Sure, it's been a few years. Patrick Wood, thank you for joining me again in the trenches. Good to be with you. You're the guy, by the way. But you're the guy that coined my intro that so many people use these days. I'm the living expert on technocracy. Is that right? That was, I think that was you sure that was that was the shortest interaction. I have it in the whole world. I'm not sure what it means. You know, I'm the living expert. Well, I'm not dead. Not yet.
I don't remember saying that, but if I did say that, that's very clumsy wording it. Was I thought it was brilliant. Well, it's literally true, so that's also a good start. I suppose you and I have been trying to do this recording for a couple of weeks now. And just for those who aren't aware, Patrick, I had some serious issues with with electricity and and road, the road being chopped up and then the five up, the fibre optics being cut and everything.
And now we, we are here and thank you for being for being patient. What could it go wrong? You know, that's a great segue into technocracy. You know, living in Africa has many pros and cons. Obviously having a very broken, chaotic system means that you have a lot of inefficiency, a lot of inept governance. You have infrastructure that doesn't work, but that also comes with a sense of freedom because in a highly in a highly functional society, it's much easier to control loads of
people. Yes, I think you're right. And I wonder, I wonder too, if, if, on the other hand, I wonder if our fate, like in America is going to be about the same as Africa at some point. Because our, our grid, for instance, our electrical grid is so fragile right now. It's just waiting for disaster, I think. And with all the AI data centres coming on, they're online, they're just sucking all the, all the power out of, out of the grid at this point. It's going to be really crazy, I
think. So we're going to, we're going to experience some of what you've been experiencing, I'm sure. There is an upside though. The silver lining is that it forces somebody like me and my wife to become more self reliant, to trust less in the authorities. Yes, you're absolutely right. This is a big gift. This. This would be a mass awakening I think, all across the world. Going back a few years, your work was the 1st that I discovered in the realm of technocracy, so to speak.
And I think your book, forget what it's called now, just it was years ago, the rotate Ignocracy, I think it's called. You've written many of that particular one. Rising. Yes, that one, that one just completely flip turned my my perception of reality and, and it's amazing how the COVID era has done that for a lot of people. Yes, exactly.
I was really the first guy. This, this kind of discovered Technocracy in the 1st place that this goes back 18 years now and I can't believe it. You know, when I look back on the, on the journey that I, that I was on, I didn't even know exactly what I had my hands on when I first discovered historic Technocracy. But it didn't take me long and I had help from other people as well. I, I wasn't probably in a position to understand it altogether, at least philosophically, positionally,
etcetera. I had some great help from experts, other experts in the field. 1 philosopher, one another guy, just a researcher from Canada actually, who discovered the the archives of the technocracy movement in Alberta. And I had to go. I had I, I packed my bags and my wife went, went with me and she off we went to an adventure in Edmonton, AB to go through all the archives that were established at the university up there. It's an amazing story.
So here I am today. I've all that stuff that I did digested and put up and and writing initially articles like that's, that's the only thing you can do at that point. Just write some articles and see what if they fly? Then my book came out in 2015, and that was Technocracy Rising at that point. Well, let's assume that I don't know anything. What is Technocracy? They said it was a science of social engineering that was the
first thing that they led with. Beyond that, they talked about resource management taking over all the resources of the world, including people. They, they viewed people as resources themselves, lumped in with animals like the cattle and the field and the sheep and the, you know, so, so on. And so they, they envisioned creating an economic system that was served all these people, all these entities and it basically,
it was cradled to grave. And I, I wouldn't say it, it, they didn't envision necessarily slavery. They didn't use that word, but that's essentially what it was. If you're kept all your life by people who want to man manage you, they want to force feed you a diet, they want to control all your activities everywhere you want, everywhere you go, etcetera. That's not freedom for sure,
that's slavery. And we see this, we see this tendency today with all these people now who, who want to micromanage you add, you know, to, to the to the Max extent. When you talk about the historical day, are you referring to people like Hubbard and Howard Scott? Exactly. Now this whole thing, however, was invented. Well, it was codified.
It was, it was, they were talking about it long before 1932, but that's, that's kind of when it got codified at Columbia University. And that was the seat of progressivism at the time and still is actually in, in America. But this is where the whole thing was invented in the 1st place with scientists and engineers mostly from Columbia, not exclusively, but somehow Howard, Howard Scott, a blowhard and a con man, he found, he found himself in a position of leadership and he conned
Columbia University into accepting their whole study group. And they got resources from Columbia to to do the studies, etcetera. And the willing participants were the science and engineers at Columbia in the 1st at the 1st place. So when they, this was during the Great Depression, that was a horrible time in America, well everywhere but in America especially. And they thought the capitalism was debt. They were sure that it was good.
It was all all over for capitalism and free free market economics. So they, they wanted to create a new type of an economic system that this has never been done in the history of the world ever. Nobody ever came up with an alternative economic system. I checked. I had to check when I first when I discovered his the and like 18 years ago when I first discovered technocracy, they said there was an economic system.
