Christopher Bollyn: Hello. Good afternoon. My name is Christopher Bollyn. Thank you for coming.

 

 

 

And I want to thank the people that organized this conference today. Today we’re going to do a 58 minutes presentation to keep it within constraints for a video. And I’m talking about “Tricked into War”.

 

 

Now, I’m not going to go into great detail about the 9/11 crime. The details of the 9/11 crime would take up hours and hours of discussion. I’ve talked about 9/11 and the evidence in other videos, and they’re on YouTube. And I’ve written several books about 9/11.

 

 

Today I’m talking about how 9/11 and the War on Terror are connected and linked. This nation has been at war for 17 years. As Donald Trump said the other day, we spent $7 trillion and got nothing for it.

 

 

The United States and Syria are at face to face confrontation in Syria as we speak. Russian planes are being shot down with Israeli involvement, off the coast of Syria. And the media in this country barely touches it. All the media in this country talks about is sexual peccadilloes between Kavanaugh and some girl in high school. They say nothing about the situation in Syria, which is very important.

 

 

So, I’m the author of Solving 9/11. And as I’ve said in previous presentations, Solving 9/11 ends the war! I was an investigative journalist in Washington, DC when 9/11 started. Here I am presenting evidence of the first citizens Grand Jury in Los Angeles.

 

 

And I’m the author of the Solving 9/11 set of books. And the latest book is the War on Terror, which is a very small book about the War on Terror.

 

 

The Solving 9/11 set of books investigate various aspects of the false flag of terror atrocity. But my main focus is who is behind 9/11 and why was it done? This is the book of original articles. This is the latest book. I wrote this last summer, The War on Terror, the Plot to Rule the Middle East.

 

 

911 was a policy coup. It was blamed on Muslims. 9/11 was blamed on Muslims in order to initiate, to start the War on Terror as an operational war. But behind the War on Terror is a covert strategic plan to redraw the map of the Middle East. You might ask yourself, why is the United States in Syria? We have no national interest in Syria. We haven’t had it for a long, long, long time.

 

Yet we have troops there. We’re occupying the third eastern part of the country from the Euphrates river to Iraq. And we have also occupied the southern part of the country where Syria butts up against both Jordan and Iraq. Why are we there? What’s the purpose?

 

 

Well, 9/11 and the War on Terror were both conceived by Israeli Military Intelligence in the 1970s when Menachem Begin, the head of the Likud Party, came to power. Menachem Begin is known as the “father of terrorism”. Here he is.

 

 

He’s the founder of the Likud Party. He was born in Russia, came to Palestine in 42, became leader of the Irgun in 44, which was a terrorist group. Bombed the King David Hotel, killing 93 people. British headquarters in 1946. Then was involved in the massacre of the Dir Yasin village, which was meant to scare the Palestinians to fleeing, which many did. And he created the Likud Party in 1973, became prime minister in 77, and promptly invaded Lebanon in 1978.

 

 

This is the emblem of the Irgun which he was the head of its a jewish terrorist group and it’s connected to the Netanyahu family, because Mr Netanyahu’s father was the director of this movement, the Irgun, and the New Zionist organization since 1940.

 

 

Here is both Mr Begin and Netanyahu. These men are cut from the same cloth. This is the group that they belong to the great group that they have allegiance to is a group of terrorists.

 

In 1974, a British journalist asked Mr Begin, he said:

 

“How does it feel in the light of all that’s going on to be seen as the father of terrorism in the Middle East?”

 

And Begin said:

 

“In the Middle East?”

 

He said:

 

“In all the world!”

 

So he put on himself the mantle of being the father of terrorism in all the world. That’s his words.

 

Well, 9/11 was a false flag terror atrocity that was designed to instill fear and rage in the American population, so that we would accept and we would get behind this War on Terror.

 

 

And I have to say it succeeded very well. 17 years later, we are still involved in the War on Terror. There is virtually no public resistance to it, and there is no political resistance to it.

 

But starting the War on Terror, the open ended War on Terror, was the primary reason for the false flag terror attacks of 9/11.

 

 

911 was a policy coup that brought us a Global War On Terror and a series of disastrous wars across the region. They call it “The Long War”.

 

 

The War on Terror is a suitable title because the War on Terror is the longest and most expensive war, foreign war in us history, yet there is no resistance to it. How can that be? How can the American people be so numb to American war fighting in a dozen countries across the Middle East?

 

Well, the main reason is because it’s out of sight, out of mind. Unless you have family involved in the war, you don’t hear about it on TV. You don’t hear about it on the radio. You don’t read about it in the newspapers. Not like Vietnam. Vietnam, we heard about, we saw pictures on Life magazine. Today we see nothing. Nothing!

 

[05:51]

 

This is what Donald Trump said in April [April 28, 2018]. He said:

 

 

“We have spent $7 trillion. Trillion with a that, $7 trillion in the Middle East. You know what we have for it? Nothing! Nothing!”

 

And he’s absolutely right! As the author of the Art of the Deal, you would think that he would see that this is a very bad deal and rectify it as soon as possible.

 

The War on Terror is all based., … It’s not just a name, it’s an authorization, it’s a title. It’s an authorization and funding. And it was passed two days after 9/11, three days after 9/11, by the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which basically gave the president the authority to wage war against anybody he thought was behind 9/11.

 

 

So these are some of the places where we, where the authorization used military force has been invoked.

 

 

Was Eritrea? Was Somalia? Were they involved in 9/11? Was Libya involved in 9/11? We, of course, heard about Afghanistan. But are all these countries involved in 9/11? No, of course they’re not! But the authorization to use military force based on 9/11 crime has been abused, terribly abused! It opened up the pandora’s box for American open ended war fighting across the Middle East, around the world actually.

 

 

The fraudulent War on Terror is based on the official myth of 9/11. They go hand in hand. The War on Terror is a criminal fraud.

 

 

We are spending about $400 million per person, per US victim of terrorism per year. So for a cause of death, if you have cancer or influenza, you get pennies! This stack of bills would have to be 1,000 times higher to reflect the amount of money that’s being spent per victim of terrorism. Terrorism is not a leading cause of death in this country.

 

 

The War on Terror is an Israeli stratagem pushed by Netanyahu since 1979 to trick the United States into waging war against Israel’s enemies.

 

 

The War on Terror is based on the 9/11 lie. And unfortunately, Donald Trump has adopted that lie. He said in August of 2017:

 

“9/11, the worst terrorist attack in our history, was planned and directed from Afghanistan because that country was ruled by a government that gave comfort and shelter to terrorists.”

