James Delingpole: Welcome to the Delingpod with me Delingpod. And I’m delighted to welcome my guest this week. He’s come over from America. He’s called Dr. Rex Fleming. And I was contacted by his daughter, who said:

“My dad is coming to speak at a conference called the World Congress on Geology and Earth Science.”

And I couldn’t attend it, because I was got actually going to my friend, Christopher Booker’s funeral that day.

But anyway, heroically, Dr. Fleming has come over from this hotel at Heathrow Airport to my pad. And he wants to tell me about his theories on global warming. But like me, he’s a skeptic. Unlike me he’s actually a scientist of considerable expertise. So Rex tell me about your history on science. You’ve got a undergraduate degree in maths, is that right? And a PhD in Atmospheric Science?

Dr Rex Fleming: Correct.

James Delingpole: Right. So you’re quite on top of this subject. And in your career what did you do? You mentioned you worked at NOAA

Dr Rex Fleming: I did. My PhD was involved in a unique kind of mathematical computation involving, not just the weather, but also the uncertainty of the weather. And that led to some notoriety. And I eventually got called to become a head of the global weather experiment, which took place in 1979.

And since then I’ve been involved in climate activities and served in a lot of different panels, and had a few awards, here and there. But basically, …

James Delingpole: What was the global warming the thing you mentioned in 1979? The global?

Dr Rex Fleming: It’s called the Global Weather Experiment.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: Many countries participated with satellites, and ships, and special observing systems, around the planet. Drifting buoys in the oceans. And it was a year-long project. I managed it for the United States.

James Delingpole: Right!

Dr Rex Fleming: What resulted from that, we learnt a lot more about the atmosphere. It led to further, greater involvement of various observing systems, which have improved weather prediction since then. But weather prediction is still an unsolved problem. It’s a chaotic atmosphere we live in. And therefore climate is chaotic.

I got involved in the climate studies many years ago on the other side of the issue actually. I actually supported people and managing in the office I did in Washington DC. And I funded scientists who were pushing carbon dioxide as the cause of climate. I had my doubts.

But that’s the way the world was going in those days. And eventually I just read enough to realize, it’s a totally wrong direction. And so, in the past, I would say, ten years I have been on the other side.

James Delingpole: So you’re saying there was a period where you actually might have believed in the anthropogenic global warming theory?

Dr Rex Fleming: Yes. There was a period.

James Delingpole: And so you were pushing people, grant money, in the direction of people researching that.

Dr Rex Fleming: Yeah. I was satisfying grants, yes.

James Delingpole: Right.

Dr Rex Fleming: I wasn’t pushing it. But my job was to fund people who wanted to do that.

James Delingpole: So do you regret now that dark, …?

Dr Rex Fleming: Oh yeah. Yeah, that was a dark period in my life. Yeah, absolutely!

James Delingpole: Because NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has been implicated, … I’ve written about this a few times. That it’s been twisting the evidence hasn’t it? It’s been meddling with the raw data.

Dr Rex Fleming: A few individuals, I know who they are – I did not mention their names in the book. And I don’t want to get to many enemies. I’ve mentioned a few already, but not everybody.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: Yes, there were people in NOAA who actually fiddled with the data to make their President look good at various meetings, with our past President.

James Delingpole: Obama, were talking about?

Dr Rex Fleming: Yeah. And they would change the ocean data, they would change atmospheric data. They would not admit that they had observing stations too close to the centres of cities, that were giving temperature measurements too high.

James Delingpole: Yep. The heat island effect.

Dr Rex Fleming: Yeah. And they would not own up to that. It took other individuals who were quote “deniers”, to point this out. And NO AA has denied it. And it’s all part of the debate.

[05:00]

James Delingpole: This is funny. Because I think you are the first person who’s been inside the system that I’ve spoken to, that can report back what’s going on. So are these guys, what’s their motivation? Is it that they want to go with the flow, they want to go along to get along? Is it, because they actually believe this stuff? Is it because they’re, I don’t know, intellectually corrupt? What’s the motivation?

Dr Rex Fleming: I don’t think they’re intellectually corrupt. But they are corrupt in the following sense. When you are working for a company, or working for the government, you want to keep your salary growing. You want to be successful, rise in the system. And what a government employee does at the upper level, they want to keep their funds coming in. And when the media in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is pushing a subject like that, you want to be a part of the growth. You want your organization to grow. And so you don’t fight it.

And I think that’s part of it. People just not willing to fight it, just trying to keep their jobs, keep the salaries going up. It’s wrong! It’s absolutely wrong!

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: That’s what some people do. I know, also scientists in NOAA who are intellectually very accurate and correct, who disagree with this carbon dioxide cause. But can’t speak out. If you spoke out in the Obama administration you could be fired.

James Delingpole: Yes.

Dr Rex Fleming: So they don’t speak out. And when they retire, they speak out. There are several examples. I should have given a few in my book. But I did not. Of people who are well-known in NOAA, once they retired they opened up.

James Delingpole: This I’ve noticed a lot. Whenever I go to the heartland climate conference, a lot of the scientists one meets there are Emeritus Professors. They’ve had their time in the sun. And they’re out of the system now. Yeah, that they’re all probably over 70, most of them. And the Left uses this as a way of saying:

“Well look at these doddery old fools. They don’t know what they’re talking about!”

When, in fact, these are the only people who are able to say this stuff!

Dr Rex Fleming: Exactly. They’re able, they’re smart enough. And once they’ve left the system, they’re free to speak out, and they have.

James Delingpole: But what about:

“Hasn’t the climate changed now?”

To coin a phrase. Now that President Trump’s in office has there not been a change at all in these places? Or are they still holding out against the reality?

Dr Rex Fleming: Unfortunately, although I think Trump disagrees with the warming. He has stated it in the past, and he hasn’t been firm enough on that point of view, quite yet. But the government people clearly still say the same thing. And it isn’t just the government.

It’s also the scientific organizations within the United States, that I’m familiar with. And there are three of them. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union. And maybe the most important one, American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, who produce Science Magazine.

All three of those organizations will not support, a quote, “denier”. I could not get published in any of those organizations. They all put out periodicals, as a “denier”. I’ve made a recent check about a year ago to see what their policies have changed. Nope! They haven’t changed. So I had to go to Europe to publish a paper. And when I did, it was peer-reviewed in Europe, and it got through. And it’s been very successful.

James Delingpole: This is your paper saying that carbon dioxide climate theory is a busted flush?

Dr Rex Fleming: Correct! That’s a phrase I wouldn’t have used [chuckling] but it denotes the Right connotation!

James Delingpole: Right.

Dr Rex Fleming: It is definitely over. And I produced that paper, I’ve had enormous response. I’ve had 3,000 people around the country request copies of it. And then last March, March of 2018, that paper resulted in me being asked to be a keynote speaker at a climate conference in New York City, last May.

And it was the first time I had ventured out into the public myself, in a visible way, and I gave at the keynote speech. I expected a lot of trouble. I didn’t get any trouble! Nobody objected, nobody asked any serious objective questions. I was very pleased. And there were two other people at the conference who didn’t say exactly the same thing. But clearly were on my side of the issue. So there were three of us in the group of maybe a hundred, who have felt the same way.

James Delingpole: So these are fellow scientists mostly, attending this conference?

Dr Rex Fleming: Yes.

James Delingpole: Right. So do you think that, can we be optimistic about that the conclusions drawn from that? Is it that there is a change in the scientific community, or not?

Dr Rex Fleming: Oh, very definitely! Since that talk I’ve had so many people approach me. And I’ve seen various publications. There’s a fellow who puts out a blog out of Germany, whose name escapes me at the moment.

James Delingpole: Oh, I think I know who you mean, yes.

Dr Rex Fleming: Gosselin.

James Delingpole: Yes Pierre Gosselin, yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: He has put out information indicating that hundreds of papers came out in 2018, now declaring the sun is a more probable cause, than carbon dioxide.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: Without the proof! But nevertheless, papers that suggest that. So that’s a big change. And there are now people who’re talking about the coming cooling, which maybe we’ll get into in this discussion.

James Delingpole: Well, yes. I’m now going to ask you to do something very, very hard. I’m going to ask you to explain in ways that all my listeners, … Actually, I think I’ve got one listener. He’s called “the special friend”. Or he, or she, is called the special friend. My special friend who may not be acquainted with atmospheric physics, explain why it is that this theory which has become the dominant theory of the environmental movement that man-made CO2 is warming the climate on an unprecedented, and catastrophic level.

How is it that all these scientists are wrong? And why should we trust you?

Dr Rex Fleming: Several ways to approach that answer. One is how I got started, which is about in 1850 when our current modern warming started. I think that got confused with the Industrial Revolution. But let’s not start there. Let’s start with the physical cause.

We now have a very solid physical cause of climate change, and it’s based upon three functions. Two of them that go on sort of constantly, and a third one maybe will get to. But the two functions are the solar magnetic field, and cosmic rays. First of all, the solar magnetic field is invisible. It’s extremely powerful, thousands of times stronger than the Earth’s magnetic field. And that’s one factor.

The second factor, and it goes up and down in strength. The second factor is the impact of cosmic rays that infiltrate the atmosphere. Cosmic rays are nothing more than star dust. It’s the protons from exploding stars. And very large massive stars have a relatively short lifetime, and explode. And when they explode their protons and electrons go all over the universe.

So these cosmic rays are constantly coming through towards the earth. When the sun’s magnetic field is strong, rejects these cosmic rays. They do not enter the Earth’s atmosphere. They’re deflected away. But when the sun’s magnetic field is weak, they come through all the way to the surface of the earth. And these cosmic rays produce vast areas of low-level clouds, which cool the planet.

And that’s the main reason where we have warm periods and cold periods. For example, the Medieval Warming, that was several hundred years ago, then followed by the Little Ice Age, followed by our current modern warming. Those are long periods.

Our current modern warming been going since 1850. And the sun is getting stronger and stronger. It’s magnetic field is being stronger. So those are the two factors that caused the climate change. And have nothing at all to do with carbon dioxide!

James Delingpole: Right. And so why is this stuff ignored by the anthropogenic global warming theorists? Given that if it’s so well known?

Dr Rex Fleming: Well, it’s not so well known, because the magnetic field parts may be out there for 50 years, or. So but they’re all in this groove of getting funds for huge, bigger, computer systems to run these massive climate models. And they want their salaries to increase. They don’t want to change! It’s been a boondoggle! It’s been a wonderful gravy train for atmospheric scientists for 50 years now. Since the mid 70s, late 70s. So they don’t want to hear the truth. If they believe it they don’t want to divulge it.

[15:00]

James Delingpole: Well, it’s that Upton Sinclair quote, isn’t it?:

“It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on his not understanding it.”

Dr Rex Fleming: Exactly!

James Delingpole: Yes. I know Henrik Svensmark who’s been one of the main proponents of Cosmic Ray theory. He’s been dismissed as a kind of an eccentric loon, hasn’t he, by the mainstream?

Dr Rex Fleming: However, he and Nigel Calder, a Brit, I think?

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: Produced a book called The Chilling Stars, wonderful book, and very successful, well-read. Lays this whole situation out very beautifully. Goes through his history of the fight he had to go through. People now know that that theory is solid. And people have come to me in looking at my paper and say:

“Yeah, we agree with Svensmark. You’ve brought his name up. Yeah, he’s a good scientist.”

James Delingpole: So what’s your insight in your book, which you’re publishing shortly, the rise and fall of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change? What are you bringing to the party?

Dr Rex Fleming: First of all the book is published as an e-book, right now. The hardcover is available on a couple of weeks from Springer Press. It’s 176 pages, and it covers several important thing. One is the history of this debate. And it’s dramatic at times. So it’s an interesting subject in itself. I’ve covered the Svensmark’s theory, why we do have the change. I’ve covered what’s happening in the future, which is very important.

James Delingpole: We’ll come to that in the innings, because that’s nice and depressing [chuckling], unless we do something to stop it. But just going back, you’re saying that the history is quite dramatic. What were you thinking of?

Dr Rex Fleming: Well, we have to go all the way back to 1896, when a Swedish scientist first came up with the idea that he thought carbon dioxide would cause a planet to warm.

James Delingpole: Is this Svante Arrhenius?

Dr Rex Fleming: Yeah, Arrhenius. Four years later another scientist from Sweden came out and said:

“No! No! It’s just not the case. There are reasons why it was not true.”

And they were pretty solid reasons, and the theory dropped. It basically didn’t come up again until much, much later. I don’t know if I should go into Margaret Thatcher’s role, or not.

James Delingpole: Well, I think you should mention Margaret Thatcher. I’ve written about this is as well, that yes, she hasn’t been very helpful. She wasn’t very helpful to the cause of scientific [word unclear]

Dr Rex Fleming: Yes, she had her reasons to be against the coal industry back in those days of Labour disputes, and she was against the high prices of Arab oil, and wanted nuclear energy for the country. And therefore when somebody came up with this latest revival of the fossil fuel problem, she jumped on it. And put out money for people to prove that it was true that fossil fuel was a problem.

