Interview Patrick Wood: Mad World

INTERVIEW PATRICK WOOD: MAD WORLD


APRIL, 22ND, 2024      AARON SMITH      SEASON 1      EPISODE 68

 SHOW NOTES: (AI generated)

Prepare to be captivated as Patrick Wood, renowned author and expert on the fusion of technocracy and transhumanism, joins us on The subtlecain Podcast. With a keen historical lens, Patrick unravels the complex tapestry of technocratic and transhumanist thought, tracing its evolution from the 1930s to its current manifestation. As we examine the legacy of Howard Scott and the ideological battles of the past century, our conversation reveals how these historical threads are woven into the fabric of today's societal challenges.

Venturing further into our discussion, Patrick and I dissect the seductive yet deceptive nature of technological advances and their intersection with the green movement. The pursuit of god-like status through transhumanism echoes the ancient narrative of Babel, but with Silicon Valley's twist. We lay bare the spiritual ramifications of such ambitions, contemplating the implications for individuals and society as a whole. This segment of our dialogue offers an eye-opening perspective on the very essence of human progress and the potential pitfalls of blind technological worship.

In a world increasingly enamored with the promises of artificial intelligence, Patrick and I explore how to anchor ourselves in reality. We consider the power of human connection, love, and service as antidotes to the isolating and disorienting effects of an AI-centric society. As our conversation concludes, we leave listeners with an empowering message: amidst the encroaching cold mechanics of a science-driven world, it is our innate capacity for compassion and connection that remains our strongest bastion of hope.

LINKS/SUBTLECAIN SPOTLIGHT-PATRICK WOOD:

https://citizensforfreespeech.org

https://www.technocracy.news

https://substack.com/@patrickwood

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:00

Welcome to the Subtle Cane Podcast. I'm your host, aaron Smith, broadcasting from the Aorta of America, beautiful festival city, oshkosh, wisconsin, where we pump out reason and pierce through the propaganda. Here we go. Today is Monday, april 22nd 2024. We're keeping the rails on and pushing through the fog of swing shifts and rotating weekends once again to bring you another great episode. If you're new to the Subtle Cane Podcast, thank you for gracing us with your virtual presence. If you're a returning listener, thank you for your continued support. It is much appreciated.

Speaker 1: 0:47

This is episode 68 of the Subtle Cane Podcast interview with Mr Patrick Wood, mad World. Now I'm working hard to round out the next episode in our series for Prying Out Loud, part 2, but in the meantime I was unbelievably blessed to have Mr Patrick Wood accept a request for an interview. Patrick Wood is, in my opinion, the most comprehensive and intuitive writer and speaker on the topic of technocracy and over the last 15 years he's been courageously standing up against the tide of technocracy and sharing his in-depth analysis and perspective on this important issue. He's actually written a trilogy of books on the topic of technocracy and countless articles. Please check out the provided links to his Substack page, his organization Citizens for Free Speech and his website, technocracy News and Trends.

Speaker 1: 1:40

I was more than honored to have this opportunity to pick the mind of someone so well-versed on the subject matter we cover so often on this show. Please take some time to enjoy this riveting discussion. Here we go and Technocracy News and Trends, also a renowned author, of which I have already explained some of his work, and we're going to talk to him about what he's been doing and specifically his new book, the Evil Twins of Technocracy and Transhumanism, that I just had the pleasure of finishing. So welcome to the Subtle Cane Podcast, mr Wood.

Speaker 2: 2:24

Wow, that's really good you got through the book, huh.

Speaker 1: 2:28

I thought it was amazing.

Speaker 2: 2:29

Yeah, yeah, Wow, the evil twins. They really are.

Speaker 1: 2:35

Yes. So what did it seem to me and I've not read every last word that you've written, but I've. I've read some of your books in the past trilaterals over washington, um technocracy rising the trojan horse of global transformation. I've been following your work on technocracy, news and trends, and citizens for free speech, and it seemed to me like a very good, just just a picture of your life's work and your research in a very concise and beautifully put together piece. I think it takes about 12 hours to read through it. So it's not considering books for how long they can take that. It's very concise and I thought you did a beautiful um job of of painting the picture from front to back, and I specifically really loved how you started with, uh, the lyrics from mad world. So could you just kind of walk us through how you came up with or or what was the process of this book and and what was the? What was your purpose, your intent?

Speaker 2: 3:50

well, well, yeah, this is the the last uh book that I probably I'm going to write about technocracy at this point. But uh, that was the trilogy and uh, this was the last book, uh, the evil twins and it. I needed to wrap in transhumanism into the whole mix because that was kind of a stepsister to all this stuff for a long time. But now we see how it's merging together with technocracy and it needed to be put in that, that context. So that was my intent of this book and also, uh was kind of to show that the eventual consequences where this is all headed and it's not not pretty, I'll tell you, not not at all. But uh, nevertheless, we have to fight it. You know we have to. We cannot just roll over and play dead. That's not an option in my opinion. Uh, I think a lot of people think that way too. Um, but anyway that you know there was.