I never understood that I I never in, in my studies of history, never had a clue that somebody actually did this. Well, they did it and it was just kind of swept under the the carpet for a while. It came back with the forming a trot out of Commission in 1973. But before that time it was just basically, well, it was Howard Scott for one thing. He was, he was a con man in my opinion.
But then he he was teamed up, teamed up with M King Hubbard, the well known oil man that created the peak oil theory in 1956, I think it was. And he separated from the Technocracy movement because he was working for Shell at that point. So for whatever reason he just distanced himself. But he was a Co founder of Technocracy Inc with Howard Scott. And interestingly, Howard Scott found himself living in the apartment rented by M King Hubbard in New York City.
And he was living on the couch. He had no money. He had no money whatsoever. And so he basically, he was, well, not, not a beggar, but you know, he, he was totally flat. And so Hubbard kind of helped him through that period. And then of course, once they got the membership organisation started, Technocracy Inc, it was called Incorporated. Then at that point there was some money coming in and Howard
Scott eventually took a salary. What I'm trying to wrap my head around the is that this is what, about 100 years ago almost. What do you think they were thinking at the time? I mean, technology was very different. I'll tell you this, this is this was an epiphany to me when I, when I even now, when I consider where they were at Columbia University, there was only one building back then. It was Hamilton Hall, it was called.
Well, that's what it there's only one building, put it that way, but it had a full footprint basement. The basement was used for temporary projects like Technocracy, and they gave 1/2 of that basement to the Technocracy group, study group, they called it. And these were the, again, these were the mostly the scientists and engineers from Columbia. These were, these were brainiacs really of the of the day. In fact, one of the guys, I can't remember that one. I remember his, I can't picture
his name. I can't, can't pronounce it. But he, he invented the Department of Engineering as a discipline. Even at Columbia, this guy was a, a brilliant guy. So they shared that basement with, with the early, early iteration of IBM. That's where the that's where the tabulator, the first tabulator was invented, built and at that in that basement. So all the, the brainiacs from IBM were commingling with the brainiacs of technocracy. Just just consider the
possibilities. Now what, what would, what would they, what would they talk about at lunch, for instance, or after work or whatever? Well, they're, they were all at that point, they were all futurists. And I think my guess is that IBM especially had already identified the trajectory where technology was going to go as far as computed computing was concerned. Now that was that was way long ago from now we can see all the
stuff that's happened since. But when you, when you analyse the, the requirements that technocracy step set out for itself to, to achieve itself, it was predicated on data processing being in being some in, in, in play. So I think it wasn't a formal brain trust for sure, but you can see where these people had a vision of the future, where technology was going to play a major role in the formation of a new society and a new humanity. But that there is an interesting
point. You say they were sort of futurists. They had a vision. Is this, do you think, what they wanted or do you think they were just seeing where it might be going? This is exactly what they wanted. They were very, very deliberate with their doctrine, if you will. Well, it wasn't a doctrine exactly. It's kind of they, they treated it as a scientific project, very disciplined, very rigid.
And when they, when they wrote out their requirements and their in fact, I have a book here if I can find it, I don't have it right now, but the Technocracy study course was created by Scott and Hubbard, like in 1934. That was a very detailed specification for Technocracy. It covered every aspect of it. And this is, this is Stan. It stood test of time.
And that book today, if you read it today, it's it's just exactly what's going on. The, the mentality, the mechanistic attitude that these all these people had. They were in a vacuum for sure, because nobody else was looking on looking into them at that point to to give them any guidance. So they were in a vacuum in a, in a like a circular loop and they're talking to to each other. So, but nevertheless, it was
very disciplined. And this is this They knew exactly where where they wanted to go. I remember a few years ago, I think it was the early 2000s, there was a documentary film that came out. What is it called now? It was one of the first ever that sort of hinted at a technocratic future. I'm trying to think of the name now. I've gone completely blank. It'll come to me. The zeitgeist. Do you remember that, that that film? Yes, absolutely.
Absolutely. Yeah. And I remember thinking at the time, this was bonkers. This is ridiculous. Now. Now I'm looking back at that, going, OK, all right, I think they had a point. Yeah. But what I was going to ask you, Patrick, is 1932. Was it just a coincidence that Huxley published Brave New World? No, it wasn't. Huxley was from England, of course, and the president of
Columbia University at the time. His name was Butler Nicholas Murray Butler, who spent most of his time, or at least half his time, in Europe. He was a hobnob hobnobber and he loved to, he loved the, the royalty He was. In fact, he was the best friends with Mussolini from from Italy, from Italy. Oh, that's like that. We won't talk about that, but who knows? He was, he was he, he was himself, Butler, kind of
unplugged from reality. He lives in another world, not an American world, because he just like, he liked to schmooze all the royalty and stuff in Europe that, that, that was his life. And so Huxley had a taste of him somewhere along the way when he was talking about technocracy. And that was a that was the the big thing that that was being talked, talked about at that point because he he was a guy, he, he had a huge ego. He was a guy who brought technocracy to Columbia University.
