Welcome to the Last American Vagabond. Joining me
today in studio for what? The I think
the 3rd no. I guess, 2nd, not counting
pirate stream, 2nd person in live in the
new Steelab studio. Joining me, Derek Brose here
to talk about any number of things. We're
both gonna be attending the Bitcoin conference coming
up, well, I guess, starting today over the
next so many days. And, we just wanted
to connect in person. You know? We're we're
here. We're real. We're together. And, you know,
talk about his recent work and just see
what else we get into. So how are
you, brother? What's going on? I'm doing great,
man. Just Just happy to be here and
glad to connect again in person. Yeah. And
you're right. We we actually connected the, the
the,
what? I wanna say conference. The rally, I
we put together in Franklin. Yeah. That was
a good bit. Of COVID 1984 crash. Right.
Bucking the system, marching down the street. Now
that was I like that. Actually, that was
fun. What I liked about that actually since
we bring it up was the overlap of,
like as much as there is obviously a
lot of overlap in our audiences. Mhmm. Like,
having, like, you know, supporters that are there
to support TLAB and supporters there for conscious
resistance and kind of Yeah. Having them together
and see that unification and, you know, that
was a fun event, man. I like that.
That was a good time. Yes. And we
both performed music there. Right? That was yeah.
That was another good part of it. Happy
to be back here, man. It's beautiful out
here. Yeah. Oh, man. That's the one thing
about being here in Tennessee. It's something
I mean, coming from, you know, especially living
in California, the place. It's not even politically.
Just the the climate. There's something real special
about this place. Right? Absolutely. Yeah. I love
the I love it.
Well, so let's get into any number of
things we're gonna talk about today. I mean,
we're talking about the few the summit of
the future, I think we wanna start with.
Right? And what's that is and, you know,
where what that's why that's important. So for
those who haven't read your work on that,
I think, 2 now discussing it, let people
know what that is, and we'll get into
it. Sure. Yeah. So, actually, I was looking
back
at all of my articles for TLav. So
for those who don't know, we started writing
together, collaborating in May 2020,
and I started writing about the summit of
the future in 2022.
What just 1 or 2 mentions, not really
going into depth as I have recently,
But those were just sort of previewing of
they're discussing something in the future called the
summit of the future, and there's a whole
history that goes back to 2020,
2022.
Secretary general of the UN, Antonio Guterres, has
been saying we're falling short of the,
sustainable development goals, the 2030 agenda, and we
need to come up with new financial mechanisms
to fund this green revolution,
this transition towards
all the different things they wanna do under
the SGD,
model.
And, so that has just gone on and
on from white paper to online event leading
to
last year's, sustainable development,
summit, and then that led to this year's
summit of the future. And in one way,
it's just a continuation of these ongoing
globalist, internationalist meetings where they get to get
and really technocratic, where they get together and
they start talking about what way which way
they think the world should go and how
to address these crises that many of us
might argue aren't necessarily even crises themselves, what
they claim. Right?
But, nevertheless so they're gathering together, and this
year, it's gonna be called the summit of
the future. It's happening during the UN's annual
general assembly, so, like, a week long meeting
of UN officials getting together and discussing all
kinds of things. Mainly climate change, obviously, is
gonna be big topic of the whole thing.
But for these first couple of days or
these these two days, I think it's the
22nd
and 23rd, New York City, they're hosting the
summit of the future. And,
typically, I would say, okay. It's just another
UN meeting. Maybe not anything of major importance.
But
the hype around this thing, particularly in UN
circles, it really as I write in my
latest article, it hasn't really broken out to,
like, the mainstream so much. There's some in
the independent media, mainly myself and a couple
others, talking about this,
and warning that we think it's gonna be
something major because they're talking about signing the
pact for the future. Mhmm. And then as
part of that, they're talking about declaring a
planetary emergency. And each of these things have
implications just like
the the big, you know, concern and recent
awareness of the World Health Organization pandemic treaty,
pandemic alliance,
pandemic agreement, where so many people have been
concerned with that over the last year and
a half or so,
rightfully so. Well, this is equally important, I
think, for us to get some awareness around.
And so I've been trying to write these
articles. But mainly, as you mentioned, the last
couple months, I've been writing more and more
about it. And this latest piece is kind
of why you should give a crap about
this because,
it is starting to pop up in more
areas outside of just the, you know, UN
academic
circles, which, yeah, they're having their meetings. They're
having their online discussions,
and they really are planning on getting all
of the member states to sign this new
document. They're talking about creating UN 2 point
o, redesigning the multilateral system.
And, this I think the most worrisome aspect
is this planetary emergency, and this calls for
creating an emergency platform, and we can get
into all that. Yeah. Well, I mean, so
we we first, what what's the pact of
the the so we have the summit of
the future and then the pact of the
future. So just what what's the difference there
for people that don't know? So the summit
is the actual event that they're gonna be
gathering. That's what they're calling their, you know,
like, their gathering, which they're saying is a
once in a lifetime similar to, like, great
reset language. You know? This is a once
in a lifetime opportunity for us to, remake
and redo the UN system because we need
to give it in in their own words,
as I quote in my my my article
that some of these UN officials and, advocates
for this
pact for the future are we need to
give the UN more power. Mhmm. We need
to give the UN more power to address
the and they're mimicking the WF language, the
poly crisis. Right. This sort of idea that
we're facing, which I think is true on
some level. Like, a lot of things, you
know, we've talked about this before before.
They point out
actual problems in some areas. Now some, we
we would definitely debate on who's the source
of the problems. Mhmm. But they point out
actual problems. It's just that their solutions
are this top down technocratic force it on
people, how much you can drive, how much
you can eat, what goes on your plate
Right. Off, you can wash your clothes, stuff
like we've seen the plans and the discussions
of the future.
And so that's the problem is it's this
top down. It's not about
how we could address maybe some real crises
and do it in a way that does
still respect people's freedom of choice and, you
know, all the bodily autonomy and all that
stuff. What's really interesting about what you just
pointed out is is that we always see
this. Right? We see the
essentially, like, we we made this point about
the word sustainable and all these different games
they've played where you frame something,
in many cases, is a genuine issue. And
then you get this weird partisan dynamic where
Yeah. Rightly so, they're they're sensing
some dishonesty there, so they push back on
it. But instead of trying to find the
other possible solutions, they act like it doesn't
exist. Right? So, clearly, there is a problem
with most of the things they're highlighting. They're
just trying to direct you in a in
a way that, you know and whether, again,
the problem was created by them or not,
which in most cases, it is, direct you
in a way that benefits their agenda. And
so instead of you know? So there are
people that try to find other solutions and
they point to that, and then certain parts
of the partisanship will act like you're then
going in their direction. Sure. You know? And
so it it's just this constant dynamic, which,
again, is a constant one of the things
that I'm looking forward to the conversation we're
gonna have about the way that the partisanship
is used as a lot of us point
out. But as right now, it seems more
dangerous than ever as people kinda getting pulled
back into it. No. Absolutely. And, like, the
UN aspect of this, the great reset and
all these overlapping points,
you know, right now, what I'm seeing is
the the right side of it sort of
being pulled in. Now you've got all of
these sides driving the same thing. And so
this points to this problem is, you know,
the poly crisis and these different arguments
are,
you know, taking climate change, for example. Yeah.
I mean, obviously, I think there are clear
examples of how we're destroying this planet, largely
the people that are pretending that we are
doing it. Yeah. But, you know, driving you
in a way that makes nothing happen or
only what they want. Right? Which the greater
reset is a good example of actual choices
we could make, right, that would solve those
problems.
So in in in the regard to the
pact of the future, so this is
the agreement. This is what they're writing down,
the we are gonna do going forward. Exactly.
They're trying to get all
19293
member states of the United Nations to sign
on this document, which as I've written in
my previous article and I mentioned in this
new one that they've already released the zero
draft version of this. They did so, I
think, in March or April.
And so I've read through that, and I've
quoted a few different places where they they
talk of, like, an international environmental court that
could,
not only go after individuals, corporations, but individuals
in some cases.