Speaker 2: 5:01

I had no other ulterior motive other than to connect all the dots from A to Z and let people figure it out for themselves. I can't make people read my books certainly not anybody else's book too, but that was my hope that people would read, and thank you in particular for reading the books. But you know, that was my. That was my hope that people would read, and thank you in particular for reading the books. I hope you really got a good takeaway.

Speaker 1: 5:32

Well, it is certainly helped me and in previous episodes, especially detailing some of the history, albeit a very abbreviated version that I provided your work, certainly helped quite a bit with that. I know I'm talking about Howard Scott and how things got started here in the United States. I thought it was specifically significant. I thought it was specifically significant. It was just something significant about the fact that Howard Scott was a false academic, because there's so much false or misleading narratives provided by academia to push this narrative and and you cover that as as educational piece or the propaganda piece as one of the pillars of technocracy.

Speaker 2: 6:34

Yeah, that you mentioned howard scott here is interesting, um, because he was a con man. He was intelligent guy, I'm sure, um, but he was a con con man and he conned, uh, columbia University to let him in for one. But they had a lot of people, professors at Columbia, who joined them and, um, after it was discovered that he was really a con con man and he didn't have a degree at all, he said he did and and, uh, you know, here he is in columbia, you know, mastering this huge project, project. And they didn't take too kindly to this guy coming in and said, well, do you even have a high school degree? So, anyway, they, they booted him and all the other professors um retreated to their offices, whatever they. They couldn't talk about technocracy anymore at that point. But, uh, the interesting thing is about him being a con con guy. That set the the tone of the whole movement, I think, ever since.

Speaker 2: 7:50

I see elements of this con, even today, from people who were, you know, academics, so to speak, but others who were not. Look at how many people, for instance, dropped out of college to pursue things like AI and you know semiconductors and you name it Bill Gates, for instance. You know he didn't finish college, he just went for it, but uh, they've. They've since, um, kind of put themselves off as the experts on everything. They're not but they say they are and a lot of their, a lot of their schemes today are so poorly thought out that you just wonder what? What are they? What are they thinking about? You know, where can they? Can't can I, they cannot see and end of their nose or what yeah, I.

Speaker 1: 8:54

I think that that's more and more apparent and I know that some people, let's say in the freedom movements, at times, I believe now they've they, being technocrats, have have succeeded in many, many ways that I wish they hadn't, and the plan seems to be moving on undeterred in in the larger, more Fabian sense of of the, of the idea. But but they get, I think they get more credit than they deserve sometimes in how they're masterminding all this. They like to present themselves as these evil geniuses, or benevolent geniuses, I should say they like to be perceived.

Speaker 2: 9:41

Yes, always, always. They present themselves as benevolent. Yes, you have to read through that Now yeah, you address the transhumanism aspect of things.

Speaker 1: 9:58

You address the mRNA gene therapy and that element of it, and I think about that in the terms of how there was a stated goal. There was certainly things that were accomplished, but at the same time I can't really believe that they could foresee as many complications as were. I'm studying some of the issues with the protein misfolding and the prion disease potential. One could argue for population control or something along those lines, but in the transhumanism sense you would think that it wouldn't be so much a culling of the herd as moving toward a goal, as you, I think, eloquently state in your book.

Speaker 2: 10:54

You're right, there could be dual purpose, I'm sure. But this business of genetic engineering was crystallized in 1982 in particular. It was still around before that, but that that's really when it got into high gear in 1992 with the Rio de Janeiro conference, which was where Agenda 21 was created. And from that point forward we have evidence of it from eyewitnesses that were there to see what was going on at that convention, and it was apparent at that point that the big, the lobbyists that were there, were all from the big pharma and the biotech industry. The biotech industry wasn't much back then, but it is now. We know what they wanted to do when it was to engineer genetically all life on planet earth and, if they could, to patent it, uh. And so they could uh exercise control over the whatever they invented. This uh really slipped through the radar. Back then People really didn't know what they were talking about. You know biotech, what's this genetic engineering sort of thing? It just didn't compute. But that was where this all started and since then it went hand in hand with technocracy, the genetic engineering that's taken place since that.

Speaker 2: 12:49

You can look at seeds, like Montesanto, for instance, and Bayer. You look at insects, for instance, with companies like Oxitec. You can look at genetic engineering of animals like pigs, hogs, cattle, chickens, turkeys and so on. You can look at a company like Cargill. So the last frontier was humanity itself. Why anybody would have thought, would not have thought back in that day, that they eventually would set their sights on human beings directly for genetic engineering. Of course they would. But even if you didn't believe it back then, you can believe it now, because that's what's exactly just what happened.

Speaker 2: 13:48

The whole business of messenger RNA is the basic building blocks of life. You mess with it, you're going to have unintended consequences, period. That, uh, that's not enough to slow them down, however, because in their mind, they're going to create a new humanity. This is what Klaus Schwab talks about in his WEF about the fourth industrial revolution. He talks about humans 2.0 in the context of genetic modification.

