where mostly

(01:04:39):
because of what had happened in the world, were infertile.
So these handmaids, who were thewomen identified as still being
able to have children, were literal stand in surrogates for
the wives, and then they gave the baby up once they gave
birth. To the child.
So there's a genre of books, it seems, yes, absolutely.

(01:05:02):
That that nature or the light source hasn't done a good enough
job, right? Well, let's.
Let's move on to that a bit. Before we get to the positive,
Yeah, just only if I could. Just last year, a prime mover
and shaker in the world of artificial intelligence, Sir

(01:05:23):
Geoffrey Hinton, British Board British Education, went over to
Canada, I believe, received the Nobel Prize last year for
physics. And in his exception speech last
year, he spoke of the need for forceful attention from

(01:05:43):
governments and international organisations towards research
on how to prevent these new beings from wanting to take
control. Which takes us back to
Frankenstein, which is exactly what happens to the being
created by Frankenstein. That takes control.

(01:06:04):
And in fact, Hinton, not only did he speak out last year, but
in 2023, he resigned from Google, citing concerns about
the risks of AI technology, including the potential for
advanced AI systems to develop goals that are not aligned with

(01:06:24):
human values. So he's a courageous man and a
man who's prepared to put his life work to one side.
How many people can we think of who are like that?
And well, we've asked the question, is this counter

(01:06:44):
natural? What we're seeing this whole
transhumanist agenda, is it is it something we can associate
with the work of the Archons whowant to interfere with the
rather wonderful creation of thelight source according to the
Gnostics? Is this further, is this

(01:07:06):
transhumanist agenda that that'sbeing played out with a lot of
money behind it? Is it a continuation of the
Archons work and an attack on the work of the light source?
Shall I just end with some some rather interesting thoughts from
Alex Collier in America? And then maybe we've still got

(01:07:28):
time to discuss this Alex Collier.
Many of you might know his work.If not, you can find it on on
the Internet. He claims to be an an Andromedan
contactee and over many decades I should add, and I-1 in one of

(01:07:50):
the interviews, this is what you'll hear him say.
So I'm quitting his thoughts here.
Natural humans are a race. He says that is genetic royalty.
And he says that on the basis ofpresuming that human DNA has
links with 21 star systems and is made up from genetic material

(01:08:15):
from 22 different races. And he says that this genetic
make up, what he calls genetic royalty, gives humans higher
dimensional souls that give themaccess to not just the third
dimension that many of us live in, but the 4th, the 5th, the

(01:08:37):
9th, the 11th. And while this may sound the
stuff of fancy, I've heard him talk also about Project
Blueberry Blue Brain, which is based in Switzerland and which
is actually found parts of the brain that can link to all these

(01:08:59):
other dimensions. And in linking to these
dimensions, this is what Alex Collier says our thoughts
transmit to all those dimensionsacross the universe.
Absolutely extraordinary stuff. And, and this leads Alex Collier
to state that there is actually no limit to what natural humans,

(01:09:19):
humans can accomplish. There are no bounds.
There are no limits to what we can accomplish, whether
spiritually or genetically, because of our make up.
And he goes on to say once you capture a soul in a mind matrix,
the soul is captured everywhere in all dimensions.

(01:09:44):
And so conceivably this transhumanist agenda in
capturing human and souls will also be having an effect across
all dimensions in the universe. And and so what's happening now

(01:10:04):
is potentially extremely, extremely serious, not just for
life on Earth, but on life formsacross the universe.
He he he he goes on to say that the universe is always going
through resets and there's a natural reset is coming in 20-30
and that the dark forces want tostop this by imposing their own

(01:10:29):
reset, which could be the transhumanist agenda to destroy
the human could also. Be the Agenda 20-30 that we all
know about. Exactly.
And so I suppose the message from Alex Collier is that we are
already royal, if you can use that term, with genetic royalty.