Now there's you know, this all it's all
just draft version right now, so none of
that's in the final version, but it's showing
where they're thinking, what they're talking about. And
it does mention this emergency platform. So this
is one of the things that I'm concerned
about. So, again, the Summit of the Futures,
the meeting that's gonna happen, the 22nd, 23rd,
New York City, the agreement that they are
discussing and likely, it seems all but likely
at this point, they're gonna sign it, some
version of it,
in New York City called the pack for
the future, which is, like,
dozens to a 100 plus pages depending on
the final version of it. And it discusses
things like I mentioned, a criminal court for
environment.
It also mentions the creation of an emergency
platform Mhmm. That could be initiated
in the case of
a crisis. And I I have the language
of something like something that rises to impact
multiple regions of the world. Something very kind
of vague that could be easily exploited and
and taken to,
you know, any any you could name any
number of things that you could say, okay.
Well, this is affecting multiple regions, so let's
initiate that emergency. Seems like damn near everything
happened this day frame that night. And especially
because what they're discussing as, crises, they you
definitely mentioned climate change. They mentioned
war,
famine,
pandemics, of course Mhmm. And,
economic turmoil, things like that that they could
that could be classified as,
as an emergency,
and then these emergency platforms could be brought
about. And, again, a lot of the discussion,
predict particularly around I mentioned,
Jeffrey Sachs. Now Mhmm. I don't know if
you did you ever interview him or do
you know? No. No. But it's an interesting
overlap because he made sure you saw him
talk about US foreign policy. That's how I
heard about him. So for those who don't
know, he is he was, the chair of
The Lancet, the,
medical journals,
COVID 19 Commission, and he was talking about
gaining function research. He was talking about potential
lab leak theory. And and and I remember
seeing his name out there because
he did seem to be making some points,
and it's like, oh, okay. Look at this
guy. He's in this position. He's saying some
good things. And as I mentioned in the
article, he was also on, like, Jimmy Dore,
Russell Brand, other places. Well, he wrote this
new op ed that's on his web his
website, you know, his blog or whatever.
Pretty much just all in on advocating for
the summit of the future Mhmm. And for
the pack for the future and,
saying that it's necessary.
And as I mentioned in the article, he's
he in addition to being,
you know, with The Lancet in that position,
he's worked for the UN in a number
number of different ways, number of different positions,
advising,
the current u, UN secretary general and the
previous
secretary general, Ban Ki Moon. And he comes
from Columbia University,
which is the origin the the university origin
of the Technocracy Movement back to the 19
thirties. So that's just, like, another interesting connection.
Because what they're advocating here for is with
just like with the greater the great reset
is an a technocratic
kind of ideal
of micromanaging
society based on crises that they're claiming are
happening
and that they have they're gonna come together
and
all these nation states that allegedly are representing
us. I mean, no. Most people have no
idea what's even going on. Right. But they're
allegedly representing us and
gonna sign some new document that will give
us UN 2 point o and sign this
pact for the future, potentially giving them these
powers they're giving themselves to declare an emergency
at some point. And the main call is
what they're calling a planetary emergency. Mhmm. And,
that does relate particularly to to climate change.
They talk about,
water,
sustainability, water issues, and,
deforestation, different things, again, sometimes pointing at real
problems Mhmm. But misdirecting, I think you you
touched on it earlier, and it is, I
think, accurate in most cases, unfortunately, that the
same people creating the problems are then
presenting these solutions that or, you know, alleged
solutions that they want us to go towards
when they're the people who created the problem
in the first place. Well, let's so talking
about Jeffrey Sachs in general, and this is
an interesting overlap, right? Is that so clearly.
I mean, it it's hard. It's it's it
could very well be that this is a
person that's out there presenting other good ideas
in the interest of kind of tricking you
into this other direction, you know, which is
always something we should ask. But what do
you think about that? Because it's it's interesting.
I can see people with good intentions Sure.
Falling into this and and thinking that this
is what we like, especially right now with
what we're watching in regard to the way
the US government is operating unilaterally, you know,
act you know, and Israel. And and so
now you got this push from people who
might and I'm not saying I think this.
I'm just putting it as an objective
possibility, coming out
and thinking that the more globalist direction would
be the way to stop something like that.
Maybe that's exactly why that's happening. Right? And
so you've got these people that would step
into this. Like, my point is so he'll
come out and as I think we've talked
about, and he's made some amazingly clear points
about
US belligerent US foreign policy, what they actually
have been doing, what they're doing today, you
know, what he knows what they're like, and
they're lying about Israel. They're lying about Syria.
You know, it's it's and that's why, like,
Jimmy Doris talked to him. It's hard, you
know, to you see that, you go, yes.
And the point should be either way. That's
the right thing to point out even if
he's doing it for different reasons. But so
then the question is,
what do you think the likelihood is that
this is something he he really thinks might
be solving one of these problems, but he's
being fooled into it like any many other
people, like, in a maybe just a broad
sense too. How often you think it's happening?
I I don't wanna claim to, you know,
know his inner motivations or anything like that,
but I think all those possibilities you mentioned
are are possibilities. Like, for sure, there are
a lot of brilliant people
who, well, can be really brilliant and have
a great analysis in some areas or multiple
areas or maybe a single area and be
really off base in a completely so that's
possible that all as humans, we all have
blind spots and maybe aren't as well researched
in some areas we'd like to be, but
have strong opinions and things like that. So
that's always a possibility because I think sometimes
we might,
jump to or some people online might jump
to
conspiracy
really right away if this person must be
this or that. And I wasn't intending necessarily
to imply that in the article, just quoting
like, hey. This is what he's calling for
though. Like, again, he said these things about
COVID and other areas, but,
he definitely is advocating
for the system, and it could be it
would be something good to for somebody who
interviews him. Maybe I'll get to interview him
at some point, to ask him like, hey.
You know, you're really great in this particular
topics, but what do you think about this
view of the things you're advocating for the
UN?
Like, it's I quoted him in the article.
He says, quote, on the goal of reforming
the UN system, the
key is to give more power to UN
institutions and to make them more representative. He
you know, that's the goal. Right? And he's
also calling for new financial instruments to fund,
like, attack new
instruments to fund, like attack new system of
international taxes on CO2 emissions, shipping, aviation, financial
transactions.
A point would be, for example, there are
people that I believe have good intentions that
are completely snowed by the idea of the
climate change narrative. Right? Of course. And so
what my what I mean saying all that,
like, I if I had to bet, I
I would kinda think that might be what's
happening there. Right? So I'm and I'm not
suggesting that either of us would know or
that I but I think what's important to
think about is it's almost like and something
that you always kinda really chop away at,
the kind of the base problem is the
the reverence towards authority in general. Like, we're
supposed to instead of solving these problems in
a way that are individual or, you know,
you know, the whole point is a lot
of these people end up feeling that it
has to be a centralized solution. Otherwise, it
won't be possible. I think so. And and
so you they always so this is how
do we defeat a problem like that? You
know, where you have people that, hypothetically, are
good intentioned
and end up always seemingly falling into some
level of centralized authority that needs to solve
that problem? You know, how do you get
around that? You know, for me so this
is I think that's a great question. So
I think part of it for me is
why I do
I consider myself a journalist in one particular
area of my life, writing, reporting about things
like this, but then also on the activist
front, somebody who wants to organize something like
the people's reset, the greater reset, or go
out and pass out flyers or, you know,
do the activation tour we did during COVID.
Because to me, it's like, that's how I'm
gonna reach people. I need to, like, educate
people and maybe consider people to think, get
them to consider that maybe they can run
their own lives and they don't need somebody
telling them how to,
run their life and just promoting just literally
planting that seed in people's minds. So I
I kinda consider, like, it really being, at
least for me, a 2 part
kind of battle here. One part is education
waking people up, reporting
facts, getting people to consider ideas and things
of that, And then also the sort of,
I guess, activist push for planting the seed
of liberty and, you know, people
self ownership and and these sort of ideas
in different ways, whether that, you know, for
me is personally doing speeches and writing books
and that kind of thing. I feel like
those are both important, right? Like, waking people
up to the facts of the world, but
then also,
you know, some people will then go from
there to thinking, and I don't really get
it at this point. If we truly understand,
like, the role of intelligence agencies,
the mafia, like, the various false flags that
are documented in so many
different ways, and then thinking that this system
is somehow gonna let us win through voting.