And well, he kicked it out eventually because when he discovered that Howard Scott was a con man, he just went ballistic. You don't do this to a guy like that. So the whole movement got kicked out, but the the run up meetings before technocracy was at Columbia University, there was 10 years or 10 years or so of meetings from that. They call them themselves, I think the technical Alliance, something like that, just a
discussion group. And so this thing was ramping up and it, it hit pay dirt, if you will, when it came came to Columbia University. So yes, absolutely 1932 was a time that was the date that Brave New World was released. And if you look at it from, from the point of view of technocracy, it was absolutely spot on. Absolutely spot on. But then, as you said, the movement kind of held. It didn't go anywhere.
And I mean, just a few decades later, you had people like Rockefeller and Brzezinski were also involved with the Trilateral Commission. Now that's also interesting, because now you're seeing the idea spreading. Exactly. It was interesting that Technocracy group, they never got any money from like Connor, Carnegie, Rockefeller, etcetera. Back in the day 1932 they could.
I think that that would have happened if not for Howard Scott. He was he spoiled the whole thing and single handedly because he was a he was a con man. Everybody understood eventually. This guy was just full of hot air and a lot of people didn't like him personally. And you know, he just he he fizzled. So if if he had been legitimate. A real scholar, if you will, like from Columbia. Columbia. He probably would have had some support from the institutions back then, but he didn't.
And remember, Columbia University was very close to the Rockefeller family in the 1st place and the Carnegie's as well. But that was a source of money for all kinds of things in the in that day and including IBM and the Hollerith Computer project. So when Howard Scott just kind of tainted the whole thing,
nobody wanted to touch him. And that that just kind of fizzled down until 1973. Actually, before that, when Burzynski wrote his book between Two ages, 2 ages, America's role in the Tectotronic era, that book was written about technocracy. He didn't he didn't use that word. He used Tectotronic. But essentially, that was what he was writing about when he wrote that book. He was a professor at Columbia University, political, political science professor.
He was that he was on site, if you will, where this whole thing was created the first place. Well, there was there was no overt talk about technocracy after about 1932 because it just flipped it, It flipped Butler on his on his head, so they couldn't talk about it, but it was still there. The scientists and engineers who were run running the show in in 1932, they were mostly still alive when Brzezinski was overlapping with them at Columbia University.
He even, he probably talked with these original people and at at length. And so when he, he, when he wrote this book, Rockefeller immediately picked up on it. And the reason why I, this is my, my studied opinion, I guess because I was studying the trot outer Commission going back to 19/19/77 or so. Rockefeller had a problem with money. He was a chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank. He had all, and of course he had all the, the oil fortune behind him as well.
He had a problem with money because he saw the handwriting on the wall that sometime in the future, money, Fiat currency especially, would be destroyed. It would have to destroy itself. And what do you do if you want to maintain your wealth? If you don't have money as a a calculator, what do you do? Well, you get your hands on the resources then. If you have all the resources in your pocket, it doesn't matter what kind of a monetary system you have.
If people want it, you can, you know, say, give, give me your, you know, your first born. I'll let you let you live. So Rockefeller understood that technocracy was a way for him to to control the resources of the world directly. And that's exactly what is what has happened since then. So Brzezinski. Brzezinski was more of an
strategist for sure. I wouldn't say that Rockefeller was ever into technocracy like others other people have been, but he used it mercilessly and intentionally to get his way. He wanted to get all the resources of the world, as many, many as he could into his pocket and out of everybody else's pocket. That, that and that. That clue includes like national assets, personal assets, farms, you know, real real estate projects, etcetera.
The farms of the world, the agriculture, all this stuff has been consolidated is unmistakable at this point over the last 40 years, how these industries have been consolidated into these giant corporations at this point, right so. Sustainable development is pretty much the largest agenda in the world, and it is all based on exactly that. Yes, it's a resource based
economic system. There's not, no, there's, everybody understands at this point that, that, that, that sustainable development and they set, I mean, it's all over their, their literature as well. It's all about resources and resource management. That's their game. That's always been the game for, for Technocracy has always been
about resource management. So in 1992, when the Agenda 21 conference was held in Rio, you have all these people that the United Nations brought to God. I think there's 20,000 people converged on that. That conference that produced Agenda 21, there was a parallel conference that was held at the same time called the Biodiversity. Well, the biodiversity convention I think was called, but they're, they were joined at the hip. They're everybody talks about the Channel 21.
They don't talk as much about the biodiversity convention, but they were all together in one place. Well, what, what happened with with that whole thing? If you back up from 1992, you realise that the person that put the the doctrine together, a lady by by the name of Grew Harlem Bruntland. She was tasked by the the United Nations to write a book, a study called Our Common Future.