Speaker 2: 14:23

Well, there's your clue. Just, you know it's in your face now. It's not even hidden, but for some reason people just don't want to see what they're saying and process it. But this business of creating humanity 2.0 so that these humans can live in the and their reset, their great reset world is patently insane. And if they, I think in their mind, if they have to break a few eggs to get the omelet cooked, so be it. So what if a million people die or whatever? That's just chump change to these people? Um, but any but any case, this is very, very dangerous for all humanity now, and unfortunately they've managed to stick the needle into over 70 percent of the world's population so far. Uh, with multiple shots too. Uh, it's inconceivable, right? It's just totally inconceivable that they could get this done to this level.

Speaker 1: 15:31

Yeah, I was reading Dr Michael Nell's book the Indoctrinated Brain and he was making some very interesting propositions about how this actually damages when paired the mRNA and the lipid nanoparticles damaging the hippocampus. And when paired with emotional stress, stress actually can induce almost like a retrograde amnesia of identity. In that sense I don't know enough about that stuff to really speak too eloquently about it, but there's so many different variables at play here that I just it boggles the mind when you're talking about that many people. But I wanted to ask you also you made a point in your book about how people mistake what we're seeing as socialism or communism and I wondered if you could extrapolate on that a little bit and, because not everybody here is as familiar with the topic as others explain what the overarching principle of technocracy and sort of break it down to basics again and and explain why that is not what they're saying, even though those marxist tools are are used as you know, part of the toolkit, if you don't mind sure, yeah, this is um I.

Speaker 2: 17:17

I get it that people have to put point the figure to somebody, right? So it's easy to say the word communist just run through, the runs right off your tongue. Um, or socialist or Marxist, um or fascist for that matter. But if you ask 100 people on the street, can you tell me what communism is? They'd have no clue, absolutely no clue. So we're dealing in an area of semantics here. Stuff that people see coming right now they call it communism, but not because they know what that is. They just see the freight train coming. It looks like a big train, you know, coming down the track, but it is technocracy, it's not communism. Those who understand the tenets of Marxism and how it expressed in communism and socialism as well, they will immediately understand that we're dealing with a different animal here. This is not according to the works of Marx in any way, shape or fashion.

Speaker 2: 18:49

Let me give you a reason to believe that technocrats in the 1930s all of them, not just the howard scott, but all the professors at columbia university that joined in with howard scott they all hated copying communists in that day. There was a big communist movement in america that everybody understood what it was all about back then. But uh, the technocrats were a perpetual war with communists and vice versa. Because the technocrats insisted on controlling the economy, says the economy by the use of energy, not kernis. Current currency not, not cat, not cash, no, no currency. The communist wanted to use kind of a modified system of, um, well, capitalism, I say like not really capitalism, but they want, they did not want to uh, abandon the concept of currency. They did not want to abandon the concept of currency. The technocrats rejected that altogether. They said no, you have to get rid of all currency in the worldate where all decisions will be made by scientific algorithm on what would be produced and what would be consumed. This was so far out of the thinking of communists of that day, they just could not accept it.

Speaker 2: 20:22

There was a book to written in 1932 by aldous huxley. You probably know the book. It's brave new world. Yeah, that book. And, by the way, remember that aldous huxley and julian huxley were brothers. Julian went on to found unesco, which was one of the most scurrilous organizations in the world. My, my opinion, uh, but nevertheless they were both pretty young back in that day. Huxley wrote this book brave new world, and that's. Everybody understands vaguely what that means that it was a brave new world. You say stuff going going against you as it was a brave new world, and that's everybody understands vaguely what that means that it was a brave new world. You say stuff going going against you as it was a brave new world, don't you know? But they don't understand.

Speaker 2: 21:11

What the book is all about is about scientific dictatorship, and it was expressing the tenets of technocracy. Not market is marxism. If you read the book careful, you find out. Well, there's no structure, structure for any decisions other than made by the appointed people, like the technocrats. They had different levels and wanted that. The A-plus guys were the leaders and the deltas were the grunts that carried out the trash and everything in between grunts that carried out the trash and everything, everything in between. There was no family structure whatsoever. You couldn't have sex with anybody that you cared about, just whoever you wanted to grab. Uh was not allowed to fall in love. Uh, it wasn't allowed to be married at all. Um, all babies were genetic, genetically engineered as well as incubated to birth. So women never carried babies and basically it was cradle to grave maintenance of the population via scientific dictatorship. Well, you see, that's quite a far stretch from communism at all or socialism, but this is what we're facing today. Nevertheless, this is what we're looking at today total scientific dictatorship, where all decisions are going to be made ultimately and in today's world for sure by AI. So we're not dealing with communism today in the way that people think.

Speaker 2: 22:56

However, I hasten to add to that the tenets and the tools that Marxists and communists have used against the world, or let's say as they have been applied in the world, are uniformly destructive. There's nothing that they ever touch that does not come out destroyed in the end. Destroyed in the end. In one sense, you could look as communism as a giant sledgehammer to destroy the world or at least the economic system. Technocrats back in the in the 1930s were sure that tech capitalism was going to be dead within a couple years. That's because of the great depression. They were wrong because capitalism did not die and it made a uh recovery, and we still have it with us today as flaws that it flawed as it is.