It just Yeah. For me, personally, it's kinda
mind blowing. Yep.
But, of course, that doesn't mean things are
hopeless, you know, but Right. Anyways.
No. I mean, I think that's important. It
always comes back to that, doesn't it? It's
just funny. Like and not that we were
even planning to get into the conversation of
voting, but it's like it it's it's an
it's this hurdle that we can't seem to
get beyond. Like, I I honestly think at
this point, it came out and utterly which,
frankly, I think that's already happened, but utterly
proved proven with documents and statements that it's
like your vote literally has no effect on
the outcome. Like, actually, I think represent dot
us, they put that Princeton study where they
were statistically insignificant, 0 you know, but at
the end of the day, even if that
happened, people would still go, okay. Well, even
though I know it has no effect, I'm
gonna do it because what else are we
gonna do? That's the kind of response we
always get. No. It's It's just this hurdle
that we cannot ever get passed. I you
know, same thing when it comes to local
voting. There's you know, do what you think
makes the most of has the most effect.
But, you know, we need to battle this
problem of thinking that at some level, we
have to appeal to the people telling us
they're gonna solve our problems. Otherwise, it will
never actually happen. You know? And it it's
it's I think your work does a great
job really showing people that there is another
direction opting out and and taking different you
know, there are other ways to go, and
I think that's super important. I wanna preempt
the comments that are incoming after you mentioned
that is that, you know, some people will
hear that and then take take that to
mean, oh, so you've just given up. Exactly.
So you because I've been hearing this a
lot. I mean, we we this is one
of the things we have, an upcoming discussion
with a great group of friends in a
couple of weeks here because of and, you
know, we don't have to get all into
the whole thing. But because of post this
assassination attempt, whatever it is, there's just even
more
status hysteria
on all fronts. And then with the recent
drama of going on with Biden and Harris,
just all of the it's like so it's
grabbing everything, everybody's attention, sucking all the, air
out of the room, which which I think
is done on purpose during these times. Right.
And, you know, you could say it's to
distract us from other stories. I mean, that
does happen. That's not always the case, but
it does happen. But, absolutely, it's meant to
keep people's focus, and trained. And I think
that's both, like, a sort of mental awareness,
but also even on a spiritual front of,
like, keeping us just entrapped into that system.
So,
I say all that to say, choosing to
not to participate in that system after knowing
all the craziness is not choosing to give
up. Maybe for some people, there is, like,
an apathy, but that's not what I personally
advocate. Oh, I mean,
I like to say that
I I vote with my actions every day,
you know, and that's that that is the
sort of idea that many of us are
familiar with of voting with your dollar, right,
of, like, the kind of corporations and businesses
you support, supporting local businesses over others.
Whatever. Support people with values that you have
if you'd like to do those sort of
things.
Yeah, that idea, but also a number of
other ways where you just check choosing to
not participate in different systems. So it doesn't
mean that you're not that you've checked out
of society and you don't care and you're
just or people will say, oh, you're just,
want everything to crash. I've heard that a
lot. And then what I'm saying is post
Trump assassination and this hysteria
of me proposing that, hey, maybe you don't
need to vote for these people. Maybe you
don't need to settle for Trump based on
what we've already seen and what we're hearing
now of who he might work with, etcetera,
etcetera.
And for some people, their first thought was
like, so you just don't care anymore. You've
just given up. But that's the opposite of,
you know, so I just wanted to make
that clear because there will be people who
jump straight to that. They think
that just not voting is and, again, to
me, this is part of the programming.
Thinking of that, like, that we're in our
beautiful minds and all the realities of human
beings, everything that we we can think of
and dream up, the idea that if you
don't vote, that's it. There's just nothing else.
There's nothing else there to do. It's either
we're gonna be violent. We're gonna go storm
the capital. We're gonna throw, Molotov cocktails, we're
gonna, you know, riot or whatever. That's how
we're gonna have our revolution,
or we're gonna vote our way out of
this, or we're just gonna be apathetic. And
that's what we've kind of most people, I
think, considered the various options somewhere in that,
you know, shades of those things. Yeah.
Well, they they just highlights the same circle
of problem. It it comes back to the
idea that it's, you know, that yeah. So
the idea of what we're saying being framed
as
giving up simply means that the only like,
you you just said it. The only thing
that would matter is the vote then. Yeah.
Like, you know and and this is what's
so infuriating about it is that there's obviously,
I think, a verifiable reality that the actions
that have more effect in every possible way
Absolutely. That we do every single day. You
know? And I think that most of the
people that are in that position, there's plenty
of people that are just like, I don't
care. That exists. Yeah. But most people that
are saying, recognize voting has no effect, are
not then going, I give up. It's, in
fact, much, much more around that, and I
think that's self evident. You know? So that's
people that are just,
like, in they do not want to acknowledge
that they don't have that influence. And I
think that just terrifies them. It's a little
bit of cognitive dissonance. I definitely think people
are it's, like, for some people, it feels
like like because I'll hear this from people.
Okay. Yes. I hear you. Yes. The system
is that corrupted. Yes. These things are going
on, but I gotta do something. And okay.
You know, this is one thing. If you
feel like voting serves you in some way,
go there, go get your sticker, press the
button, do the thing that you gotta do,
and, I hope your team wins. Hopefully, it's
good for everybody. Right? Whatever the story line
is.
But I truly mean that. And now I
think it's worth way more of your time
on the local level if you are a
voting person to get involved. You know, we've
talked about this before. I ran for mayor
a couple of times, not with really any
intention that I was gonna get in the
office, but it opened up doors to get
on the radio, get on local TV, talk
about surveillance, talk about privacy, talk about the
issues that I care about, and,
advance these things on the local level in
the area that I live in. You know?
So
if it's if that's something you think is
important, if you wanna vote for somebody on
the school board, then do those things. But
also at the same time, or even if
you are gonna vote from the presidential election,
do these different kinds of things. I mean,
imagine if we're, what, like, 90 days away
from the election, maybe a little more than
that. If you decided to start growing your
own food today or, you know, just learning
new skills. Like, there's so many other ways
that you can again vote with your actions
that in that time, again, plan to vote.
Go vote on election day. But between now
and then, try these other things. You know,
explore options outside of big tech. Like, start
thinking about getting off these different systems that
we know are gonna lead to the,
4th industrial revolution, great reset,
you will own nothing, be happy world that
they're trying to create, you know, and this
and it's not that I don't think we
can potentially
delay that, prevent it. But in the case
that we can't, if you're still on these
old legacy systems, you're going to get pulled
into that reality. So with the with the
ideas then, don't just vote and wait and
trust that a politician is gonna fix, especially
in the case of Trump where we can
see who he's connected to. Right. Instead,
okay, if you wanna do that, but also
put your energy into what you can actually
do in your own community, in your own
area. So, I mean, that's essentially the message
is is actually far from giving up, and
it's actually a lot more work than just
pressing a button and voting. More responsibility. Exactly.
And and for those that are specifically looking
for, like, you know, other than voting to
make it a political change, then, you know,
do what whatever. Go out and protest. Go
speak to your congresspeople if you think that
makes a difference. You know, there's a lot
of other things that, like, even objectively in
regard to the vote itself within the context
of what you see, actually have more of
a difference on the outcome in my opinion.
You know? But so to bring this back
to the point, so, you know, to what
we were talking about, that you were talking
about the planetary emergency. Yep. Right? And where
this is you know, the idea of creating
you know, identifying the poly crisis. And this
obviously overlaps with the the cyber polygon and
the cyber pandemic and the same things they're
pushing. That could be the crisis itself. Right.
