Biden and the Bioeconomy with Derrick Broze

predictably program biology. In the same way in which we write software and program computers, unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence, and advanced the science of scale up production, while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets

faster in quote. In other words, this policy calls for less regulation and testing for quote unquote, innovative healthcare products based on new unproven technologies, particularly gene editing and gene therapy, and supercharging the effort to make AI central to the American healthcare system, but there's actually a lot more going on in

this executive order. So this executive order perhaps unsurprisingly, got little play in mainstream media and only slightly more an independent media where many of those who did cover it claimed it would usher in an age of transhumanist technologies. Is such alarm warranted and what is this executive order likely to mean for the average American? And what exactly is the bioeconomy? Who are the major players in it? And who is it meant to benefit? Joining me discuss this and more

today is Derek bros. Derek is a journalist, activist and speaker who writes for the last American Vagabond as well as his own site, the conscious resistance. His most recent article for tea laugh covers Biden's executive order and one of the best and one of the only articles out there on the topic and shows how this edict is just one part of a much larger and broader agenda. So thanks for joining me today. Derek, welcome back to unlimited hangout. Yeah, thank you for having me back. When my

pleasure. So let's start by tackling some of the vocabulary in this executive order. I don't think most people know what bioeconomy or even bio manufacturing exactly means. So how do how does the executive order define these terms? Do you agree with those definitions? And what do you think this? This means in terms of the economic impact it's likely to have for Americans? Sure. So the executive order is titled advancing biotechnology and bio manufacturing, to further sustainable, safe and

secure American bio economy. So they fit all three of those words and one phrase there, and like you said, I don't think most people have even come across these terms. According to the White House's definition, which I think is generally correct. I mean, you could get a little more broad with it, but they describe it as the economic activity derived from biotechnology and bio manufacturing, is referred to as

the bioeconomy. And of course, they state that COVID, the COVID crisis helped accelerate the push towards biotech and bio manufacturing. And they talk about in terms of quote unquote, life saving therapeutics and vaccines and all that stuff. But yeah, that's kind of the general idea of economic activity from

that. And of course, biotechnology people are maybe more familiar with if, if not in name in the sense of genetic engineering genetic modified foods, like that's probably the most familiar aspect of it, people obviously, it's bigger than that too. But that's kind of like biotech companies. So you get like Syngenta, Monsanto, those types of companies. And then bio manufacturing has like another component, they they

have their own definition. And I kind of looked further and found some other definitions for that. And that gets into the idea of using biological systems, which itself is pretty broad, to develop products, tools and processes at a commercial scale bio manufacturing, utilizes those biological systems, whatever they may be, to produce commercial biomaterials,

biomolecules. So I mean, obviously, the theme here is like life biology using that, and they're talking about it in medicine, food, industrial applications, and I'm sure we're gonna get into it, but it gets into some other areas where they start talking about biomass and like, what exactly is biomass and how we need to have the circular bio economy which we've been hearing that circular economy phrase for a while, which you know, at its at its kind of least nefarious end is

things like reduce, reuse, recycle. And then, you know, it goes to a whole other area, though, that I think is where some of the concerns come in. And you know, what we're getting into in this article, right. So like he touched on earlier, so a lot of people have been focusing sort of on the healthcare I guess you could say angle of this executive order, but as you sort of touched on, this is a lot bigger than just Healthcare. So they call for this to be like a whole of

government approach. What some of the departments mentioned specifically in this executive order aren't just like HHS, for example. But I think HHS and like ARPA h, we can talk about later, have a big role here.

But, you know, they also mentioned, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, DHS, the Department of Defense, I mean, it's pretty big, the push for all of these for biotechnology and bio manufacturing to play a central role in these departments going

forward. So I think it maybe at some, at some point, I don't know if we want you want to do this now or later, we should probably talk about the implications of this for agriculture, because it talks about food security and sustainability. And you mentioned just a second ago, right, you know, biotechnology companies. You mentioned Syngenta, you know, which is most people are probably most familiar with Monsanto, which is now Bayer, Monsanto. But that's basically, you know, what this

is calling for? Pretty concerning stuff. So yeah, let's I'm down to get into that. I mean, I think that you, you bring up some good points here by calling attention to the different departments. And for one, as you said, and as the executive order says, We need a whole of government approach, which, you know, I think we should take them at their word that they're going to try to use every resource available to push

in this direction. Because, you know, when you not only when you look at the executive order, but when you look at some of the actual other actions that I wrote about, that the Biden administration took just this month, earlier this month, it's clear that the bioeconomy isn't just going to be some maybe kind of like niche topic like I don't know, like NF T's or something

like that. It's going to be something that involves every area of our lives, I think, at least that's the way they intended in the coming decades. And they definitely intend, based on this IT departments you mentioned, they also mentioned, the Department of State, of course, the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce. So there's clearly going to be a lot of different applications of this so called Bio economy, bio manufacturing.

And yeah, when they're talking about agriculture, I would guess that most of most of our audience is familiar with, you know, the revolving door that's been going on for decades between Monsanto, Syngenta, those companies and the US government, you know, that's been happening for decades now. So you already kind of acknowledged that and are aware of the close relationship between the biotech industry as it relates to genetically engineered food, genetically modified foods, and the

government? Well, I think that doesn't really bode well either for this push into the bio economy and the potential for what it might entail, which I'm happy to get into later, I have by some of my speculative ideas that, you know, I can't prove at the moment, but I think, you know, I have some ideas about and I'm sure you do, as well about where this is all going, especially in terms of biomass. But I do think that in general, the idea of, we need to go to a

bio economy. And it's not just coming from the Biden White House, it's coming from the United Nations, it's coming from the World Economic Forum, there's different US politicians pushing it, and I'm sure we could go through different governments around the world and find similar, you know, pushes in this direction. And it also just, it's just time so perfectly with the potentially post COVID world that we're in

now, right? I mean, it just seemed, and again, we see the call towards COVID showed us this COVID showed us how this is necessary to push the whole of government into this direction. And there's also discussed of, you know, biological sciences, biotechnology, bio manufacturing to enhance biosafety, biosecurity. And they're also going to be investing billions of dollars, and they're seeking

more than they got right now. So I mean, this is, this is not just a small piece of the overall agenda that we're kind of facing. Right. So there's a couple different things to talk about, then I guess, one would be the UN side of this held that hall, all of this ties into the the SDGs, and the alleged response to climate change and all of this stuff. And then I guess the other side of it is what you just brought up how COVID is being used to justify this, and

the push into healthcare. So I guess maybe, before we get to away from that, maybe let's, let's go back to the discussion of, I guess, I would say the most controversial part of this executive order that I read in the intro that a lot of people have been focusing on discussing, you know, concern about transhumanist technologies being institutionalized, and things like this, because of this executive order the claim, again, about developing genetic engineering technologies, for

writing circuitry for cells, you know, and basically comparing, you know, that to software and, you know, program development. And, you know, it's weird that this happens around the same time that the FDA sort of frames the latest booster drive for COVID 19 vaccine sort of in those same terms. Yeah, I saw I'm sure a lot of people probably saw that them, I forget exactly what they said. But it was something like time to get your, you know, software update,

do all this stuff. And that's not how the immune system necessarily works, what they're trying to basically see them a narrative with people who still listen to them anyway. Yeah, to get them to look at the human body in this particular way. And I think that's, um, that's pretty telling. So let's talk about some of the people that are going to be behind this particular aspect of the implementation of this executive

order. So you have what we just mentioned the FDA, I'll say really quickly that the new head of the FDA hasn't gotten really any coverage at all. I was hoping to write about him, but earlier in the year, but you know, I had a baby and then had a book. So you know, I guess two babies, you could, you could argue been a little busy. Yeah, so I was little short on time, but Robert Kalish is the guy that's in charge of the FDA now.