And everybody in the world jumped on that. And that’s what started this. And then the press got involved. And it’s just grown, and grown, and grown! And that’s part of the problem.

James Delingpole: Well, yeah. How does that strike you? Are there any other historical examples, I wonder, of a kind of minority eccentric theory, which has no solid scientific basis, becoming the dominant thinking of the time, despite the existence of much better stronger theories?

Dr Rex Fleming: I’m not sure this is the kind of answer you want to hear. But there’s a historical precedent of people, way back, who thought the earth was flat.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: And one particular scientist came up, and was to be excommunicated from this church, because he thought the world was round. And that took a while for people to get to the point that it was, in fact, round. This is the same kind of thing that’s happened now.

We’ve got a minority people, a couple of scientists, Svensmark and his friends, will come up with a counter theory. And that has been a struggle to overcome that. Just like it was a struggle to overcome the flat earth, round earth, problem.

James Delingpole: You were showing me some charts earlier early on, before, you were giving me a run-through of your theories. And what you were, my computer’s breaking down. One of the points you made was that the carbon dioxide levels, historically have risen as a result of warm temperatures, not the other way around.

Dr Rex Fleming: Correct.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: If we go back even further in history the maximum carbon dioxide occurred a long time ago. And when the Earth’s tectonic activity was strongest, volcanoes were rampant, …

James Delingpole: What levels are we talking, because we’ve now got roughly what 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide.

Dr Rex Fleming: It was a factor of a thousand larger when that tectonic activity. Then carbon dioxide slowly evolved, lower, lower values. Went up and down through the years. Where we are now to the point where it’s only 400 parts per billion, roughly. A little bit more.

James Delingpole: Right.

Dr Rex Fleming: And that’s near the lowest point in earth’s history.

James Delingpole: So we’re in a carbon dioxide starved, …

Dr Rex Fleming: Yes.

James Delingpole: , … Period, at the moment.

Dr Rex Fleming: Yes. Then there was a series of ice results from Antarctica. Ice cores taken from various countries. First the United States, and then France. And then the Soviet Union. Over different periods of time. And they found in each case that the temperatures lead the carbon dioxide.

James Delingpole: Right!

Dr Rex Fleming: And you have to have a ice core that has proper resolution to see that.

James Delingpole: Right.

Dr Rex Fleming: In Al Gore’s famous movie, he showed a figure of temperature and carbon dioxide from an ice core. But that was one of the very early ice cores and the two temperatures, the two curves, were almost on top of each other.

James Delingpole: Right.

Dr Rex Fleming: He said:

“Oh this looks like a pretty good correlation to me.”

Well, it was in that case. But the resolution of the ice core was not good enough. When you get high resolution in the ice core you can see the big difference between temperature and carbon dioxide. And every one of those scientific results temperature led the carbon dioxide!

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: So it was a 420 thousand year period of zero correlation of carbon dioxide and temperature. And if they’re not correlated, that can’t be a cause. They’ve got to both go up and both go down at the same time. So for every period of history we’ve looked at, from the four billion years of the Earth’s atmosphere existing, there’s no correlation! The observations alone prove the concept that carbon dioxide is not a cause of the climate.

James Delingpole: Right.

Dr Rex Fleming: It has to be something else. And we now know that something else is from galactic space, and our Sun.

James Delingpole: But so why are some of the people pushing hardest anthropogenic global warming theory? People from the organizations like the British Antarctic Survey. These people who’ve been taking these ice cores samples. They tend to be the ones really, their are true believers in manmade climate change.

Dr Rex Fleming: Yes.

James Delingpole: So how can they look at the data, look at these ice cores, and draw completely different conclusions from the one that you’re drawing?

Dr Rex Fleming: Because there is no scientific conclusions drawn from the pro carbon dioxide’s causes of climate change. It’s all hearsay. It’s all based upon desires to eliminate fossil fuel. They think faster fuel is a problem. Fossil fuels running out. They’re wrong in both cases. Fossil fuel is not running out. We’ve got five hundred years supply for the world. There’s so much fossil fuel out there it’s amazing.

Liquid natural gas is not being produced in many countries and being shipped by ship to other countries that don’t have liquid natural gas. It is the cheapest fuel. It’s the most least controversial. It’s the cleanest fuel. People just want to get rid of fossil fuel for several reasons.

One is entirely political. I don’t want to get into the subject of socialism. But they’re pushing socialism. Again it’s failed throughout history. But they’re pushing it again. And they’re using a calamity, as a measure to get people’s attention. So the climate is a good one to use. Because the media and scientists have wrongly, without any proof, assumed that this is the problem.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: I can give you a reason why I think it all came up.

It all came up, because of the Industrial Revolution, which is in around the same time period as this current modern warming started.

James Delingpole: Yes.

Dr Rex Fleming: Which is 1850. Industrial revolutions, 1810, 1860, in various phases of it, that was a time of tremendous growth of carbon dioxide, because of all the industry being formulated in the new factories. And the temperatures rose. But they rose, because of the Sun, when having a solar maximum due to the magnetic field being very strong, and the cosmic rays were coming in. And we have isotopes of beryllium and carbon-14, which match up that incoming cosmic rays very precisely.

So we’ve got absolute proof that the cause of the modern warming is, in fact, due to the sun’s magnetic field and cosmic rays. Nothing to do with carbon dioxide! And we’ve got carbon dioxide measurements from that period onward, which keep rising, keep rising.

But even in the 20th century after World War II, there was a period of time, where there was a 35 year period of 1940 to 1975. 35 years of cooling, within the modern warming. CO2 kept going up, didn’t show any difference. But solar records showed a difference. And now we got absolute proof in the 20th century. Along with proof from all past history that CO2 is not a problem.

James Delingpole: Right. But do you think that we’ve reached the stage where it’s so far gone, that so many vested interests depend on CO2 being a problem. The renewables industry, for example, which wouldn’t be viable without the subsidies they get from governments which believe in CO2 is a problem. Do you think there’s any chance that they’re ever going to admit that they’re wrong?

Dr Rex Fleming: Well, you brought up an interesting point, and an important point, that the renewable energy people of wind and solar, they have a lot of money to make, and are making it through government subsidies. They like to see fossil fuel go away. They would make far more money. But fossil fuel is cheaper! So the only reason they’re even popular is, because government subsidies. It’s the government who’s involved here. And it’s the government who tax the hell of out of fossil fuel. That’s why fossil fuel is so expensive here in England. Petrol, unbelievable prices compared to the United States.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: But, so it’s a hard thing to fight big industry like that it’s hard to fight governments who want bigger governments, and more taxes. It’s a difficult challenge. But I’m telling you there are enough scientists now coming around, and there’s enough people out there who don’t want to pay these high costs for energy, who are going to come around to when the truth is out. And the truth is coming out!

Maybe we have to produce a movie like Al Gore did? But eventually we’re going to get it out with our articles, with our books. There are over 20 books on Amazon.com right now that talk about the fallacy of carbon dioxide warming. They don’t have the proof that my book has. They have some proof, but not the entire proof that my book has. But they’re out there. And they’re talking about the fallacious lies that are put out by government, by media. And the truth is slowly, slowly, coming up.

James Delingpole: So, what is the killer point in your book, that that takes only the argument to new levels?

Dr Rex Fleming: Well there are the three arguments. The two of them have been put up by other people. One is the, …

James Delingpole: Cosmic rays, …

Dr Rex Fleming: Well, one is, there is an alternative, but a factor that most people do write about in these previous books I mentioned on Amazon.com, is that the past climates have been warm and cold, and warm and cold, with no changes in carbon dioxide.

James Delingpole: Yeah!

Dr Rex Fleming: How can that be a cause? There’s no correlation. So that’s a big reason. A second reason is another theory, which is the Svensmark’s theory of CO2 not being a cause. And cosmic rays and the sun’s magnetic field being the cause.

What I’ve brought new to the table is a detailed look at radiation, which you never see in the literature. They never go that deeply. In the articles that talk about this, they never go that deeply into the day-to-day changes in radiation from forcing, from carbon dioxide. And what it actually looks like.

All they show is model results when they’ve jacked up the models with carbon dioxide increasing every year, until they get a doubling. That’s why all these climate models are way too warm, compared to reality. And we got proof of that all over the place. But the proof never comes out in the detail. And that’s what I’ve provided in my book.

I now have the detail, on a day-to-day basis. I found radiation interacts with our atmosphere, and how it, the radiation intensity, although it is strong near the surface, it depletes as you go higher in the atmosphere. And it becomes non-existent, virtually non-existent at 16 kilometers. And at 16 kilometers the only heat left from that initial heat is so trivial, and the absorption coefficients of carbon dioxide are so small, that it gets radiated to space. And that’s what’s happening to the heat, the leftover heat from the carbon dioxide.

James Delingpole: Which is why there’s no tropical hotspot, because it’s not, …

Dr Rex Fleming: Correct. There is nothing in the tropics, there’s been no tropical heating for the last, 200 years. But the models all show it big time.

James Delingpole: So are you saying, I’m just trying to understand it in a kind of layman’s way, that anthropogenic warming theory has it that this CO2 gets trapped within the atmosphere. And has a kind of a potentially catastrophic heating effect. Whereas you’re saying, … And that it accumulates, it gets trapped. It doesn’t leak out. Whereas what you’re saying is that actually this radiation is being dispersed into the atmosphere, …

Dr Rex Fleming: And depleted.

James Delingpole: Depleted. And that’s the difference between the hotness that they’re predicting, versus the reality we’re observing.

Dr Rex Fleming: Exactly! Let me say a bit more about that surface heating. It’s been called “greenhouse gases”. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse. A greenhouse has a roof, our atmosphere has no roof.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: But there is a thermal layer, about a kilometer thick, that exists due to water vapour, and carbon dioxide. They both absorb solar radiation. And that solar radiation is turned into long wave thermal radiation. And that’s what heats that lowest one kilometer. That heat then, … And, by the way, water vapour is five times as important as carbon dioxide.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: In the lowest layer. A factor of five. Nevertheless, both sources of radiation decrease as you go up. Because radiation is given by the Planck function. The intensity of radiation is driven by that Planck function, created by Max Planck, way back in 1900. So that heat which is strong at the surface, keeps rising. And it’s an energy. Energy is not created by carbon dioxide and water vapour. But it’s absorbed by those two gases. And that absorption is then used to drive an engine. It’s driving the engine of the atmospheric circulation and the irrigation system of the planet.

So that radiation slowly depletes, vertically with height. And when you get up to 16 kilometers there’s nothing left! It’s a trivial amount left. And again there are coefficients that absorb radiation. And the coefficients that radiation are so small that radiation at 16 kilometres, and the heat left over there, it’s just radiated off to space.

James Delingpole: Right. I suddenly realized I made a mistake in my description of CO2 theory. That it’s not the CO2 that gets trapped, it’s the CO2 that traps the heat. But yeah, anyway just correcting myself for posterity. I see! So this factor is not built into any of the, what was it, 21 models, you said?

Dr Rex Fleming: 20, and some,

James Delingpole: 20 and some. And so this ought to reshape our thinking about how climate works and the nature of the problem. But why are they not spotted this then, all these supposed experts? How come you’ve spotted it and they haven’t?

Dr Rex Fleming: Well the climate experts, let’s talk about the modelling experts. They’re the ones who really drive it, because they need supercomputers. And we all like, as the mathematician myself, I would love to see a supercomputer in my home, and do all kinds of fun things! There are very expensive and it takes big bucks to buy a supercomputer these days.

James Delingpole: You’ve got a supercomputer at home?

Dr Rex Fleming: No. I have a powerful laptop.

James Delingpole: All right. Okay.

Dr Rex Fleming: I could tell you about my laptop in a minute. But these scientists need the money to get the computers. They don’t want to change what’s been going now since the Iron Lady introduced this situation.

James Delingpole: Yeah.

Dr Rex Fleming: And so they keep grinding ahead producing their forecasts, writing articles, but never, ever, have you seen the detail in those articles that I have in my book.

James Delingpole: Right.

Dr Rex Fleming: They just don’t want to discover it, I don’t think.

James Delingpole: So yesterday, I think it was, I’m in various email groups with the climate scientists, well not climate scientists, proper scientists, [chuckling] you know, atmospheric physicists, and stuff. And they were expressing disappointment at the Trump administration appears to have been got at, yet again, by “the swamp”.

Because President Trump you remember was talking about having a red team/blue team discussion of the CO2 issue, and getting scientists on both sides of the argument to thrash it out and to form a decision, from a verdict, based on their discussions. And he’s now decided to nix that.

Apparently because the GOP, the Washington conventional swamp, that that never wanted Trump to be in power anyway, they’ve said:

“No! No! We can’t be seen to be climate change deniers, not when we’re facing people like AOC. Not when the entire the Democrat partyis it’s deciding it’s campaign slogan is going to be we’re gonna solve the planet’s climate problems.”

So I still worry that there’s going to be just a sort of minority of us who are speaking the truth. But where the clamour of The Times is for more to be done. That this is a planetary emergency, as were being told by David Attenborough, and Greta Thornburg, and others. So how do we win this one?