Right. And so, we're talking about the planetary
emergency
declaration and to kind of overlap that at
this point is what I see happening everywhere
is that so that obviously, I think, is
more effective against the left. Right? The idea
that we're dealing with the climate change problem
and all the pandemics and and so we
have to act. Right? So, you've got a
lot of the left that think that are
almost, like, sleepwalking away okay with a lot
of that stuff. Yeah. And then on the
right, this is where I see this push
happening now to aggressively get them on board
from the other side of it, right, for
whether it's digital IDs or, you know, whatever
it is, but through the idea of, like,
stopping illegal immigration. Or Right. That's absolutely part
of it. So give me your thoughts on
how that works in regard to
declaring a planetary emergency. Right? Because right now,
I think if you did that based on
just the previous discussions,
the right would largely push back. Right? Because
they're very resistant, rightly so, to the UN
and, you know, unless it happens to be
interest of, you know, the political paradigm. So
how do you see that going and talk
about that planetary emergency point? Sure. Sure. So
that's a great point you make there. Like,
the,
just broadly speaking, the left the left has
mostly bought the COVID
operation, not all of them, of course. There's
leftist against lockdowns, things like that. Let me
say real really quickly. I the way I
look at it is you've got the, you
know, the
Democrats and Republicans. That's the 2 party illusion,
team sport politics, maniac. Then you've got liberals
and conservatives that are a little bit more
open, you know, and then you got people
that are away. Yeah. Exactly. So some folks
in there that would probably be more left
than right Mhmm. Fell for and have continued
to fall for the COVID operation and, a
lot of different things. And, yes, are more
likely to believe the United Nations and trust
these sort of,
severity of the claims of climb man made
climate change and things like that,
where the right is more, broadly speaking again,
more likely to question those things. But I
do think, and this is just as one
example, the fact that we're seeing Peter Thiel
and around the Trump campaign,
and, of course, all of his connections
And,
Zuckerberg, you know, basically getting behind Trump and
Musk getting behind Trump. We're seeing big tech
get behind Trump, and those are those are
the technocrats, you know, and and our day
and age.
And, the world that Elon wants to create
that we pointed out is very much very
similar to the 4th industrial revolution that Klaus
Schwab calls to, including transhumanism
and brain chips and But the good version.
Yeah. The good version. All kind of stuff
like that. Right? So that is like you
were saying. I think that's another way that
many of the right will be be the
Trump supporting right will be deceived into supporting
some of these very same agendas
that, okay, maybe they're gonna question the climate
change aspect of it and the way that
the narrative comes in that front, but that'll
get some of those people who are maybe
more left leaning. But then the folks on
the right and also through what you were
just saying, maybe calls for, as Trump has
said in the past and as, Whitney Webb
has reported, like, calling for,
not only digital identities, but facial recognition systems,
and Mhmm. I've written about the digital, border
wall and stuff like that to fight this
illegal immigration that everybody knows has become a
problem, and it could be this problem reaction
solution situation as we've seen before. But there'll
be people who support that or who at
least make excuses for it because Trump's doing
it and because, well, we gotta start immigration
in some way. And, well, if we get
digital IDs, it will make it there won't
be any more voter fraud and there won't
we could trust elections finally. And Right. You
know? And if we have facial recognition cameras
everywhere, everybody you know, just they'll sell it
in different ways. That's the major point is
these people behind the scenes, really, you know,
what I often refer to as the predator
predator class, will manipulate both
all these different groups in whatever ways they
believe they can. Right. And it's always framed
as that, like and it could literally be
digital ID, and they'll say, well, you know,
like, the end point where it's, like, just
about to happen, you'll end up getting the
kinda narrative that's, like, well, at least Trump's
the one doing it because he'll make sure
we're doing the right way. Like 15 minute
cities, Trump's talked about freedom cities. Right.
Exactly.
I've seen that that's literally a thing. He's
talked about, yeah, we're gonna build these beautiful
freedom cities, and I could just imagine that
becoming this 5g
smart city Right. You know, 15 minute city,
whatever. Or or the Elon overlap you already
pointed out that suddenly it's the good AI,
you know, because because it's you know, he's
the one doing it. And so they just
sleepwalk into it because they've convinced themselves that
he wouldn't do that. You know, it's very
childlike
mindset. Well It's terrifying. To tie it back
into the sum of the future, one of
the ways I think this this is all
gonna tie back in because, again, the great
reset, that agenda hasn't gone anywhere. People were
very,
awake to it during COVID 1984 and, you
know, making big moves, moving around the world,
protesting in the millions. Like, there was some
major resistance in some parts of the world
to the measures that were taking place. Pretty
unpartisan. And people were, like, waking up to
that June 2020 announcement of the World Economic
Forum, the great reset, and then their conference
in January 2021.
That hasn't gone anywhere. That that that you
know, call it whatever name you wanna call
it now. It still is the something they're
they're working on in different ways, and this
summit of the future is just another iteration
of that. And I wanna point out that,
besides digital identities, and we were talking about
facial recognition and talking about these different aspects
of getting this agenda, which, again, they can
sell to us as carbon credits. We already
saw Jeffrey Sachs is advocating for a new
international system of taxation
on emissions and different things like that.
They're going to be able to get this
digital technocratic system that they want one another,
whether it's through a push of climate change,
pandemics, or fighting immigration,
like, and that involves having digital identities,
having facial recognition everywhere, eventually, things like social
credit scores, but also
digital,
currencies, and we know CBDCs. So I wanna
mention that just like,
many other places, we're seeing the call for
the sum of the future to also,
create a new international financial system. They keep
saying it's time for a new Bretton Woods
movement, which is, of course, what created the
International Monetary Fund.
And there's a UN document that I quote
from that's called What Would It Deliver and
it calls for a global financial system that
works for all and a transformed international financial
architecture
fit for purpose and, you know, includes all
the words, inclusive, representative, effective,
resilient, etcetera.
But it's basically about creating new financial system
to fund the SDGs
to rapidly create them, finish them by 2020
to reach these goals at 2030
to reach these goals of completing these 17
sustainable development goals based around climate
change. And, this is as I reported for
TLAB back in 2023 when France held the
summit for a new global financing pact. They've
been kind of building to this moment of
not just declaring the planetary emergency, which is
a major part of it, but also remaking
the UN, UN 2 point o, and some
sort of new international
financial agreement Mhmm. To get major funding probably
from groups like BlackRock,
BlackRock, and others. And, not because it says
not just nations anymore, that they wanna move
beyond just to being funded by volant, donations
from nations. We need all state. This is
stakeholder capitalism. Right? Right. So as they start
getting these private funding along with government funding,
which is all taxed from people,
to create the to basically invest the money
to
rapidly get to these 2030 agenda and net
zero goals. And that is, I think, another
major worrisome aspect of this upcoming summon of
the future and this pack for the future.
So in regard to the the
fund, like, so the part part the public
private partnership that you highlighted there, like, so
what do you from your understanding of that,
what does that change for them? Like, so,
you know, what is the concern there? Why
would that be happening? Like, my first thought
is the idea that there's now elements of
things that are very clearly controlling or, you
know, in some way influencing the way you
live your life. Yeah. But if you wanna
investigate or ask, well, sorry. It's a private
company. You know? So what are your thoughts
on that, other ways that that might be
used? And, like, why they would be just
not why isn't the government just come out
and say this is your best interest? Why
is it becoming this
fat you know, weird fascist overlap? Oh, with,
like, with the corporate and kind of private,
public yeah. Well, I think that that Whitney
makes this point about, like, Palantir and, you
you know, like, the point being that, like,
LifeLog total information awareness, like Yeah. Just we
we push back and, like, okay. We'll just
we'll use Palant. We'll make it a private
company then. Yeah. You know? So how to
give me that version of what we're dealing
with here today. In some well, in some
ways, it being when it goes to private
companies or private organizations or even
various versions of nonprofit
type philanthropic
organizations, especially,
for 1, there's different privacy rules that, like,
the public can't necessarily FOIA what some of
those organizations, right, as you can a government
agency,
something like that. So that's one thing is
being able to move
communications or maybe funds because you can hide
behind some of these different Right. You know,
qualifications. It's a private company when you want
it to be. It's the government when you
want to be. Right? Yeah. Exactly. Or, you
know, some 501, whatever, that has certain levels
of privacy that the public can't get to.
There's different things. There would be benefits to
somebody if they wanted to use them in
these
ways. And, and, yeah, I think that overall,
this is that
I I don't think it's cliche to say
that is that it fits the definition of
fascism when it does become this public, private
collaboration. Not to say that every single thing
where the government and some outside agency,
organization,
corporation, etcetera,
collaborate on like, they build a park. Obviously,
that would may you know, I guess that's
still fascism or whatever. Right? But you know
what I mean? Like, within reason, but when
they're coming together to then in this case,
it's not only just that like, let's give
them a bunch of money so they can
spread the agenda 2030 propaganda and start initiating
programs, and it's they're specifically saying that developing
the 3rd world nations
need money to rapidly transform them. So they're
gonna try to or not. Right? Yeah. Exactly.