And he's one of these revolving door guys, between the FDA and you know, big pharma, I guess you could say, but not really big pharma because he's going, he's a big guy, or was a big guy, you know, Google's Health Division, and one of the top advisors at Google for their health care push. And so you know, you have people tied up with that, to some extent, having been involved in warp

speed. And some of that I know that you wrote pretty extensively about Moncef Salafi, who was I think he had to step down before it actually finished because of like harassment allegations. But he's the guy from GlaxoSmithKline vaccine division, and he was on the board of the Google GlaxoSmithKline joint venture Galvani bioelectronics, which is, you know, focused on basically creating quote, unquote, medicines that modulate your neural activity, like, change and modify your nervous

system. creepy stuff. So anyway, that's that's kind of the wheelhouse that Robert Caleb was involved with, but also in a really big way wearables. And I know that you and I, in our work over the past couple years have talked a lot about wearables

and, and what that means. And so I guess the other side of that is this group called ARPA h. That was created relatively recently, but it's sort of a long standing agenda, I guess, you could say, of the national security state and in big tech, and some of these actors that really, you know, are essentially the same at this point. So I've sort of see Robert Califf, being at the FDA is the guy who's going to rubber stamp all the stuff that ARPA h,

is going to produce. So when we see in this part of the executive order that I'm talking about, reducing the obstacles for commercialization, that to me speaks to Robert Kalos, wrote the FDA of getting rid of regulatory barriers for testing, and all of this stuff, so things can get on the market faster. And I see the, you know, advanced the science of scale up production of a company I wrote about recently, let's making the RNA for modernas. Updated.

booster shot, resilience definitely falls in that category. But a lot of these, the developing of the technologies talking that they're talking about here in the artificial intelligence, and on all of that is likely to come from ARPA H. So you've written about ARPA H, and it's, um, new head who's I can't pronounce her last name, because there's like one vowel in it. Yeah. I could have figured it out, either. Yeah. So I was I did a podcast like yesterday, and I tried to pronounce that I was like,

wegrzyn or something. I don't really know how to say it. Maybe you'd have a better. I'm just gonna call her Renee. Yeah. Okay. So we'll just call her Renee. Yeah. So Renee is in charge of ARPA H. And her appointment to being in charge of ARPA H actually coincided with this executive order. So can you tell us a little bit about ARPA H, what it's designed to do? Who Renee is, and why her employer is pretty central to all the stuff we're talking about.

Yeah, actually, before that, I want to just comment on what you're talking about, about Robert Kala, if I appreciate it, bring that in there. Because I do think that's a really crucial component. And I'm glad that you

mentioned that. And, you know, just to kind of cement further what you were already saying that like the background that he comes from, as you know, is is that you're saying Google Alphabet Inc. and their subsidiary verily life sciences, but I know that I'm pretty sure you wrote about and I wrote about briefly when we were doing the research back in, I think 2020 About the operation warp speed and everything you were

just talking about there. But specifically, when they started to announce these appointments for Operation warp speed, you can already see the connection between the Googles and you mentioned Galvani bioelectronics. And I think that's going to be important to you. I just want to point that again, because Galvani bio electronics like you know, we're hearing bioeconomy biotechnology, there's been some recent, not executive orders, but statements I can't remember which city It's escaping me

right now. But a recent a mayor or governor came out in support of bioelectronics. I want to say New York saying like, we're gonna fund bio electronics, they didn't mention Galvani specifically. But again, I think this is a whole nother area of research that ties into this that people are going to be come

familiar with. And I just want to quote briefly from this article I wrote at that time, describing what buy electronics is, and the reason I wanted to start to mention this is because actually, this is the report when I did a YouTube video about this that actually got me kicked

off YouTube. Talking about the fact that by electronic medicine, what it's taught what it's focused on, or at least what they claim it's focused on, is tackling chronic diseases by using quote miniaturized implantable devices that can modify electric signals that can pass along nerves in the body, including regular or altered impulses that occur in many

illnesses. So that's like what this guy's background is coming from, you know, Galvani by electrics verily life science, Google house, like, that's at least one of the fields that his you know, his companies or the companies he's been working with have been involved in. And as you're saying, now, that guy is at the head of the FDA, which I doubt there will be much resistance to any of these projects. I just wanted to make, you know, make that kind of further clear to everybody.

Great, thanks. Yeah. And then as far as Rene and Arbor age, um, well, again, I'm I'm proud to be in in the same club as you Whitney when it comes to this, because as I shared recently, when I published this article, because I was originally like, most people just like, Okay, there's an executive order, let me do a write up about this. But then the more I dug in, it's like, Wait, hold on, they didn't just do this executive order. There was a summit about

biotechnology, IO economy. They pointed that, you know, the the first Director of the Advanced Research Project Agency for Health, ARPA H, which you were writing about last year, last spring, you were writing about, you know, I wrote about it in 2019, to actually, so see, you've been on that. And then I was following that up with just something told me to like pay attention to ginkgo Bioworks.

Last year, I can't remember what you know, really triggered initially, but it was maybe it was just the fact that they call themselves a life design company or a Bioworks company that, you know, they just all that whole field of research, it really caught my eye. So I was already kind of pay attention to them. And if people were following both of our work, well, then they would have known that ARPA

H had been announced. And that soon there would be a director and they'd seen my article, they might have some indication that, you know, maybe we didn't know 100% was going to come from ginkgo Bioworks. But clearly, you could suspect those going to come from that industry. Because those are the people pushing and driving. And again, this is another area where you got the revolving door between industry and government. So with all that said, Renee comes from gingko

Bioworks. And that's the company that I was focusing on because again, they call themselves Bioworks company, they call themselves, life design. And their CEO is pretty blatant, Jason Kelly, about discussing like the, what they do, I'm just gonna read this quote that I put in there, when he actually attended the White House's Summit. He said today, gingko is the largest designer of synthetic DNA in the world. What

does that mean? It means you go on a computer, you type a TC GG G, you hit print, and a piece of DNA gets printed out of our labs in Boston, or our partner companies like twist in California, we then take the DNA, we put it into the genome of a cell, and here's that language, again, like installing an app on your phone, and it makes the cell do something new. That's our business, we do that

as a service for customers. So you know, one thing is, I think that like we were pointing out a couple moments ago, I think we're gonna continue to see the use of this kind of, or the normalization of this kind of language about upgrading your software and installing an app and you know, all these kinds of things they want, you know, clearly they want people to, that's the framing I think they want people to internalize and understand, but I don't think it's necessarily accurate.