Speaker 2: 23:54

But, um, the technocrats ever since have had a thing I call it a moral hazard, but they have a thing to want to see capitalism destroyed once and for all. They believe it should have happened back then, but it hasn't. So they've always been looking for ways to destroy capitalism so that technocracy can rise out of the ashes like the phoenix bird eventually, and they will be the supreme rooters, rulers of everything, that is, the technocrats. Well, inadvertently, the, the all of the marxist elements of the world, became the useful idiots for technocrats to do this, destroying for them. In other words, if they can induce Marxist elements to scramble people's minds, to break down the pillars of society, to destroy businesses and, you know, economic, uh constructs, all of all of the world. Well, if, if those people could do that for the technocrats, they would in the in the end of it, I think. Well, you think maybe they would be grateful for it. But no, I can guarantee you these, the all of this Marxist stuff is going to be thrown under the bus by these people when they get control, total control. So the marxists have been laboring under this idea that they're going to be on top. Sorry, and it can happen that way. It's no way that that can happen now. So, and that's a kind of a long ways around to explain it to you. I hope it makes sense. But people need, in my opinion, if they want to fight this thing, they need to understand what's at play.

Speaker 2: 26:00

Who are the real controllers right now of things in society? Is it Marxistist, is it communist, is it socialist? Well, there's lots of arguments could be made. Looking at people like jeff me, jeff bezos, elon musk, sam altman, klaus schwab, all his crowd crowd out there in europe, henry kissinger, who just died recently. You know you. Look at these people. None of them are marxists per se. Look at all the central bankers of the world. Uh, and I think they're. There is the power base, probably for all this whole thing. But look at all the central banks, banks of the world. They're run not by communists. You can't look at any. I haven't found any you can look at. Say well, that guy's really a communist or a marxist, and under underneath, these people are marching to a different drum. Yeah, that's where the power structure is, you see.

Speaker 1: 27:09

It's almost seems like a case of societal munchausen by proxy Sometimes, when I look at the way empathy is hijacked, using those Marxist talking points to guide society toward accepting more and more of these technocratic interventions. There's also an underlying vein of eugenics. Yes, in this or was in the transhumanist element of that, and I wonder if that is something that you found From your perspective, if eugenics was a pre-transhumanism or if it's just another thing like Marxism that is used as a tool toward moving toward a technocratic society.

Speaker 2: 28:13

Yeah, that's an interesting topic for sure. Let's take the case of Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and, aside from his dealings with Microsoft over the decades, he became the richest man on earth period, and his family, especially as his father, were deep into the the genetic uh cleansing of humanity, eugenics, big time. These people were uh, they, they would have been um, so, so much uh for the abortion, abortion industry. Right now, you, you wouldn't believe it, but back in that, back in that day, they were just, they were willing just to call people right out of society. This is just horrible stuff in my opinion. Um, this is bill gates. However he had, he has adopted all the beliefs of his family and even though he's a tech, you can look at him from any angle and you see, there goes a living, breathing technocrats period. But he's also and, and let me say also, he's transhumanist too. He promotes life extension and you know companies that are trying to cure the disease of death. But you look at somebody like thatugenics goes through all his life and now, as a technocrat, it's expressing itself in technocracy vis-a-vis scientific dictatorship, of the scientific dictatorship dictatorship. For instance, he's working for a universal id id system for all planet, everybody on the planet. You know he's, he's behind every initiative. It seems like globally, to tag everybody in the planet in the planet with, uh, a number or a mark, whatever. So we see, you know, you. You look at this.

Speaker 2: 30:41

This is not really. Obviously it's not class, classical marxism in any shape, but there are so many people right now who have fallen that camp that it's just. It can't be accidental that so many people independently fall into this camp. Now. People like Elon Musk, for instance, obviously is a technocrat. His father the fact grandfather was head of the technocracy movement back in the days of Howard Scott.

Speaker 2: 31:11

Elon Musk promotes transhumanism all over the place. He's invested hundreds of millions of dollars into life extension companies. So people like Peter Thiel, the billionaire that founded PayPal with Musk, I might add, people like Jeff Bezos, totally invested in transhuman projects, and all of those things have to do with improving the gene pool to the extent or at the expense of all the people that get left behind. It's just going to leave, leave 30 of humanity on the table, because they'll never see any of this new stuff in their lifetime at least. And and meanwhile these people think they're gonna somehow they're gonna, they, they in particular will escape death and become gods. God, help us all. It's all God to save. If we ever achieve it, we'll really be in big trouble.

Speaker 1: 32:23

The Sutter Cain Podcast operates on the irrational value-for-value system that asks of you, my dear producers, to reflect on the value you receive from the work I do here and to return that value in the form of time, talent or treasure to someone else. It's a paid forward kind of mentality. I thought I'd make things easy this week and simply shine the spotlight on our guest, mr Patrick Wood. I have provided the links to his previously mentioned efforts and hope sincerely that you will not only check them out, but also purchase one of his books or support one of his endeavors. I know that my regular listeners will understand that I don't accept ad money because I don't want you to be the product, and I work very hard to provide a show that challenges narratives and pierces the propaganda. I ask for nothing in return, except that you pay it forward. Please consider doing so. No one but you and God will ever know either way, but I leave it with you there, as always. Your time is so valuable and I appreciate you all.