They're gonna try to get them all, like,
whether we've seen them do in India with
the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation funding the
adhar system of digital identities and scanning the
retina of billions of Indian people, like, over,
5, I think, to 5 years to a
decade.
And and,
obviously, China and other places. So they wanna
go on these these places, and they're I've
written about this before too that the whole
thing is these poor people are you know,
they don't have identity in there. They would
they just don't have a bank account. We
need to get them banked. And and, you
know, they're the de banked of the world,
and they talk about it like it's a
negative thing. We need to get them into
the matrix. So we need to get them
a digital identity, scan their thumb, their retina,
get them in the biometric system
so then they can get government documents and
then get a job or something. That's the
way they're paying it. Right? But it's really
they're creating this apparatus, and it's easier to
sell in the and, unfortunately, in the developing
world, many places
who are in poverty and who could use
some support, they are able to kind of
buy that,
buy that in by sort of, in some
ways, maybe actually elevating their life standard, but
also, of course, doing it in a way
that is bringing them into the system already
Right. That in some places like the US
and elsewhere, we're trying to prevent going into.
You know? Well, then they pretend it like
some kind of panacea that's gonna solve all
their problems when Exactly. Obviously, there's plenty more
problems come along with it even if you
do have some benefit from it. You know?
What do I wanted to ask about the,
the CBDC point. Right? And so and so
the idea of the CBDCs is a really
very prominent aspect of all this. And so
what do you think about the idea? Like,
so we have a conversation about AI and
and the worry
that whether or not they do reach some
level of you know, whether we're talking about
Sentient or anything. You know, the idea that
the AI is the
something knows better. Right? Listen to it. You
know, whether that's the reality or they're just
behind the scenes pumping in where they want,
you know, the the AI says, you know,
like, kinda thing where it's really just the
social engineers kind of using that as, like,
a puppet almost. In in your set your
mindset, you're worried that that's something that might
similar happen in regard to CBDCs. Right? Where,
you know, it's not what they frame it
as. It's just simply some level of digital
currency that's just being you. Like, one of
the,
popular statements somebody made, I forget who it
was, was like, look. Why do we need
this? We already have Venmo and digital. Mhmm.
You know, obviously, because it's just a ability
to control. You know? So where do you
see that at right now? And then give
me your thoughts on, you know, where that's
at and where it's going in regard to
CBDCs. Well, so this is an interesting conversation
because as you mentioned earlier, we're we're going
to the Bitcoin conference out here this weekend.
And,
you know, not to get the whole conversation
in that direction, but I've been involved with
the Bitcoin space since 2012 in terms of
getting receiving my first transaction for some journalism
I was doing back then Mhmm. And then
starting to report at the Texas Bitcoin Conference
in 2013, 2014, interviewing Ben Swan and,
Vitalik of Ethereum and other you know, just
learning about the space and exploring it and
and have seen it go from at that
point being a very
anarchistic,
free minded, you know, freedom minded, etcetera,
space of, you know, mostly what people would
turn back in the nineties, the cypherpunk type
people. Like, this is nongovernment money. This could
potentially get us away. You know, a lot
of people from the end of Fed movement
who are like, this could get us off
the central banking system.
And I still think that. I I I
believe I believe that as well. And there
was always that, and that was the majority
back then. And then the folks who even
then,
let's say 2013, 14, who were like,
if we're gonna really grow this, it needs
to become regulated. We need government support to
make it mainstream, acceptance, etcetera.
Well, that side has mostly won these days.
You know? And, you know, that's, like, again,
a whole other conversation. But in terms of
the CBC,
I do think that,
Mark Godwin, who Whitney's been doing,
some pieces with recently,
formerly over at the Bitcoin Magazine, that he
is correct. He called it the Bitcoin dollar,
just like we have the petrodollar
Mhmm. That
Bitcoin,
along with the CBDC,
I think, is gonna be out there are
gonna be kind of allowed to continue. Mhmm.
But it is gonna go all digital. But
just like you already have a dollar and
then you can get gold,
Bitcoin has been promoted by a lot of
these people, not as a currency that we
can use that will get it from always
away from the government and away from taxes
and away from the Federal Reserve System, which
was the way I was originally learned about,
what I was excited about, you know, why
I still use things like Monero and things
like that. But over the years, the folks
who and some of them connected to Block
Stream, connected to the Bilderberg group, connected to
shady people,
have called for it not being a currency.
It's digital gold. Hold it. Now, you know,
it's it's mainstream pretty much. You got big
corporations,
BlackRock and others saying that it's a great
thing. And so Mark and others have argued,
I think, correctly that we're gonna see this
system where, yes, there will be some type
of CBDC rolled out in different countries,
and that we're already seeing these programs tested
and seeing it text tech, tested by the
Bank of International Settlements. Right. And,
but then Bitcoin will still be allowed, but
it's not gonna be some freedom money. It's
this just, okay, at best, some investment that
those who continue in might get some gains
on, but not in a radical way that
you actually use it. Like, it's just gonna
be another thing you hold effectively defeating the
original purpose and intention of it. Exactly. So
I think that's kind of what in terms
of the financial thing, and now that's why
they're calling for this new financial international system,
but also
calling for a major investment of cash, like
injection of cash into the UN's,
efforts to come you know? Right. In the
next 5 years or so, five and a
half years to complete these goals. Yep. And
so that's the other reason that I think
it's,
potentially worrisome in addition to just that, like
I said, that call for the,
planetary emergency, the emergency
platform is what they call it. And as
I write here and I've pointed out in
a few articles now that this goes back
to the Club of Rome, and, like, they
they've been around since the sixties.
And they have been calling for,
a planetary emergency since at least 2019 and
a doc that they called the planetary emergency
plan, which they released right prior to COVID
and then updated, like, in August 2020
to include discussion of pandemics and, but it
basically says it's a road map for governments
and other stakeholders to shift our societies
and our economies to bring balance between people,
planet, and prosperity.
And so, yeah, it's them, and you can
go back and follow the their history of
their being essentially
calling for population control in some way, eugenicism,
eugenics, and,
same thing. They've been calling for this planetary
emergency. It's these, like, Paul Ehrlich and these
other scientists who've been wrong and, you know,
preparing there's gonna be a population bomb and
Right. Humanity is the problem. Like, these are
the the psychopaths
in many cases who have influenced
just like we talked about earlier, not everybody
at the UN is a bad person. There
are good people who do go in there
with positive intentions, and maybe even in their
little arena of things, they do some good.
You know? But, overall, the institution and the
people who are driving it and things like
this, the pact for the future, the declaration
of planetary emergency,
are coming
from the club of Rome Right. Who wrote
back in the nineties that the real enemy
is humanity itself. And said that, you know,
basically, that we're causing all these problems. They
realized that that was the way they could
achieve their goals after the Eugenesis
movement became unpopular, obviously, post World War 2.
Of course, we know that Hitler's ideas came
from the American Eugenesis. Like, it's it's an
idea that many people have forgotten about, but
I do think that's what this really comes
back back to. And that doesn't mean, again,
what's gonna happen in September is necessarily gonna
lead to population control the next day, but
this is one of the many steps, and
there are more to come,
in this direction of pushing us ultimately towards
a world government that can,
from the top down, technocratic centralized position, and
using things like AI
in the negative way because it's just a
tool, and it could be used in some
positive ways, and it already is in some
ways.
But using that along with what we described
earlier, digital identities, facial recognition,
basically creating a system that can be tracked
and traced and easily managed, that is the
technocratic vision. And then they talked about back
in the day too, the original technocrats,
energy credits. Well, we talk about carbon credits.
We talk about these sorts of things. Like,
that's the system that they're they're building, and,
unfortunately, I think that this sum of the
future is packed the future, this declaration of
planetary emergency. In addition to now, they're saying
they're gonna
sign the declaration on future generations,
the Global Digital Compact.