That book became the doctrine, the foundational doctrine of sustainable development, and the United Nations has admitted that he, she was the mother of sustainable development, period. That doctrine came from her. It just happens that she was a member of the trot out of Commission. You can't make this up honestly. Just a coincidence. Just a coincidence. Well, there were, there were other people at that time that were writing about sustainable development. There was.
She had a compatriot at the time, his name was, I think, Jim O'Neill, and he also wrote a study for the Trot out of Commission concerning sustainable development. So 2 The two of them together certainly created the doctrine of sustainable development on behalf of the trot out of Commission. This is, to me, this is absolutely stunning. Nobody picked up on it except probably me at that point. So I just guys, hey, look over here for what these people are doing.
It's absolutely insane. But this is where, this is where Agenda 21 came from and this is where sustainable development came from. This is where the, the biodiversity switcheroo came from in the 1st place. And it, we're suffering on it under it now. And one of the substantial things that happened by the way, the, the concept of biodiversity was changed before that.
What we put what would come up in somebody's mind if you, if you ask them what to define biodiversity, they would say, well, that must be like all the species of the, the tree frogs and you know, in the, in the forest, in the, the swamps and the life on Earth, right? Life on Earth, all the ecosystems, the that's pretty much what people would have said before that. But the doctrine of biodiversity was changed to include humans in that mix.
We, we were never considered formally part of the mix, even though the Technocracy group almost 100 years ago, they included people in the mix, but that, that was never a formal definition of it. You know, they said, well, we're going to manage the humans as well. But because humanity was included all of a sudden into the definition of biodiversity that gave all of the United Nations the mandate at that point to control all of the resources and the and the people as well in the world.
We see for instance, the World Health Organisation, they're, you know, they're unplugged. They've always been unplugged. But you know, we see them micromanaging that what give what gives them the right to dictate our health as individuals and as as a society. What gives them the right or the the thinking that they could do this. How is inconceivable. But this is this is exactly what they've done. They've they've made us into animals in the field to be managed and.
That's why, yeah, that's why you get people like Vulgate saying, well, there are too many people, we've got to find ways to to reduce the population. Yes, exactly. You know, you talk about population reduction. This is a theory that's age old theory. Herd management. When you have too many deer in the forest, what do you do? You send out the hunters, right, to thin the herd. This, this has been, gosh, going
going back thousands of years. I'm sure that hunters and society figured out, well, we have to, you know, if we have too many animals or they'll destroy themselves, whatever. So we have to thin the herd. This is exactly this concept that they're they're practising today. Wasn't it so? Yeah. Wasn't it also politically adopted a few decades ago on behalf of, was it MIT and Malthus? I forget the the the the Limits to Growth document, something along those lines. Yes, Limits to Growth.
That was produced by the Club of Rome. That was another Rockefeller establishment, by the way, a think tank. Well, it wasn't, wasn't, well, it was a think tank, I guess in one sense, but they, they produce that. That was their book The Limits to Growth. And it basically exposed technocracy, the control over people. And they've, they've written other books, I think since that kind of reflect the same, the same theory.
And when you consider how that played into the Rockefeller takeover of this whole thing in the 1st place, you can see exactly where it fit and you know, the scheme of things, right? And most people never really saw the Club of Rome as being a Rockefeller organisation, but it was because it was originally formed in Rome, which is outside of Rome in a villa that was owned by Rockefeller himself. So he, he was a guy that that called the meeting and put the
brainiacs together. Hey, guys, come up with something. I want to, I want to do. I'm, I'm just paraphrasing here. I, I want to, I want to create something that lets us get all the resources in our, in our pocket. So cook something up, would you? And get back to me on it, get a, get a report on it, out of it and we'll, we'll run with it. Well, the Club of Rome was the, they were the people that concocted this whole climate
change nonsense. And it was very sterile at that point, said Guy. We, we're just going to do, we're going to do this. We're going to trick everybody into doing this and we'll herd the whole world and we'll Stampede the whole world into this sustainable universe and we'll take over at that point. And they were, they were, they were so crass at even suggesting that. But they said that their conclusion was, well, that mankind is going to is the enemy.
Mankind itself was the enemy. So we're going to turn humanity against itself, to destroy itself, though, so that we can get all our our hands on all the resources of the world. This, this was so ugly, in my opinion, just absolutely stunning. But that was Rockefeller. You know that this is one reason, by the way, that I say Rockefeller was not he was not for technocracy per SE. He was all about getting the resources. So hey this manufacturers something to get this thing kick
started. But I mean, the whole idea of depopulation is also so absurd if you just open your eyes. If I fly between Cape Town and Johannesburg, it's about a 2 hour flight and I look out the window for most of that flight. Easily 98% of that entire flight is just nothing underneath me. It's empty. Empty land. Maybe some farms? Yes, yeah. But yet I'll have conversations, Patrick, with people, they'll go. They'll say to me, yes, but we are overpopular. Just look around you.