 

And he said that as he increased military presence and effort in Afghanistan.

 

 

Wesley Clark, who was running for president, this was the man who ran US military forces in Europe during the Yugoslavia campaign. And he said:

 

“Whether you’re a Democrat, or a Republican, if you’re an American, you ought to be concerned about the strategy of the United States in this region. What is our aim? What is our purpose? Why are we there? Why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue.”

 

He said:

 

“What happened on 9/11 is that we didn’t have a strategy, we didn’t have bipartisan agreement, we didn’t have American understanding of it, and we had instead a policy coup in this country. A coup! A policy coup! Some hard nosed people took over the direction of American policy, and they never bothered to inform the rest of us.”

 

 

 

He should know. Who’s he talking about? He’s talking about the Zionist neocons. These three people here, Paul Wolfowitz, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith. They’re three of the Defense Policy Board members who crafted the policy for the Pentagon that was put into effect after 9/11.

 

 

Here they are a few months after 9/11, meeting with the Israeli Chief of Staff right here, Shaul Mufaz. He’s the highest military person in Israel. And they’re discussing, what will America be doing? Well, Wesley Clark heard about the memo. He got the memo ten days after 9/11. He said:

 

 

“I went through the Pentagon and I saw Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. One of the generals called me in and said, ‘Sir, we’ve made the decision, we’re going to war with Iraq’.”

 

He said:

 

“We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?”

 

“I don’t know.”

 

He said:

 

“I came back a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing Afghanistan. I said, ‘are we still going to war with Iraq?’.”

 

He said:

 

“Oh, sir, it’s much worse than that. We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off with Iran.”

 

And as you can see from this shopping list of this agenda, all of those countries have been done with the exception of Iran.

 

Now, what’s going on here is that an Israeli plan known as the Yinon Plan, which was articulated in 1982, is being put into effect. So that countries are being balkanized. That is, they’re being broken up into ethnic statelets.

 

 

They’re causing friction between the various ethnic groups, breaking them up into ethnic statelets. That’s the name of the game in Syria. That’s what they did in Iraq. That’s what’s happened in Libya. Etcetera. This is the Israeli plan to dominate the Middle East by breaking up the large Arab states and breaking up their armies and breaking the countries into pieces like Yugoslavia. There will be no competition for Israel, and Israel will have hegemony over the entire region.

 

 

Here’s Hillary Clinton. Some people point out that her emblem here is very reminiscent of 9/11.

 

But in 2012, Secretary of State Clinton wrote that:

 

“The best way to help Israel vis a vis Iran’s nuclear ambitions is to use force in Syria to overthrow the government.”

 

This email proves that the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton sought to overthrow the government of Syria, elected government of Syria, to save Israel, to serve Israel.

 

So if you understand that, you will understand why we are doing what we’re doing in Iran today or in Syria today.

 

I just read an article yesterday that says that the United States presence will continue in Syria beyond the end of the year because the mission has changed. The mission now is to prevent, is to kick Iran out of Syria. So American forces are now in Syria to battle with Iran and push Iran back. Did we choose that? Has Congress chosen that? Has anybody spoken about that? Of course not.

 

[11:43]

 

This photograph is from the Yarmouk, a Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus.

 

 

And this is one of the ways that terrorism is used to destroy the lives of common people. The Palestinians are refugees since 19 47, 48 in Damascus. And what happened is that ISIS was infiltrated into this camp, ISIS, the terror group. And that brought about fire into the camp. Syrian, Russian, American, whoever was fighting against ISIS in this place, and it destroyed the camp. This camp used to house 120,000 people. Today it houses 200.

 

So these Palestinians were made a target, just like the people of Raqqa, Mosul, or any other place. ISIS is the target, and they put that target wherever they want and then destroy everything around the target.

 

 

So the question is, this is from Linda Heard, a British expert in the Middle East. She says, is the United States waging Israel’s wars? She said:

 

“There is one thing that we do know. Oded Yinon’s 1982 Zionist plan for the Middle East is in large part taking shape. Is this coincidence? Was Yinon a psychic? Maybe.”

 

She says:

 

“Alternatively, we in the West are victims of a long held agenda, not of our making, and without a doubt, not in our interests.”

 

 

So we’re waging war for another entity, for another nation, for another interest that’s not ours, and we’re paying for it. Our sons and daughters are fighting it.

 

 

And this is the partition of Palestine. When it happened in 1947, Menachem Begin rejected it. He said:

 

“Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. And Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel, all of it and forever!”

 

This is to give you an idea what Eretz Israel means. It means the land of Israel. And according to people like Menachem Begin, it extends from the Nile river to the Euphrates.

 

 

And this area right here is the Kurdish area, which happens to be occupied by the United States. This is all Syria right here. This is where the United States is occupying one third of Syria.

 

 

These are the various ethnic communities, religions, factions in Iraq and Syria. And from the Yinon plan, Yinon said:

 

“The dissolution of Syria in Iraq is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern Front. The dissolution of the military power of these states serves as the primary short term target.”

 

This is exactly what we did when we went to Iraq first 1991, and then again in 2003, we destroyed the Iraqi military.

 

If you remember, one of the first things that happened is when we got into Iraq, we disbanded the entire military, sent everybody home. No more jobs, no entitlements, nothing!

 

So the military went away. And in Syria, we’ve been trying to do the same thing for the last seven years.

 

 

Now, this is another break here. This area, this area here, periwinkle, is the area of the Kurds. And this area is where most of the oil is. And the United States and Israel are supporting the Kurdish independence. This area here in northern Iraq and this part of northern Syria. And in pursuing that, the largest holder of the reserves in this Kurdistan area of Iraq is a company called Janelle Energy, which is a Rothschild company.

 

So they’re going after the strategic assets. And these two cities, Mosul and Raqqa, were targets of the American anti-terrorist attacks last summer, which destroyed those cities. Destroyed them!

 

 

Here’s Mosul in June of 2017. The great mosque of all Nuri, destroyed in the battle of Mosul. The Americans put our artillery around the cities and just pounded them for months. And that has a price. Here’s Syria, the other city in Raqqa, in Syria, October 2017, at least half the city is totally destroyed.

 

 

Now, here you have to understand that these are on the edge of the Kurdish area. But these cities are, Mosul is the second biggest city in Iraq. They contained a lot. They were inhabited by a lot of Sunni Muslims, and that’s why they were pounded. So we said we were fighting ISIS, but under the pretext of fighting ISIS, we destroyed the cities and pushed a lot of people into become refugees.