I haven't looked into each of those deeply
yet, but those are, I think, other things
to pay attention to. So
it's I I my my goal with writing
about this in this particular article saying, like,
hey, why does this matter is because just
like I mentioned with the pandemic agreement thing,
I think it deserves that much attention. Yeah.
I agree. I don't know what that looks
like. I do think I wish that sometimes
there was still
some protest spirit out there. I know that
life is hard and a lot of people
are struggling for money and can't just fly
to New York, but it would be amazing
if there was some,
you know, organization out there. Like, we're organizing
another greater reset. Now we're calling it the
people's reset event the week after, you know,
is our is our form of protester pushing
back. That's,
the People's Reset UK happening in Bath, UK,
and so that's gonna be similar 3 days
like they're doing, but have solutions from bottom
up ideas as we've done over the years.
So I'm trying to do my part and
then writing about it, but, ultimately, it's just
about getting this awareness out there because Right.
Like we said earlier,
most people don't even know these things are
going on, and and and I get it.
Like, people are overworked. They're tired. They're trying
to just make it through By design. Things.
And that exact exactly is by design, so
you don't have time to stop and think
and and and be able to even think
about getting out of these systems. But if
you're hearing this broadcast, you found yourself here
one way or the other,
then this is the heads up to you
that they're working on these things. This is
more reason to not be dependent on their
systems because the world that they're trying to
describe here, they're trying to work towards in
the name of fighting these planetary crises, fighting
climate change, etcetera,
is not one that's gonna lead to privacy
and liberty and, freedom for yourself, for your
family or anybody else. Yeah. I agree, man.
And I, I think that as we kind
of highlighted before, the central problem
is that it always comes back to sort
of reverence for authority in this point of
people within the UN, you said, or any
other situation. One of the reasons why we
shouldn't be boxing out any potential ally you
know what I mean? Like, you know, consider
their intentions may be bad, but that there
are people that believe that they can work
through that system. And, the the point is
you come to an end.
I don't see how you can do that
without thinking at some level like the system
is inherently good, and I think that that's
been shown not to be the case. But,
you know, if there are people within it
that think that they can achieve something positive
through it. I disagree. But I think there
are people out there that are that that
we can reach with this message, you know,
that might change their opinion on that. And
just one last you pointed out the idea
of, like, the CBDC overlap, the same thing
we said with Palantir. The point is that
this is now going in a direction that
is becoming
privatized. Right? So as Whitney points out, that
Trump famously against CBDCs, but he's now working
over you know, potentially overlapping with Jamie Dimon,
Larry Fink. And they're all working on things
right now that are going in that exact
direction. You know? And so it's it's a
very easy
shell game with the partisan views. No. But
Trump said he didn't say that. That was
just he just the radical left must have
spread that rumor. He didn't say that he
claims Right. We'll see what actually happens. Even
though he's quoted in Bloomberg saying that. Right.
Right. Well, as we were joking about before,
you know, you've got these weird overlaps, like,
where,
actually, on a different show, I said this.
But the point being that, like, Elon Musk
came out and said or was reported that
he was gonna give $45,000,000
a a month, I think, to Trump's campaign.
And then he was just recently asked about
it. He said, no. It's not true. It's
fake news. Trump recently publicly said it in
an open discussion where he said, hey, we
got the money from Elon. It's like- Yeah.
So, maybe Trump's reading the news too and
he thinks it's just funny that- Some fake
news out there. Yeah. Right. It's always manipulated.
And I wanna mention just one other brief
note on the sum of the future because
this is probably gonna be something that I'll
explore more in the future or just in
case anyone out there sees this name or
you see this name popping up. I mentioned
this, I just called it the Stimson Center
Connection because as I've been re researching the
summit of the future, I keep seeing this
name popping up as one of the organization
that's hosting, like,
online forums, webinars, etcetera, discussing it. And so
I did just a little look into their
background because once again, they just last week
held a an online an in person
meeting, but also was streamed online discussing the
sum of the future and particularly mentioning the
US position, and there were some interesting things
said there, but basically just supporting saying, hey.
The US is fully behind signing the back
for the future and the planetary emergency. Like,
so that that's the US is definitely advocating
for this. That's another thing. Mhmm. So it's
not just something I'm warning about that nobody's
paying attention to. The US is pretty much
ready to go on board, and they're expecting
all 100 and, you know, 93, whatever, 92
member nations to sign it. But the Stemson
Center is they'd call themselves a nonpartisan, nonprofit
organization
focused on international peace, nuclear proliferation, water management,
etcetera. So all the climate crisis, etcetera, all
those sort of things, and they're just one
of these think tanks that puts out white
papers. They hold these organ these meetings in
person and online,
but it's named after an interesting guy, Henry
l Stimpson. He was this lawyer, politician. He
served as secretary
war under Taft, secretary of state under Hoover,
and according to the National Park Service, he
had direct control of the Manhattan Project, which
was, of course, the US, nuclear weapons project.
And so, anyways, they they've have relationships
through grant funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, from
the Gates Foundation, not, you know, like,
I would say they're working hand in hand
every every year, but the Gates Foundation has
given them over us almost $1,000,000.
The,
Rockefeller Foundation giving them 100 of 1,000 of
dollars for the last few years since 2020.
So there's that connection, and that makes sense.
That matters because we know both those organizations
are involved in promoting,
various climate change narratives. The Gates Foundation funding
geoengineering and things like that.
So
it is this Stemson Center that is they're
doing, like,
op ed pieces, virtual conferences. As I said,
they just recently held this as US perspectives
and priorities for the UN Summit of the
Future.
And they had their, one of their ambassadors
there speaking and, you know, she, as I
mentioned, just supporting the planetary emergency declaration Mhmm.
Supporting calls for creating an emergency platform.
And, that's, I think, something else to pay
attention to. But, yeah, that name, Stemson Center,
I think we're gonna see them more and
more.
I'm just continuing to dig into, you know,
who
who's involved in that organization. But just in
general, it's just another one of these bodies
that we should. If you see them associated
with certain things, you probably can start to
garner the kind of issues they're gonna be
promoting and the propaganda or otherwise. Mhmm. I
I mean, it's it's just so many of
these, but, you know, just these think tanks
and groups and agencies we don't even know
exist. But what before we end up, one
one thing I wanted to ask you is
just about the platform.
You know, what does that mean exactly? Right?
And so, like, because, you know, because it's
the word itself seems almost deliberately confusing with
what like, are they talking about, like, an
online concept? Or so explain what that means
for people in regard to based on whatever
they claim is the planetary
poly crisis emergency, what would they then create
and and, you know, on the way out
here, what would that achieve? Yeah. So the
0 it it says the 0 draft version
of the pack for the future. Like I
said, they released that in March or so.
So this is just early version. I think
they've only released one more since this, but
it it talks about the emergency platform
that would be activated and this is the
exact, wording I was discussing earlier. In the
event of, quote, such a shock that has
an impact on multiple regions of the world
and would require a, quote, coherent, coordinated, and
multidimensional
response.
Now, they claim that And that's the platform.
That's the response they're saying? So what do
they mean by a platform? So right here,
it says the emergency platform, quote, would not
be a standing institution or body. This is
what they claim. And that the, UN accountable
then. The UN claims the, quote, decision to
convene an emergency platform that would, in their
words, fully respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and
political independence of states. We swear. So it's
interesting they put that in there. Like, they
make it clear, like, that which feels like
a little bit of, like, we gotta put
that in there.
Yeah. So,
yeah. So that's part of it. Now that
I go into explaining how there's other organizations
funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, like the Climate
Governance Commission, who've been promoting this ID, of
course, the Club of Rome. But in another
area, they do get further into defining what
they mean by emergency platform. Mhmm. So,
the planetary they talk about a planetary emergency
platform to rapidly to address rapidly accelerating consequences
of climate change.
And again, this planetary emergency
goes back to the Club of Rome's planetary
emergency plan. So it's kind of like, I
guess, like, the name they're giving it's it's
weird because, yeah, it would I guess you
could say it's the response because they're claiming
it's not gonna be a standing institution or
a body, so not like a new organization
per se or an office or anything. It's
just an idea. It's a response. So And
this is kinda what I'm getting at. Is
it It's vague. You know? Well, okay. So
you're what they're describing is governmental action across
multiple nations. Right? So just because they're like,
we swear it's not, you know, for sovereignty.