Speaker 1: 33:27

Let's jump back into it. Yeah, it's interesting that Ty this idea um them trying to be little, little g gods. Um, you bring up, uh, allegorically, the uh tower of babel in in your book as well, and, and it's it's. It's a strange parallel that that one can draw between the idea of reaching the heavens and becoming little gods and this idea of transhumanism, and it kind of reminds me of in Ecclesiastes. You know, nothing new under the sun.

Speaker 2: 34:10

Yeah.

Speaker 1: 34:12

These same things Do you see, or what is your perspective on this in the sense of a spiritual battle, and how does that play out for people like myself, or Christ followers and you as well?

Speaker 2: 34:31

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. The story of the Tower of Babel is a good place to start and the deception that's going on today is very, very much like that day. We don't know much about it, really, or only what the Bible has to say about it, but I think it's clear enough. There were eyewitnesses to it because you know, understood what was going on, but the concept of building a tower into heaven was so ludicrous because at that point, people were building their, their homes with mud and rocks. That's the best they had. So, and that's not a very good way to build a house. By the way, you know if your rainstorm can soften the mud, a little wind and blow it over and you got a pile of rocks, and where you see your bedroom used to be, uh, that was a very poor way of building anything. You couldn't get below. You know, beyond two layers, uh, two stories for sure. Well, when the technology was introduced to these people who've never seen more than one story building by and large, where they would use a new technology where they could cut, cut the stones to, they make them square or rectangular, but cut them nevertheless, and then use this new technology using oil, tar, actually, that's the essentially oil, but you can take tar. They had plenty of it in that day. But take tar tar and put it against uh between the stones and uh it would adhere, for one thing, and it would allow a certain amount of flexibility as the tower proceeded. We do this with buildings, modern buildings, today, to make them earthquake-proof. Right, you have to have a little bit of play, but not enough to where they're just going to get shattered.

Speaker 2: 36:49

So the people were sold this bill of goods were sold this bill of goods. And the context, of course, is that the devil was behind Nimrod and the building of the tower. But the people of the world at that point of the known world were convinced by this Khan. Well, look what they. You know, somebody just built a four-story building using these rocks. Holy mackerel, we can go hog wild and build a huge building. Why? We can build something up to heaven and pull that rascal out of heaven and deal with him down here. But you see the point I'm making here.

Speaker 2: 37:38

The technology was what fooled the people. It was a con they had. They could not possibly have ever created or constructed tower into heaven. That never impossible. But they were conned into thinking well, we can do it. Look what we've done already. We could do this.

Speaker 2: 38:01

So today we have the same thing going on here with the technology is deceiving people into what intend, what it tends to do in the end, what it can do in the end, what it can do in the end. Whatever the grandiose schemes of these people are, they're never going to get there in the end of it. There's no way they're going to succeed with most of their plans. Let me give you just one thing in common like Jeff Pizos and Elon Musk, for instance, they both have a space exploration company, right, spacex, and whatever Bezos is, elon Musk wants to populate the heavens with people like it's first starting with Mars, but he sees all of humanity eventually going out to the heavens and he's gonna. You know he? He wants to be the first one.

Speaker 2: 39:02

That kind of evinces technology. Well, jeff bezos is on on the same page with him, even though they're competitors. Jeff bezos sees the Earth as being essentially a park or a playground to come back to from space to see how it was in days gone by. You know, you listen to these people express these kinds of viewpoints. You have to ask are they stark, raving, mad or just what? Or maybe just inspired by the devil, I don't know, but this is about the same concept as the, as the Tower of Babel. But fast forward into this century, this century, and you can see the whole thing is being constructed again in a sense, but the technology is the thing is using it. That's the mechanism of deception today, to convince people that we can do this, we can do this.

Speaker 1: 40:12

Yeah, yeah, a fool's errand. Uh, to settle mars when it, for some, some reason, we can't seem to get to the moon. That seems like a little ways off I that always blows my mind. It's a totally different thing, but I just don't understand why we couldn't at least have a colony on the moon if you're putting all this time and effort into it. If we were already up, it's a difficult pill to swallow. Now, um, switching it up a little bit, uh, this green movement, this um, esg and sdg, would you would you please extrapolate a little on that and explain how that is tied into the technocracy and the transhumanism, because you did a really good job of going through that in speeches you've given and in this book as well yeah, well, the, the green movement was fabricated totally as a con job to convince the world that it needed to give up ownership of the world to these technocrats who would control those resources for everybody's benefit, in other words, decide what will be manufactured and what will be consumed by everybody on earth.

Speaker 2: 41:36

It's, it's just as thin as that. Um, we see the, the seeds of this, going way back. But let's pick it up, maybe around late 70s, 60s, when their think tanks that were at that time were talking about the population explosion, things like that, and about peak, peak resources and we're all going to run out if we don't, you know, save some for the future, sort of thing. When, when david rockefeller and brzezinski got together to found the, the trilateral commission, that was the birthplace of modern, uh, globalization, and they said collectively that this was all over the literature. Back then, what they wanted to do is create a new international economic order period they wanted to do, do away with whatever before and reinvent the whole economic system all over. Well, that's exactly what we see with sustainable development and all this green stuff that sprung out of that, but they didn't care one whit about greening the earth. It was all about appropriating resources of the world away from the people like nation, nation states and individuals as well, to get control of all the resources on the planet. That was the purpose of this whole thing. In other words, this this becomes a con in itself. In itself, this is the big con at this point. So everything that has sprung out of this stupid green movement whether it's esg or anything else all of this stuff was part of a kind global warming especially. All of this was a con to twist the resources the world away from nation states and people so that they can take control of those resources.

