Autogenerated Transcript (0:00 - 21:17) Dr. Robert Malone is widely known as the inventor of mRNA vaccines, research that he abandoned years ago when he discovered it couldn't be done without the harms outweighing the benefits. But Dr. Malone is also an expert on politics and the deep state, having worked for the U.S. government for many years. He is also the author of two very important books, his 2022 book Lies My Government Told Me and The Better Future Coming, and Psywar: Enforcing the New World Order, released earlier this month and co-authored with his wife Jill, who holds a doctorate in public policy and has experience in infectious disease and gene therapy research. I invited Dr. Malone to this interview in response to a recent Substack article he wrote on the re-election of globalist Ursula von der Leyen as president of the EU, but the discussion evolved into much more. Here, according to Dr. Malone, is nothing less than the future of the world. (1:13 - 1:18) Dr. Malone, welcome back to the show. Thanks so much for having me on, glad to be here. (1:19 - 13:57) Well, I still haven't read your new book, Psywar, I'm really looking forward to it. I contacted you recently for this interview because you wrote this excellent article on the re-election of Ursula von der Leyen of the EU. I was shocked myself when the EU moved to the right in the last election. I predicted there was no way she was going to get re-elected, but she did. And it's very significant. A lot of people seem to, especially in North America, we get very insular and we just look at what's happening here, and we don't understand how important the whole global picture is. So your ideas on the re-election of von der Leyen, what it means for the EU, what it means for the globalist agenda. Right. So, and a lot of this has been influenced by discussions I've had with people from different regions of Europe that are of the center-right populist movements in Italy, France, and UK, and of course in Germany with the Allianz für Deutschland. What we see here, how I interpret this, and how many seem to be interpreting this from the center-right populist movements, is really a power play by von der Leyen and those that she represents. And that alliance includes, of course, Angela Merkel, who was her mentor, but goes far beyond that. She has family ties that go deep into historical Europe and the aristocracy and the complex of individuals that have some national socialist ties and have long been involved in managing European politics at arm's length in a way that's surreptitious. So she represents entrenched interests, European interests, that are longstanding and has been a chief advocate for the Ukrainian conflict, has been implicated in the, how do I put this gently, unilateral decision-making about large-scale acquisition of the Pfizer mRNA products and the forced distribution and implementation across Europe, the advancement of the vaccine passport agenda, green cards that's referred to often, and the attempts to force non-compliance EU states to implement policies that will mandate vaccine uptake in their populations. I'm very influenced in my understanding of the European Union, and particularly the European Council, by time spent with Christine Anderson, who is a notable opponent, a resister in the European Union representing the Alliance for Deutschland in Germany, which is a political party that's been itself characterized, like all of the center-right parties across the world, characterized as, quote, far-right and often considered to be fascist by corporate media. This is kind of the standard trope. And of course, one that is, again, being trotted out and deployed in the context of Donald Trump and the MAGA movement here in the United States that's about to come to a head. So what Christine educated me on, had no awareness prior to that, was that although the European Parliament is elected, and it has representatives which are elected by European nation-state, neither the European Parliament nor the individual legislatures of each nation-state that comprise the European Union have ultimate authority. That authority to set policy and approve legislation or other initiatives rests entirely with the European Council. The European Council is not elected, it's appointed. So although you have elected representatives in the European Parliament, it's largely a facade. They collect nice salaries, they get drivers, they get fancy offices, they get budgets to spend, and that's about it. They can pontificate and hold meetings and hold testimony or do whatever they want to do, but functionally they have no power because anything they or the legislatures of the member states may decide can be overruled by the appointed European Council. The European Council in turn appoints the president or director, which is the position that Ursula von Leyen holds and held previously. And as you point out, there was a strong effort to hold her accountable for the unilateral decision to acquire large numbers of vaccine doses from Pfizer. There's some question about whether she has a conflict of interest consequent to her husband's involvement in the biopharmaceutical industry. But regardless, she did make this decision based on, largely it appears, back-channel text messaging with Pfizer's marketing team and their CEO, all of which messages were illegally deleted. Apparently, one infers by Ursula herself. And so she has been unable to be held accountable for those purchasing decisions on behalf of European Union and the EU budget. The structure is what I find more interesting. And of course, this was a, to get to your point, this was a power play that was not expected by some, including yourself. And to me, I was also hopeful that with this surge with Marine Le Pen, with Alliance for Deutschland, with Brothers of Italy, with Gerd Wilders, that there was this surge in European Union and the European Parliament elections, which preceded the subsequent elections that turned out to be somewhat disappointing. At the time