Dr Rex Fleming: Well, we need people like Trump to follow through with his original plan. That plan is not dead. I have been informed that this team has not been formed. And the international, or even the national debate on the subject has not been brought to the forefront yet. But I understand it’s still being thought about. And enough people want to be a part of it, Judy Curry is somebody you probably.

James Delingpole: Yeah, yeah, Judy Curry.

Dr Rex Fleming: She’s a proponent of it. And many people are. So I think it’s gonna slowly happen. We do need to get a open free discussion from scientists on both sides. When that happens the people in my group, the quote “deniers” who have so much evidence, we will to easily defeat the people on the other side! They bring nothing to the table of scientific proof! All they have is hearsay. All they have is media coverage! All they have is government people saying it’s true. They say it’s true, but they have no proof that is true!

We have, on the other hand, proof that the opposite is true. So we will win that debate if it ever gets out there. Nobody wants it, because of the political reasons. But it’s going to eventually get out. We just have to keep working on it. People like you and I gotta keep pushing it. We have a lot of followers, there’s more all the time.

We’ve seen already a tremendous change in the past two years, the number of scientific papers coming out on the solar side, versus at the anthopogenic side. So there’s encouraging news happening.

James Delingpole: Yeah, well except, of course, the unencouraging news is that by your theory we’re approaching a new solar minimum, which is gonna hit us, … Oh! That’s right you said it moves the solar minima, comes in, what? How many year cycles? Three hundred and fifty years?

Dr Rex Fleming: Three hundred fifty year cycle. But it’s coming due from the coldest period of the Little Ice Age, which were when millions of people died of starvation. It was so cold. And especially here in England many problems. From that point, 1680, you had 350 years to that you get 2030. It’s 11 years from now, when there’ll be a rather substantial solar minimum. Solar minimum being again not the insulation of the sun, but the magnetic field of the sun.

James Delingpole: Yep.

Dr Rex Fleming: Minimal activity. This is probably going to be the single biggest reason we’ll get a change of policy, is when it starts getting colder. And it’s going to get colder. How much colder, we don’t know. Again is just as the atmosphere is chaotic, climate is chaotic. There are no exact answers, ever! But there are approximate answers.

And so plus, or minus five years from 2030, there’s going to be the solar minimum which is going to expose itself to the point where temperatures gonna start getting colder. And when it gets colder, there’s gonna be less food production. There were a billion people on the planet back in the Little Ice Age times.

And in 2030 there’s gonna be greater than 8 billion people on the planet. How are we gonna feed that many people if we have any kind of a famine? Well it’s going to take an enormous amount of planning. And that planning is going to have to start fairly soon. And I think it will when this word gets out, my book, and other books come out. And there’ll be other followers. And there are other people, other theories, that also disagree with the man-made cause.

So it’ll all get out. And eventually we’ll see some changes in the real atmosphere, in the real climate. And then [chuckling] they’ll have to realize they’ve been wrong, all along. And then we’ve got a serious situation is at hand.

James Delingpole: Well, may I make a suggestion? That obviously these people will want to make amends for their wrongheaded theories, which would cause so much damage. So I’m sure they will want to volunteer to be provide food for the starving poor.

I think the first people to go, to be too fed to the starving masses, should be all those, all your former NOAA colleagues, perhaps? [Rex chuckles] The ones who’ve been pushing this nonsense! Because have you ever had this? I get this.

Somebody actually emailed me the other day from Canada claiming to be an environmental lawyer. And he suggested that one day people like me are going to be tried at The Hague for, what was it? Ecocide, or something. That by denying climate change, manmade climate change, I’m somehow contributing to terrible things.

Dr Rex Fleming: Well, he’s exaggerating, of course, I would love to see this get into the courts. It’s already been defeated some years ago in England. Al Gore’s movie was a farce with many errors in it. And it was brought to court, and the deniers won that case. And they had to back off producing that movie and sending it around to the UK schools.

That’s one example. I would like to see more of that actually, because in every case the scientific, … You can argue about rumours but you can’t argue about scientific facts. We have the scientific facts on our side. There are zero scientific facts on the other side. And so that’s going to really help.

The real question is how do we accelerate that? We do need people like President Trump and other world leaders admitting to this fact. And indeed deciding to do something about it, and try to change things. But it won’t be easy. But I think it’s gonna happen, and the weather itself we’ll make it happen.

James Delingpole: Well yeah. One further question. You’re not in the first flush of youth. Have you taught people, … Because one of my worries is that all the people in academe they’ve bought into this whole climate change scare theory. And they are teaching PhD students the same rubbish. And those PhD students will presumably be one day teaching other people. Do you get any sense that the kind of younger generation of PhD students and scientists, are wising up?

Dr Rex Fleming: Actually it’s worse than that, because the pro-carbon dioxide cause of climate, are pushing this in the high schools and grade schools.

James Delingpole: Indeed.

Dr Rex Fleming: Younger kids are being scared to death of the future based upon this false catastrophic theory. Another thing we have going for our side though is, they’ve been pushing this thing for a long time. And they’ve been saying:

“Oh, it’s going to be horrible in ten years!”

Twenty years ago they said that. It hasn’t been horrible. Nothing has changed. There’s been no catastrophes. The storms we have, are natural weather variability. They’re not due to climate, that’s just natural weather. When warm periods and cold periods we have storms, we have droughts, we have floods, we have hurricanes, we have tornadoes. They all happen warm, or cold.

But the dramatic things like Al Gore talked about, of in the future, it never happened! Jim Hansen of NASA said some crazy things way back about what warming is gonna be. And your Max Ridley, he has called that out in one of his presentations, that how wrong it was. And they keep making these claims and they never come true! There’s not been one claim that’s ever come true! So we have that going for us. And so eventually, the truth comes out. I’m optimistic. I just hope I’m alive long enough to see it.

James Delingpole: Yeah, well yes. So do I! Good. [Rex chuckles] Well, just a reminder, your book is called the rise and fall of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change by Dr. Rex Fleming. Well Rex, it’s been pleasure meeting you and I do hope that we get rewarded by people joining our side one day.

[45:01]

Dr Rex Fleming: Well, I thank you. I’ve enjoyed meeting you and I really enjoyed your book. You’ve wrote several. But the one called, The Little Green Book of Eco-Fascism. You’ve got wonderful quotes in here. They’re very clever, and very convincing. And I’ve used two of them in my book. And I’ve quoted you exactly! So you’re in the references!

James Delingpole: Excellent! Okay. Thank you very much and goodbye.

Dr Rex Fleming: Goodbye.

[45:43]

END

61 Comments

Woes: Hello. And welcome back to Millenniyule 2021. This is the second night. And there are going to be four streams tonight. Let me see. In two hours it will be Survive the Jive, and then Mark Gullick, and then Charles Robertson.

But first it’s UK Column. Now, I have three representatives from the UK Column here. This is Brian Garrish, David Scott, and Alex Thompson. Now I last had UK Column on in 2017. There have been various reasons why they haven’t been on since. But I wanted to have them on since then. But unfortunately it just wasn’t possible for various reasons.

But I’m a big fan of UK Column. I’ll introduce you this way. A lot of people might have once thought UK Column is a conspiracy based thing. It goes into that sort of territory.

And a lot of people have been skeptical of that whole area until the last maybe five years, and then especially the last two years. I think a lot of people are now much more amenable to the notion of things being orchestrated behind the scenes. And sometimes openly, shamelessly, than they once were.

So we’re going to talk about the last two years.

So welcome UK Column! Thank you for agreeing to appear.

David Scott: Thank you.

Woes: Yeah that’s Alex there. That’s Brian and David.

David Scott: It’s lovely to be here. It’s been a while since 2017.

Woes: Yes.

David Scott: In 2017 we’re sitting in, I think Brian Garrish’s kitchen, the three of us!

Brian Garrish: Yes.

David Scott: Squeezed in quite narrowly. And we were talking about how dire 2017 had been compared to 2016, which was an absolute hoot!

Woes: Yes. Yeah, it’s strange, because in different years have different pluses and minuses. And 2016 had been a hoot. But 2017 was a big year for dissidence. It was a very good year for that kind of thing. But the world was clearly getting darker. I mean, Trump had got elected, and the Syria stuff had started. Which had immediately ended the honeymoon period for Trump.

But anyway, I would like to ask you, … I mean, clearly the world has transformed since then. It feels like a different age. When I think about 2017, I was doing very well on YouTube. Since then everything has darkened [chuckling] in terms of the online world! The online world, social media, has become a system for control, rather than a system for freedom of speech.

So would any of you like to talk about that.

Brian Garrish: Well, if I may, I’ll respond to that straight away and say that if you’re still on YouTube you’re doing well. Because, of course, the UK Column was banned from YouTube a few months ago.

Woes: And I was banned in February [chuckling]

Brian Garrish: Okay. Well you beat us to it. Then well done! But perhaps I’m allowed to just add. And if your viewers and listeners would like to know why we were banned, it’s, because we put up a audio testimony of a lady whose husband had suffered from neurological damage after having the vaccine. Guillain-Barre syndrome. And he’d ultimately been paralyzed from the neck down. So we just simply broadcast her testimony. Which was very quiet, very measured, but very emotional. And that produced us a ban on YouTube. And then I think it was sees.

David Scott: A little wrinkle to that story, actually, was we didn’t get immediately banned. The video was up, the offended video was up for about three weeks. It was then picked up by Conservative Woman, who we suspect is read by Tory Central Office. They did a transcript of the piece and linked to our video. Then we got banned.

Brian Garrish: Then we got banned. And then a few weeks later the Daily Mail ran exactly the same story. And the key the key part of the story was that when this unfortunate gentleman suffered the vaccine adverse reactions, he went on to a ward where the doctors diagnosed it as a adverse vaccine reaction. It was diagnosed as Guillain-Barre syndrome. And there were at least six other men on the ward all with similar neurological damage. When the Daily Mail printed the story it was acceptable, but the UK Column having broadcast that story months, well month and a bit, weeks earlier, we were banned.

Alex Thompson: There was a time Brian when we were actually, I think a year and a half ahead of The Daily Telegraph on one of the Covid stories. I forget which one.

[05:10]

Brian Garrish: Yes. Well there’s been a number.

David Scott: That was Sage. And the Sage minutes that described how they were going to increase people’s sense of personal risk in order to control their behaviour. I think that was it.

Brian Garrish: Yeah.

Alex Thompson: And at that point, of course, The Daily Telegraph had to come out with it, because Laura Dodsworth had written a whole book on this theme, State of Fear. In which she never gives attribution to UK Column. But I think clearly she’d read us quite thoroughly, because she was in every UK Column talking point in that book.

Woes: This is quite remarkable that you could get punished. How many subscribers did the YouTube channel have?

Alex Thompson: We were just shy of a hundred grand so we didn’t quite get our silver album! I think perhaps they were minded not to give us that.

Woes: Yeah. I think a lot of people get frozen at about 90, 95, 96, 98, and mysteriously never make it to one hundred thousand! That’s happened to a lot of people, that I remember. Yeah, that’s a big loss. I’m sorry for that. My own channel I think had 57,000, I think it was at the end. But what’s incredible about all of this is that there is no way to put it to YouTube that what they banned you for is something that, did you say the Daily Mail?

Brian Garrish: Daily Mail, yeah.

Woes: Daily Mail reported a few weeks later. There’s no way to reason with them and say:

“Can’t you see that you’ve done something irrational, and unfair?”

This is something that as a feature of this age is these massive, monolithic, corporations that you cannot reason with. I think that’s a big characteristic of this, I think.

David Scott: Like UK Column, we’ve also had run-ins with Twitter [Woes laughs]. I’m a Twitter refugee as well. I got banned from Twitter.

And the first strike I got, I was actually doing it in real time. Because I was on the UK Column news and Mike had organized, … There’s a database that the government put out, called the Yellow Card System, which reports on vaccine adverse reactions. And it was basically, if it was a pencil written ledger faxed to somebody, and then scanned, and then put up, it would have it wouldn’t have been any more crude! It was basically an Excel spreadsheet. And it was almost impossible to find anything!

So we got all the information out of this, and put a front end on. So you could search for things that you could understand. You could say, okay, headaches, or pains, or leg pain, or problems with eyes, or whatever it was.

Alex Thompson: It had manufacturers.

David Scott: Yeah!

Brian Garrish: Well should we just focus a bit on this. One thing I’d like to say is the other member of the team is Mike Robinson, who’s not here. And I’d like to give him a mention, because it was Mike Robinson and his team that actually built the database, the searchable database for the Yellow Card data.

But I think your audience would want to know that the official figures from the MHRA that’s the UK’s Medicines and Health Products Regulatory Agency. It collects data on vaccine adverse reactions. And the total to date is one million, fourteen thousand, six hundred and thirty nine [1,014,639] recorded adverse reactions. And total fatalities one thousand eight hundred and twenty two [1,822].

And those figures should be considered, bearing in mind that the MHRA was prepared to admit that probably less than 10 percent of adverse reactions got recorded. And probably down to about two to four percent of serious adverse effects. So that isn’t the UK Column’s data. That is the Government, the UK Government’s official data!