 

 

The northern part of both Iraq and Syria are peopled by the Kurds. And this was the leader of the Kurdish movement in Iraq. He resigned shortly after his failed attempt to separate the country.

 

 

But I’m showing you the relationship with Israel. Here’s his father, Mustafa, meeting with the Mossad chief in 1966.

 

 

Here’s his father in Israel, meeting with Moshe Dayan.

 

 

And this is the Israeli flag flying along with the Kurdish flag in a protest, or a rally in Irbil.

 

 

So 9/11 happened. We were very quickly given this narrative, I call it the “Zionist Narrative”, about what happened. And the media has imposed on the public a false story that radical Islamic terrorists were to blame for 9/11.

 

 

Now, the only way to liberate ourselves and our nations from the madness that we’re currently in for 17 years is to expose and understand the true source of the terrorism. If you go away from this presentation or if you believe that Muslims did 9/11 with all nano-thermite and destroying the buildings and fooling the US military, then you will support the logic of war. If you understand we’ve been deceived about 9/11, the logic of war evaporates.

 

What happened after 9/11 is that the media and the government declared it to be an “Act of War”. Now that’s a very important legal term because that meant that there would not be a criminal investigation, but rather we would treat it as an act of war by 19 Arabs, who happened to be supposedly coming from Afghanistan. And based on that logic, we went to war in Afghanistan.

 

[17:37]

 

But Larry Johnson, speaking about the terrorists, or the alleged terrorists in Florida – he is a former director of counter-terrorism in the State Department – he said:

 

“We don’t have anything in history to compare with this. The only thing that comes close to it is a former Soviet intelligence operation.”

 

 

Because these are the 19 led hijackers. But 15 of them lived in Florida, where many of them had been issued duplicate licenses, others had passports had been stolen, which meant that somebody was using their identity for them and leaving behind a trail in their name.

 

 

And we now know from the BBC News shortly after 9/11 that I think seven of them were well, and alive after 9/11. And they said:

 

“My picture is being used. My name is being used, but I’m fine. I’m alive.”

 

 

 

So that raises the question, if at least seven of the hijackers were still alive after 9/11, who were the people playing the roles of the real hijackers? Were there real hijackings? Was it all a show? Well, about the 19 hijackers. Robert Mueller, who was then head of the CIA, FBI, excuse me, said in September 2002, he said:

 

“There is no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.”

 

 

Now, this is an old Mossad trick. If you read the book The Little Drummer Girl, you’ll see that the Mossad tells the actress who’s leaving a trail for a Palestinian. The Mossad man tells the woman, the actress:

 

“Terror is theater. Theater is a con trick. Do, you know what that means? Con trick? You’ve been deceived.”

 

And that’s what we are as a nation. The whole deception is meant to deceive us.

 

I went to Germany after 9/11, shortly after, because I knew it was dangerous to be pointing out the lies of the government story when the government was going to war.

 

So I went to Germany for a couple years and worked out of Berlin. And I spoke to some of the former German intelligence agents, heads, chiefs, and they told me, this guy told me that it looked like:

 

“A Hollywood production.”

 

 

And he talked about:

 

“The deathly precision and the magnitude of planning would have required years of planning. And the absence of leaks.”

 

He said:

 

“Was further indication that the attacks were state organized actions.”

 

So what state are we talking about?

 

Another German guy, Andreas von Bulow, told me without hesitation:

 

“It’s Israel, Mossad!”

 

But when I wrote that in my newspaper, he was a little bit surprised because he said that:

 

“He told that to every journalist in Germany, but it had never been printed.”

 

And he thought it wouldn’t be printed in my paper as well, but it was printed.

 

So I’m going to point out some of the key connections, Israeli connections to 9/11.

 

 

One of the first ones is that when Israel was becoming a state in 1948, before it became a state, the joint chiefs of Staff did 13 papers about what this would mean for the American military. And they wrote in the 13th paper that:

 

“The Zionist strategy will seek to involve the US in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum jewish objectives.”

 

 

And the maximum jewish objectives were:

 

“The expansion of Eretz Israel.”

 

That means the land of Israel:

 

“Into Jordan, Lebanon and Syria and the establishment of jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

 

 

Well, this is what’s going on today and this is what the United States is facilitating.

 

This is the short list of Israeli terrorism attacks prior to 9/11.

 

In 1944, they killed the British minister, Lord Moyne, in Cairo. This was done by Lehi, or the Stern gang. PIn 46, they sent letter bombs to British officials, including the foreign minister, Ernest Bevin.

 

In 46, they bombed the King David Hotel, killing 93 people. That was British mandate headquarters. It was under the British at that time.

 

 

In 1947, Irgun placed a bomb at the colonial office in London, which failed to detonate.

 

In 47, Lehi sent letter bombs to the Truman White House.

 

In 1948, Irgun and Haganah bombed the Semiramis Hotel, killing 26 people.

 

And in 1948, Irgun and Lehi massacred the entire village of Deir Yasin.

 

That’s all before Israel even became a state. This is the bombing of the King David Hotel. That’s Menachem Begin.

 

 

This was the worst terrorist attack in Israeli-Palestinian history to this point.

 

Then Irgun bombed the British embassy in Rome in October 46.

 

 

So they were global in their reach. They would go to London, they would go to Britain. I mean, they would go to Italy. They would even send bombs to America. They sent bombs to the Truman White House.

 

And this is one of the bombers. This is Yitzhak Shamir. He was the head of Lehi. He was the head of the Stern gang when they killed this man, the UN mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, in 1948.

 

 

Now, when Menachem Begin came to the United States in 1948, in December, Albert Einstein penned a letter with, 26 jewish intellectuals about what Americans should know about the Israeli terrorists, the jewish terrorists. He was talking about Menachem Begin’s party at the time. And he said:

 

“The public avowals of Begin’s party are no guide whatsoever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism. Whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character. From its past actions, we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future.”

 

 

Bingo.

 

[23:22]

 

Now, if Americans had paid attention to what Einstein told them in 48, we would not have had 9/11, because the same people are involved, the very same party, ideology and people. What happened is that these terrorists, these are the terrorists of zionism. Begin, Shamir, Sharon.

 

 

They came to power in 1977. I happened to live in Israel at the time. And this was a very sad day for Labor people because they said:

 

“This is the day that the terrorists have taken power.”

 

They knew what they were talking about.

 

Then the terrorists went to work right away. Begin invaded Lebanon in 78, and there was a Palestinian attack in Nahariya.

 

And the response was, this man said:

 

“Kill them all!”

 

And they set up a terrorist squad that operated in Lebanon for four years. And this is Chief of Staff Rafael Eitan.