Here, because people are basically being an experiment. Yeah, exactly. unproven, genetic editing technology, that, you know, not even talking about mRNA gene therapies or quote, unquote, vaccines or whatever. You know, if you're talking about things like CRISPR, study after study, and I'm sure you've seen this, that has come out about CRISPR shows that it's not as precise as people sold it as

being. And it's basically, you know, very unlikely to give you cancer basically, by, you know, cutting your DNA in the wrong place, and preventing DNA repair and all sorts of other problems. And, you know, there's infinite studies, not infinite, but numerous studies at this point, raising alarm bells about CRISPR. And so the idea that this executive order is pushing for technologies like that, to not have regulatory barriers, so they can be put on the market faster. This is really alarming

stuff. But you know, they've normalized that type of activity at the federal level so much with COVID-19 that it's very possible if they sell it right to, you know, the people that, you know, by these types of narratives still, um, you know, they'll be able to get away with it. It seems like what are your thoughts?

No, I think you're right, I think you're 100% right, and you're all So correct that like, just because they're using that language doesn't mean you're turning, you know that it's accurate in the way they want to

use it. But I do think it is that we will continue to see it because they do want people to and I think this is where the idea of the transhumanism aspect comes in, obviously, they were talking about, like, altering DNA like that already gets into, you know, changing, potentially what it means to be human, but even in the language they want people to, and I think it's because they know how much how obsessed we are as a species with digital technology with the latest phones, the latest

computers and whatnot. And so maybe not all of us, right? Some of us more than others. Some of us, you stay out all night and camp out in front of businesses to get the latest phone, right. Some of us just use the technology. But I think the point is they they want to try to normalize and conditioned people to look at themselves like, Oh, you're just a phone to

be upgraded. You're an app to be, you know, downloaded software, etc. So, anyways, getting to back to Renee, our friend Renee here with the difficult last name, she's coming from molecular biology, bioengineering background at Georgia Tech, and then a just

host of DARPA programs. So anybody listening to this program, probably familiar with DARPA, but I mean, she worked at DARPA as biological Technologies Office, she managed their genetic engineering and gene editing projects focused on biosecurity, she's worked with at least a half a dozen DARPA projects that I found, and then worked also for another DARPA inspired agency, the intelligence Advanced Research Project Agency, and then advised ARPA E, which is the our Advanced Research Project Agency

for energy. So the government has clearly come to this woman and got her quote unquote, expertise or knowledge and several different areas, not only directly working with DARPA and other projects, but then working with two other agencies that are sort of DARPA influence. And then now obviously, being appointed to the head of this new agency that is obviously inspired by DARPA. Yeah. So if I can comment there really quick. First of all, that agencies aren't one of those

DARPA inspired agencies. You mentioned the intelligence. Yeah, that's like the CIA's ARPA IARPA for people that don't know. And they they have a representative on this national security commission on AI that I've written about for T laugh and in other places, but specifically at DARPA, you pointed out that she worked at the BTO office, which is the biological Technologies Office. And the longtime head of that office is a guy named Jeffrey

Ling. And he was the guy tapped by this guy named Bob Wright, who was the guy originally sharping around the idea for Harpa, later renamed and created as ARPA H. Jeffrey link designed that program originally, and for people that don't remember Harpa was originally being marketed as

something very different. So when the the Biden administration came out with ARPA H, they acted like it was their idea, not, you know, from the Trump era and framed it as a way to cure cancer and cure Alzheimer's and all of this

stuff. Yeah. But when it was being pitched by the Trump administration, it was mainly Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, and in this Bob Wright guy who was a, I guess, a former executive at NBC Universal, and had some sort of relationship with Trump from the apprentice, I think, or something like that was how they knew each other in

the idea. Then, at the time, the idea of Harpa, their first program was going to be called Safe Home, I think was the acronym, but basically what it was about was data mining American social media activity, and then using an AI to screen it to identify early warning signs of quote, neuro psychiatric violence, to try and prevent mass shootings before

that can happen. And this was coming at a time when there was like the El Paso Walmart shooting, and a lot of other mass shootings sort of happening in the span of a couple of weeks. And not that long before the El Paso shooting, William Barr, who was an attorney general, basically said there was going to be some sort of event that was going to galvanize people around pre crime policy. For those that remember that I wrote about it

at the time. And then he actually created a pre crime program before he left to the Trump administration that's still in effect today called deep. So for why so I wanted to bring that up for people because, you know, ARPA H, or Harpa is a lot more than just, you know, curing cancer and gene editing and all of this stuff. It's definitely, you know, they have a lot of programs under it.

But anyway, the guy that designed Harpa, at that time when they were pitching those programs, is the same guy that Rene worked under. And, you know, oversaw a lot of these other gene editing projects because the biological Technologies Office is one of these, I guess, you could say offices at DARPA that's focused on quote unquote convergence.

Just sort of like the the bringing together of man and machine and I'm a former DARPA director, who I've written about a lot because she leads the Wellcome Trust DARPA, called the Wellcome leap, Regina Dugan. She describes it as fixing the, quote, quote unquote, mismatch between humans and machines. So that's basically what BTOS about. Well, yeah, no doubt, appreciate that, you know, deeper dive on

that office. And hopefully that gives some more background for those who are curious about where Renee is coming from, and the type of agencies I mean, each of the honestly, like if there was the time and the energy for each of these different projects that she is involved in, and for anybody else out there who's researcher wants to help do some legwork

for us. I mean, I would, I would guess, that each of these projects he was involved in are probably worth a dive into to see, you know, what did they what were what was she researching? What are the projects, you know, conclude? Who was she working with those kinds of things? Because they might give us some more insight into what she's going to do now as the director? Yeah, well, I don't think, you know, I think we can guess, more or less you see where it's headed, though,

right? Yeah. Cuz, I mean, she's basically, you know, a point person, I guess you could say, for the people sort of deciding the directions these things go in. And basically, you know, as my work on this type of stuff has shown it's a lot of them as are basically the top guys at Silicon Valley. And top guys in the national security state, with a major role from from the intelligence community, like in

Q TEL is all over this stuff. In the CIA, you know, is all over Boston connection as well, like I noticed when I was researching this, and looking up, you know, because they really, they haven't decided officially where they're going to headquarter ARPA H. And there's, there's all these people in Boston, which obviously, you got Boston Dynamics, you got gingko Bioworks is headquartered there. There's a lot of that nexus there that are trying to pull

for them to base it there. And then apparently, there's some the tech companies that are fighting to get RPh, headquartered in Texas. And then I think there's one other state that's fighting for it. So I think that you know, do you want it? So I feel about it. I think that should tell people, though, like, the places that are calling for the people that are calling for it. So I mean, I'm

from Texas, originally. And places like Austin have become like the new and even Houston, they're trying to call it what are they trying to call it the silicon Bayou of the South or some, some some icon by you? Wow, because they're inviting all the tech companies now. But yeah, I don't know if they'll

get it. But it's just, you know, to add to the point that if you see, wherever you see this company ending up, whether it's in Texas or Boston, I think, you know, it'll probably give us some insight into you know, who the influences are going to be around because like I said, ginkgo Bioworks wants to keep our page close to home, which isn't surprising, since you know, their former, or their current VP is going to go over

there and work with them. I'm sure there'll be some, some nice lunches and dinners for them to get together and discuss how they can shove their projects through. And again, like the CEO of the company that she's coming from, is saying they are their job is to print out DNA in a lab, partner with other people put it into Jima genome is of a cell like installing an app on your phone like that's, you know, that's the kind of things they're promoting. And of course, I don't think we've

mentioned this yet. But the Biden announcements also they they frame, everything like this is going to help fight Alzheimer's and cancer. They talked about the moonshot program, which I think that's a whole nother there's some research to be done there too, as well. But yeah, they want to frame it like this is all about helping fight diseases and all that. But really, as you were pointing out a moment ago, it's part of the overall biosecurity state that we've seen coming in, in recent years.