But the MHRA provided that data in a very clumsy system that was very difficult to search. And so Mike Robinson and the team built this amazing front end to allow people to search the government’s own data. But this is where we are, with vaccine adverse effects in UK.

[10:15]

David Scott: And so my Twitter ban, my first Twitter strike, suspension, came. Mike had created this website. It took nothing but the government’s own data and simply made it searchable. I thought that’s fantastic! And I tweeted it out, whilst we were live on air. And whilst we’re live on there, about five minutes later, I got a message to say my Twitter account been closed down.

Brian Garrish: For medical misinformation, was it David? I can’t remember what they viewed.

David Scott: They came up with a few explanations as to why they cancelled me. But yeah, that was the main one.

Woes: Yeah, it’s just so incredible! The medical misinformation from the UK Government’s own data! [chuckling]

Brian Garrish: Yeah. But it actually makes sense, because I’m going to be very direct here, and say. If people want to know how the scam works. The scam is very simple. The MHRA collects data which is recorded on vaccine adverse reactions. So it sucks all that data in. It does print it on sheets which are very difficult to view and analyze. But it does produce that data.

But there’s then no risk assessment, no analysis, done on the data which it has collected. So the MHRA – and June Raine [sp] is the chief executive, who’s usually the spokesperson. She’s the one who constantly says:

“Well, the vaccines are working! They’re safe! Benefits outweigh the risks!”

But the scam is that they’ve never investigated their own data on the risks! Even though we’ve got over 1, 800 people dead! And over a million adverse effects!

Alex Thompson: We better tell the audience that the buck doesn’t stop there, because we like to use our research skills in which Mike, who’s not with us this evening, is supreme on the statistical side. But we all have our contributions to make.

We have found that the MHRA only poses as the data owner. Actually, the decisions clinically have to be made – as far as we now understand – by a doctor Pierre Mohammed. Perhaps you might want to add something about him Brian?

Brian Garrish: Well yes this is the Commission on Human Medicines, which is another part of this soup of organizations which the UK government claims are looking after our health and well-being and safety, as far as vaccinations are concerned.

So that gentleman is the head of the commission on Human Medicines. And that organization holds ultimate responsibility for vaccine safety. But they never speak out. You never hear them say anything it’s always, I’ll say, delegated back down the line to June Raine from MHRA. So there’s a little system.

And it works by the fact that there’s lots of good words about who is working hard to protect us from any possible vaccine damage. But the reality is that they never act on any of the information that they’ve got! What they are doing on a hour-by-hour, day-by-day basis, is working with the pharmaceutical companies.

And this is to such an extent that, if you look at the MHRA board meetings which you can find on YouTube, listed as MHRA board meetings. I’m afraid I’ve forgotten her name. But one of the members of the board has allegiance to Bill and Melinda Gates and their organization. So there is no independence in the MHRA whatsoever! !

And it’s primary function is to help develop the pharmaceutical industry world-wide, and to increase their profits.

Alex Thompson: I think what we’re getting at is there are some surprising, maybe not so surprising, similarities between how this scam is operated and how in previous events, or reporting that we’re known for, establishment complicity in child abuse is covered up. A lot of buck passing! And a lot of leaving local, or better known faces, to face the music. To leaving councils, in that case, to sink, or swim.

And in this case, as Brian describes, there is a line right up to the Secretaries of State, who never seem to take responsibility for anything. I think one of the best quotable quotes from last year’s Millennial, Colin, was Godfrey Bloom, when he came on.

And he was speaking about Britain’s then Secretary of State for Health before his fandango with his assistant. Which, of course, may have been me on sen, in order to shuffle him off to his next technocratic post. But anyway, he was Health Secretary at that point as you recall. And Godfrey Bloom memorably told you in Millenniyule 2020:

“At the investment bank I used to work for, Hancock wouldn’t even got in to clean the bloody cars. And it doesn’t help that he looks like a child molester!”

So again [chuckling] people are noticing, comparisons, between different establishment scandals.

[15:43]

Woes: Yeah, indeed! I think that when I first discovered UK Column it was, if I recall correctly, it was to do with, … You see. This is an interesting historical comparison. I think I’d like to bring Brian in here on this. There was the world of the 2000s, in the late 2000s. I think that that was when and the smoking ban came in. And there was that the climate change thing was going on. They were trying to sell it then.

And then I became aware of UK Column, or Brian Garrish, as an individual, at that time, because of the Common Purpose phenomenon.

Brian could you sort of draw a line between Common Purpose and that culture in the late 2000s, to Covid now?

Brian Garrish: Well. I’m going to say for me this is a very easy thing to do. Let’s deal with what we’re up against at the moment. Of course, a lot of people are focused on the, we’ll call it, the hard facts of vaccines whatever you think about Covid.

Let’s assume that there is some form of fluid type virus around. And it’s severe enough that if you’re vulnerable and elderly you can die. And the response of the government is to say that we’re all going to be injected with a pharmaceutical product. That’s hard reality.

But there’s something else that’s going on. And we can call it “propaganda”, because there is a massive, massive, propaganda exercise, control of the media, going on in order to facilitate everything around Covid-19 and lockdown vaccinations.

But alongside the propaganda that we can see as the adverts in the paper or, for example, that absolutely disgraceful broadcast that Boris Johnson gave to the nation last night. Pitiful broadcast!

Alongside that type of propaganda, we’ve got something much deeper. And that is the use of applied behavioural psychology to change the way people think and behave. And the track for that psychology, if viewers, listeners want somewhere easy to start, they should simply search online for a document called Mindspace that’s M-I-N-D-S-P-A-C-E, all one word, mindspace dot PDF.

And if you search for that you’ll find the British Cabinet Office document, dated 2010. And if you go, I suggest you read it all, you should, because it’s important. But if you go to the bottom of page 66, there is a paragraph which says:

“That we the British government can change the way people think and behave, and they will not even know this has happened, or if they realize their behaviour has changed, they will not know how it was done.”

Now this is very dangerous applied psychology, which is now fully in the hands of the British government, via essentially the Behavioural Insights Team which was an integral part of the cabinet office. But this was the type of a plate behavioural psychology which Common Purpose was using in order to reframe it’s so-called “future leaders”..

So when I look back to the work that I did in the very, very early 2000s, and a little bit before when I was aware of Common Purpose, and I was tracking what was happening with them, they were choosing people in all sectors of society, … Could be public sector schools, businesses, police, military, NHS, even within Parliament. And those people were being gently “reframed” to hold new values.

So Common Purpose was effectively the Trojan horse that was putting it’s people in positions apparent influence across the whole fabric of government and our society.

And. So when we march through the 2000s, let’s take ourselves into somewhere like 2010, 2012, what you can see is these chosen leaders are the people who are the ones helping to facilitate all of the policy that we can now see is being used to enact everything to do with Covid and the vaccines.

[20:37]

Woes: I could I just interrupt? I should have explained for the audience that Common Purpose was ostensibly a management training organization. When was it founded? I think it was, …

Brian Garrish:1985. Is when Julia Middleton the then chief executive, said. That it was formed. And her story is that she’d been over in America, and previously she’d worked for The Industrial Society, which is a so-called “think tank”.

But she’d then been in America. I believe she was in Chicago and working with the “Chicago Set”, i.e., Barack Obama’s roots. And she discovered this wonderful system. And then she came back to UK.

And she said she was able to raise a large sum of money through a number of banks. She would never disclose which banks. But we know Deutsche Bank was one of them. And then all of a sudden Common Purpose popped up everywhere in the country! To train thousands, and thousands, of these future leaders.

So it called itself a charity. But it’s whole basis was political. And indeed at one stage they were actually operating out of the office of the Deputy Prime Minister when John preScott was having his dalliances in Westminster.

Woes: You see, this is, … Sorry I muted you Alex just because there’s background noise. But you can unmute yourself. But let me get into, …

Alex Thompson: Thank you. Thanks for that. Just, at this point, in the narrative, she came back in 85. But I have her pamphlet from 1981 published in Britain entitled “Quality Circles” and published under her maiden name. And the point of that was she doesn’t give details on which American industrialists and Chicago satanists gave her orders. But it basically says:

“The plebs produce poor work in Britain. And in order to get them to do as they’re told, they’re going to have to engage in struggle sessions. Sit in circles and tell each other what they did wrong this week.”

That was the founding idea.

Brian Garrish: That’s reframing. Doing that is starting to get people to talk in that way in front of other people, is reframing.

Woes: Yeah. And so I think. One of the reasons this is significant is there’s one theory of what’s going on? Now. Is that it’s a decentralized, just sort of amorphous, social force, social consensus, that has a thousand ways of reinforcing itself.

But I think Common Purpose indicates that actually this is quite top-down. It’s quite coordinated. I mean, it results in a social consensus, well whatever, a managerial consensus. But it’s created in the first place, generated, in a very deliberated way. A very conscious way! And, of course, there’s a lot of effort and a huge amount of funding that goes into make making that happen.

And in the case of Common Purpose you’ve got an organization that, … I should have said this at the start. In the 2000s it became apparent. And I think this was, because of New Labour largely, but maybe it pre-existed that. There was a lot of movement between large corporations, government, charities, NGOs, people would show up, …

I mean, a good example since then would be Nick Clegg, who was first in I think in the EU, then he was a British national politician. And now he’s working at Facebook. He’s very high up at Facebook. I mean, that’s a perfect career!

Alex Thompson: Actually, what happened in Scotland in the same time frame was a bit the other way around. But with the same results in the end. Because people came in from US-based globalist think tanks. And a few I think from big tech. David might know more than I do.

But then with the sudden and unexpected collapse of the Labour vote in Scotland, and the SNP forming a government in 2007 with an ideological vacuum, other than blaming the English, this created the perfect opportunity for people to be brought in.

Many of them were actually from Mandarin lives south of the border. Sir David Elvich [sp] who became the top civil servant in ScotGov, the Scottish government in the early SNP period.

Bill Alexander, the Englishman who ended up running the Child Department at Highland Council, pioneering the Named Person Scheme. And some of these people if I’m not mistaken, David, have gone into financial situations after their time in government, thus being exactly the opposite of what was happening in England at the time.

[25:34]

David Scott: I mean, Sir John Elvich was, of course, Common Purpose to the core! He was a Common Purpose supremo! He was taken by Common Purpose to take the message of the charity to Hong Kong, once he was finished running Scotland.

And his big innovation was the Scottish model of government, which had been running for about seven years by the time I found out it existed. And that was no departmental boundaries. It’s one organization.

And when you factor in the Common Purpose approach, which is networks of informal influence. And people operating beyond their authority, you end up with a very dangerous situation where you can see what’s being done.

But there’s no clarity to as to who is actually responsible for anything. And there’s no clarity as to who makes the decisions, and who sets the policy. It becomes this iceberg-like mass moving slowly across society, and taking all before it! That’s what they’re trying to achieve.

Woes: That’s an excellent point. Thank you for because that’s a very good summary of what this actually does. And I think the phrase “leading beyond authority”, was that not the title of her book, Julia Middleton’s book?

Alex Thompson: Right.

Woes: Could either any of you give a summary of what that actually implies, “leading beyond authority”? Because obviously it’s going to cause a lot of fuzziness about, as you just said David, about who did what, who’s responsible for this, who should be appealed to, who should be persuaded, top down, leading beyond it.

Alex Thompson: That is probably one for Brian. But Brian in your answer don’t forget to mention, the unification of Cornwall Council. Because that’s a good nutshell example of how even elected councillors are told we have cabinet responsibility, which has the same effect. Nobody’s responsible for anything, just as in the Scottish model of government. All the ministers act as one.

Brian Garrish: Well yeah, that’s certainly part of it. I think I might just come in a little bit below that, if you like. And say what Common Purpose did, is that once it got itself established in a city, it would seek out people of influence, people that it thought were worthy of coming into its courses. And then it would mix groups of people.

So in a Common Purpose course you might have somebody from the local police, somebody from a couple of schools, somebody from the local council. And they would all be invited to talk on various subjects about their own job, in the first instance. And the other members, of course, would find this interesting. And they would learn from that. But what they were doing with the people is saying:

“Well here you are as a group of people. You’ve come together. You’re not in your normal professional role. And we can now throw problems at you. And ask you how you would solve them.”

So, what is happening very subtly is that you’re taking people outside the boundaries of their own expertise and their own professional limitations.

If we focused on a police officer that would make life quite simple for us. But now in this new group of people they start to have a look at how they would solve problems of crime in the city, or how they would deal with problems of health within the city. And with the addition of some nice evenings out, and people being able to sit down eat together, and have a drink together, teamwork forms amongst this group of people.

And they form the view that they now have the ability to work – I’m deliberately going to use this phrase – “outside their existing professional silos”. This is the expression by Julia Middleton. They’re going to come outside their “silos” and work with other people they don’t usually work with, in order to solve problems.

And then Common Purpose stirs the pot and helps this process by linking together people that have been trained with Common Purpose courses, so that they continue to work unseen across the city.