 

 

And he set up an organization called the Front for the Liberation of Lebanon from Foreigners, in which he used car bombs and truck bombs to destroy Palestinian and Syrian targets and to foment conflict between the various ethnic groups of Lebanon. It was very successful. He did it for four years!

 

 

This was revealed in a recent book that came out this year, Rise and Kill First, by an Israeli author named Ronan Bergman, New York Times bestseller. But when they interviewed Ronan Bergman, the New York Times, or when they write about the book, they leave out that little bit of history, that Israel was using a terrorist squad. They would hire, they would recruit people from the Sunni community, the Shiite community, Druze community, to drive the trucks. And then they would blow them up in places that they needed to blow them up.

 

 

Because this is not discussed in American media, because this shows that Israel is a state that has openly practiced terrorism! There’s no question about it. Remember the years 1979 to 1983? And they say:

 

“The aim was to cause chaos amongst the Palestinians and Syrians in Lebanon without leaving an Israeli fingerprint, to give them the feeling that they were constantly under attack and instill them with a sense of insecurity.”

 

This is exactly the same strategy that was applied to Iraq in the 1990s, since the war. Remember car bombs going off every day between the communities, driving the people against each other?

 

And this is exactly what they did to us after 9/11, the bombing in Bali, the bombing in Madrid, the bombing in London, 9/11, so that they went global then, and they wanted to put fear into the entire Western world that were all insecure! And that’s exactly what the terrorism is all about. They want us to feel insecure so that we will support their war agenda.

 

Then in 1983, a nondescript group that had never been heard of before bombed US Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 marines.

 

 

Caspar Weinberger, defense secretary at the time, said:

 

“There is no knowledge, we have no knowledge about who did the bombing.”

 

This is exactly the same time that Israel was doing exactly this. And we now know from Viktor Ostrowski, who wrote Mossadnik, who wrote about Mossad’s actions in a book By Way of Deception. He said that:

 

“Mossad knew the specific time and location of the bombing, but only gave the US skimpy general information, which was worthless.”

 

So they knew about the bomb. They knew what it was going to be, where it was going to be, what the truck looked like, but they didn’t tell us. That’s like, either “let it happen on purpose” or “made it happen on purpose”. And it’s the worst, it’s the largest [single] loss of life among the US Marines since Iwo Jima.

 

 

Here are a couple of Israeli terrorists from the 1950s. Shimon Peres, Pinhas Lavon and Moshe Dayan. These two characters play a big role in Israeli history, especially in the use of false flag terrorism. This photograph was taken a few months after they were busted for the Lavon Affair in Egypt when they put bombs, nitroglycerin bombs, in American libraries and British libraries and cinema theaters and cultural institutions in Cairo, in an attempt to drive the British and the Americans away from Nasser, away from Egypt. But they were caught. And they’re still smiling!

 

 

After it was discovered by the prime minister at the time, Moshe Sherrett. He said that:

 

“Shimon Peres shares the same ideology as Pinhas Lavon. He wants to frighten the West into supporting Israel’s aims.”

 

And this is exactly where we are today. The whole name of the game of the terrorism is to scare us into supporting Israel’s aims, to drive us as a nation, as a people, as a military, right behind the Israel camp, so that we become the fighters of their wars for them, because we are affected by the fear.

 

In 1967, some people would say:

 

“Israel would never do that. They’re our ally.”

 

I would point them to read about the USS Liberty attack in 1967 during the Six Day War in which Israeli planes and boats bombed the USS Liberty, a spy ship, which was in international waters off the coast of Egypt, killing 34 Americans and wounding 171.

 

 

Two thirds of the crew was destroyed, was murdered or injured. It’s the most decorated ship in naval history. And it’s the one subject of this war, the Six Day War that Americans know virtually nothing about because it’s suppressed. Because if Americans understood. The pilots were asked by the ground control:

 

“Identify the ship!”

 

The pilots called back:

 

“It’s American. It’s American!”

 

The order came from the ground:

 

“Sink the ship! No survivors.”

 

Now, if Americans understood that history, which has been revealed since 2006, they would realize that Israel is a state that will attack the United States when it suits their purposes.

 

 

This is an attack in Libya in 1986 in which the United States was tricked. Israel tricked the United States into attacking Libya. They rented an apartment in Tripoli. Then they broadcast radio transmissions to the apartment in Tripoli, which then went up into the satellite. The American signals intelligence picked up the information thinking that it was coming from Libya and then went and attacked Libya. This was when they killed Qaddafi’s daughter and all that, back in 1986.

 

 

[29:31]

 

 

 

So the War on Terror. I’m going to talk a little bit about how the War on Terror evolved. It’s an Israeli stratagem. How it developed.

 

 

In 1978 is when this all started to come into fruition. In 1978, Israeli intelligence agent Arnon Milchan made his first film called the Medusa Touch, in which a Boeing 747 crashes into the Pan Am building.

 

 

 

Here they are setting up for the film. This is the cover of the book. And here we have the same year he made the film. Here we have Arnon Milchan meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ezer Weizman.

 

So you can see he’s at the very highest level of the Israeli military. They’re making a movie predicting something that’s going to happen in the future.

 

 

Here he is. He’s a big Hollywood producer. Made JFK, Pretty Woman, Brazil, other films. He’s said to be worth $5 billion.

 

But the point is, if you read the book about Arnon Milchan called Confidential, you’ll see that he is the external banker who controls the slush funds that Mossad uses for external operations. That’s where the money comes from.

 

And he made this film in the year 2000. Well, his partner, his business partner, a man named Rupert Murdoch, who owns Fox News, Rupert Murdoch’s company, made this film in 2,000 in which a Boeing passenger aircraft is flown into the World Trade Center.

 

 

And this aired on TV. This plane in the movie was a half an hour film, worth watching. It’s called The Lone Gunman, pilot episode. And in this movie, the plane is remotely hijacked with passengers on it. And the blame is put on the American Military Industrial Complex, looking for a new enemy.

 

 

In 1979, the head, this is one year later. The head of Israeli intelligence, this man, Isser Harel, predicted that:

 

“The Arabs would attack the tallest building in New York City.”

 

He made that prediction to this man, Michael Evans, a Zionist, a jewish Christian Evangelist from Texas. And Harel predicted that the Arab terrorists would attack the tallest building in New York City. That was 22 years before 9/11.

 

 

And you see the relationship here between Mr Evans and Menachem Begin. The prediction went like this. You know, they were meeting, and Mr Evans said:

 

“Do you think that terrorism will come to America? And if so, where and why?”