Or, like, you know, it's almost like what
they're outlining is this is a is a
multinational
governmental act, you know, agenda
or, you know, what you know, a body
is what it is. Right? And then it
would be like, but it's not a government.
Like, you you can't hold us accountable. You
know? Like, to me, it seems like this
wildly unaccountable thing that they're doing that basically
the way they frame it makes it seem
like you know, so what do you do?
You petition your own government about something that's
happening globally? You go to the UN?
Like, it seems intentionally obtuse or, you know,
undefined for that very reason. I got the
first way I read that.
That is well, this is one of the
major problems, in my view of the idea
of of world government. We were all for
1. I wish that we were in a
world where the idea that we could bring
all nations together and have some, like, peaceful
things and take humanity to, you know, as
far as we can go. And and and
I wish that was our world, and I
hope and and that we'll get there. But
for the moment, you're not gonna throw China,
Russia, the United States, etcetera, into some, like,
giant blender of world government and get out
a peaceful, like Right. You know, representative democracy
where we can trust that the UN based
in New York City or Switzerland or somewhere
else, like, where these bodies are typically based
Mhmm.
Are then gonna care about the needs of
every single nation
and understand it. No. The idea is to
use, I mean, at least in the technocratic
vision, to micromanage
the resources available to each area and, of
course, digitize it in many ways. So
it's problematic for for multiple region reasons.
Ultimately, you know, we just gotta get people
to start realizing that the UN is not
something we can trust. The a lot of
people have woken up to the World Economic
Forum. Right. The UN is tied to that,
and it's not some right wing position to
question that to question that. And I I
I do I am glad that, like, there
are some people, like,
I don't know whether to fully trust her
or not, and I this is one of
the reasons I wanna interview her, Vandana Shiva.
She says a lot of great things, though,
in terms of speaking out against this. Bill
Gates and Geoengineering
and Monsanto, of course, and things like that.
Now there are some older reports you can
find that say that she was a member
of the club of Rome. Mhmm. Now that
doesn't rule her out automatically as somebody who's
doing good work, but I would like to
ask her, like, is that a membership that
still exists? Could you talk to us about
to us about that? Why you change realize
there's a problem? Yeah. Maybe. Exactly. Maybe she's
not anymore, and she had a a different
experience. But so,
we we just need to realize that there
are ways to help our world and to
improve the world, specifically the environment and and
all the different things that we're dealing with
that don't have to involve giving up our
individual liberty and to recognize for one that
that is what's on the plate. Like, they're
not gonna they're not gonna come out and
explicitly say that. But what they're talking about
starts to create more
power for this international
unelected
unelected, totally unelected body,
to take steps that will influence our lives
and that, you know, whether that's what's on
your plate or,
you know, again, what you how often you
could travel, where you can drive, etcetera.
And in the form of new taxation systems.
I think that the further away government is,
the less responsive it's gonna be. You know,
if you have if you think you have
trouble right now getting representation at Washington DC
or wherever your capital is, then imagine that
when it's just, you know, even more thousands
of miles away. Ask any European country right
now how that's working with the EU. With
the with the Exactly. People don't like feeling
like that, so imagine that on even more
of a global scale,
national scale. And,
you know, that's, I think, what it this
is really working towards. This is why they're
using the climate crisis, and they will use
any other crisis,
cyber,
panic, cyber attack, whatever.
It is to try to grab more of
that power, and this is what why these
types of things, this discussion of an emergency
platform,
whether it's a standing institution or just some
declaration and waiting to be ready to pull
out as soon as they describe as their
thing
just hits multiple regions of the world. Right.
That's pretty broad. And then next thing you
know, we're in a forever emergency, which is
already kind of what's going on. Yeah. On
the global scale, like, I think, like, a
worldwide scale. Like, the US has been in
emergency since 911 and, you know, even before
that, but definitely since 911. Ongoing emergency state.
And so because of that, as many people
might not be aware, that does in those
cases, the government says, well, it's an emergency,
so we can do extra things. Yes. We
don't get to do it peacetime or nonemergency.
Exactly. Go around the constitution.
So imagine that if it's a planetary emergency,
worldwide emergency, and they're like, well, because of
that, we get to do x, y, and
z that we didn't wouldn't be able to
do in normal peacetime and that we promise
we'll get back to one day in the
future. Right. Right. Yeah. And the last thing
I'll leave it on that is that, you
know, we're talking about the idea of individuals
and individual sovereignty or, you know, as a
nation, but, you know, your own individual rights
being circumvented.
You think about this on a global scale.
What's the first thing you're gonna see is
that, well, this is a global body except
for that person, that country, and these groups
because they're terrorists or they don't they don't
agree. We don't they think this you know,
that's what will always happen is they essentially
create what they call the international community, which
is really the ones that are in line
with their agenda and the rest get boxed
out. And so right out of the gate,
I promise you, as you highlight China or
Russia, it's like, wait. So are they the
biggest threat for our democracy, but we're gonna
work to save the planet? Like, how does
that work? You know? It's it's there's so
much overlap and dishonesty in all of this.
That's why your work is so important here
is that really beginning to open this door
for people. And I know there was a
bunch of other things we were gonna get
into on the way out. Did you wanna
shout anything out before we, we wrap for
today? I I would just well, thanks for,
you know, first, let's you know, for the
conversation. I'm we're having this in person again.
And, yeah, it's I hope everybody's enjoyed it,
and I hope you will check out the
summit of the future and learn more about
it. Spread the words, whether that's printing out
flyers, that's sharing my articles, sharing this interview
and this discussion and my other previous discussions
with Ryan on this.
Whatever you can do, I think it does
matter. I think it does have an impact,
and just like we saw with the awareness
around the pandemic agreement, I think that's definitely
now it's not to say, of course, that
that's disappeared by any means at all, but
it seems like it was delayed in the
big moment that people are building to. Mhmm.
And I would say that's that's got to
the the public pressure has have had to
play a role to some degree because people
were talking about it all over the world
in different countries, different languages,
and pushing as far as Japan and other
words, like, other places, protests and and Right.
Push back in different ways. So I think
that's a great thing to see. And if
we could get something similar, some type of
other aware similar awareness with the summit of
the future, that'll be a really great thing,
and I'm grateful to see that some of
my articles I've written about have been translated
to Spanish and,
some other things like that. So
getting the word out, I think, on that
does matter. Though, I did wanna mention that
I put out another article in my probably
for now, there might be a part 4
in the future, but probably for now, it's,
gonna be the last one in this Bethany
Christian Services series Mhmm. Which I did about
the,
adoption firm, Bethany Christian Services.
And, in the first two, it was more
specifically about the organization exploring their history and
their funding and who how they're kind of
related to this broader movement that I wasn't
even really aware of it, but, essentially,
very wealthy event, Christian evangelical
philanthropists
who are funding,
adoption firms and,
like, at the same time, like, funding anti
abortion legislation and funding adoption firms and trying
to put their, I guess, investments, their money
towards that
and the consequences of that, and how it's
not all
lovely and beautiful like most people would like
to believe that, you know, the case of
mother can't have baby, so they need choose
to adopt, and they find a baby that
came from a home that was unhappy or
parents died or something, and then they get
a better life and, you know, everything's good.
That appears to be the minority of the
cases from what I've learned, unfortunately. Yeah. And
so this is the we've looked at the
history of Bethany Christian Services in the first
one. The second series, we'd we talked to
I talked to 4 different families, 3 who
went on the record,
about their direct experience with Bethany Christian Services,
and we found court records and court documents
from California and elsewhere documenting the cases of
what they're talking about of
manipulation,
lying to parents about these so called open
adoptions,
just all sorts of things. And so that
was the second piece, and that's really important.
To me, it felt good because this is
directly us sharing the stories of these women.
Right. And this is not something that most
people have or I wasn't aware about of
this before. I was made aware of these,
information from a listener,
who sent me this way and and told
me about their story.
And it's a whole different area of research
you know, that you could kind of broadly
term adoption truth.