And the best example I can give of this was that in Plymouth at one stage I’d never heard of Common Purpose, then I discover it. Then I discover it’s prevalent in a lot of organizations and professions in Plymouth. But I then discovered that people who were sat alongside me in the chamber of commerce were Common Purpose trained. But they never mentioned it. But what they were doing unseen.

And the Daily Mail when it printed its 11 pages on Common Purpose, described it as a quasi-Masonic organization. And what they were getting at was the Common Purpose people liaised with each other unseen! So you’ve created a group of people who believe they’ve been selected as future leaders. And that they are now going to be working to solve problems outside of the limitations of their normal professional job.

It’s a very clever, very devious, system!

[31:28]

Woes: Hold on a second David. I just want to get this clarified. Because some people would say that actually sounds like a good idea to blend different people’s expertise, their experience, the attitude that each one has adopted in his profession. He can give in fresh insights to someone else in some other profession. So it’s new ways of thinking about problems. Some people would say that sounds good.

Brian Garrish: Well they could say that. And I could go so far as to say:

“Yep! There are some positive elements in doing that.”

However, when you start to see the Common Purpose documents showing, for example, that where they set up Advisory Boards, and in a city when they’d got people that they knew they’d got them as Common Purpose graduates as for future leaders.

And these people had some gravitas in their position. Maybe they were the chief executive of the local council. Maybe they were quite a senior policeman in the local police force. They put these people on what they called Common Purpose Advisory Boards.

And those Advisory Boards would then seek out the next people to be trained. But the point I really want to make is that we were able to show documentation where Common Purpose was telling the local police Common Purpose advisory board member what they were to do.

And they were also, particularly in local authorities, telling the Common Purpose graduate, that they’d obtained, to help them seek funding from the council in order to train more people.

Why can I be very confident about this? Because I have a very old website, but the data is still exactly absolutely correct. The website is called cpexposed.com. And if you go onto that website there’s a database system where you can search for documents. And you can read the actual documents that we were able to obtain, now many years ago. But they still show the evidence where Common Purpose was absolutely using people in very important positions, chief executives in local authorities, in the NHS, police.

They were even getting into military camps to do training. Which I found astonishing! And Common Purpose was instructing their graduate within the police, or the NHS, or the local authority, to do their bidding.

Woes: In other words, these graduates, these members of Common Purpose, are, regardless of their profession, in some sense they are working for Common Purpose, even in their day-to-day lives.

Brian Garrish: Yes.

Alex Thompson: Yes! Yes! Absolutely! I looked up the string “GCHQ”, my former employer, Britain’s signals intelligence agency, on Brian’s website cpxposed.com. And I found three names to my astonishment where two were people that I knew. Well, one personally, and one by repute on the staff news groups.

And both of these two had been initially on message with the thinking of most of the staff. And sometime in the mid 2000s which I think correlated with when Brian had records of them being trained and becoming a graduate of Common Purpose, they became under a bit relentingly hostile to the old ethos of GCHQ!

[35:08]

Woes: That’s incredible! So did you actually witness that?

Alex Thompson: Yes! And it wasn’t just my personal impression. In one of the cases the person who had taken this course at GCHQ and become a Common Purpose graduate, was described by at least two of my other very solid older colleagues as a “changed person”. As not the person they were before. A new set of values attacking their old person, their old self.

Woes: Wow. That’s so sinister. David can I bring you back into ask to answer the question of what is meant by leading beyond authority? And you can talk about Scotland though.

David Scott: Yeah yes this is sort of putting in there a moment ago. This is what I was going to say is. You raised the issue about the link between Common Purpose and the Covid policy.

Woes: Yes.

David Scott: And this is the link in my view is the whole concept of leading beyond authority. Because we have well in Scotland we’ve got Devi Sridhar. And I understand that Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t, or at least, wouldn’t do a thing on Covid policy without Devi Sridhar.

Devi Sridhar is 37 years old. She is an Indian-American. She’s a Rhodes scholar. And she’s written a book called Governing Global Health with Chelsea Clinton.

But she’s making decisions that alter society! She’s deciding when the economy closes down! She’s deciding when children can see faces of adults! She’s deciding when people can go to school, children could go to school. She’s deciding when you can go to a hospital to see your elderly relative. She’s deciding everything about how we operate! Based on what? Where’s the authority? It’s so far beyond the authority you can’t see it!

And there is a requirement for an almost unbelievable amount of arrogance to think that you can organize society, based on either a niche bit of information, because you’ve done some work in epidemiology, or you’ve done perhaps some rather badly executed computer programming. And you have a model that’s predicting the future course of pandemics. And that makes you somehow qualified to instruct the world, or the nation, on everything!

Alex Thompson: And I have a nice update on this. I have a nice update on this, David. Because when you were on UK Column news today, as you always are on Mondays, one of the segments was about Boris Johnson getting at Number 10 Downing Street an equivalent of Devi Sridhar. Someone to tell him what to do.

And it’s a chap called Dan Rosenfield. Who had an incredible and improbable rise from being a German graduate, or a graduate in the German language, to being a Treasury bod. And here’s the link. The New Statesman, as we quoted today, is tapping up former colleagues for what this Dan Rosenfield is going to be “The Enforcer”, as he’s called, at Downing Street. The man without whom Boris Johnson:

“Will not sleep, yea will not wake.”

And this is it.:

“The former treasury colleague says the truth is that Number 10 has not yet recovered from the tragic early death of Sir Jeremy Hayward, the last enforcer. Dan Rosenfield is potentially a worthy successor to Jeremy. He is somebody who understands morale, maths, markets, M16, and M15. If you’re looking for somebody who can operate well in the deep centre, Dan Rosenfield has got the full package.”

End of quote. I’ve never heard of the “deep centre” before. I thought we were supposed to be on top of these things. But that shows you something. And then in the next paragraph in their own rubric the new statesmen add that what the deep centre means is:

“The most important decision-making across the institutions of government.”

And The New Statesman says that:

“Rosenfield’s knowledge of this deep centre is considered his greatest asset.”

Woes: Would one way to characterize this be that it’s the sort of clandestine implementation of a technocracy?

Alex Thompson: Yes!

Woes: All right! [chuckling] Okay.

David Scott: A managerial state. The idea that democracy for all of its flaws means you have some control, has been, that’s gone! But it’s been removed very subtly.

[40:00]

Alex Thompson: So yeah, you’ve done a lot of reading David of the golden, well not, anti-golden period around 1948. One of the many books that came out this year. And it’s been touted in the Dutch Parliaments – I live in the Netherlands here now, so I know this – is a book by James Burnham in the US called The Managerial State, just about this. And the subtitle when it was first published is What is Happening in the World Today.

So Burnham, who is no sloucher, thought. This was a key thing about the post-war world. And the institutions were many of them especially in Britain forged in that year 1948. It was the go ahead for technocracy.

Woes: And so it’s almost embarrassing that we’re only catching up with it, and defining it.

Alex Thompson: We were the first. We were the first two, or three years ago to discover a memorandum from I think the third, or fourth of January, 1948. Have I got the date, right? Just after the New Year break, or during it, Prime Minister Clement Atlee dictated a memo:

“Saying Britain is going to invent something called European Military Union.”

Nobody reported on that, for decades! Until we did in 2018, 2019, I think gentlemen.

Brian Garrish: Yeah.

Woes: European Military Union, would that be the start of the EU?

Alex Thompson: Well yes, that’s the whole point. It was these guys need military union therefore we’re going to have to invent a political pretext for it.

So we’re going to in the first instance tell Benelux to start existing. Because the Belgians and Dutch had been often former foes. But the Belgians, Dutch, and Luxembourgers were told once their government in exile returned, at end of the war:

“If you want any Marshall Plan money you’re going to have to become a quasi-unified state with no customs borders between you.”

And then that was then spun out to the whole EU

Woes: Right? So there’s the sort of artificial merging of States. So that they’re more managerially convenient.

Alex Thompson: That’s exactly it. Yeah. Sorry about the clock chiming in the background I’ve just muted most of that. But that’s exactly what it is. Well the long history of technocracy preferring to work at a European level.

But the key thing is, it came out of Manhattan, and the City of London. There’s no aspects of European unification after the war, that –. And I’ve been burying my nose in continental documents as long as I’ve been over here. Like I’ve never found anything in French, German, Italian, or Dutch, which suggests that the original six members of the EEC. Well, let’s remove Germany and Italy, because they were the foes, right?

But let’s say the continental allies, right? So France and Benelux, there’s no evidence that they innately and genuinely wished for any kind of union on any level!

That Jean Monet was, as reported widely in books such as The Great Deception by Booker and North, was widely – and including by De Gaul – correctly understood to be an Anglo-American stooge with bad debts to, should we say Deep State companies. In his case, the Hudson’s Bay company. But it’s just one of the many tentacles of the old money in the City.

Woes: Gosh! There’s so much to know isn’t there’s? So much to find out! And I can just imagine a dense fabric of deals, and organizations, and bribery, blackmail.

Alex Thompson: Yeah. The Italians were co-opted pretty soon. There wasn’t much bribery needed they just took old unreformed commies like Alberto Spinelli who has rooms in his honour at the European Parliament these days.

And Antonio Gramsci. He hasn’t got any suite of rooms named after him in Brussels. But he was of the same era. And down at the Italian end they were just openly writing:

“We need to do this to overturn the Patriarchy.”

But in France and Benelux, it was a bit more dressed up as:

“We won’t be able to suck the teat of Anglo-American investment. If we don’t do this.”

Woes: Right. So what? And this is a very sort of open question. What is the top level of this web, as it were? I mean,

Alex Thompson: Brian. And I have answered this enough times in our own words in previous interviews. I’ve never heard David go for that one. So I’m very intrigued what he might say!

Woes: Because obviously just to introduce this. You can talk about the manager of a leisure centre in Nottingham. That would be the bottom level. But then you go up through the echelons. And do we end at the EU? Do we end at the British national level? Do we end at the UN? What? How high [chuckling] does it go?

Alex Thompson: We can’t enter the UN. I’ll say this before I hand over to David. We can’t enter the UN, because we know who created the UN. It was created on privately owned land in San Francisco, in an irregularly and not according to international law, in an irregularly called meeting.

And it was not really the diplomatic envoys that got it going. It was a wartime slogan that the allies had become the United Nations as of 1943. Which Roosevelt was already talking about. So, well, over to David. He’s looked into this more deeply.

[45:12]

David Scott: Well, I don’t know about that! I find this one of the hardest questions. I think the Column finds this one of the hardest questions. Where does the instructions actually come from? Because it’s manifestly not the people you’re seeing.

At a low level I had the pleasure of going along to an SNP Yes Movement meeting in Perth. At the Salutation Hotel some years ago. And I went there just to ask some questions and see what would happen. And it was remarkable, because it was all tactics, they were getting people geed up for the next independence referendum. This would be about 2016, 17, I think.

So they thought we’re going to go again, and clearly there was a tactic. The tactic was we’re going to do just what we did the last time, but the Labour Party is collapsing so we’ll win this time. That was it. They didn’t go any further than that.

And all the discussion was mobilizing the troops, who would go where, how would get people out in the street, how would get little shops set up, and street stalls, and badges, and things. But there was no ideas. And I found this very funny. So I asked them, you know:

“What’s the policy relating to Scottish independence? And where does the policy come from?”

And there was a kind of embarrassed silence in the top table. And they said:

“Well you might try common [word unclear].”

Really? So they actually had no idea where the policies were coming from. And that problem is visible at national cabinet level, as well. So it doesn’t reside there.

So when you go to the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, the World Health Organization, some of the UN bodies time trying to get closer to it. But it’s not quite there either.

Alex Thompson: When you get it to the Bank for International Settlements, you’re getting perhaps closer.

David Scott: A wee bit closer.

Alex Thompson: But then above them, because they own the central banks, that own the banks, and et cetera, et cetera. And, of course, the level above that is what’s interesting. Hedge funds, and private investors.

The same people who set up the world’s first Central Banks, the Bank of Sweden, the Bank of England, the Bank of Scotland, the Bank of France, the same clubs around 1700.

These people turn out to be closely guarded lists of shareholders, right? So they are both acting above and below the level of the banks. And they are signaling often in their dummy run exercises and their think pieces and their think tanks, what is going to be the policy at the level David just mentioned, like the World Health Organization.

But there’s clearly capture of many of these organizations. Anything like that calls itself the World Health Organization, or the American Medical Association, sounds like it is a conclave of the best minds. In that case, the discipline of medicine. But they are bought and paid for. We know the date and format, for example, in which David Rockefeller bought up, or the Rockefeller clan of his age, of that time, brought up the AMA. In fact, called it into existence.

And likewise Gates have played that role with regard to the WHO and got it diplomatic status in Switzerland.

So you’re looking to a small number of old money families.

David Scott: When you say Gates and you say Rockefeller, you’re immediately talking about the tax exempt foundations, right? And the Dodds Report that gives you information about that.

So that level of control of big money, where the people who actually made the money, are long gone. But there are people who control it. And who have agendas. And the agendas are very difficult to get at.