 

 

This is 1979. Harel said:

 

“I fear it will come to you in America. America has the power, but not the will to fight terrorism.”

 

Et cetera, et cetera.

 

As to the where, Harel said:

 

“New York City is a symbol of freedom and capitalism. It’s likely they will attack. They will strike the empire State Building, your tallest building, and symbol of your power.”

 

He pretended to be ignorant about the tallest building.

 

 

And in 1979, this man, Bibi Netanyahu, came back from his., … He had been working in Boston for a Rothschild company called Boston Consulting Group, in Boston. He went back, this is his father. And they started something called the Netanyahu Institute, in which they began promoting the idea of:

 

“Terrorism being the scourge that the West has to fight.”

 

And they had a conference in 1979 called The Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism. They blamed all the terrorism in the world on Russia, on the Soviet Union. And George Bush spoke on the third day at the final conference and spoke in support of these pre-emptive strikes against nations that are supporting terrorism.

 

 

And Begin, I mean, Mr Netanyahu went on to make a career promoting the War on Terrorism. Terrorism, How The West Can Win, Fighting Terrorism, and calling for the United States to come to the Middle East to wage war against those terrorist entities that were plaguing Israel. Because Netanyahu logic goes like this. He says that:

 

“Israel is attacked because the Arabs are opposed to our Western identity, our Western values, our Western way of life. We’re a Western nation.”

 

He says, and:

 

“Therefore the West is the target. Therefore it’s incumbent on the West to come and fight the terrorists for us, because we’re all the target.”

 

 

So what they did in 1983, in order to have a War on Terror, you need to have a foe. So they created the foe. They created the foe in Pakistan using a guy named Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who was a very anti-Western militia group he had called Hezb-I-Islami. And the CIA and the Saudis bankrolled the operation. And Israelis trained and armed these people in Pakistan.

 

 

It was done in 1983, in 85. It began when this man, Ehud Barak, was the head of Israeli Military Intelligence. And they sent their men and weapons they had taken off the battlefield of Lebanon, took them to Pakistan and trained these characters, people like Osama Bin Laden, in the arts of terrorism. How to make a bicycle bomb and a car bomb and how to fight urban battles against the Russians. These jihadis were meant to fight against the Russians, the Red Army in Afghanistan.

 

 

And in 1983 it was done by Charlie Wilson, this Congressman from Texas. He’s the one who led the whole thing. And he arranged with the Israelis to provide the weapons and the trainers in Pakistan. And this is him shaking hands with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

 

But the question is, why would the United States and Britain, why would they be funding and training the most anti-Western of the Mujahideen? This man was rabidly anti-Western. Why would you do that? Because they were creating the boogeyman. They were creating the enemy for the next War on Terror, which was Al-Qaeda. And it was done.

 

 

This is the man. This is Zvi Rafiah, the head of Israeli Intelligence in Washington, DC. And he was this man’s handler, Charlie Wilson’s handler. And this man, Zvi Rafiah, used Charlie Wilson’s office as if it were his own office.

 

 

And this is the Hebrew speaking double agent named Ali Mohamed, who was Osama Bin Laden’s first trainer.

 

[35:33]

 

Now, he’s supposedly Egyptian, but he speaks fluent Hebrew. Where did he learn the Hebrew? He’s a double agent. So he was working with the Israelis, training Osama Bin Laden. And this guy, he set up the cell that bombed the US embassies in Africa. He trained the men who were blamed for bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. And he trained the men who killed Rabbi Kahane in New York City.

 

And then he was finally arrested and put in jail for bombing the embassies in Africa. He was put in a federal penitentiary in this country, from which he disappeared without a trace.

 

 

And this is the Gulbuddin’s gang. This is when they became Al-Qaeda. In 1994, the Arabs became Al-Qaeda and the Pashtun speakers became Taliban. Then Israeli Mossad got the contract for the World Trade Center in 1987. Security contract, anti-terrorism security contract.

 

 

And it went to this man, Avraham Shalom Bendor. He was the head of Shin Bet. He was involved in a murder in Palestine, in Israel of a couple Palestinians. And he came to America and was the president of this company Atwell Security who got the contract for the World Trade Center.

 

 

But when the Port Authority discovered, this is Zvi Malkin and Shalom Bendor, when the Port Authority discovered that this man was using a fake name and he’d been convicted of murder in Israel, they tore up the contract. Had they not torn up the contract in 1987, 9/11 probably would have happened in the 1980s or early 1990s. But they were rejected by the Port Authority.

 

 

They didn’t go home to Israel. They didn’t give up the plan. They went to work for a couple American jews who did have inside in the Pentagon, Maurice Greenberg and Jules Kroll. And Jules Kroll had a company called Kroll Associates who got the security contract for the World Trade Center in 1993, after the first bombing.

 

And at that point, Shalom Bendor was working for him.

 

 

And in 1992, this son of a terrorist. This is Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago right now. His father was a member of that Stern Gang, the Lehi Gang. This man became the senior advisor to Bill Clinton. This is the guy that set up the whole Lewinsky thing. But he was also instrumental. He was the Mossad’s man in the White House, so that he made sure that the right people got appointed to the bench. The right appointments were made of under Clinton to make the 9/11 project move forward. And his father was a member of Lehi. He served in the Israeli army, yet he was the senior advisor to the White House.

 

 

This is the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. And in this case, Michael Chertoff was the US Attorney for the District of New Jersey. He played a key role in the prosecution in which Muslims were blamed for the bombing. The six people were killed. Chertoff oversaw the prosecution. And Mukasey, Judge Mukasey, oversaw the actual trial.

 

 

And in the trial, the FBI, who was involved in actually making the truck bomb, they paid this man $1 million.

 

 

This is another Egyptian colonel. This man was the guy who ran the sting operation in which these guys were stung. And he used wires and recorded so that they became indictable. And he testified. He was paid $1 million. This guy, Emad Salem, was paid $1 million to testify against these other fellows that he had rounded up. And then he went into the witness protection program, you know, new name, new face.

 

 

And then this ideation of the War on Terror, or of the 9/11 came out in this article in Foreign Affairs, in which Philip Zelikow, John Deutch and Ashton Carter wrote about “Catastrophic Terrorism”, how this would be something that:

 

“Could happen next month!”

 

And in this article, they had a study group. They imagined the “transforming event”. They imagined the event, like 9/11, that would change America, fundamentally change our policies, our foreign policy, our domestic policy, change the nation. This was printed in Christmas 1998.