(01:10:49):
We don't need to be tampered with, we just need to have.
Well, this would be my opinion anyway.
We just need to have the foot taken off the control pedal.
Very interesting and I guess that's a positive way to end
what has been a very, a very distressing conversation, but

(01:11:12):
also very necessary. This is very important
information to get out to the world.
I guess to add from my perspective again, once again,
it is not UK columns policy as an organisation to condone or
support or prescribe any sort ofmedical treatment or healing
treatment to to anyone. But I will say on a, on a

(01:11:35):
personal note that I'm a Reiki master teacher and have started,
I've been on this path for several years.
And one of the things that goes along with what Brian Garris
talks about all the time is thatwe are in a spiritual war.
And Brian doesn't necessarily name them the way you have just
done with the, the previous, thebackground research that you've

(01:11:57):
done, but that there is definitely a light and a dark
and that to, to win this battle that we're in and we can call it
whatever we want to that ultimately it's, it is light and
dark and we have to have the light to, to, to face the dark.
And I would say that in my work as a light worker, which is what

(01:12:19):
a Reiki, A Reiki practitioner is, or I'm in case I'm, I'm a
teacher as well, that we, we canchannel that energy, we bring it
down to where it is needed. And I have seen myself first
hand positive effects in a rangeof ways in my practise over the

(01:12:40):
years. And whether or not you want to
believe in this, whether or not you want to see it somewhere
else or call it something else, maybe some people call it
they're following Christianity, following Jesus as a light
worker, whatever it is that thatwe believe that there is
definitely something out there that when we look at this and

(01:13:00):
what can we do to fight it? Well, what we have to do is in
whatever way, and I say this allthe time to the audience,
whatever way that we find that is the most effective for us as
individuals. You don't have to become a Reiki
master teacher to fight it. You can just maybe have a laugh
a little bit more, you know, remember to connect with people,
have a good time, find joy, go out in nature, look at the

(01:13:24):
trees, go to the beach. Whatever it is that brings you
joy and happiness and makes you smile is one of the best things
that we can all do individually and it's one of the most
pleasurable and and and happiestways that we can do it.
And we all know that the people on the other side of this hate
laughter and happiness. And I am sometimes criticised

(01:13:46):
for trying to bring laughter onto UK column that some people
like it. Some people think they just want
to hear the hardcore news. But the only way that we can
fight this is through light and laughter and joy and love and
connection and all of this humanelements that they are trying to
take away from us by trying to make us into computers or
whatever it is that they're trying to do.
So I just want to say to the audience today with us

(01:14:10):
distressing information, what can you do?
Go out, enjoy yourselves, be happy, give someone a hug.
Whatever it is that that brings light into the world is going to
be the way that we can all fightback to, to fight this.
So thank you again, Gloria, for your time.
I always ask at the end of everyinterview, is there anything
else that you want to add that we haven't discussed already?

(01:14:34):
I would like to add that actually leadership and the
quality of leadership that we have both in organisations, in
governments and in our personal lives, the way we treat other
people, that can be completely transformative and it's what I

(01:14:54):
found through the research. I did mention it again,
inclusive leadership, that when you have the opposite of
transactional leadership, which is transformational in
combination with servant leadership, you create a world,
you create a powerhouse of productivity, zest for life,

(01:15:15):
motivation and mental well being.
And some of the competences thatplay out in that are empathy.
So if we can use that in our dayto day lives, in the
interactions we have, that will make an enormous difference.
Listening to people, listening in a in an active sense, acting

(01:15:37):
on what you hear, giving people confidence, taking an interest
in other people. These are just some of the
competences in this miraculous form of leadership that some, a
few wonderful organisations are already using it.
If we have this instead of the toxic rather the toxic

(01:15:59):
transactional top down leadership, then we can bring a
new world into being relatively easily.
Thank you very much for that, Gloria.
Unfortunately, we're at the end of our time today and I know
we've gone on a bit longer, but this is so important.
I think it was, it was good thatwe had this, this in depth
conversation. Everything that we've referred

(01:16:20):
to today in this conversation, plus probably some additional
resources will be available in the write up that I will do
following this interview, which you can find on ukcolumn.org.
If you are listening to this on another place such as YouTube or
Spotify or wherever you catch our interviews.
Again, thank you Gloria for yourtime.
These three parts to this interview series that we've done

(01:16:43):
with me and you and Ben Rubin have been fantastic.
I want to thank you again for all of your hard research and
your time and your written contributions to UK column as
well. So to the audience, thank you
for your patience and for your time listening to all of us
today. I hope it inspires you to do
something. And I hope everyone has a
wonderful day. And I truly mean that.

(01:17:04):
And by doing so, you will, you will fight the evil forces that
are coming after us. So thank you again, Gloria.
Thank you.