of, for those of us that are on the center right and aligned with the populist movements. And there was a lot of political shenanigans and dirty tricks associated with that subsequent election. I think that the electoral outcome in the voting for the European Parliament members was unexpected, unanticipated, and really set the stage for the subsequent formal elections that occurred in the various European states that occurred like a month and a half or two months after that. So one would have thought that the surge in representation from center right populist movements across Europe and the rejection of many of the policies advocated by von Leiden during her prior term would have resulted in some awareness that she, let's say, putting as generous as possible, that she represented a subset of the European Union, but that there was a strong momentum that a candidate should be appointed to manage the European Union that represented a broader cross section of the political spectrum that was emerging and realigning in Europe. But no, it was a total power play. And she was appointed to another term. And this pattern of unilateral action and appointments coming out of not only the European Union, but also the UN, WHO, and their corporatist partners, the World Economic Forum, that what's coming out of that network of growing transnational or globalist power is a willingness to act in this kind of a unilateral way and disregard populist movements and their complaints. And so really the online appointment very much aligned with what we saw come down with the World Health Organization and Tedros disregarding parliamentary rules that have been established for modification of the international health regulations and just unilaterally at the last minute jamming those things through. This seems to be a pattern. And that's what I had noted in the essay was that it's my thesis that elaborated in the book, particularly in the last sections where we do talk about the new world order, that the European Union and the dynamics of the European Union are the model for the governance structure that is attempting to be implemented and with good success by United Nations and their allies, the World Economic Forum, and that this structure that is anticipated to be implemented as documented in agenda 2030 and now the pact for the future, that is one in which nation states such as Canada or the United States or Mexico or Brazil or the Eastern European states or whomever will be subsidiary in terms of sovereignty to a global governance structure that will be appointed, which is how the United Nations currently is. And that so just as we have the EU as a Brussels-based organization that has consolidated power now quite explicitly under Von Leyden, she's now appointed basically her minions, her political allies to the seats of the European Council. So remember the food chain here, she got appointed and renewed as the head of the European Union and the head of the, functionally the head of the European Council. And then she's implemented changes in the composition of the European Council that further consolidates her power unilaterally again without any electoral process. So that's the model that is anticipated for this new global government. (13:58 - 15:04) And sitting above this kind of, if you think of Brussels as the metaphor for the new world government structure, sitting above that bureaucratic administrative structure, you have these global public-private partnerships or non-governmental organizations that are setting policy agendas, goals, directives, and advising the kind of bureaucratic administrative cast on how they'll operate. So this is very much how the European Union runs now. And so that's the thesis is that really the structure of the European Union, which was implemented by the United States largely, is the planned structure for this new globalized government that is marching forward under the structure of a series of treaties, international treaties, because that's what the Pact for the Future and Agenda 2030 are, (15:05 - 20:28) that have some legal binding. The scholars arm wrestle about how legally binding those things are, but that's how it's being interpreted is that these are being deployed in a gradualistic fashion with the objective of moving into this EU-like structure. And what you see is the current leadership of these organizations, such as the Director General of the United Nations, who is formerly head of the Socialist International, and before that, head of the Socialist Party in Portugal, and grew up politically under Salazar and then the subsequent revolution against Salazar in Portugal, is generally strongly disliked by Portuguese, considered a failure during his term, but he's failed upwards and now sits at the top of the United Nations structure and is very much committed to advancing socialist ideals and agendas and policies using this kind of unilateral political power play that's very much akin to what we just saw with on Ursula. So there's my version of why this matters to those of us in the rest of the other than just the European Union, is that what we're seeing play out is not only the model for the anticipated global government structure, but that the political dynamics that are being set loose in the European Union in which one faction, the more leftist faction, the more democratic socialist, we could call it, it's very much aligned with the Klaus Schwab version of stakeholder capitalism, which is very much a derivative of the governmental structure and alliance and consensus that exists within modern Germany, which is this structure in which it's very corporatist and the corporations are in partnership with the trade unions. And they are all working together to advance social goals and agendas, such as on acting on the green energy agenda, for example, and advancing the Ukrainian conflict and the geopolitical strategy that is behind that. And in the case of Germany, I think that it's a fascinating case study because it's now becoming clear