 

 

Two of the authors, Ashton Carter and John Deutch, worked for a company called Global Technology Partners, which is an exclusive affiliate of Rothschild North America. I point out these Rothschild connections because there are throughout the entire saga. You find that one step removed from the crime, you find a Rothschild, a Rothschild connection. And the Rothschilds are, of course, the bankers that control our Federal Reserve system and other countries central banks.

 

 

So, 9/11, the New Pearl Harbor. The Zionist neocons had called for a New Pearl Harbor in order to effect the change they needed to see.

 

 

This is the Project for a New American Century run by the Kagan family. These are some of the signatories to the document. And they had imagined that this revolutionary change that they saw turning America into the global police force:

 

“Would require a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a New Pearl Harbor.”

 

 

And in 2001, an Israeli Mossad company, Rothschild company, called ICTS, controlled security at the US airports. And these are the three principles. Here is Yitzhak Shamir’s son, Yair Shamir. This is Cukierman, and this is Boaz Harel. They ran the company that either let these guys on the airplane, or didn’t. But their company was excused from the process. And so we’ll never know unless we have some change in the attitude about 9/11.

 

[41:04]

 

 

And then in July 2001, Zionists, that’s strong supporters of Israel, got the lease for the World Trade Center. It became their property. And that was done through a man named Ron Lauder, the son of Este Lauder.

 

 

 

And in Israel, he works together with Major General Daniel Rothschild at Mossad University. He has a school there, and he runs the Institute for Policy and Strategy. This man was put in charge of privatizing New York property for Governor Pataky. He oversaw the privatization efforts of New York State in which they decided to privatize the World Trade Center, because the World Trade Center was public property prior to 9/11.

 

 

And then it went from the port authority. This man, Lew Eisenberg, he transferred after negotiations, the property to this man, Larry Silverstein. But these men are connected through something called the UJA Federation of New York, which is a Zionist fundraising operation, where he’s the national chairman and he is on the board of the Planning Board.

 

 

And again, Larry Silverstein, the man who got the World Trade Center lease for 99 years is this man here. He had weekly phone calls every Sunday afternoon with Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

 

Then on July 24, 2001, he got the keys to the front door of the World Trade Center.

 

 

This is what was left five weeks later.

 

 

On 9/11 Ehud Olmerttt, Israel’s Deputy Prime Minister, was on a secret visit to New York City.

 

 

This was taken about two weeks later, but he was there on September 10 and September 11 in New York City.

 

 

Here he is with Netanyahu. By the way, he wound up spending a couple years in jail recently for bribery.

 

 

Here he is after he came back from his ten days away in Israel, he came back to the United States.

 

And since New York City and Jerusalem are sister cities, and he was the Mayor of Jerusalem and the Deputy Prime Minister of Israel, he acted like the Big Brother to Rudy Giuliani.

 

 

But on September 11, when all civilian flights were grounded in this country, one full El Al Boeing 747 took off from JFK bound for Tel Aviv. The flight departed at 4:11 pm with US military officials on the scene authorizing and clearing the flight for takeoff. Who was on that plane? Well, obviously, Ehud Olmertt was one of the people on the plane.

 

This is about the Put Options. You may have heard about the Put Options in which people profited by knowing that the stocks of the airlines and insurance companies would tank on 9/11. And 95% of these options were put by this man’s former company.

 

 

Now this man is “Buzzy” Krongard. And on 9/11, he was executive director of the CIA. But before he became executive director of the CIA, he was the director of Alex Brown, the company that placed the put options.

 

 

And here’s the relationship between Alvin Krongard, Alvin Krongard and his wife. And his wife works directly with Rothschild Asset Management.

 

And then there were thousands of Israelis who were warned about 9/11, and there were 4,000 who were expected to have been at [in the area of] the World Trade Center that day, or the Pentagon.

 

 

And that comes from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. That’s not Arab propaganda. It’s from the Israeli Foreign Ministry.

 

And apparently they got the message through a system called Odigo, which warned people who had that Israeli system of messaging not to go to the World Trade Center that day. The warning message went out about two or 3 hours before it happened. It warned people:

 

“Not to be at the World Trade Center at 8:45 because all hell would break loose.”

 

 

So apparently those 4,000 Israelis who avoided harm got the message, they got the memo.

 

 

And then there were these “Five Dancing Israeli” who were seen celebrating and high fiving the attack at the World Trade Center before [after] the first plane struck. They were on the New Jersey side of the river, and they were photographing and high fiving, and they were observed, and they were arrested on the afternoon of 9/11. It was written about in the New Jersey newspapers, but it was not reported in any other paper outside of New Jersey.

 

 

The two men that did not appear, they’re on a TV show. These three guys are on TV show. They said:

 

“We’re not Mossad!”

 

No, because the two Mossad guys are sitting in the audience. The Kurtzberg brothers were sitting in the audience because they could not go up on the stage and say:

 

“We’re not Mossad.”

 

They are Mossad. And US law enforcement knew it from the minute they arrested these guys that they were Mossad.

 

And one of the guys, this is one of the minions, he said:

 

“Our purpose was to document the event.”

 

Here’s the head of the company behind these foster grants here, Dominik Suter. He fled the country on the 12th or the 13th, and when the FBI went to get him again, he was gone.

 

And this is one of the trucks of their company. They had this truck that was reported by New York police, Urban Moving Systems. It wasn’t a moving company at all! It was a front company. It was set up to facilitate the 9/11 attacks. And they had this truck with the picture of the World Trade Center being struck by a plane.

 

Now on 9/11, when it happened, in the studio, the London studio, the BBC, world television, the largest English speaking broadcasting in the world, who was there except Ehud Barak! Ready to give the interpretation. Remember, the General, Wesley Clark said:

 

“We did not have American understanding of it.”

 

No, what he’s implying is that we had:

 

“A foreign country’s understanding of it.”

 

We had Israeli understanding. The Israelis interpreted 9/11 for us.

 

 

This man, the head of former Defense Minister, Chief of Staff, he said:

 

“The world will never be the same from today on! We know who’s behind this, Osama Bin Laden, and we know where he is!”

 

He said:

 

“It’s time to launch an operational, concrete war against terror, full stop!”

 

[46:46]

 

And that’s what we’ve been doing for the last 17 years, following the Israeli diktat! Living our lives according to the Israeli interpretation of 9/11. That’s what they’ve imposed on us. They’ve imposed a Zionist narrative to explain what happened on 9/11.

 

 

Here’s Bibi Netanyahu. And on 9/11, he praised the attacks because they had kickstarted his War on Terror that he’d been pushing uphill for the last, 20 years.

 

 

He told the New York Times. He was asked:

 

“How will this affect American Israeli relations?”