Well, that's because we live in a city. They've never been out outside the city to know. It's weird. It is. And the same thing here. I mean, when you can fly from any city, it point to point Phoenix to Denver, for instance, it's all open land. There's nothing. You just, you don't see any, hardly any towns at night. You can see a few towns because they have lights, but otherwise,
you know, the America's empty. But people say, oh, we, we have to, you know, get the population rearranged or whatever. Have you played devil's advocate? So the idea of technocracy is society being run by engineers and scientists? It sounds pretty good. I live in Africa and things are very broken and and chaotic. Why would it be a bad thing? Well, for, for one, the whole thing was disingenuous from from the get go. It was a fraud from I think from the the very start.
But people will argue today that well, because politicians have failed, society has failed whatever. And you, you need technology to, to, to run your affairs. That, that however, that, that excludes personal autonomy for you. They'll make, they'll make all the decisions for you, for your life, and you won't have to make any at all. Some people think that's a good thing. Good thing I don't.
I think I, I would say probably if anybody thought about it, I don't want to, I don't want that level of control. However, you know, the, the technocrats of the, of the world, especially in America, they're, they're overhyping everything they're doing at this point. They say, oh, it's going to be wonderful. You can see, you know, just, it's just around the corner. Utopia is going to be upon us. Productivity is just going to soar. Everybody's going to get rich.
Everybody's going to be healthy. We're going to live forever. You know, this is basically a brave new world on a hype machine and you know it, It's, it's inconceivable that people would buy this crap. You know it's. Yeah, I mean, I mean it. Sounds good. I mean, I mean facetious, obviously, because if you just think about it, the COVID era was a very good example of a form of technocracy. Every single government everywhere just locked down everybody and try to centrally
control our health. Yes, let me let me just say one thing about this. I when I when when COVID hit by February of 2020, I made a prediction that this was technocracies coup d'etat not based on the virus itself. The shot was in not view at that point. But when I saw all of these universities suspicious for instance, the universities in in England that were formally hyping climate change, global warming with bogus studies, corrupted data, etcetera. When I saw these data
scientists. At universities flipping over to the, the COVID narrative, that's all I that's that was the only clue that I needed at that point to make that prediction because formally they run out of steam with climate change and global warming. It just they couldn't get any
traction at all at that point. And so they flipped and mass over to supporting the new threat of the virus that was technocratic because all these universities, they were all bought up, bought off by Rockefeller money and the grants. And so that so on that they get in the 1st place these these so called diet data scientists. They were they were just re they were repurposed, put it that way, maybe to support now this new narrative about COVID. That was a coup. That was a coup d'etat of
technocracy at that point. These people have been waiting for this for all these years. First the fear of God was put into people because of global warming. Now they're the fear of God is put in them by the by the virus that that's all it was is just pure sham. And both of them are are invisible. Yes. So you can't fight it. You don't. You don't know how to argue it. Exactly that, that was a brilliant, brilliant plan.
And, and if you look at it that way, these people, they couldn't, they could not have achieved their purposes more directly with, with any other plan. If you, if you, if you're going to fight something, make sure there's the, the enemy is invisible because because it's everywhere. It's everywhere. Well, Speaking of the enemy being invisible and everywhere, what do you then make of something like AI? Yeah, AI is not at this point, it's not being viewed as an
enemy. That's probably the a big problem, in my opinion. It's being embraced by everybody in the world, young people with companion apps, for instance, with AI being introduced to into government systems like in the United States where AI now is taking over whole agencies in our government, top to bottom. Actually is is being used in, in state governments as well as city governments as well. So there's a, a universal adoption of AI.
Certainly there's some people who are anxious, like business owners might be anxious about it, but they're going along with it anyway. It is invisible in that sense, but it has very profound effects on this on society, because eventually it'll it'll end up with a situation of scientific dictatorship. So maybe this was the the ingenious thing about AI that it is invisible in that sense. You can't touch it, you can't feel it is it exists in in the
computers. But you know, if, if I had a, if I had something like a thumb drive here, which I have in my in my hand, if, if this was an unlimited size thumb drive, say it had, I don't know TB of data on it, right? If this thing weighed 1 oz when I started, when I got it in my hand and now I loaded up with one terabyte of data, you know how much it weighs now? Same, same thing. This doesn't change. So the physical, the physicalness of data is not existent.
It's it, it exists to be processed in a computer, ones and zeros, electricity, etcetera, but it has no mass. This is kind of kind of kind of striking. It's it's so invisible you can't even hardly measure it. I don't know what the individuals 100 years ago would would like, but we know what some of them today are like. Like Elon Musk is very likeable. Remember that Elon Musk's grandfather was head of technocracy in Canada in the 1940s, so he understands technocracy very well, I have to
say. And he's also the richest man in the on the planet right now. He's the, he's the chief architect of technocracy today. And people, some people love him, other people hate him at this point. But he's a grandstander. He knows to he knows how to make it, make his case. He started his own political party now in America, I think it's called the America Party. And he thinks he's going to bust the two party system in our country, Democrats and Republicans.