Yeah. Another thing I want to point out, though, is that the guy that was supposed to be really influential in ARPA H. I think the reason they had to wait so long to put Renee in charge is because Eric Lander had to go. And so Eric Lander was the top science adviser to Biden, and he was running I guess it's called the Office of Science and Technology within the White House. And so he was going to play a major role in shaping our page, but he was forced to resign, I think earlier this year over

harassment allegations again. So I guess he and Moncef so well, we are to two peas in a pod in that sense, but Eric Lander is I've written about before was Epstein Jeffrey Epstein funded, has has is on record praising you Genesis, played a major role in the Human Genome Project, which if you look into the history of that was itself created by a guy named Walter

Bodmer. And he dreamt up the idea at the time he was a member of the British eugenics society, because at that time, the British eugenics society in the 80s was still called that they waited until 1989, to rename themselves the Galton Institute and Galton is named for Francis Galton, the guy that invented eugenics. So it's not really that much of a have changed

there. So you know, it's a little concerning especially when you consider some of the stuff that John Cleese AK and also myself have written about the, the guy that coined the term transhumanism was head of the brightness eugenics society, Julian Huxley. So, you know, there's a lot of overlap there.

So how do you, you mentioned in your article that people like Patrick wood, for example, who was on my podcast relatively recently described this executive order, saying it would institutionalize eugenics and transhumanism? What are your thoughts on that? Um, I do tend to agree. So I mean, I was starting the article out, not necessarily that I, you know, didn't believe what Patrick was saying, or, and I also quoted Jason Berman, and

another report. But, you know, I wanted to kind of play devil's advocate and say, like, let's see what this is really about, right? Because I think sometimes in the broader community, people see terms especially when it comes to science, it see terms that maybe they don't understand that sounds scary or weird, or whatever. And we can maybe rush to make assumptions and things

like that. So I wanted to take Okay, let's really look at this and see if the, the concern or the fear that people are expressing when they see the bio economy, whether they know what it means or not, is warranted.

And I think that the deeper you dive into this, and as you were just pointing out with the connection to eugenics with a lot of this studying of DNA, studying of the human genome, I mean, all of that stuff, it goes, it goes back to the eugenics movement, population control, you know, and then trying to even the idea of like trying to breed out undesirables and things like that, I mean, so much of this reminds me of the

movie Gattaca. And if anybody has, if you've ever seen that everybody hasn't seen that encourage you to watch it. If only for just getting a taste of what the world that I think these folks are headed for. It's the world of. And again, I don't think the movie shows probably the worst parts of it. But they have a world where people can genetically engineer their babies for, you know, make sure you get the right eye color and

the right hair color. But then also, if you have the money, you can make sure your babies you take out the parts of their DNA that are going to give them a predisposition to alcoholism or predisposition to, you know, immoral behavior, whatever the heck that means, right? And so clearly there ends up being a class society where there's the people who are normal old school humans and in the people who are starting to like genetically engineered genetically modify themselves to be faster,

smarter. Those are the people that go to space. Those are the people that have like the power and the rest of us are kind of like the plebes, you know, doing janitor jobs or doing menial work? I really think that that's kind of an indication of what these types of companies see. And again, does that mean that every single person involved in this research is a eugenicist? I mean, I would wager not. I mean,

maybe so it could be. But I would think maybe that there are genuine people who think that their specific niche area of research and science is contributing to something good without recognizing like the larger push towards this sort of eugenics mindset of altering, messing with DNA, synthetic biology, bio manufacturing, and not just like, bio manufacturing, as the executive order talks about, like writing ourselves, like certain

circuitry. I think that's, you know, more about what this is about is getting people used to that. And yeah, it could be like, if you've got the money, you can go, oh, well, let me point this out. I forgot this. I listened to a talk about Rene, or from Rene, while I was writing this article, and it was called engineering, Gene safety. And in that talk, she actually discusses transhumanism at some

point. And she says something to the effect that we're moving into the age now, where when you run into somebody on the street, you're going to be the question you ask them is going to be what genes are you on? You know, what genes have you upgraded or downloaded today? You know what to change your eye color or to

make you faster? What you know, that's, of course, in their utopian, best case, scenario version, and if you trust putting their technology in your body and all that, but so she you know, she's even like outlining and her vision, the woman who now is the head of this new agency, that she believes that's where the world is headed, that we're going to be upgrading and downloading and changing genes, like we do apps, cell phones, you know, or clothes or things like that.

Yeah, so I'm talking about how you sort of see this vision playing out in how you describe Gattaca. You know, I haven't seen it because I don't really like to watch TV or movies anymore. I like don't have time. But I recall this article that came out, we can put it in the show notes. It's from the BBC, but it's from several years ago.

It's from 2006. And the subtitle is humanity may split into two sub species, as predicted by HG Wells and expert has said, and the first sentence is, this evolutionary theorist named Oliver curry of the London School of Economics expects a genetic upper class in a dim

witted underclass to emerge. And he basically says, the descendants of the genetic upper class would be tonelson A healthy, attractive, intelligent and creative a far cry from the quote unquote underclass humans who would have evolved into dim witted ugly squat goblin like creatures. So, you know, and he's citing HG Wells here. So HG Wells is from the same pool of British eugenicist. I mean, people, most people think of him as a science fiction author.