 

He said:

 

“It’s very good!”

 

When 30,000 people are expected to be in the pile, he said:

 

“It’s very good. It will generate immediate sympathy.”

 

And the relationship between Netanyahu and Barak is that Barak was his commander in the Sayeret Matkal, a covert commando force of Israeli military intelligence.

 

 

And Bibi Netanyahu spoke the next day, September 12, in Jerusalem.

 

 

He said:

 

“We must build a coalition against terror today. It’s time to take on the militant Islamic regimes with a great deal of strength. We should crush the terrorist infrastructure that threatens the entire free world.”

 

Yet if you look at the coalition that’s put together in Syria or in Iraq, you will never find the Israeli flag, because the Israelis are the ones who are running the operation, but keep their fingers out of it.

 

But you see now in Syria, you see the Israelis are now bombing every day. They’re attacking Syria on a daily basis. And they were the ones who actually got the Russian plane shot down.

 

Their four fighters came over and were striking Syria, putting the slow moving Russian reconnaissance plane in the middle, and it got shot.

 

And he also said, Netanyahu said in 2001, he said:

 

“I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.”

 

That’s what they’re doing to us. They’re pulling us around like an ox with a ring in its nose. And he said:

 

“We are benefiting.”

 

This is him speaking to an Israeli audience.

 

 

He said:

 

“We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the twin towers, the Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq.”

 

He said that in 2008.

 

 

And then there was an Israeli son of the Mossad who controlled the 9/11 investigation.

 

 

This is the man, Michael Chertoff. He was put in charge of the investigation, which became a non-investigation in which the evidence was destroyed. And for day to day decisions, Chertoff had the last word.

 

 

Then he became Homeland Security Czar in 2005. In this position, he maintained his control of the evidence of 9/11.

 

 

Controlling the evidence, destroying the evidence, was a key aspect of his work. And the evidence was destroyed from the day one. This is some of the steel that was piled up. That was a big steel pile of steel.

 

 

And they began right away carting the steel off to a couple Zionist junkyards where it was destroyed 24/7. Cut into small pieces, mixed with other scrap and sent to Asia for destruction.

 

Because the steel would provide evidence of what really caused the towers to fall.

 

 

And then the Zionists presided over the 9/11 lawsuits and litigation. This is the judge, Alvin K. Hellerstein. There was a fundamental conflict of interest, though.

 

 

His son worked for a law firm in Israel that represented ICTS, the company that was overseeing security at the airports on 9/11 in Boston, in Newark, in Dulles. Here’s the relationship.

 

 

His son was working for a company that was the parent company of ICTS. And that same group of people, ICTS, was in the tort litigation that he oversaw for the families of 9/11. That’s a primary conflict of interest. And the Zionists also oversaw the settlements of the money.

 

 

This man dished out the money for the first, 2,900 families. His name is Kenneth Feinberg, very high level Zionist. This is Sheila Birnbaum. She oversaw the war of attrition against the 96 families. There are 96 families who held out for a day in court. They never got it. One by one, they were settled out of court.

 

And the Zionist control the 9/11 myth and the legacy. This is the Ground Zero. This is the World Trade Center memorial.

 

 

And they control the interpretation of the event was given to us by this 9/11 Commission Report by this man, Philip Zelikow, who’s an expert at creating public myths.

 

 

And he came to the table as Executive Director of the Commission with a complete outline already finished, before the staff even began working.

 

So he had prepared the myth in advance. Then they would pick information that they would put into the myth to make it work.

 

 

But the people who worked on the 9/11 Commission, like the senior counsel John Farmer, said that:

 

“What government and military officials told Congress, the Commission, the media and the public about who knew what when, was almost entirely and inexplicably untrue.”

 

Here are the co-chairmen of the Commission Report.

 

 

They said:

 

“To this day, we don’t know why NORAD told us what they told us. It was just so far from the truth!”

 

So these are the people who actually wrote the report or worked on the report telling you that it’s a pack of lies!

 

Then the Israelis constructed the memorial, the legacy, where the kids go in the school buses and get the walk around and go to the museum.

 

 

The World Trade Center memorial was designed by an Israeli, this man here, Michael Arad, who’s the son of Moshe Arad, the former Israeli ambassador of the United States.

 

 

So from A to Z, from ideation to legacy, it’s all been an Israeli project. For 17 years the media has given us this story, a false narrative about 9/11 and the War on Terror, all the while suppressing real evidence that disproves the official myth.

 

 

Like the molten metal that poured off the building. Like the molten metal that was found in the basement of the World Trade Center. Like the tiny droplets of molten iron that were found in the dust. Because the attitude of the media has been this is from three years later. New York Times.

 

 

“In the three years since 9/11, we’ve begun to understand that it’s possible to know what happened without knowing what happened.”

 

That’s their position! We don’t need to know!

 

[52:46]

 

[Remainder of Transcript in Progress]

[1:28:31]

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Odysee Comments

top

(Comments as of 9/10/2024 = 1)

GorgonIII
30 weeks ago
I have linked to a lot of Bolly’s work on 9/11 in this substack essay: Israel and elements of the US government did 9/11 https://binkylarue.substack.com/p/israel-and-elements-of-the-us-government
5 likes

‹ Hide 1 reply

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

Joel Davis – WWII Revisionism Re-enters the Mainstream – Sep 6, 2024 – Transcript

Keith Woods: You mentioned the Great Replacement as an issue. How grave do you see this issue? What do you think the consequences, the long term consequences of the Great Replacement are?

 

Chris Langan: Well I think the long term consequences are having the majority populations of North America and Europe and Australia and New Zealand diluted out of existence! I think basically if you’re going to take 7 billion people, only 3 or 400 million, of which are White and mix them all together, and the non-White ones breed a lot faster than the White ones do, pretty soon you’re not going to have anything resembling a White person anymore.

 

Now what happens then? Well that individualism and that particular creative kind of abstraction that Whites tend to excel in, that disappears. And then what you’ve got is a homogeneous, sort of, well what it is, is it’s an ideal slave race for people who have mastered the techniques of control. Okay?

 

And so we’ve got these Bernaysian* techniques of control and all kinds of surveillance and coercion technology and political science has gotten to be nothing but a demonic scam, more or less. Where people are being fooled, consent is being manufactured. That’s where we’re headed!