And so for this third article, I wanted
to show,
the a couple of the organizations that have
been formed that are actually trying to do
the good work of helping people out, which
I think is an important story to highlight
the solutions. But, also, of course, they are
people who have suffered from the adoption industry
themselves, and that's why they chose to get
involved and help other people. And then, also,
I look at the,
international adoption scene, specifically the Korean adoption industry,
and that is a whole another story that
I I just started to touch into. And
so if I do a part 4 in
the future, it's gonna be focused on the
more of the international,
Korean, Ukraine. It's I mean, there's Africa, other
international adoption scene. But this one was important
because the group Saving Our Sisters and the
adoption
truth, they have
a little let me see if I remember.
I wanna say it right. The adoption, truth,
and
transparency
network,
information worldwide network. They they do the adoption,
truth, and transparency worldwide information network. They do
both do great work, and one is Janine
Vance and then Renee Gallen and her partner
there. They're providing resources and information for parents
who, for whatever reason, may be considering adoption
as an option,
and not to push them to any other
adoption necessarily other than trying to keep families
together. That's their main kind of thing. And
because as I reported in the previous pieces,
Bethany Christian Services has partnerships with these hospitals.
So if a mother expresses some doubt about
wanting to have a baby, whether it's like,
I think I wanna have an,
adoption or I'm thinking of abortion or whatever,
Bethany's right there to say, here, learn about
our organizations, then immediately starts to become kind
of coercive and, like, pushing them, saying, hey.
We've got family ready. The family starts showing
up and just different things. And often to
to not always the case, but often to
very young women who are
low income,
no support network, maybe have drug issues or
mental health issues, people who are being manipulated
in some cases. And and as I show
in this and through the stories that we've
learned here, particularly in Korea, that this is
essentially legalized
child trafficking in many cases. And I say
legalized because
they technically
have, through their system they've created,
have the backing of the government the local
governments, whether it's in Korea or the United
States or elsewhere. It's like a post World
War 2 network kind of settlement. Right? Yeah.
Exactly. And so, that's one of the the
women I recently
interviewed is, journalist, Catherine Joyce, and she's the
author of Child Catchers. And I quote her
in this piece where she's talking about that,
and it was called the the baby scoop
era post World War 2. And in in
the Korean situation, it was post Korean War.
Lots of these, Korean, orphans
that were there. And then
these different, mostly Christian, evangelical organizations, stepped in,
and this infrastructure and this sort of model
was created at largely in Korea and then
exported out to other places
of,
you know, just,
commodifying,
and this these babies. And so now it's
a $1,000,000,000
industry. Like, you know, 1,000,000,000 of dollars a
year is made through,
adoption and in some cases, outright lying to
parents, like both the parents of the let's
say, the parents that are around, but maybe
they're not,
rich by US standards, but they still have
a house
and their parents, you know, they're there. There's
love, all that stuff. Mhmm.
And in some cases, Bethany and other organizations,
there's also the Holt adoption firm that I've
learned more about
that will go there and, just outright lie
to parents, say that they're going to the
US for some sort of, like, schooling, but
then essentially take them and then
sell them to another family that's adopting them
and was told that their parents were killed
or something like that. And then later in
life, the child starts to research and then
comes I mean, these things are happening and
it's not uncommon at all based on what
I've found and so And the lie of
open adoption and that's one of the hardest
parts of this is these parents being promised
they're like, they were reluctant, but they give
in because it might be better for them.
At least I get to see them, and
then that that doesn't sound to be the
case. They they often think that as I
reported as well and as Catherine Joyce told
me too, that sometimes it's women who are
just as short of, like, a $500 bill
or something. Mhmm. The way you know, it
they're going through a tough time financially, economically,
which, you know, can happen even after you
have a child, but you make ends meet.
You you make things work. Right? But in
that tough space, like you said, they might
reluctantly choose to go through adoption
and mainly with the impression that they will
be getting letters and they'll be getting updates
and they'll be be in their child's life.
And then that door being closed really quickly
either by the adoption, the new the the
adoptive family or Bethany themselves after making all
these promises. So it's really, you know, heartbreaking
situations here. And so just to wrap this
up, the the final thing I'll mention is
the Korean situation is is
massive. I mean, it's now making mainstream news,
thankfully,
in Australia because there are Koreans or South
Korean babies were sent to Australia, of course,
the Western world, you know, the UK, Canada,
the US, Australia.
They were sent many other places post World
War 2,
and
many of them thought that their families were
killed and some were legitimately orphans, but many
of them did have families and parents. And,
and and the interesting case is that Janine
Vance, who's one of the Vance twins, her
and her sister were were in this situation
When they went back to Korea for this,
like, anniversary for Korean adoptees,
she said that she saw,
other, like, in the street
looking for answers, trying to search for his
daughter who he, you know, had no idea
where she was at, and she'd been adopted
out. And this kind of led her on
the journey of investigating this whole thing. So
it's just this really big thing that in
some ways, thankfully, there seems to be getting
traction. Like, they're sending they're working with dozens
of organizations to send this
special request for the Korean government to investigate
this. They have a truth and reconciliation commission
to investigate Korean
atrocities throughout history, particularly And push up and
push up the network. Right? Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.
And so, you know, it it there is
some awareness building.
But for the most part, you know, when
I talked to Janine and talked to some
of these other women, the mothers and Renee,
it's it's that there's just a huge lack
of education, that most people have a completely
different idea of what they think is going
on in the adoption industry. But, unfortunately, much
like we've learned with things like CPS,
foster care,
one of my next big investigations
is sort of tangentially related, and that's looking
at these some folks that might have heard
about them recently through some documentaries that came
out, these WASP systems, these student program systems
that Mhmm. Through doctor Phil and other shows
like that where they take these kids, like,
literally strip them away and take them to
these crazy schools with abuse going on. There's
just so many different systems like that that
people think are
one thing in reality,
child rehabilitation
for tough kids or stuff like that, or
great adoption agencies or foster care for people
who are need to be their child protector
services when parents are at, you know, are
abusive and stuff. But, unfortunately, these systems are
manipulated, corrupted.
Right for abuse. They're imperfect, of course. Not
to say there's no good people in there,
but it's definitely more going on. And and
so my goal with this whole series has
been to just highlight it because I was
not aware of this until, again, a
reader reached out to me. So thanks again,
of course, to everybody who always sends, you
know, ideas and tips and things like that
because sometimes we don't see stories that are
going on and Right. There's just so much
going on, unfortunately. Yeah. Well, I you know,
it's an important it's an important series and
I I I hope you guys will take
the time to check it out, you know,
because there's there's so many
major things going on in the world. It's
something like this that tends to fall
on radar, but it's you know, these like
you said, about CPS or other things that
we've talked about for a very long time,
the both of us, you know, that they're
I mean, you're going back a long ways,
Ruth. And even you have not even that
long ago, had a great investigation about, like,
the finders. And this overlaps, obviously, of, like,
sexual trafficking, which is a different topic, but
they're they overlap. Right? And here we're talking
about overlap for sure. Like, that these the
point is and right now, you're getting into
the that aspect of it. But I I
would imagine if you dig in these elements
that you will find the connection, and it
will because they're right they are right for
they're they're rife with abuse or but the
pen potential for it. Yeah. Like, because the
like, I think it was even the CPS
that acknowledged over the years I think it
was California,
but there was a I forget the exact
number, but I remember it was something like
60 per like, a huge percentage of the
people that found themselves in these sexual networks
were coming through CPS and foster care. And
that doesn't have to mean that that was
deliberately done. We should ask that question. But
just the overlap, the the willful ignorance to
the idea that, well, this isn't inherently good
thing, so we shouldn't question it. Yeah. It's
abused by the predators that we know are
there. You know? That's that's that's blind trust
and authority. Exactly. So I really appreciate your
work, man. And it's great to have you
in the studio and have this conversation. Hopefully,
we can do it more in the future,
and and, we'll
have a lot more to talk about. I'm
sure. Yeah. Absolutely. Thanks for having me on
and appreciate that. I hope everybody will check
out the Summit of the Future and then,
again, learn more about Bethany Christian services in
that whole. But I'm calling the adoption industry
complex. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Well, thanks for everyone
for tuning in and as always question everything,
come to your own conclusions, stay vigilant.