He's a lot more than that. So I'd encourage people to reevaluate that guy, but basically, um, you know, this is something that this group sort of predicted, you know, maybe 100 years ago or so. And, you know, Will their ideological descendants use this type of technology to make that a

reality? It seems really possible because it seems like the quote unquote, underclass sort of you described in the the whole Gattaca thing, though people that don't, you know, do this stuff, we're being conditioned to eat bugs, and do all sorts of, you know, other stuff that sort of blurring the line between human and

livestock? Yeah, you know, so, you know, my concern is, you know, are they going to start, you know, they're going to genetically engineer maybe the elite in one direction, but the genetic engineering promise that they're offering, the rest of us may lead us in a very different direction? Absolutely. No, I get where you're going. And this is sort of what I was like, talking to hinting at earlier with, like, I have some speculation about where this is headed. Because they also talk about biomass,

right. And biomass by defined by them, or just, you know, these bio bio products can be anything from human blood to soil, you know, grass, animals, like

biology, right. So living products, and they discussed in some of the papers, I was reading some of the discussion of the circular bioeconomy, getting to a point where we could, and again, in the best case scenario, it what it is, is things like humanure, for anybody familiar with permaculture and things like that you've heard of humanure, taking human waste, and then you let it sit for a certain amount of time, and you can repurpose it and use it in the garden, it's really good for plants and

for the soil and things like that, right? That's a form of, you could say, as part of the bio economy taking a biological product waste, and then repurposing it in a circular way and doing something good with it. Right. That's what they want people to believe that the whole thing is about, but obviously, there's a lot more going on

there. And I think that we really could get to a obviously there's the concern about the bugs, you know, you're gonna people are gonna eat bugs and things like that, that whole agenda being pushed, well, that's part of the that would be considered biomass, right. It's a living entity. So that could

be part of it. But I also think, with the combination of two things, one more states and places, recognizing the right to compost yourself when you die, which again, I think that hey, if you own yourself, you should be able to do what you want when

you die. But just that becoming more trendy, that idea, combined with this pushing of biomass could lead to a point where maybe the lower classes are taught like for the good of plant the planet or to reduce waste, we need you to repurpose your body, your biomass, not only for soil or something like that, but potentially to something like Soylent Green to something like that being a food product, you know, it's not that far, you know, the justification for the composting, the human body is

climate change. And there's that scientist and Sweden that got a lot of mainstream media play being like cannibalism is the solution to climate change, because he's not insane. or anything, so. Yeah, exactly. So let me put those two things together, like a sort of normalization and talking of, you know, popping up in articles of cannibalism and then yeah, repurposing yourself while this discussion about biomass and and when you look at what, Eman, circular economy? Exactly,

yikes. So, um, so another thing I think is going on here in terms of the broader agenda, and I think you see this not just with the push into healthcare, but also the push into agriculture. I think what we're seeing is part of the long standing agenda that I know that Ryan of T lab has talked a lot about over the years, which is

patenting all life. Because if you own the genetic sequence of something, and this has happened with Monsanto, right, and some of these other companies that make genetically modified organism, you know, GMOs that are plants. You know, they I think a lot of people are familiar with the tactic. Well, maybe not everyone, so I'll

explain it I guess. But Monsanto and I guess Syngenta to a lesser extent had, you know, this practice basically, of, they would buy like one field in an area and they would quote unquote, test their products there or plant them there. And then, you know, this was mostly for wind pollinated plants.

Yeah. So the wind would carry the pollen and it would cross pollinate with plants of the same type in a neighboring property and then Monsanto comes to that neighbor and says, Okay, so your plant now has a patented genes which we own, and so we're going to sue you, because you're using our proprietary genetic, whatever, without licensing it. And so in the past, this has turned into major legal cases where farmers have lost their

land. And, you know, it all goes to Monsanto at the end of the day, you know, and this is, you know, a model that I think is going to be replicated far beyond agriculture at this point, but I think, you know, the green revolution of the past not about climate change about putting Monsanto everywhere, who were the people behind that people like Bill Gates, as an

example. Now, Bill Gates, has a, who I think is actually an investor in gingko Bioworks, if I'm not mistaken, that we talked about earlier, is also, you know, has bought up a lot of the farmland in the US what is he going to use it for small scale organic farming? Doesn't seem likely because in the US, so small scale, organic farmers are being punished, and by the federal government that Jeremy Loffredo has done some good work on that recently about how they're targeting the Amish

community. So what are they gonna, what kind of stuff are they going to use it for? Well, given you know, Bill Gates passed, it seems pretty clear what they're doing. And you're seeing this push for certain types of plant based proteins or lab made meat, all of which is going to be patented. So that's control of the food supply, people won't be allowed to produce their own food unless they have a license for it.

They're taking people off the land, they're limiting limit, trying to eliminate basically, traditional agriculture, as it's existed for 1000s of years. And that doesn't make any sense. In terms of you know, if your excuses climate change, it makes no sense whatsoever that you would do that. Um, but obviously, I think their game here is, is something else entirely. And climate change is just the selling point. And what

concern Yeah. And so what concerns me is that, you know, we're going to see the rollout of AI in agriculture, we're going to see GMOs galore, because a lot of the stuff they say specifically really talks about the Department of Agriculture in this executive order. They say, let's see, they say that the Secretary of Agriculture, agriculture has to assess how to use biotechnology and bio manufacturing, for food and agriculture, innovation, including by improving sustainability and land

conservation. So that means genetically modifying a plant to use less resources, I would assume, increasing food quality and nutrition, genetically modifying a vegetable or something to have more of one nutrient than another, something like that. Increasing and protecting agricultural yields. That's always been the selling point of Monsanto, even though it's true in practice, and lots of studies have shown that as

well. And that protecting against plant and animal pests and diseases again, that is, you know, part of the Monsanto's selling point as well. Yeah, well, as I mentioned earlier, they're bigger now. And then it says, again, cultivating alternative food sources at the end, that's this lab made meat stuff. So this is patenting the food supply. And I worry that the gene editing of people stuff, what if they're going to apply that model to people and be like, oh, you know, like, the

gingko Bioworks. CEO said, like you quoted him, you know, when stole, it's like installing an app on your phone. So if he would install an app into your cells, right, who owns Yeah, yeah. So those are good questions, whereas men socks are gonna show up and say, hey, well, the wind blew our apps into your body, and now we own you. Yeah, on those lines, you brought up a couple of points that I want to just comment on. For one, as you said, Yes, Bill Gates is invested in gingko, Bioworks,

where Rene is coming from. And specifically, and this is interesting, because you brought up like his land ownership as well. It's his company, cascade investment, which is investment company, and he controls so you know, he tries to hide his name a little bit. So cascade is the investment firm that invested in ginkgo Bioworks. And cascade is actually the same company that

also owns all his farmland. So you know, there's a direct connection between those, those different, you know, they're investing in biotechnology bioeconomy, buying up farmland. So yeah, do you think that that's something that you can

see the connection there? And overall, I mean, I think people should take heed of the, as you were pointing out a few moments ago that the same power players that told us about the Green Revolution and promises of GMOs are the same people now trying to tell us that we're about to use CRISPR and all these great technologies to create a whole new economy that's going to save the planet and sustainable and diverse and blah, blah and all

that good stuff. And I think that by this point, most people can see through these agendas that they have. And the other point I wanted to mention is that because you brought up the Bill Gates investment in the meat is what the alternative meat as well, at the summit that the White House held, they had a number of days. Are companies including gingko Bioworks there, and that were pretty much just like a showcasing the type of projects, they're things they're

involved in. And at first, I was going to list them all, because some of it was interesting, but I decided not to put that in the article, but one of them was this company that is working on what they call the carbon neutral meat product. And it's a company called err, protein. So I mean, there's definitely that's part of the agenda as

well. And they had those companies there at the White House just earlier this month discussing, you know, they're, they're pushed in that direction, well, that's gonna be fun when they control all the food one, and you won't be able to buy natural seeds or anything you can you can produce on your own, which will have air protein.