Speaker 2: 43:40

Um, we've seen this in their literature and their sayings and their speeches, etc. Over the last 40 years. I can't imagine how many times I've seen this expressed openly. But it's hard for people to connect the dots between what these people are saying and what they're doing. Here's an example when Klaus Schwab says today that by 2030, that's only six years, six years away now, when, when he says but by 2030, you're going to own nothing and you'll be happy, of course, but no, forget the happy part, but you will know, oh, nothing. How can he? How can he say that with a straight face? But he does. He says it plainly by the time we get to this, six years away, that you will own nothing, seriously away, that you will own nothing and everything you'll consume is going to be rental, rented somehow, pay-per-view or whatever for your, for your life, including the utensils you use to cook and clothes and everything else. When he says you're going to own nothing, he means it. People don't take him seriously. Well, how's that? How could that happen? What's he? What's he thinking to make it, make it happen? Or is he thinking anything? Maybe just, uh, spitting buffalo chips, uh.

Speaker 2: 45:12

But I look at it and said this this is exactly what david rockefeller said in 1973 we're going to go for this, guys, we're going to get it all in the end. And klaus schwab who, by the way, was mentored by henry kissinger in that that day, yeah, he's saying the same thing. Now, we're good, we got it all. Now you'll have nothing left for you to come, you know, to worry, worried about ownership. This has huge, huge implications if he's, if he's right, and one of the big implications is this will be the end of debt in the world and financial systems as we know it today, and currency as well, because everything is based on debt right now top to bottom. He's implying that there's going to be a sea change in the economic system where all debt, the banks that finance the debt and whatever is all going to collapse. That's really what he says about the recent great reset. It's all going to collapse and out of the ashes will rise this new tectotronic system that Brzezinski talked about back in 1968.

Speaker 2: 46:44

But all that to say, these people have been clear about their intent. Their overall intent is to get everything in their pocket. Klaus Schwab, by the way. He says when he says that you have to think about just for you. You, you will own nothing. However, there's going to be a lot of stuff in the world, right, that nobody owns. If you don't own it, who will own it? Somebody has to own it, right, if you have a thing, physical thing, a coffee cup or whatever, a car that you're using, it exists in time and space, but they're saying you won't own that, but somebody has to own it, right? They don't say that part, but it's obvious. There's only two of two people in the room. There's either them or Klaus or me. I own nothing. That means Klaus Schwab owns everything. This is just but preposterous the experts.

Speaker 1: 47:55

Experts, yeah, or the clergy. So one of the other things that strikes me that you do such a good job of pointing out, and that I've spoken about in the past too, is they are technocrats. When I say they are not, they are apolitical, but this the persistence generations of people devoting their entire lives and resources to achieving a goal is more than political ideology. It is a religion, and that religion is scientism, and the way it's practiced is through technocracy. Would you mind elaborating on? On?

Speaker 2: 48:44

that's a good point. The the concept of scientism is what is the philosophy of scientism is what is behind all of this thinking about technocracy and transhumanism all of it, a lot of. There was a lot of literature talking about scientism, and the last century CS Lewis, for instance, was one. There was others, for sure. But science, man, was seen as a crackpot religion in those days. What they proposed? That science would be the new god number one and the scientist would be the high priest of that god to figure out what to take down the mountain to the people below. Uniformly, the people that analyzed scientism back then concluded that if this is allowed to survive, it will take humanity apart at the seams and just destroy everything in the end. This is exactly what we see happen right now. Um, however, the scientists and um technocrats and transhumanists, they will not. They, they will expressively, expressly deny that they're religious in any form. But that's only your kind of religion form, but that's only your kind of religion. You know that they do not view their god of science as being a religion. You say, well, we're not spiritual, we're not religious at all. Uh, and they will deny their connection to science as a god, even though they express outwardly that that really is our god. You know, wink, wink.

Speaker 2: 50:40

But um, scientism is, is an evil, evil proposition, that science which is, of course, like artificial intelligence. There is no life in science. It doesn't have a body, it doesn't have a mind, will emotions, it's not a spirit, for sure. Science does not exhibit any of that. Um, so it's a it.

Speaker 2: 51:05

It's a very mechanistic view of everything which is cause and event and effect. That's all the world is. There's no divine nature, there's no other things that we can be concerned with other than just the random assortment of molecules in the universe, some of which have made man. But they can't really explain how, they don't want to explain how. But the, the mechanistic view of the universe is seen throughout technocracy and transhumanism as well. It's very pers, very um, persuasive for people. But the minute that you take God with a capital G out of the picture, you're free to run to that stuff and you'll embrace it very quickly, because science, as I said, is the great con job of history at this point convincing people. They can become like a God in some other way, uh, without god, yeah, ontological prison of causal chain reactions is what's presented.