And then you’ve got the question what makes the agenda? And then you’re getting into criminality, sometimes satanism, sometimes various forms of belief, you’re getting into the spiritual war.

And ultimately, my view is that’s ultimately the battle you’re fighting. It’s principalities and powers. It’s not any easily identified human organization.

Woes: Thank you. That is a very interesting answer. Brian, would you like to have a go at this question?

[50:00]

Brian Garrish: Well I’m gonna say I fully support where we’ve just got to. But I just like to put in an intermediate step. And that if we saw, if we’re happy with the concept, the Common Purpose established itself in order to choose future leaders, which it recruited, it trained, it then let loose in order to seed and propagate its own agenda, we can move up the ladder to somewhere like the World Economic Forum. Where we’ve got Klaus Schwab running an organization that is selecting global leaders.

And today on the UK Column news we mentioned a website which has got a very good list of names which I took the trouble just to call up the website. It’s called Tara Blue which is that-A-R-A-B-L-U-E Tara blue, dot com. And you will find on that website very nice list of all the world leaders who have actually been recruited and trained through Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum system.

So we can now show that across the world in all sorts of different countries, we’ve got leaders, political leaders, or leaders within corporations, or foundations, who have been trained through the World Economic Forum system.

So we can see Klaus Schwab, we can understand a bit about him, because we can read what he is happy to declare about himself. But really we have to ask a question. Who put Klaus Schwab in the position he’s in? Who provides him with the money to enable him to do what he’s doing?

And very quickly we’ve moved from the World Economic Forum, global leaders, through to the fact that the people who control that must be people who also control money.

And it’s the same with Bill Gates. You can look at Bill Gates and say:

“Well Bill Gates is a very powerful man.”

Well he is by what he does on the ground. But actually if he’s got billions squirreled away in bank accounts, the people who own Bill Gates are the people who control his bank accounts.

So it’s very easy to climb up the pyramid. And it has to be the people that control the money who are at the top.

But I think the weakness that, I’ll say many of us, because I used to fall into the same trap. What happens with people is they then just focus on the money people that we know. So they will talk about Rothschilds, or the Rockefellers.

But I’m going to say that the trouble with that, is that they are people we see. I think the people for really inventing the policy and driving it through, are people who have immense financial control within these private banking systems.

But we don’t even know who their names are.

Alex Thompson: I’ll give a stab. I’ll tell you in general terms. And I said this in. One of my most popular talks at Alternative View, when I talked about the bloodlines, and the history of the world. There’s said to be 13 families, often called satanic bloodlines. And Rothschild and Rockefeller are often called number one. And number two on that list.

But every time I’ve mentioned that. And I think the authors of the concept, as well Robin [word unclear] and Fritz Springmeier would be quick to add this. I always add these other visible guys, as Brian was just saying. Above and beyond them, you have got basically in the part of the world I’m in now. From about the North Sea down to northern Italy, which has always been the linchpin of European and world economic progress. And where the monopolies and the cabals hang out.

That’s where you’ve got the really old families that shun publicity. They tend to have French, or Italian names although some of them migrated to what’s now Germany, during the Middle Ages. And some of the names that keep popping up there are Orcini, Alavichini, Hazer, Breakspear, an English name, as a family that supplied England’s one and only Pope in history. And also some of the minor, now minor seeming, Bavaria in princely dynasties. That area of the world. Switzerland and Austria is right in the middle of it too. But Belgium and southern Netherlands as well.

Those families are to this day where you find the de facto monopoly. For example, there’s a big five set of companies that control most of the primary food supply in the world, certainly grain. And to this day, even though the US and Canada and Russia supply far, far more grain in other parts of the world, obviously. Look at the map. The companies that make sure that food gets sold, ultimate ownership of those companies, is still in the continent of Europe.

Not even the City of London. So we’re looking a bit more closely there.

And with regard to that, I don’t want to get into the debate about the Jesuits. But it’s interesting that some of the people who were at the very top of Britain’s, let’s have war with Russia agenda, a couple of years ago. People who were as I found out pulling the strings of the top foreign office experts on Russia and neighbouring countries at the time I was in service.

David did some personal digging, because some of them turned out to be registered to a disused mill just down the road from him. And we found an undue prevalence didn’t we David of Irish-Catholic priests, and strange things going on in the leadership of the thought of what of these groups.

Like the Integrity Initiative. And again, I’m quick to add, I’m not saying the Roman Catholic Church is the top layer. But this is again, old money, Vatican area, Central, or Western Europe. That seems to be where all the nodes come together before we lose track of them.

[56:12]

David Scott: Well the Integrity Initiative was an interesting diversion over the last, what 2019, 2020, sort of area? Just before Covid. And it was an organization with very little substance and a great deal of influence. And it was made up of a former NATO official. A businessman with a very interesting past, and the ability to get spirited out of places like Beirut quite quickly, who was probably some sort of spook, secret service. And a former Roman Catholic priest who was then running a charity to bring peace, love, and harmony to the Middle East.

And they decided that what they were going to do was sort out the narrative with respect to Russia. And get involved in all forms of communication and shaping the narrative. And whether they originated, or whether they were repeating, they were going over ideas which we were finding were being pirated in the top of the British army, the top of United States, Air Force, Navy.

Alex Thompson: They got in one day, in one day, they got Major Pedro Banos, a very fine Spanish officer, sacked, just at the time his candidacy was announced, or his selection was announced to be Spain’s new National Security Advisor. Simply through pulling strings with their own people and the press. But go on David.

David Scott: And what they were saying was concepts like:

“Peace and war is not a binary.”

You could never be entirely at peace, or entirely at war. That’s old-fashioned thinking! Like men women, I suppose. But that’s old-fashioned thinking! Everything, you’re always at war in a funny kind of way! And everything that your country does and is, is part of that war. So your industry, okay. Your culture, your churches, your belief system, your education system, everything! The degree to which your population will be obedient to the state, that’s a weapon of war!

Everything is a weapon of war! And it’s live and it’s active. And we have to be aggressive. And we have to be going out. And we have to be defeating these pesky Russians in this battle of ideas.

And it looks like the sort of tactics that the Soviet Union were running to destabilize the West. We were running to destabilize Russia.

Alex Thompson: And there’s a closer link than that actually. Because the very successful and little talked about German equivalent of GCHQ in the Third Reich. It was the [word unclear], literally the Research Bureau. And all it’s best tricks such as plotting what the population was thinking, and shifting the Overton window, went hook line and sinker over to a private corporation, the Mitre Corporation on the West coast of the US. Which is a big NSA data holder, and contractor.

And one of the GCHQ heroes of the war, Golden Welchman. And we know this is genuine, because he unexpectedly got prosecuted for it by the FBI in the States, with the Brits leaning on him. So genuine disclosure. He, in all innocence, at the end of his career in the late 70s, wrote it, The Hutt Six Story, is the name of his book, on my part in deciphering Nazi codes.

[60:12]

And the last chapter which is probably what he really got persecuted for, because when the book was reissued it was taken out. Is one in which he gayly says:

“Yes well from now on the enemy is the domestic population. There’s going to be this thing called domestic extremists. And that’s where the enemy is going to pop up. So we have to be ever vigilant and monitor the totality of telecoms.”

So that that thinking comes right from both totalitarian models of the early 20th century. Which is yet one more indication that the thinking behind those models, I think, was neither German, nor Russian. But more at home in the City of London, and in Wall Street.

David Scott: And when you go around to, … What I said earlier on, that ultimately it’s a spiritual battle. If you view life as an extension of warfare. If you view there’s no possibility of peace with your fellow man, it’s just a different way of dominating him. If your view is that it’s ultimately a great big survival of the fittest Darwinist world, then that generates a certain society. That generates a certain way of treating your fellow man.

And it generates an atmosphere and the background where organizations like Common Purpose can thrive, because there is no alternative spiritual viewpoint to push back against them. Because It’s all just about survival, and competition, and some sort of social Darwinist process.

So:

“Where’s my advantage this week?”

There’s nothing, the finer points of life, the nobler ideals, these are viewed as irrelevant, or old-fashioned, or out of date, or.

Brian Garrish: Weak! Viewed as weak!

David Scott: Weak, yeah.

Alex Thompson: But a lot of them are British thinkers, because it’s Malthusianism. A lot of the best dissidents these days from clergymen, through to former bankers, are saying we’re up against Malthusianism, right?

But Thomas Malthus has a direct line through to Francis Galton, the cousin who basically ghost wrote, or whispered ideas to Darwin. Particularly on his less scientifically based social Darwinism site. Galton lived rather longer than Darwin, right until the eve of the First World War. And was a mate of the Huxley brothers! Whose father was quite a dodgy character in himself.

But Julian who wrote the charter for the World Health Organization, the only so-called UN body which has a constitution, by the way. Another example of how private money put things into operation and gave them the mandates.

And, of course, Aldous, who did it more in fiction, through Brave New World. They’re both saying:

“This is going to be the way of the world, from now on.”

So again, we’re back with a few rather disproportionately British, as well, old money families, saying that:

“Nature will be read in tooth and claw.”

Basically.

Woes: Well I suppose that brings us to Covid and the present era. I don’t even know how to approach this. Because there are so many things that have been said that could link to it. Let’s say that there is a programme to subdue the general public, and condition them for a certain future, in which. They will be much less numerous. Would that be accurate?

Brian Garrish: For me it would be. There’s a cull! There’s no question of the fact that very large numbers of people, certainly in UK but in other countries. But we can talk with confidence in UK. Large numbers of particularly elderly, vulnerable people have already been killed off.

[64:57]

Woes: And that’s even before we get to the vaccine. Because a lot of elderly people were killed off. Well. Let’s say that they died in 2020 through being stuffed into care homes. And so on.

[Transcript Quality from here 2/5 Stars]

Brian Garrish: Go just interject there? Sorry to do that. But I’m going to say no, actually well before that. Because the one of the key clues we got to what the real agenda was, is if we go to the Staff’s Hospital in UK, where it emerged that supposedly thousands of elderly people had died unnecessarily as a result of hospital procedures. But some time ago I was able to speak to a key individual who’d been part of the government’s initial investigation team into the Mid-Staff Hospital crisis. And they said to me. I was sat in their own home. They said to me that actually the investigation revealed that the numbers were not fifteen hundred two and a half thousand people who died in Mid-Staff. They were up in the 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,000 people! And similar levels of death were actually occurring in at least quote:

“10, or 11 hospitals.”

Alex Thompson: And. This was a good five, or six years before Covid.

Brian Garrish: Yeah, so this individual was talking up towards hundred thousand of elderly people who were dispatched.

Alex Thompson: And we were getting undertakers from various parts of Britain as well. Yeah I don’t understand your thunder. But this was also at the same time frame but go on.

Brian Garrish: Just before you go in that direction Alex. So this was happening in mid-staff’s hospital there was an inquiry team put together and they submitted a report exposing that this was the level of deaths which was much, much higher than the level being reported publicly. What then happened was a new team was brought in which subsequently Whitewashed the original report. And the reason that the particular individual got in contact with me was. Because the name of the new team that the government brought in to do that Whitewash was called the Common Purpose team. And that’s rather telling that was one incident but also, of course, we had the Liverpool care pathway running which was sold as being a way of giving people the so-called good death. But then it emerged that, of course, people were being killed via that system. And the reality that we see as a result of our own research and many good and detailed reports from people in the NHS is that the Liverpool care pathway never stopped. It continued although it was continuing undeclared as to what it was by name. So they didn’t use Liverpool care pathway. But they were definitely killing people. And then we arrived at the situation where we had the start of the Covid crisis where they knowingly discharged elderly people who had Covid who were in hospital beds they discharged them into care homes residential homes and locked them down with the other vulnerable elderly people. And, of course, the deaths, tens of thousands reported in the paper but the reality papers. But the reality is hundreds of thousands. Those deaths have been noted and recorded the Independent the express the Mirror even the Daily Mail has talked about this but nobody’s followed it through.

Alex Thompson: It’s so evident that Scotland’s corrupt crown office the monopoly prosecutor had to open a case against a care home on the isle of skye and poultry for that very culpability and in most cases the Crown office and similar continental monopoly state prosecutors will simply ditch the nearly half of their caseload that they don’t think is going to be easy to prove, or not politically opportune. But it was so blaringly obvious that they’ve run with it for quite a while at the Crown office other things that happened well before Covid mid — 2010s besides the things Brian mentioned were a string of undertakers from various parts of Britain talking to us about distressingly large numbers of elderly and children deceased coming to them in an emaciated state and we and a number of other free media outlets were broadcasting with face and voice unaltered at that time as well people who had left care homes talking about the deliberate dehydration whether it was called care pathway, or not, or just a bunch of thuggish carers within a local care home there was a deliberate withholding of water from people in care homes. And then by horrible things like giving the elderly foul water to drink and then saying ah you see she doesn’t want to drink. And we then went a step further and spoke to a gentleman in Chester Dr Mark Jones very well qualified and he’s never given up on his mother’s case who is speaking in quite lurid terms but without with the evidence about a bunch of bent lawyers [70:00] in towns like Chester no doubt up and down the country. But there’s a particular concentration there who managed to be in league with certain staff in their care homes to such an extent that the smothering by a pillow, or the dehydration magically happens just in the same time window of certain weeks when the legacy runs out. When there’s no more money to be milked from the system. So this was all in place well before Covid. And very similar things I can tell you have been going on for 20 years here in the Netherlands which is famous for being pioneers of things like euthanasia and Dr killing the doctor killing you. It’s just that there’s less speaking out over here. And I have to say even more fear of the doctor among the elderly over here, because there’s no they don’t make any bones about it over there it’s just okay time for your death chat.