Thank God. Well, you know, like I said earlier, I think this is part of a long standing agenda to prevent people from being able to sustain themselves prevent the ability of people to be independent of the state, or, you know, these companies that have, you know, or basically fusing with the state. You know,

it's it's pretty concerning. And you know, what's crazy, too, you know, I think about the mRNA stuff, you know, people that were criticizing, or asking questions about the mRNA, quote, unquote, vaccines over the past couple years got censored off, right. And so a lot of the big tech companies that control the online platforms also have like Google reign, also have big investments in this space, are they going to start censoring people that are critical of the bio economy, or CRISPR, and

stuff like that down the line? I don't know. I pointed out earlier that my the my final strike that got me removed from from YouTube, and I mean, it was obviously a strike and a succession of other things that I said wrong and I thought wrong, and I'm so sorry for the for. The final strike was talking about that the injectables, the bioelectronic.

Medicine, I think the video was titled, I mean, it wasn't even contrary it just was titled The future of healthcare is injectables, which is a fact based on everything that these people are pointing at. And that was coming from studying Moncef slouchy and Galvani, bioelectronics, et cetera, et cetera, and kind of looking at ginkgo and these other companies, it's clear that in addition to them wanting to mess with your DNA and your genes that they want you to wear things and then put things in

your body. I hope that most people listening to this are not interested in any of that at all. Yeah, well, I think the wearable thing if people don't realize it's about surveilling you but in a way that they've never been able to surveil you before they're trying to surveil what's

going on inside your body. So if you listen to people in I mean, you know, we've talked about this in the past and other people talked about in the past, but you all know, a Harare, basically saying that once there's mass adoption of wearables, it's crossing the red line into what he calls digital dictatorship. And this is the guy that's helping them build all this stuff, and like advising them how to build it. You know, after he says that he speaks, he said that in a speech

to the World Economic Forum. And then he goes, maybe the people in this room can take hold of this technology. So it's used well, and all of this stuff, and they're all like, yeah, you know, I mean, come on, not not cool. So, you know, they, they, you know, the people pushing this agenda, know what it means to have mass adoption of wearables. They've come out and said it. So do we really want to

walk into that future? I think it should be pretty clear that the answer is now the other thing you've all know a Harare says in that speech is that it's about like surveilling your neural activity. So he, he gives an example of a dictatorship. And you know, someone is at a speech of the great leader. And they're outwardly looking happy and clapping like everyone else. But inside, they're angry, and they will know and you'll be in the Gulag the next morning, because of your wearable

snitching on you. That's, that's, that's the future if this kind of stuff goes ahead, or at least that's what they're trying to do. And so they've already advanced this to a significant degree. So, as I mentioned earlier, Regina Dugan, the former DARPA director, she set up a DARPA thing for Facebook, that still sort of going and they developed a wristband that is able to read from your brain what you want to type before you type it and types for you. Based on your thoughts and stuff.

That's just weapon meeting. Exactly what I've been looking for. Now, I can't but I mean, I think this stuff is really it. You know, when it comes down to me, Whitney is like, the more I think about this is that this is something I wrote about in my book, How to opt out of the technocratic state that this is all going to come down to every individual who's hearing this. And as we rush right into the future, whether we like it or not, is you we have to make choices of how we're going to

interact with technology. And then some of us are doing that already. You know, we're saying I don't want to use any Google products, right? Well, that's one layer. But then when everybody around us starts wearing the wearables is which is already starting to happen for exercise and things like that and monitor your heart

rate. But then when it becomes implantables, and injectables and literally modifying your DNA, I mean, we are going to face the reality that there is going to be people around us who choose to do that and who opt in. It's our already happening? Yeah, it'll be weird things like your friends show up and they got a new eye color. And you're like, what? What's going on with you? And they're like, Oh, I did this, I went to Walmart and they have this quick, you know,

change your eye color. I imagine that like, people want it to be that that simple that like easy for people to just go up just like a cell phone, right? Go up and up, upgrade yourself. Well, that's what they're envisioning. I don't think like we talked about earlier, like CRISPR, and all that stuff, it's going to come with major consequences. I mean, the mRNA stuff that they're claiming this executive order was a great

success. And the justification for this executive order, basically, obviously, were not the great success that they were

touted out. So I mean, this other stuff, I don't think it's necessarily I wonder, though, because I wonder if they could cover up as much as they you know, so because like, obviously, we're seeing adverse reactions and injuries from the shots and you know, things are happening, and they're covering that up, and they're denying that there's still rushing forward and claiming it's the best thing ever, right. And I'm sure somebody's gonna get a Nobel Prize for his crowning

achievement. But I wonder when it comes to people, as you pointed out with CRISPR, and things of that sort getting DNA breaks, and and you know, how that affects them? Like, can you really hide that if people who are trying to upgrade their human, you know, operating system, and then next time you see them, they can't even operate? Or who knows what

happens? Or, I mean, it really could get into some scary, I mean, not that we're not already but it just really scary sci fi dystopian stuff, like, will you be able to 100% know, that if your friend or family member chooses to opt into the system, that they're still going to be that same person that they're still going to be? Yeah, what we consider to be human? You know, what I mean? Like, what happens when people start doing these things and their behavior

changes? Or, you know, there's no way for us to really know what you know, where that's coming from, ya know, and well, once it gets, you know, the neural link stuff like the brain chip and stuff. I mean, I don't I don't even know how I'm going to react to people

doing doing that crap. But the crazy thing is to, you know, we were sort of talking about the risk of this technology a bit right, and how CRISPR has unintended consequences, but you look at something like neuro link, I think most of the monkeys and the animal trials they've done once neuro Link was installed, like died really quickly. And they're still going ahead with it. It's like, I don't understand that. I just, I don't get it. I don't get how

that can be. That's not even a conspiracy, you know, based on some document, we're not sure it's true. No, it's like, that's a fact. That's real. That's been reported in mainstream. And yet, there's no like public outcry to like, stop this program we need, you know, yeah, what freaks me out is, I think that these people are so hell bent on creating this feature, because for a lot of them, it's like a religious thing. Like the transhumanist

stuff. That, you know, they're not really they don't really care how many people die, they want to bring about their, their vision, and they're gonna bring it about whether they, whether we like it or not, that's how they feel, I think. I don't think they're gonna succeed, to be honest. No, I don't, because you know, a bunch of people get brain chips, and then they die, like people are gonna be like, I don't want the chip. And so they'd have to, like, forcibly Chip, I don't

think it's gonna happen. But I mean, it seems like why else would you not cancel neural link if it's killing all the animals? You know? And that's just animal testing? What happens when you get the human trials? And it's like, oh, yeah, like, seven of 11 of the people in the trial died? No big deal. Full STEAM Ahead, because you'll be able to play video games with your mind. Like, that's a hard selling point, you know? Yeah, I hope that as we approach that, which I mean, it's right

here on the cusp, right. And we were getting new updates about the Starlink and the neuro link and all the musk programs and other people working on this similar things as well, that people are skeptical, but I mean, as I was kind of joking earlier, but it's a truth that there are a lot of people who do literally wait outside of the grocery or the electronics store for the latest upgrade of this and that and I you know, and that's also when we, we know, in the same vein of we know,

problems with neuro link already exists, you know, already had been shown in animals. Well, we've got decade's worth of studies showing that cell phones can cause damage to your body can there's a there's a case that's finally about to go to court. Now, after 20 years, people dealing with tumors from cell phones back in the 90s. And here we are 30 years later, and there's the biggest thing ever, everybody's got them in their pockets in their chest, wearing them in their

journey. They have like cause more radiation than they probably did in the 90s. And now we're in you know, 5g land at least some of us and where I live in Chile, there's no 5g for now that you know, they're trying to put it everywhere. So So I mean, I'm with you that I hope and I believe that they will ultimately fail i but I'm also I think they will probably succeed in getting a chunk of the population. What don't want to wager. Oh, yeah, sure.