Speaker 1: 52:25

But is that so? Is that a? Are they just under the impression that they are, um, fortunate in their positioning, or is this a double thing that they have to go through? That they have some divine purpose in some, somehow in a, in a blind mechanistic causal chain reaction? I, for me, I have a hard time wrapping my head around that apparent discordance between those two things, but both seem to be perfectly displayed within the personalities and the statements and the lifestyles of the people portraying these ideologies.

Speaker 2: 53:11

Elon Musk, on one hand, expressing that his desire personally to save humanity from its present condition whatever that is, he believes that that somehow he's going to be causal in saving humanity. What is he going to save humanity from? From itself. That's what is in his mind. Humanity needs to be saved from itself because left to itself is going to destroy each other and the world Right. So if we are the ones who who are destroying the world, we need saviors to keep us from doing it, and they will posture as the ones who are truly saving the world. But you can look at it and say well, wait a minute.

Speaker 2: 54:11

These people are destroying the world, not saving it. They're the destructors. They're the ones that are taking everything apart that we see, you know, I mean when everything at this point, everything these people touch, turns to dirt. So they're not the saviors of the world they think they are. But who would be a likely candidate to give them idea that that's possible, other than the devil himself? That was a proposition from day one in the Garden of Eden. Things haven't changed right. Nothing new.

Speaker 1: 54:55

Yeah, that does. I was thinking as you were talking. I was thinking about that the similarity between the promise by the serpent in the garden of the forbidden knowledge that will make you like God, and the idea of the. I don't understand the Darwinian survival of the fittest as the, as the, as the standard superimposing my will. I don't. I don't even understand philosophically how they come to a point where that, let's say, we are destroying ourselves and we are going to you know in their minds that we are too self-destructive, we need to be saved. Why would we, philosophically, why would we need to be saved and why would we believe that we X, we exercise will and that we have influence over a causal mechanistic? Exactly?

Speaker 2: 56:03

That's waxing. This only exists in their mind for sure. Anybody outside of their orbit will not have that view. But it's become, it's swept the planet at this point with, for all these people who are pursuing thing, things like genetic engineering, uh ai, all the advanced technologies, satellites, uh, skynet, stuff, you know, surveillance all this stuff is promoted by not by people like you and me is promoted by these people who think they're going to save humanity. They save the world. That's, that's the thing. That that's what draw drives people at the united nations wanting to keep sustainable development alive. That's what they, that's exactly what they say.

Speaker 2: 56:53

You people, you need, you need to conserve your resources today, for future generations, tomorrow, and it's like well, can you give me any rationale of that? Why would you want to do that? They have no clue. They have to take all of them. They have to take a huge step of faith to believe not Christian faith, but they have to take huge steps into the unknown to believe this nonsense. That's where it becomes a religion. Really, their expression of quote-unquote religion requires them to take bigger steps than Christians have to take to get into a relationship with Christ, for instance. It's just so different, but nevertheless, this is how they get deceived into thinking well, that's the only way. That's the only way they can do this. We, as Christians, we have another answer for them, but they who are in it don't want to hear that at this point.

Speaker 1: 58:16

Yeah, the idea of being gods and no actual God means no actual accountability, transcendent power, accountability, transcendent power that frees things up quite a bit if you're a scientist in the sense of the religion. In your book, when you're wrapping things up and I love this about it you not only present the problems, you do so very gracefully and graciously, um, you do. You do a good job of not trying to personalize, of course you. You point out characters historically and in present day that are actors in in this uh play that's going on here, but but you do so graciously and you also present some everyday solutions. There's a lot of people talking about everything that's going wrong, but you present some very simple solutions to minimizing the effect of the technocratic narrative in everyday life and I was wondering if you could share some of those here.

Speaker 2: 59:29

Yeah, I could. I'll tell you where my mind is right now on all of this. Some of the stuff I said in my books it's pertinent for sure, like how you can avoid excessive scrutiny from the surveillance system, sort of thing. But I would, I would, I would want people to take an even larger view at this point, to get off the horizon to see the curvature of this whole thing. Um, what's facing us today, in particular in 2024, I believe it's going to be the collapse of reality for many, many people in the world, not billions of people. We're headed on that trajectory right now.

Speaker 2: 1:00:23

When I say collapse of reality, think of the movie the Matrix, for instance, where the people were walking around a street, living their lives as normal, harvesting energy off their bodies and giving them a simulation. They were living and they they'd had no clue that their bodies were somewhere else and their life, that living, was just a simulation. And you know that's a crazy thing, but hear me, hear me out on this. Those people were not attached to any reality whatsoever None. So whatever experiences they had were just false, false things, false memories, false experiences, etc. What AI is going to do to us now is going to immerse people into a world where they will not be able to discern what is real and what is not real. In other words, their eyes are not a tell anymore. This is going to result in a condition for individuals that we would call a psychosis, which means you've had a break with reality. And what's up when somebody has in that, if they find themselves in a psychosis, anything that you say to them at that point will be believed. They have no other reference to believe anything, so you can tell them the moon is made of green cheese. Oh cool, I like some of that cheese. It's like you. You lose all horizon for reality. This is where ai is taking us right now. It's going to have huge impact on the world because, as the world gets embedded in this delusion that they can save themselves, that the world can save itself without a short of Christ, of course, well, you say well, those people are going to be off to the races. But for the rest of the, for the people outside of that, the Christians, for instance, we're sizing up what we're saying right now, trying to figure out what does this mean for me, can I get out of this or I'm in it, and what's going to happen with me and my family and my life and whatever? Christians rightly should be asking that question, I think. What does this mean to me personally? And some takeaways are.