Maybe he will, maybe he won't. But you can see there's an agenda under foot, under way with technocracy, with people like him and Peter Thiel, a David Sachs, Marc Andreessen, all these people from the original PayPal mafia in Silicon Valley. Yeah. So you can see their agenda. They have, they have an agenda for sure. And they're playing it out very carefully, I might add. So, you know, Elon, Elon Musk is kind of he's, he's, he's, he's, you can identify him as being on
his own mission. He he's not influenced by other people, I don't think. You don't think by Trump? No, I don't not, not at this point. All of his, his dance with Trump leading up to the the election where he put all the money into the election to get Trump elected and then all the, the friendship they had after that. And now it blew up. And he now he hates Trump and their their odds with each other and, and Elon Musk is doing now
the America party. He's going to pursue his own vision, his own dream, all based on the dark enlightenment philosophy. Now that's. Mentioned Mull bug I think OK. That's, that's exactly right. That's Curtis Yarvan and Lynn Nick Land, also from England. But this business of the dark Mag Mega and the Dark Enlightenment, this is so twisted. This is technocracy. This is the the political
expression of technocracy now. And what these what these people are trying to achieve is basically to step set up a mark monarchy on America where there's one leader that basically runs the whole country like a start up. And basically it's that they're going to destroy democracy altogether and the constitutional democracy that we
have. And this this was their agenda from the from the get go. So you see, going back with Musk, for instance, you see when he, when he bought Twitter originally, what was that all about? Well, he and he got a, a, a, a base of, of at least 700 million users with Twitter. It's, it has survived and it's still here now. And they said, oh, I'm going to, I'm going to promote free speech. I'm going to be a free speech absolutist, whatever that means. And nobody questioned that at the time.
But now the, the conservative movement and others have moved to Twitter now in mass to where now Twitter is being used, the feed off of Twitter, Twitter is being used to train his AI system called XAI. That's Grok. And now you, you also see that he has a a vision to create what he calls the everything app, kind of like WeChat. And he wants to bolt in on the paying payment system based on crypto. He wants to have social credit scoring system kind of like China has.
And so you you see his vision started with the acquisition of Twitter. Since then, all of the tech Bros have moved away from the left into the right camp. They've all centred around Trump now all of a sudden this was disingenuous as well because they were never political in the 1st place. They, they, they'll use whoever they can. So the tech Bros went over to Trump like Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, all the all these people that used to be the leftists in our country.
They just flip flopped over into Trump camp. Now, now that Trump is in 5-5 months in, he signed important legislation for technocracy to be moved ahead. People are asking now do they need Trump anymore? Is Trump a loose cannon now? It needs to be disposed of. And I think you're going to see this in the next few months where maybe maybe after our mid term elections. In any case, I think you're going to see a lot high, high likelihood that Trump is going to be dumped from the
presidency. And that will leave our Vice president, JD Vance to be advanced into the to be president, right? Well, it just so happens that JD Vance is a creation of Peter Thiel in the first place. Peter Thiel was the guy that that got Vance elected as a senator in Ohio. He, he gave tonnes of money to
him to be elected. Then he positioned him to get into the be the, the vice president to run with with Trump. Well, Peter Thiel and JD Vance are on the same wavelength because Vance never had a job outside of Peter Thiel that he when he got out of law school or Yale, he the only person he worked for was Peter Thiel. He was groomed by Peter Thiel to be where he is right now. So they set up a situation now where Trump is could be
discarded, if you will. If, if, if, if Teal's vision is realised by advancing Vance into the presidency, it's game over for America at that point. What? Is your view on Trump? Pardon. Sorry, sorry for interrupting. What is your, your view on Trump? That that I mean, he, he comes off like, like a blockhead and he's very self important and everything's beautiful and, and that, you know, America first and he's going to be the first to do everything.
What do you make of him? You know, I, it's hard to, it's hard to have an opinion that doesn't change like with or when, you know, well, he's today. If he does something good, everybody cheers. Well, you know, he's, he's just like the, the border is more secure than it was before that. That's a good thing. He's probably done some things to promote a little bit of religious freedom in America, maybe. I mean, he's not a technocrat, do you think?
Not exactly, but he's played. He's played the role of a technocrat. Nevertheless. There was an article that I ran on Technocracy News, and I want to say probably 2017, maybe 6, I think it was 16 that suggested that Trump was a technocrat. That was, that's a great article, but I think it made the point he was, he was advancing or he was supporting initiatives that we're clearly technocratic in nature. That was the only point we see
now. He's he's, he's all on board with anything that technocrats want to do, crypto, cryptocurrency, AI and government, etcetera. The, you know, supporting the data centres all over, all over the Stargate. Stargate Yeah. So this is this is a continuation of his policies from his last presidency and I But on the other hand, it doesn't mean that he is a pure technocrat. He has no engineering background at all. I don't think he, in fact, somebody reported that he
doesn't even use a smartphone. So. OK, well, there's people like that, that, that they're, they're in business, but they, they don't want any part of technology. They run everything in their head. That seems to be Trump. And so he's he's obviously favourable towards the technocrats at this point. He's a he's, he's advancing
their agenda all over the place. But I think in the end, if he, if they, if they count him out, if he's, if he's downsized, just so to speak, or he's access to this, that's the, the human resources term that we use in America. If you're excess, that means you're, you know, hit the hit the road Jack. That would be a perfect power play at that point to get to capture the presidency, to put
all your people in place. They basically this has happened in Washington, DC already with the with the, with Doge, for instance, that came in and swept the whole country with AI and personnel replacement. So Trump, on the other hand, he has a huge base with the MAGA movement that was that was a cult of personality. I think by and large is is it, is it genuine? Well, I think the MAGA movement is going to be splintered into 1000 pieces in the end. I think it's happening right now.