Brian Garrish: Now David you’ve done some interviews with nurses who’ve been aware of these sorts of things happening.

David Scott: Well yes the nurses are, you know, they’re astonished for what with what actually went down. Some aspects of it you have what one very bizarre thing and I was speaking to a senior consultant in a Scottish hospital on this subject just to check that I had interpreted this correctly he confirmed it that what happened when Covid came in. You had maybe 150 years worth of medical practice building experience on experience refining safety Protocols and developing the most effective way so that you could cut someone open take a bit out stitch them back together. And they live without infection and without any more distress that is necessary. And all of these processes have been had been improved since the days where it was a literally a theatrical performance where speed was everything, because there was no anesthesia. And there was no antiseptic. And after all, this improvement they had all of these procedures to how you treat people who are ill whether it’s operations, or whether it’s ill with other things. And Covid came along. And there was panic. And all of the processes got bend and they started changing the most fundamental parts of how people were handled where they where they’re prepared for surgery where they come around after surgery how they’re monitored how with all the fundamentals got changed in what looked like a moment of blind panic, because they were so convinced that Covid was this unbelievable killer! This is so deadly this is at the end of the end of the world type scenario.

Woes: Well there was the footage coming out of China of people just sort of slouching around zombie-like and dropping dead in the street.

David Scott: And statistics coming out of Italy which later proved to be not true. But the initial message was this is terrifying and the medical profession dropped all of its protective procedures and tried to rewrite them all on the hoof. And that really happened. So that caused a lot of problems. You had lots of just bad practice was introduced. And this is what the nurses were speaking at you can’t do that’s not safe and you’re not allowed to speak out in the society in which we currently live if you work particularly if you work for an arm of the state your comments and criticisms are not required if we want you to have an opinion we’ll give it to you.

Alex Thompson: So shall not bless theme the name of the NHS thy god.

David Scott: Yeah, they got pressured. And then you had things like the vaccination programme was being run out and we picked this up very quickly and asked questions to the Scottish government you’re running a vaccination programme into the care homes, because it’s the elderly they got it first. And as soon as you run that out there was a doubling, or tripling of the death rate there was a huge spike in death when did that lasted for three weeks.

Woes: When did that happen? Was that in like at the start of this year.

David Scott: Yes yes from December through to February this year yeah. So there’s a huge spike in deaths, because what and the mechanism is known. Because the vaccines the jabs cause a collapse, or a certainly a huge [75:02] reduction in the natural immune system yeah.

Alex Thompson: If you want to see the pictures we have a bit of a coup. As of last night sorry as of Friday night anyway go to ukcollum.org and look for the recent doctors for covered ethics symposium. And the first presentation given in that video you’ll find there is the almost the only pathologist in the world that has bothered to report to the world about cutting open patients who had died after Covid jabs and finding the be lymphocytes sorry the yes it is lymphocytes and various other types of cells clustered right inside the organs. It’s yeah I’ve probably got the name of the cells wrong there Brian you must correct me.

Brian Garrish: Well the main thing they were pointing out was what they were talking about the spiked proteins. But they were showing.

Alex Thompson: The response to them that is done by these, you know, I always hate getting medical details wrong. But it’s a certain kind of leukocyte the killer cells cluster inside the organs, because they see that every organ is producing expressing the spike protein that’s there that’s triggered as a result of getting the genetic jabs.

Brian Garrish: Yeah. So these were actually shown on screen are the tissue slides with a qualified professional describing what you can see slides around the heart, or the heart membranes kidneys skin. And there was also another professional showing computer images of people’s eyes retinas and showing the damage that had occurred to those from vaccines. So as Alex has said if people go to that symposium they instead of listening to us they can listen to the qualified medical professionals describing the damage they’re seeing inside bodies as a people’s bodies as a result of vaccination.

David Scott: And the three week spike in death rate that was replicated as the vaccination programme ran through the population doing cohort by cohort so, you know, started off with over the 80s and then went in roughly decades by decade down through the population, the same spike in death rate was visible in each age interval and turn. And it’s quite the it’s quite clearly visible in the starts. And there’s a professor of professor fenton a risk analysis expert who’s speaking out on this. Just a few days ago so this has happened and that’s. If you like in addition to the blood clots. And the other more direct causes of death, because you’re talking there about a reduction in the immune system and therefore anything that happens to be floating around might kill you. So it solves particular concern. When you see what’s happened over the last four to eight hours where. We’ve been told that essentially the whole of the adult population of the British Isles is going to be is going to be vaccinated by the third booster job. Inside of three weeks. 80 days 20 million vaccinations nothing like this has ever been happened. But it’s never happened before. And I’m curious as to what will happen if you reduce simultaneously the immune system of basically your entire population all at the one time.

Woes: And in the middle of winter.

David Scott: In the middle.

Alex Thompson: Actually, it puts me in mind when you put it like that of a line in John bunyan’s pilgrim’s progress when one of the ogres in the book. I think it’s giant Pope, or giant pagan well that’s probably giant Pope says to our hero there’ll be no mending of you till more of you be burned!

Woes: Ominous. So if we speak in very general terms then what has happened over the last two years what is Covid what is going on? Alex you take that first. I’ll ask each of you in turn, because I want this like just speak in general terms. And I’d like your each a summary of that from each of you.

Alex Thompson: What is going on right now that we’re not noticing so much with Covid.

Woes: What is Covid? What is the is, …

Alex Thompson: I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about this recently from as many strands as I can. Covid is the seizing upon a genuinely [80:01] novel respiratory illness I’m not sure to what extent being a layman in medicine it’s respiratory borne. But anyway an illness that’s clearly novel and has respiratory symptoms the greatly inflating of that genuine novel problem in medicine in order to bring about a plan which as we’ve been talking about all evening. Well I plan sounds sinister and gets laughed at as a conspiracy theory. So I say a determination a change to society a weaponization of society that was clearly so advanced by 10, or 15 years ago in the English-speaking countries that the people were being lined up ready for it. And the manifestations that this change will particularly have as we now see from the economic side I think Catherine Austin fitz is by far the best commentator on this. The economic repercussion of this is that within two, or three years the sooner if they can get their programming sorted out, genuine crypto-currency will have been replaced by something that looks the same masquerades as the same. But isn’t which is a controlled currency. The link, of course, being digital identity within people’s bodies the tracking of people through not just face facial recognition but their digital their biometric fingerprint wherever they go and whatever they do this is. Again, if you listen to the Bill pawlek from this an interview talking about what’s going on in the 70s. This would this was something that was waiting for the technology to catch up with a plan that the families we’ve been talking about had back then to track their cattle. So that’s the big thing. And then the other big manifestation that’s going to be obvious I don’t mean in the new age sense manifestation just the popping up of it is. That there’s going to be ice I fear war and in very general terms our Deep State wants the war, to begin this side of 2025, because we will might just about still outgun Russia and China and Iran and their Deep State would rather hang back until the latter half of the decade. Because then they think they will comprehensively outclass in every domain including cyber and space. But as with the previous World Wars standing above and behind both sides are the gentlemen who. And a lot of ladies these days who are profit from the arms sales and particularly from the chance to remake the world and it’s institutions the day the ceasefire is signed. That is the big plan. And if you want a really singing sort of one-liner from me at the end which I don’t tend to do but you ask for it is I have I’m fairly confident now that the cabal will pull out as rabbit like from its hat at some point what you can call alien 9/11. A mixture of exotic weapons and psychographic and holographic technology to tell us that the world’s been invaded by so-called aliens, and therefore we must unite under global government to advance said agenda.

Woes: Well okay! I will all right let’s go to David. Covid the last two years, the Great Reset, lockdowns, the vaccine, what does it all mean? What does it all represent? What has actually been going on here?

David Scott: Yeah Covid for this control it’s the actual disease. I don’t think it was manufactured. I think it’s real I think that the people who are saying that the germ theory of illnesses flawed have a point. But I don’t know exactly what the correction to the current theory should be. But I think the illness is real. It’s not particularly threatening for anyone who’s healthy. But it had a very, very good PR consultant. And it was elevated to be a major threat that it never was. And that’s given the government’s control unbelievable control we’ve seen it in Australia we’ve seen it in New Zealand the Anglo-Saxon countries the last bastions of liberty that we are have been amongst the worst not quite the worst but certainly amongst the worst for closing down their own populations the populations have mostly accepted it so far. And it’s given the it’s given the state a great deal of control and they will now do something with that control I’m not quite sure what. And it’s been clear to me that the spiritual aspect of this fight [85:01] is to get people to realize that their compliance is not virtue their compliance is cowardice.

Woes: Yeah. I would I’m not going to comment on that. But I would certainly agree with that last part. Brian would you like to give a summary of Covid in the last two years? What it represents? What it signifies?

Brian Garrish: Okay. Well, I also believe that the virus exists. I believe that the actual virus that we encountered had been interfered with by the human hand so I don’t regard it as being totally natural. I know there’s a lot of discussion about this and I’m also going to say there are some people who say well. Because the virus has never been what’s the term the correct term.

Alex Thompson: It’s never been isolated. Although the virologists say we can’t speak of isolation with viruses. But it’s all rough terms.

Brian Garrish: Well all I wanted to say is that there are some people who say:

“Well, you can’t even call it virus.”

I’m just gonna say I can accept I can see people get ill and I’m old enough to know that in the past people have got ill in a particular way and they feel really bad and they say they’ve got flu. And some vulnerable people elderly people with other underlying conditions can easily die if they get the thing called flu. So I’m going to say for me I accept this thing called flu exists. But I would agree with the comments that we’ve then seen this normal natural winter phenomena has been ramped up to literally frighten the pants off people. And on the back of that fear where we can show that the British government used a group of individuals trained in psychology the spy B team operate operating alongside it’s Covid sage team that spy B team were producing documents saying that the British government should ramp up fear in order to make people better, or dear to the policies that they wanted the lockdown policies. So that’s what I see with the background. But then what’s been the result of this. Well, we’ve seen people killed in very large numbers there is no doubt about this at all we have seen. I’m going to say hundreds of thousands of mainly elderly people, but not exclusively have died. And we’ve seen our society completely changed in that we have been locked in our own homes we’ve seen families divided against each other’s. We’ve seen families denied the opportunity to mix and carry on normal family loving family interactions and we’ve also seen society divided in a particularly callous and vicious way. And that is continuing under this latest scam that we’ve now got the moronic the omicon virus. We are back on this division of society so the vaccinated are frightened of the unvaccinated people. And we’re being told that if you’re not vaccinated you are a threat to society. So in the matter of a couple of years we’ve seen the most draconian lockdown of society in a way that I think back now to 20 years ago 30 years ago unbelievable! Where we’ve come to. People frightened to go out to the house you can’t go to the pub you can’t go to a gym you can’t go to a club. The government is controlling our lives down to who comes into our house.

So this is a huge, huge power grab but the bit that goes with it is the other policies that we see coming out of these globalistic think tanks such as the World Economic Forum, because alongside AI where AI and the AI algorithms the smart technology are going to run our lives. They’re also talking about the trans humanism agenda where they are working to change us from being human beings into Cyborgs, or the equivalent. And there’s no question that they’re doing it in the labs. This is reality so we’ll call it the hidden hand has now taken away basic freedoms it’s locked us down in a way which has made the majority of the country absolutely powerless through fear.

And then we can already see where this goes next the AI is coming in where [90:02] everybody is to be tracked and face scanned and fingerprinted wherever they move. Some people are saying the mark of the beast. And I think they’re not far off it. And then we are going to be denied the opportunity to be human beings in its true sense. We’ve even got an attack on men and women now it’s not right to say that there are men and there are women. So the agenda as you get into these larger policy areas I think is clearly demonic, or we could call it satanic. But whatever the mind is that’s created this situation in the world to me is utter evil. And we need to think about it in these terms. And we need to deal with it in these terms, because it is not just political policy this is not conservative policy, or Labour policy, or even global policy. This is so bad it must come from a mind which is demonic.

Woes: Yeah. I would echo that. I think that there is a sense of evil permeating all of this. When you see various examples various manifestations of what’s going on? Families being split apart families being artificially separated children not being allowed to cuddle their grandparents children being raised to be accustomed to distance between them and other people being paranoid about other people as a biological threat to you there are so many manifestations here. Yeah, I agree it is evil. You see the thing is I do I’m not against hierarchy. And I’m not even against the I’m not against the concept of authority. But I think that we need, you know, society and human beings deserve and need an elite that is humane and sane and kind kind-hearted. And I think that what we’re seeing here is an elite that is there’s anything but those things.