There's gonna chunk the braces and hopefully, as with the shots, there will be some people who may are a little more hesitant and if people do start getting harmed, which, unfortunately, it seems like you know, that is probably not a thing. Yeah, yeah. that people will push back and say, hey, well hold on, what are we doing here? And at that point that maybe that's the sort of fork in

the road, right? If you got the, the technocrats, these, these want to be transmitters trying to push closer to the singularity, and they're eugenics vision using technology, and they've got some of the population, but then some people start waking up and questioning it, you know, that would force their hand or they're literally going to try to force people into that digital world, or those of us who opt out of it, will we be allowed to continue to opt out

peacefully? I think that's going to kind of be something the future will answer for us, I guess. Yeah. So like, you know, like you said, I don't think they're gonna get a succeed and getting everyone to do it. But I think, you know, the question is, how much damage do they cause in the meantime? And when you think about things, like genetically modified mosquitoes that are already out there, I mean, how, you know, what sort of damage is being done to the environment

and all that stuff? I mean, there's a whole lot of cannon words here. I mean, we're really in unprecedented times now that they're doing all this stuff. And, you know, I'm one thing I wanted to touch on, before we wrap up wrap up here, Derek, is that you mentioned in, in your article that some other places like the European Union, have implemented bio economy

policies. And over there, they're, you know, expressly related to the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs, also known as agenda 2030, and so on, since I'm limited Hangout right now is doing a series on the SDGs called Sustainable slavery. And I was wondering if you could talk about some of those justifications a little bit? Because, you know, they're basically using SDGs, as one of the reason or, you know, climate

goals. And all of the stuff is as justification for, you know, biotechnology in the bio economy and all of the stuff that's discussed in this executive order. No, absolutely. I'm, by the way, you guys are doing great work. I'm glad somebody's doing a, like a real specific dive on the SDGs. Because I think it's important because, you know, some people, I think, still don't grasp how, how crucial

that is to their agenda. I mentioned earlier that the United Nations, their Food and Agriculture Organization, they've talked about the bioeconomy. I also found that the European Union and something called the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, that they OECD, they're also promoting the bio coffee, they say that this is going to be a framework for promoting the bio for promoting biotech to develop new products.

And they put out this bioeconomy strategy document, which again, is kind of like, I guess, a whole government in the sense of trying to get all the EU governing bodies involved, to focus on biological sources, creating new systems that depend

on biological resources. And this what I was talking about earlier, including animals, plants, micro organisms, and their biomass and so biomass that could be your blood, your bones, your waist, you know, you and they're saying that this is about quarter protecting the environment, biodiversity all, it was just this summer, in June, the EU, they published this progress report discussing how they're, you know, making some progress on their

bioeconomy strategy. And that they're now finally to get it getting it developed in EU member states in different regions. So it's making it clear that like, this is not just happening in the United States, this is happening across the European Union, sure, we can look at other nations and see it

as well. And yeah, it all comes back down to when you look at the EU's bioeconomy strategy, it makes it perfectly clear that they see the role of the bioeconomy serving the UN Sustainable Development Goals and agenda 2030. And it specifically says that its aim is to, quote accelerate the deployment of a sustainable European bio economy to contribute towards the SDGs and help fulfill the goals of the Paris Agreement. So I mean, they're making it clear, it's about right there.

Yes. So now that the European economy is about to be totally totaled, I wonder if they're just going to build up a bio economy in its place. And that's going to be the focus of everything. And I sort of wonder the same for the US, which, you know, seems like it's not going to economically collapse. At the same time Europe does maybe a

bit after. But, you know, this sort of seems like to be the, one of the, the things going forward, one of the focus, economic focuses, you know, when they quote, unquote, build back better, and all of that is going to be this type of stuff, especially if they're linking it

to the SDGs. And one thing that that Ian and I have pointed out in the SDG series is that they basically use the urgency excuse, as a means to like, force the implementation of this agenda and not look deeper into what the SDGs are, like, really about or who's running it, which is like central bankers and Wall Street bankers, and stuff like that. But they basically say, you know, the cost if we don't implement the SDGs is going to be so much worse. And so we have

to do it. Otherwise, this thing down the line, we promise will be so bad. And this is coming from the people who were like the predictive modelers about COVID Or you know, who were totally wrong. And if you look at those predictive modelers in their past like in the UK with like Foot and Mouth Disease and all this stuff, I mean, they're always wrong. And the Limits to Growth guys and the Club of Rome and all that, like always wrong, and their models, obviously He

like suck and don't work. So you know, are we going to trust them again, and destroying everything. I mean, it's just mental. So basically, you know, they're, they're using people's love for the environment and nature to sell them into this system. And if you're just gene editing everything, you're gonna destroy nature, plain and simple. And that's not even talking about the land grabs, and all of the stuff that are going on that, you know, has been some of the focus of the

series lately. But I worry, you know, what happens when some of these entities under the guise of the UN, like the Nature Conservancy, and some of these other groups are doing these debt for conservation swamps, as they're calling them now, which

are just land grabs. And then they're tasked with conserving this land or natural asset corporations that they've created now, tasked with conserving a piece of land, and they just gene edit everything on it, because they say it's it will make it more sustainable. You know, this is this is the kind of stuff going forward. And so that's why, you know, I think the Sustainable Development Goals, people need to start paying more attention to it, obviously, I think that otherwise, I wanted to start

into series about it. Yeah, you know, but there's, there's a lot about just a couple of points. You said there just for anybody who hasn't come across, obviously, read the sustainable development goals and get to understand that, but another term and kind of just lingo that we're seeing more and more that you were just touching on is the idea of the nature based economy, the WEF is pushing for based solutions. They call it Yeah,

yeah. Nature based economy, nature based solutions I can so again, anybody who doesn't know anything about it just hears that like, okay, like, yeah, conservation, something to do with the planet, helping the environment. But that's not what

this is about at all. In fact, in the worst case scenario, it's about pretending like you care about the environment and putting that in front of on top of human concerns and basically enslaving the people to the alleged concerns about the environment, and building up all

around this idea of the green. I mean, this is like this, these are all just elements of the greenwashing that I think more and more people are becoming aware of, I do think it's important for us to have this conversation and for you to be dissecting the SDGs because a lot of people woke up the last

couple of years to COVID-19. And they started to realize like, wow, the whole world can be fooled by faulty models and by hysteria and listen that and exactly, not so many people have gone back and kind of applied that same rigor of thought to the other side of change conversation. Yeah, well, I hope they do.