 

[* Edward Louis Bernays (1891-1995) was an (((American))) theorist, considered a pioneer in the field of public relations and propaganda, and referred to in his obituary as ‘the father of public relations’. He was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, and author of “Propaganda”, in which he wrote:

 

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …”

“We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …”

“In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons… who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”]

 

This was written about by the way by Richard N. Coudenhove-Kalergi, who came up with something called the Kalergi Program. Wrote a book called Practical Idealism that was funded by I believe it was the Warburgs and Rothschilds back in 1925. And it had been going on before that. I mean it goes way the hell back to the earliest roots of Zionism and Communism.

 

 

But that book was written in 1925 with funding from these central bankers. And it advocates basically for what is now EU immigration policy. And after it became EU immigration policy, which is namely shipping in all the non-Whites, it became North American immigration policy as well.

 

So that’s what we’re faced with now. Basically the activation of the Kalergi Program under the supervision of central bankers, who are paying off our governments and our leaders to turn against us and actually replace us with other populations. And basically dilute our genome out of existence, in a kind of a vast mocha-coloured, … What did Kalergi call it? The:

 

“Eurasian-Negroid race of the future.”

 

And by the way, …

 

Keith Woods: Big business, … Sorry, go ahead.

 

Chris Langan: Yeah. Basically Kalergi spoke of two races, this Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, kind of mongrelised mocha-coloured hodgepodge. And then you’ve the “master race“! It wasn’t Hitler who came up with that terminology. That was Kalergi. Okay? The master race.

 

[03:02]

 

And of course the “master race” was to consist of whom? It was to consist of Zionist bankers, and the European “nobility” who were their most lucrative clients. And it’s as simple as that! That’s what they wanted, a master race, right? Down-breeding everybody else into a kind of slave race! And that’s what it’s been about since that time.

 

Ever since then the history of the world has conformed to this program, to this agenda in every way! And people still aren’t breaking out of it! There’s no continuity. I mean, basically the book was taken off the shelves in Germany and now people deny it exists and:

 

“Oh, it’s a big conspiracy theory!”

 

Nonsense!

 

This agenda has been pushed and pushed hard for a long time and it is in full swing! The EU, the European Union would not exist without it.

 

Keith Woods: Yeah, it seems like the brakes are off now. There was a time where this was denied in most Western countries. We were told it was a small trickle of immigration. It was just a workforce. And now they ramp it up. You don’t see White people in TV shows. You don’t see White people in movies. You have old Shakespeare plays with black casts! You have advertising that’s just constantly pushing, …

 

Chris Langan: Yeah, my wife and I were watching TV. We have an internet service, and we were trying to watch a movie, but it was on one of these services, I think IMDb that has commercials that come across. And there was a string of five commercials, each one of them with almost nothing but black people in it! I mean, what the hell do you call it? What is that about? I mean, they’re trying to sell products, one would think, to the majority citizens of the nation in which the show is being televised.

 

And yet here every single commercial features non-Whites! What is that about? Well, obviously we’re being conditioned, we’re being demoralised. They want us to be dissatisfied with being White!

 

And the irony is that if this agenda continues, pretty soon there’s going to be no more diversity. Diversity will be completely homogenised out of existence. Everybody will look the same. They’ll have the same mocha-coloured skin tone, the same attitudes, the same cultural values.

 

Everything is going to be just totally broken down so that nobody opposes their leaders, which is this Kalergian “master race”, of which I spoke.

 

Keith Woods: Now, you mentioned, another factor is yeah, decline in IQ. And I mean, you can just look at demographic studies and basically the people that are having the most kids now are the lower IQ population. Also the high IQ population has more kids.

 

Basically, the people in the middle, there’s a collapse there.

 

But again, the lower section of that is having far more kids than, …

 

[05:51]

 

Chris Langan: Yeah, and you also got to cut off the highest section of IQ too. The people with the highest IQs are not breeding at all. Okay? Those people, some of them, a few of them, especially the ones that are lower down and more materialistic, devote themselves to their careers.

 

But people like me, for example, I was completely stopped from being able to afford a family when I was at the age when I wanted to. And I actually was trying to get a job and accumulate enough money. Cost of living was high where I was living, which was in New York, but actually made an effort to settle down, get a steady paying job so that I could raise a family. I could not do it!

 

Why couldn’t I do it? Because the Civil Service, which was basically the only thing where I could hope to be hired, you go and you take the test. If you’re a White person, you can score 100 on the Civil Service exam, or at the time could score 100 on the Civil Service exam in New York and be beaten by any non-White with a score of 70!

 

Keith Woods: Wow!

 

Chris Langan: They’re spotted 30% on the same test. So you end up with 3, 4,000 non-White people in front of you for any Civil Service job at the time. So I saw there was no way to do it. So they stopped people like me from breeding.

 

I mean, I didn’t have any connections, didn’t have any money. Someone in my position is completely, … It doesn’t make any difference what the genetic quality is. They don’t care! They’ll cut you off! Okay.

 

And meanwhile, you know, these people that were getting the know the non-Whites who were getting the jobs, I was in a post office one time. It was in Speonk, New York, standing in the post office. And there was a guy in there, he was a black guy, and he was saying hi to somebody else he knew. And the guy said:

 

“Hey, how are the kids doing?”

 

He said:

 

“I got a lot of kids.”

 

And the guy says:

 

“Yeah, just exactly how many kids do you have?”

 

And he said:

 

“By my count, about 40.”

 

Okay? Basically this guy, the black guy was bragging about having, … And he was by no great shakes intellectually, you could tell, I had estimated like he was maybe 75, bragging about having 40 kids with a wide assortment of women. And the guy said:

 

“Jeez, you got to be stupid to have that many kids!”

 

He says:

 

“Oh, no! The government pays us to!”

 

Those words came out of his mouth. The “government pays us to”. And that’s true. That’s absolutely true! So you’ve got these low IQ people that are being paid to breed! And not just breed a little, but a lot.

 

And then you’ve got people like me who are totally X’d out of the economy, so that we can’t afford to raise a family. This is not just accidental. It’s basically dysgenic. Somebody is trying to damage our genome! And they’re doing a very, very good job of it!

 

[08:39]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

BitChute Comments

top

(Comments as of 8/23/2023 = 0)

==========================

See Also

top

Kalergi Plan Graffiti Appears in Rathmines, Dublin – Liveline with Joe Duffy — TRANSCRIPT

Andrew Hitchcock – Rosette Delacroix – The Kalergi Plan Decoded – White Genocide – Jul 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Red Ice TV — Why They Want To Replace White People, Nov, 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Keith Woods – Chris Langan – The Great Replacement – Mar 29, 2022 – Transcript

Mark Collett – South Africa Today, Tomorrow the West – Aug 11, 2023 – Transcript

 

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.

 

Woes: Thank you very much. Alex would you like to give your

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]