Speaker 2: 1:03:13

The first thing is to maintain your own connection to reality. That's going to be the temptation for you. Don't believe everything that you see. Don't believe everything that you see. Maybe you need to stop seeing certain things so that you won't be deceived by them. But one thing, one element of that is that you need to have relationships with real people. With real people. You need to touch them. You need to communicate with real people. You need to touch them. You need to communicate with real people. You need to hug them.

Speaker 2: 1:03:56

Uh, if you have somebody you're supposed to be loving, you know like family, whatever, love them, do things as a family to get experiences in the world and stuff. Go, go in, out to the park, go out to the country, whatever. Go on a camping trip. Get out of the system in that way and maintain your hold on reality, because if you do not do this, you're going to fall into that kind of limbo land for Christians for sure. That is expressed to the thought um in the Bible, that you might be those who were those believers, the elect, who are deceived and we can't even really put shoe shoe leather on that what that means. But how could, how could the, the elect, be deceived? Well, okay, that's how. Don't go there. In other words, don't go there, keep your, keep your life, your life, uh, rooted in reality. Part of that Life, rooted in reality, part of that is relationships that you have with people. Don't forsake relationships for Twitter or Instagram or any other TikTok, whatever games people play on the internet, whatever remotely with each other. Forget that stuff. Get with somebody, eyeball on and eyeball talk to them. That's where reality is going to be found for most people and going forward.

Speaker 2: 1:05:39

So that is especially this year. You're going to see stuff that happens with AI that will absolutely blow your mind. We can't go there. We can't let it happen to us personally. Everybody else is going to follow after it, I'm sure, but those people who can see what we're saying here. Only you can turn your mind away from those things and back to what the bible says you should do. That's one reason that you should study your bible intensely right now, especially in terms of bible prophecy. But, um, I'm afraid there's going to be many, many christians who are left in the cold as this thing synced in sinks into, and that would be sad.

Speaker 2: 1:06:29

But there's another aspect as well how can we share our faith with people if some of them are in a psychosis? What are you going to say to somebody to convince them that they can get out? Well, that's a problem problem. It's a big problem, because how do you, how do you communicate with somebody who's nuts essentially that like in a funny farm very carefully just don't understand what you're saying. You can try and reason with them, but they have no basis for reasoning back.

Speaker 2: 1:07:06

Well, I can't, actually I can't say I can't answer that totally for anybody, and hopefully god can give you some insight when you're dealing with somebody that's caught in the fog. But I'll say one thing for sure the, the love that you can express for somebody, the love that you can express, are caught in this situation. To touch them, to hug them. This is difficult medicine. I'm talking about some people you don't want to touch, you don't want to talk to me, you don't want to get near them. Get near them, but that may be the answer for some people to bring them out of the psychosis and back into the camp of reality that makes any sense it's a sage advice, um, and as simple as it sounds in word, indeed is.

Speaker 1: 1:08:31

The most difficult part of being a human being is setting aside yourself to serve others. In that, way.

Speaker 1: 1:08:44

And that's very impactful, and I think that that's a great place to leave it for the day. I just can't imagine a better way to close out the conversation. So I want you to know that I will have links to your various endeavors, such as Citizens for Free Speech and Technocracy, news and Trends, and your Substack page, and I highly encourage anybody that is listening to please, if you aren't already, to give Mr Patrick Wood some of your attention and hopefully some of your resources to help support the work that he's doing, and I thank you so much. It's been an exquisite honor, sir, to speak with you today.

Speaker 2: 1:09:34

My pleasure, my pleasure, thank you.

Speaker 1: 1:09:38

What a simple yet powerful solution to the problems we face. What a human and beautiful way to break free from the virtual panopticon that so many of us inhabit. It is indeed a mad world. So many of the people around us are suffering in silence, and the insight that we can learn from people like Patrick Wood about the evil twins of technocracy and transhumanism is vital to our ability to recognize the actors and their schemes, and both of those twins are anti-human and indeed anti-Christ.

Speaker 1: 1:10:15

What I hope you take away from this episode, more than anything, is that we have immense power over our lives, despite the wiles of a rogue clergy of scientism. The god of science is a cold and unyielding machine, and the best way to throw a wrench in the gears is to simply serve another, much more powerful God, one who showed us what the best versions of ourselves look like by becoming one of us and sacrificing himself for us. In closing, I will break out an old aphorism that my Gen Xers will certainly appreciate Get real. For all you listening, you are valued, you are loved and, yes, you are worthy. God bless and good night. There's no turning back. Once the fire's lit, let the embers glow and be done with it. I'm startled by my lack of fear, as the world I love turns to ashes here, and the dancing flames are so alive.