Because, you know, like we mentioned earlier about the Green Revolution, and all of that the Monsanto evangelists of yesteryear are the same people saying, we have to implement the SDGs immediately to save the planet. Do you think someone like Bill Gates, who went around selling Monsanto all over the world and creating a Indian farmer suicide crisis and environmental crisis cares about the planet? I mean, come on

people. I mean, the software before that he was buying up all that land for the good of the people originally, but Oh, you mean, the farmland in the US? I'm talking about when he, you know, basically forced the Monsanto DEBT SLAVERY model on the developing world, claiming it would increase yields and all this stuff, and then it didn't, and it destroyed their soil and their environment and their livelihoods. You know, that's the guy we're supposed to trust. Are you telling me that Golden?

Golden Rice didn't save Africa? No, apparently not. It was just a flute. Well, actually, there has been some pushback locally in Africa against this stuff. I don't know if you saw but there was some conference. And the Gates Foundation was like, forced to admit that things. All their previous plants failed miserably. And in terms of how they'd been selling it, like increased yields, and all of the stuff and better food insecurity did the opposite. And so they just blame climate change for

not working. Of course, that's easy enough. Yeah, no, I mean, what else would they do, but there's a lot of pushback locally there. So I hope you know, that continues to grow, because the future is local dude. So and you know, that

better than anybody. So I guess now that we're wrapping up here, it's a good opportunity to give you, you know, time to promote some of the stuff you do in terms of solutions, getting local, some of the work you're doing, you know, not just, um, you know, in that sense, but also in terms of media and what you have coming up. Sure, I appreciate the opportunity. And thanks for having me on, again, to talk about this topic. Everybody to read your series on SDGs and check out the work I did on

gingko Bioworks. You know, in terms of connecting people locally, I agree with you 100%, that the future is local. And again, you're gonna see the World Economic Forum of the UN try to co op that language like they do everything else. But in reality, it is important for us to be connected to our local community and that I mean, whatever that means for you, that could be like, Do you have a family support system? Do you got a couple of close friends?

Do you have an activist group you work with or meet with whatever it may be? But having that support system is going to be really important because as we've just outlined here, there They're clearly coming after the food. You know, when I think about the different myriad of attacks we're facing, there's a few things that come to mind. It's the children. So in my mind, that's like, thinking about getting them out of the state school systems for those who can afford it, or have an

opportunity to do so. Or at the very least, becoming extremely involved in your child's life. So you know, what kind of crap they're trying to put in their head. So the kids the food, of course, the food supply, beat, the ability to grow food privately individually, you know, that's, that's under attack, right? So you got kids the food, and then of course, our health, mental health, physical health. These are areas I think, that are important for

each of us to focus on. And maybe, you know, the idea could be finding people in your local area who have similar concerns and saying, Okay, well, what can we do about protecting the kids? What can we do about ensuring we have, you know, food for the future, or that we know that we have some basic skills, or we've got food stored or whatever things you feel are necessary, and I can't necessarily tell anybody, what's right for them.

But if that's the situation you're in, and someone's hearing this and looking for more people doesn't have much connection to their community or family, I encourage them to visit freedom cells.org, that's freedom ca ELLs, like the cells in your body. The idea being that each group, cell pod, hub, Hive, whatever you want to call it, is individual and powerful and unique on its own building in, you know, Chile, or Mexico, or India, or Africa or whatever.

But then at the same time, that individual cell is kind of part of this larger network that has been forming in the last couple of years, all around the world. And ultimately, you know, for myself, and many of us involved in this, like, we're truly trying to build a parallel economy parallel system, because I don't see any way to stay human. Honestly, by just thinking we can continue going about our lives and just kind of

watching things get crazy. At some point, I think there will be to be made, you know, are you going this way? Are you going that way? Right. So I think that finding people who are thinking in those terms and trying to see like, you know, how can we support each other, protect each other, etc, whatever you can do is going to be vital. So that's one thing that I'm always working on, is we just recently relaunched the website for the

Freedom Sales website. So we've got some new features, making it easier for people to find people, you pretty much just go on there, create a profile, put your details, you don't got to put anything real if people are paranoid about it. But if you want to put you know, hey, what are you interested in learning?

What skills do you have to offer, you can put your not your home address, but just pick a park or something nearby, something close and an add you to our map so that when other people come and they search for their area, they can search, look, show me everybody in 20 miles, and then you might pop up for them, you might get a message from someone saying, Hey, you seem like you have similar goals and interests, do you want to meet up for coffee, or, Hey, we have an activist

group that gets together we have a cell that meets come connect with us. And from there, you know, it's up to you to take it offline and see where it can go. And thankfully, people who are taking this serious are having some success. And we've heard from people who've met individuals through the website, and now they're homeschooling their kids together, they pulled their money out of the bank, they bought land, you know,

different things. So the opportunities are there for people who are really serious about trying to avoid all this insanity coming. So I encourage people to check that out. And the other thing I'll mention is, the Pyramid of Power is just one of my journalistic projects that I've been working on now for almost two years. And it's a 17 part documentary series that, that you're featured in Whitney and a few different episodes.

And James Corbett G, Edward Griffin, Patrick wood, a lot of really intelligent people, Peter Dale, Scott. And my idea with it is was to just try to take on this whole whole, you know, the whole big picture, from education, to media, to medicine, and all these different areas that we could focus on, and try to report on it, and 30 minutes or less for the Netflix vegetable generation

basically. And you know, which is quite a bit of a challenge to these huge topics and condense them down to we've been successful for most of them, keeping it under 30 minutes. And so we bring you the best information, my own original research plus information from other documents or books that have already been put out there.

And then we present solutions at the end of every episode, and then present, you know, for further reading, check out this book, check out this documentary, etc, etc. And we're Yeah, when it's all said and done, we're at, we're at chapter 12. And we'll be coming out hopefully tomorrow. But when it's all said and done next

year, it'll be 17 episodes. And the final as we progress, we're getting like a little deeper, where the remaining episodes are going to be getting into like the the pedo class, the you know, idea of secret societies and roundtable groups and getting deeper into some of the stuff that maybe might be new to some people. So that's that can be found at the Pyramid of Power dotnet. If anybody wants to check that out, all the episodes

are available for free. We've got some of them translated into Spanish, I've just got them all translated into Dutch and somebody's working on German as well right now. So yeah, that's, you know, some some of the things going on. And of course, all my work can always be found at the conscious resistance.com. So I appreciate you having me on Whitney and let me share my projects. Absolutely. Derek, thanks for your great work and thanks for coming back on always, always a

good time. So thanks ever listening as well, hopefully you'll share this. People listening will share this around so we can have, you know, a better understanding among, you know the people that listen to this podcast and others about what this executive order is really about what it means for the future and all of that. So with that being said, thanks everyone for listening and I'll catch you all next time.