Just to end I think that people like us tend to be very good at finding problems and analyzing problems. But I think it would be good to end on some kind of positive advice. And David said earlier that compliance is not virtue it is cowardice. David I’ll ask you to expand on that. And then I’ll ask Brian and Alex to give their own just something of advice for people in the coming in the coming years.

David Scott: I think what this has done is this made resistance easy, because anything normal is resistant resistance anything that is not ruled by fear is resistance you go and you smile a neighbour you’re resisting you ask a question you resisted they don’t like questions they can’t answer them it’s very funny how things suddenly get reversed when well-placed questions start getting get in place. So much of what they do relies on their consent. The little bit at the end of the UK Column and silencers consent the so speaking out what we’ve got to do is going to learn learn to resist. And this is don’t accept lies don’t accept half truths. Question what’s been told to you have the confidence to use your own intelligence to see what appears right. And if it doesn’t keep asking questions the system doesn’t really cope well with that at all. So the ability to resist is much broader than it ever was. Because the tyranny is much more obvious than it ever was. We are planning on doing a lot of development in the UK Column in the next year since the Covid thing started we’ve gone from being what would you say I as a little organization run by dedication and not much else to organization that’s starting to look [95:01] like it’s reasonably well founded and looking to expand and looking to put a lot more content on so it’s enabled us to be followed lots of other people who are resisting this tyranny will be finding the same thing the new voices will be emerging support people who you’ve considered are telling the truth encourage them subscribe to them and remove your support from. Those who are lying to you. Don’t subscribe to the BBC! Don’t subscribe to the Guardian! Don’t do these things! And I’ll keep asking questions and the fight is out there. And it’s not far away you’ll find it quite quickly.

And if you can lose the fear and enjoy the process of resisting it becomes the world becomes a lot less frightening for a start very quickly and it becomes I wouldn’t quite say fun. But there’s certainly an element of comedy in it for sure. And you also find that you make an awful lot of very good friends you might lose some friends but you’ll make better ones than the ones you’ve lost right.

Alex Thompson: Our Russian lesson for the evening which means don’t believe! Don’t fear! And don’t request. Right that is the distilled wisdom of all the Soviet dissidents. And, in fact, it was quoted by an old mate of mine give orgratz when he appeared on UK Column from odessa recently and David went into detail on the communist injunction in the Bible fear not he just did. So in that little speech and he did so equally well in a blog you’ll find on UK Column.org if you search for it called fear not. Fear is pretty obvious to people of all religious persuasions and none as to why it’s a bad thing, because well in the Christian understanding it’s blocks out all the things that there should be such as fear of even of your creator and of your of those who really have authority over you. But the remedy in the Bible is that perfect love which means mature love by the way, rather than naive love the kind of love that says I must get jabby jaby to protect gran that’s naive love perfect love adult love casts out fear, or drives out fear. So people are aware of that it’s even in the culture through Frank Herbert’s dune, you know, fear is the mind killer it switches the mind off it turns you back to the reptilian brain. And all these things so that’s been well covered.

The other two which I’m astonished how regularly feature in all the best philosophical and religious writing from around the world from antiquity onwards is the other two should we see sources of problems that you can switch off, at this point, by constantly working on them are greed and pride! Pride, of course, is often referred to by the Greek word hubris Latin superbia. And both of these words express more than English pride does that’s the problem is not being genuinely proud of what you and your people have achieved but rather the problem is thinking of yourself more highly than you ought and this sets you up for a full pride goes before a fall. So if there’s any unexamined assumptions within yourself that I will just do fine, or I need to be in the lead and whatever then let that be knocked out of you, you know, we have a great time in sort of the fraternal atmosphere of UK Column, because without any kind of confrontation we managed to smooth each other’s rough edges by saying. You don’t want to be doing it that way my good fellow and that works just fine. So wherever you are. You need to be in a small team of people.

And as I was saying to some young Dutch people I was sitting around a table on Saturday with a dozen Dutch dissidents schooling them in this. And I said. Well, the first thing you do is go out in skirmishes together as we did when we were a small organization and enjoy your acquiring your battle scars and your wounds limp back home and have a post match confab with each other and say:

“Well, that was fun wasn’t it guys if it isn’t fun then you shouldn’t be in dissident work. Because the enemy can never enjoy what he does he doesn’t have any fun.”

So that’s you’ve always got one up on the enemy there. So engage in skirmishes see what worked well as a team what didn’t and tighten your game so that’s get rid of prize just be, you know, humble and the third one is pretty obvious to greed get rid of it in every sense that many traditions say you are a slave as many times as you have passions, or greeds, or desires so cut out the obvious ones the ones that plague modern life like porn addiction like addiction to the wrong kinds of food examine what it is that makes [100:00] you weak for these things the feeling of helplessness and emotional damage that comes before indulging in any habit. Turn that into a moment of meditation instead and say I can live without that if you’re a Christian but express say it with Paul in the words of colossians 3 for ye are dead and your life is hid with Christ in god. So if you can get that sorted out then the attitude is well they can have whatever that they can take off me. Because that’s not the real me. And if it comes to it if. It really does come to being carried off the camps god forbid. Learn from Solzhenitsyn and many others who lived through the totalitarianism that as he said. In one of his purple passages in the Gulag Archipelago how we burned in the camps that we hadn’t kicked and screamed when they came for us right. I am not advocating violence in any situation short of people coming to cart you away obviously not. But think of it this way anywhere you take your last stand, or live out your last date is going to be less comfortable than doing it on your own doorstep yeah. I’ll just put it that way but don’t let it come to that so don’t fear, or I’ll repeat the Russian phrase right believe not! Fear not! Request not.

Woes: Okay. Thank you. Brian would you like to give some closing thoughts.

Brian Garrish: Well, thank you for that it’s fascinating isn’t it when we get to this point. What’s in my mind is that just a little while ago we were trying to pin down who was causing the trouble. So we went up through the structure to the people we thought could be controlling the policy and we were looking up certainly at international banker level, but above that. And then we come to a little bit of a smoky area, because we realize that we can’t actually see the individuals that are really controlling this global totalitarian policy. We can’t see them and we can’t name them. And on one hand this makes the battle difficult, because you can’t easily fight an enemy that you can’t see, or you can’t detect.

But we get told something else why are they hidden. And the answer is very simply that they albeit that they’re extremely powerful extremely powerful they’re actually frightened of us, because if they weren’t frightened of us why would they need to be hidden? So the enemy we’re up against is very powerful, very strong in many ways. But ultimately we’re being told. And we can see very clearly that this enemy is frightened of ordinary people, because it hides it’s face.

And. So I think that the way we can fight back is so easy, because what do people like to do people love to talk. This is why mobile phones are so successful why social media is so successful people like to talk. But if we’re going to use that system to fight. Then we’ve got to focus on some simple things we’ve got to focus on truth. We’ve got to make sure that what we’re saying is true that that helps with personal relationships as it does with putting across perhaps a more political answer.

We’ve got a deal, in fact. And we’ve got a deal in evidence. So as long as we’re talking and interfacing with our fellow human being men and women. Then we’ve got to be accurate in what we talk about. But if we want to bring down this very powerful, very evil totalitarian regime we’ve got to be warning other people about it. And we’ve got to be showing them what’s happening. And we’ve got to be supporting and winning people over helping and comforting them.

So that’s a communication war and without mentioning any names there’s a channel which calls itself information wars and whatever you think of the individual running that. I’ve always thought what a brilliant name it was, because we are in an information war. And we can win that war, because we have the millions and billions of people world-wide on our side. And we easily easily outnumber the bad people that we can’t see.

So my advice is to talk. But when you talk and exchange ideas with other people you’ve got to be truthful you’ve got to deal with facts and evidence. And you’ve got to put across your ideas in a way that’s loving.

And. I’m going to say to the audience I’m still quite surprised to hear myself say [105:01] this, because if I’d gone back 20 plus years ago to my military time I would have imagined then I’d be talking more in terms of how many rounds we had, rather than saying we’ve actually got to use truth. And we’ve got to love one another. But we’re up against utter evil. If you want to fight evil then you’re going to have to turn to scriptures. And you’re going to have to deal in truth. And you’re going to have to treat your fellow man and fellow woman with due love and respect.

Woes: Okay. Thank you very much for that there was actually a question posted which is related to the military and I wasn’t sure how to fit it in but you’ve just mentioned the military. So I’ll bring it in here. And this is a quick question before we end. Is using the 77th brigade to propagandize Covid a ripping up of the principle of not turning the army against the British public.

Alex Thompson: Yes! Yes! America has the doctrine codified possible comitatus, but all common law countries have the same actually you cannot use troops in any common law constitution any English-speaking country’s constitution then they all the countries have them the government lies when it says they don’t. You cannot use the troops against the people. You’ve already forfeited your right to rule that way.

Woes: Oh that’s something for us all to bear in mind [Laughter] okay. Well thank you very much. I think this has been a really interesting and useful stream. So thank you very much UK Column.

Brian Garrish: Okay. Thank you.

David Scott: You’re very welcome.

Woes: Thank you very much. It’s been a real pleasure excellent. Well, thank you very much and i’ll be back in about 10 minutes with Survive the Jive in the meantime bye bye for now.

Brian Garrish: Okay bye-bye.

[106:55]

————

Millennial Woes has created many things. And this is your chance to own one of them! A unique piece of work hand crafted by the vile vlogger, to commemorate Millennial 2021.

Millenniyule 2021 commemoration

A hundred hours of highly skilled labour went into producing this animated vector graphic, which can be magnified to any size.

In the iconic Millennial Woes font, it glistens and responds to your touch. And at the centre of it all, a figure representative of 2021, the White Stag!

Symbolizing endurance, discovery, and rejuvenation!

This one-of-a-kind creation is up for sale as an NFT. Follow the link below. And it can be yours forever! This is your only chance!

[107:50]

Mark Collett: Hello everybody. And welcome to Patriotic Weekly Review, episode 129. And we are very, very privileged tonight to be joined by the legendary Piers Corbyn.

Now Piers Corbyn is a freedom campaigner. He is a man who has fought relentlessly against these tyrannical lockdowns. He is a man who has bravely defied the police and the State to fight for our freedoms against forced vaccination, against vaccine passports, and against the lockdowns that have ruined so many lives.

Now Piers can unfortunately only be here for an hour, this evening. So we are going to hand everything straight over to him. If you want to donate tonight. If you want to send a Superchat, please send donations via Entropy. You can also ask non-paid questions. And we’ll ask Piers questions as we go through the night.

And we are live in all the usual places. We’re live on Radio Albion. We are live on Dlive. We are live on Odysee and we are live on Wake Up UK.

So Piers. How are you doing? Tell our audience a little bit about yourself and about your important work.

Piers Corbyn Self Introduction

top

Piers Corbyn: Well I’m very good today. I was in Birmingham yesterday at a big rally. And I’ve just been to the Julian Assange rally outside the Law Courts of Justice in London. And also outside India House, on a numbers of issues. But they’re all related. I am from Let the UK Live website, at the UK live dot com, and also associated website, Stop New Normal dot net.

And we are fighting to stop the impositions of the new normal and New World Order. Meaning that we want to build, or our building, or a part of, a united campaign to stop all the, well, any lockdowns, all the Covid rules, the passporting, and the jabbing program, especially for children.

Mark Collett: Excellent! Well, can I ask start with a big question? Obviously you and I, we agree on a lot of things, …

Piers Corbyn: Hello? Hello?

Mark Collett: Can you hear me?

Piers Corbyn: Yeah!

Who’s Pulling the Strings?

top

Mark Collett: Good. Obviously you and I agree on a lot of things. We probably don’t agree on everything. But we are very interested to hear what your take is on who and what is behind this Covid scamdemic? What’s behind all this? And who are the people pulling the strings? And what is their big agenda?

Piers Corbyn: Well, there’s numbers of very large interest groups who are working together, at this point, in time. But they may, of course, fall out at some point in time, as well. The main force now is the big tech, and the big pharmaceutical industries. The tech one is all about data harvesting, and selling and control. The big pharma are about promoting jabbing. And, of course, more jabbing! First jab! Second jab! Third jab! And so it goes on. Booster jabs!

People like Bill Gates are, of course, crucial. But they’re not necessarily the immediate direct beneficiaries of everything. Although he’s making a tidy few billion, but behind all that there are shadowy forces, I would say, who all stand again but have a view of the a future world, which is a mega corporation dominated.

Set up where democracy is eroded and taken away and destroyed completely. And our freedoms are severely limited, and people are, a lot of people will be turned into genetically modified people. Which is a pretty scary thought!

But they are promoting genetically modified food and plants, therefore all their same idea applies to humans, unfortunately.

Mark Collett: Okay. Thank you. Can I ask you another one, …

Piers Corbyn: And they’re not only [word unclear]. But, I can’t say who, you know, names. I don’t know. But there are very big interest groups. Some of which, of course, people discuss on the internet. I mean, in terms of public face, of course, we have the World Economic Forum, and Klaus Schwab. Their main public ideologue.