So where, where will that end? I don't know. But my guess is there's the possibility that Trump could be the most hated president in history before he's done. So Technocracy is essentially a central control grid where everything is centralised and decisions are made for you and you don't really know. You're kind of a slave, but you don't have physical shackles around your ankles.
That's right, you know, like a 15 minute city where you'll start getting penalised if you go beyond those, those borders, that sort of thing. But if this has been building for the last 100 years, a deist is it, is it even stoppable? I mean, how do you resist? How do you push back? At this point, it's probably not stoppable. I can't. I can't conceive any way that
can be stopped at this point. You'll have, for instance, federal troops guarding these data centres that are being erected around around the country because if people wanted to blow them up. So you're going to see there there's going to be a huge that will put put it this way, the, the teeth, the iron teeth are, are going to, they'll be bared when push comes to shove on this whole thing. I think you're going to see the crackdown on free speech. You're going to see a crackdown on society.
You're going to see a crackdown in mental health. But we really saw that down the last two years. They literally stopped people from moving. Yes, exactly. Yeah, today there's. I did the statistic yesterday, I found there's 200 million people, mostly young people around the world who were using
companion apps. They're free freely available on the app stores like on Android and iOS Apple Store 200 million that I just counted all the subscribers that they said they had and consider 200 million young people being immersed into AI with a with a imaginary friend, if you will, or girlfriend or man friend or whatever. Imagine the psychosis that will result from this escape from a reality. It's it's stunning. We've never seen anything like this in the history of the world. And now?
The the systems like Grok and Open AI, they're openly promoting their own versions now. They haven't released them, I don't think quite yet, but they're they're releasing at some point their own version of a companion app that will remember everything about you and it will direct you in your life. You know I. Already have one of those, Patrick. I already have one of those. It's called my wife. You you're right. She knows everything about me and everything that I'm about to
do also. Yes, that's, that's good. I remember that one. So we, we, we, we face these type of problems. The technocrats are driving this on purpose though. That's my point then this, this is not just Oh well it just happened and so it happened. Get with, you know, deal with it. No, that's not how this happened. These people are are openly promoting anti human systems, anti democratic systems, anti civilization systems
intentionally. There's no mistaking anything about it. It's absolutely just crazy. And this, this whole philosophical thing that's driving them at this point is so bizarre that normal, normal people, maybe I'm not normal, I don't know, but I think I'm I think I am. But normal people would look at this if they understood it. Say you, you can't say that you can't do that or whatever, but this is so weird, this philosophy that they've adopted at this point.
The technocracy is weird by itself. But when you layer on all this nonsense with a dark enlightenment that Curtis Yarvin's talking about, that Peter Thiel was in love with Yarvin in the 1st place, and Elon Musk is basing his American party on Yarvinism and you and you understand how dark Yarvinism is. This guy hates society. He hates democracy. He hates basically anything that has to do outside of, you know, direct control over your behaviour.
And we've never, we've never faced this before, this type of an ideology, humanity has never faced this, faced this and mass and how, how can we get rid of it? Well, you can't get rid of it until you understand how evil the, the philosophy is in the 1st place and reject it. But people are not rejecting it at this point. And this is really just really disturbing.
I said right at the very beginning of our conversation that living in place like South Africa or some African country or some place that's generally seen as backwards could be a safe haven later on, at least for a bit longer. Yes. What do you think, Prop? I think you're right. On one hand, I could see that.
On the other hand, we see people like Bill Gates, for instance, going into African companies or countries or other to test his crazy genetic schemes and his medicines and vaccines and all that kind of stuff. And the people would just eat, they eat it up. I guess they have no no other choice but I. Think it was in Kenya where he did one. We did a horrible one. I can't remember. Yes, yeah. He's he's he's been well, you can understand probably his
logic. I can't test this in America because they'd they'd hang me. So let's yeah. We can, we can test it on some, on some poor black Africans. Nobody cares about them anyway. That should be. That should be, he's thinking. Exactly. So the another aspect of testing technology outside of the United States and maybe Europe as well, I don't know, but at least out of the United States we've seen gain of gain of function research on viruses farmed out to. China. Right in the 1st place that
they, they couldn't do this. They, they couldn't do this legally in America. They would have been shot creating viruses like like COVID. So they farmed it out with money given to China to develop the, the, the, the virus in the 1st place. OK. Then it came back and destroyed our country. So you have examples of this where, for instance, surveillance technology is being exported to Ukraine and other countries.
Turkey is another one where the where it would not play in America to do this type of thing. But for for UK Ukraine, that's that's a perfect place for Palantir, for instance, to test the software. And who cares about Ukraine is a hot war going on and you know,
it doesn't matter. And so they're re re importing this technology back to America. Again, we've seen this well in just in Kenya, for instance, the the shots that were so lethal to us were tested in other countries, like in Kenya, Africa. This has been a pattern over 50 years at least, maybe more, where Americans were not used to test anything. The the evil stuff that's been developed has always been developed and with other legal
systems, with other societies. And when they when they got their way there, then they figured now I could we could bring it back to the rest of the world. It's coming for landing, Patrick. It's a rather grim outlook that you, that you presented. I was hoping for for a silver lining for a bit of hope. Well, here's here's, here's, here's the worst that several silver lining exists Is is right here.
It's right here in America. I can't speak for any other country, but in America, people have purposely almost declared themselves to be brain dead to, to all this stuff. They won't think, they won't think about it. What what it, what it means, if they want it in the first place at all, or if they just go along with it, say, well, hey, you know, that's life. You know, stuff happens, stuff
changes. And so my life is going to be different in, in the next few years and well, may I, I'll lose my job and I'll never be employed again. And, and I'm going to be kept by the, the state with universal basic income. No problem. You know, people don't think that that way. They, they think, well, how, how can I get food on my table table next, next week? I'm, I'm, I'm worried about next week, not next month, not next year.
But if people were willing to think this through, they would immediately reject it. They would immediately reject it. And remember, we in, in the 40s, people in America threw technocracy out on his ear. They they political cartoonist, for instance, were, were depicting technocracy is the devouring monster that was eating New York City. You know, they got the picture, they, they understood where it is going. But this mindset has been lost now.
And you see the people just embracing this thing or they're, they willingly ignore it. But if they would just engage their brain to think about it for a while, they would understand. And that would be the first line of defence if people would do that. The second thing is people need to get out in their own local communities. Forget national that's, that's
gone. But they can, they can protect themselves if they get a hold of their city councils and their their their boards that run their local communities and stuff. Educate these people to don't let this stuff come in our community. There have been many, many communities in America, for instance, who outlawed facial recognition technology and, and the police departments and elsewhere, they just said, no, we're not going to do here. You don't, but you don't read
about those stories. But they're because they're all suppressed. They, they, they never see the light of day. So there there is hope on a local basis that you can do things to protect yourself against the incursion of things like AI surveillance, etcetera. But at this point most people are are asleep, asleep in the at the switch and they don't want to go in. They don't don't want to even meet their City Council members. They don't know him, they don't care to meet him.
And so they get a free pass. I hope. I hope this resonates for anybody in the world, but especially in America. If you can't engage your own brain to think this through and come to a better conclusion, then don't complain. What you get in the end, it's all I can say. All right, Patrick, how can I keep up with your work? Technocracy dot news. That's the simple place. Technocracy dot news. You've been to, you've been to South Africa, if I remember correctly. Long, long ago.
Not. Not recently. Do you want it? Do you know you want to hear the story? Yes, yes. Tell me quickly. In the 1970s, I teamed up with a gentleman gentleman here in America. His name was Don Mcelvaney. We started an organisation called Americans Concerned for South Africa. We changed the name to Americans Concerned about Southern Africa.
But nevertheless, we started out with South Africa when we saw the attacks being launched by the the communist forces, Marxist forces moving into Southern Africa. From the Angolan side. Pardon. From the Angolan side. Exactly. So we saw a threat and so we wanted to get American legislators, journalists, whatever, to see what's going on down there. So we sponsored trips to Africa or South Africa and Rhodesia as well. Angola, we had one of Angola a goal as well.
And so we had Geo. We set up geopolitical tours where our groups could be addressed by your leaders, military police leaders, legislators, etcetera and and journalists as well. And this is how it came to an end. There was a blood contract issued on the founder or the, the guy Don who was in South Africa and well, we couldn't go back again. The, the police down there told us if you, if you, if you come back here, you're going to get killed one way or another.
And that was when the ANC basically was in charge of everything and they hated, they hated their, our guts because we're, we were the force standing against them and we're, we were exposing them to the American press especially so. Well, I still controlled everything today. Yeah, I know, nothing has changed. No, but I do hope you do make a trip here again in the future. I would like to I love, I love your country. I really do have so many friends from South Africa over the
years. I don't know how that happened, but we we developed a kind of a friendship with a bunch of people and now they had they had children and grandchildren, whatever. We just kind of grow up, grew up with it, right. But I love your country. I always have all. Right. Well, on that rather pleasant note, Patrick, let's let's go home. Thank you for joining me in the trenches. You've got my pleasure.