that the Germans have basically drunk their own Kool-Aid, if you'll forgive the American Jim Jones metaphor. They are poisoning themselves with their own propaganda, the propaganda about green energy, the propaganda about not using petroleum-based or coal-based energy solutions. The propaganda in particular notable is the propaganda and logic of the importance for transition to electric vehicles, which is now decimating one of their primary exports and decimating this amazing world-renowned automobile industry that they have, as evidenced by the layoffs happening in Volkswagen right now. And the irony is that, in my mind, that they have bought into the green energy propaganda, they bought into the EB logic, they have conceded with Nord Stream destruction, so cut off their flow of natural gas from Russia. Now, they are succumbing to the form of predatory capitalism that is practiced by the CCP and communist China. So, the whole democratic socialist let's all sing kumbaya together logic has backfired, and their lunch is being aggressively eaten by a transformed China that has taken the capitalist model and put that veneer on the Central Communist Party diktat, dictatorship, and turned it on the West. And it's just methodically going through and destroying staple Western industries. And that's the kind of thing that I think we can expect under this new governance structure that is proposed through United Nations and their World Economic Forum allies. So, that was long-winded. I hope I've clarified my positions on all this. Actually, it was excellent, Robert, because you probably gave me half a dozen new questions and everything you've just said. You were talking about corporations and their union with the government, and I'm no political analyst, but as I understand it, that's pretty much the definition of fascism. So, I'm a little curious though, because you were talking about Volkswagen and their layoffs and the automobile industry and the electric vehicle market is tanking, people are not buying them. It doesn't matter what the government seem to do to try to incentivize them to do this. And so, it seems to me like if that's what's going on, and I agree with you, that is what's going on. We're seeing this union of governments and corporations, or perhaps it'd be better to say corporations taking over governments. (21:18 - 21:58) They seem to be working against themselves. What's your thoughts on that? So, I assert this is one of the structural problems. Getting aside of the morality of governments deploying propaganda and psychological warfare against their own citizens, it has an intrinsic logic flaw, which is that it locks nation-states and their citizens into a set of current solutions, which creates a situation in which those nation-states and their cultures can't adapt to changing conditions. (22:00 - 22:43) So, they become locked into the present solutions in a changing world that's very dynamic in which what, if anything, we need is very active discussion and dialogue between all of us in order to focus on what are the real problems and how might they be solved. This logic comes out of the theory of the structure of scientific revolutions from Thomas Kuhn, that essentially what we need are paradigm shifts, and you cannot have paradigm shifts if you don't allow outsiders to enter the discussion space, because otherwise what you just get is self-reinforcement of insider solutions. This is essentially groupthink. (22:43 - 24:47) That's the socket between structure of scientific revolutions and victims of groupthink by Irving Janus. What we seem to have going on here now is this logic that we have to empower psychological warfare and propaganda and censorship in order to, quote, preserve democracy, which is intrinsically a farce on its face, but widely reinforced. That's basically neurolinguistic programming, this repeated messaging that it's necessary to have censorship in order to, quote, preserve democracy. Then the likes of you and I can discuss at the fringes what is it that they mean by democracy, which seems to be basically the electorate is allowed to choose between pre-selected candidates that have already been pre-approved by the existing oligarchy and their bureaucrat servants, which we call here in the states the deep state. So that's where we are heading is a world in which we are not allowed to have free and open discussions, which means we cannot have creative solutions. We will not be able to allow third parties to contribute, people like Elon Musk, who are clearly disruptors, not allowing them to participate in problem solving. We will be locked into what the director general of the United Nations calls the best solutions. He's written point blank in his defense of the act for the future. So the director general of the United Nations has written that they have the best solutions, that the pact for the future and agenda 2030 represents the best solutions. (24:47 - 30:08) Those best solutions include the likes of environmental social governance and diversity, equity, inclusion programs that are all built around the logic of stakeholder capitalism. So that's their idea of best solutions. Their best solution matrix is also grounded, predicated in the thesis that if we are seeing true climate alterations, and that's arguable because it seems to very much be a question of where do you compare to? And if you want to set your comparison standard to a prior mini ice age, which is what's been done throughout the world, then it looks like we're climbing in temperature. If you look over a longer range, then it appears that we're actually in a period of relative cooling. But it doesn't matter because once these narratives get locked in and reinforced as they are being done through censorship and all of the tools of psychological warfare, then we are forced into, and the scientific community is forced into a artificial consensus that paradoxically often seems to be one that financially benefits the interests of this strange oligarchy confluence between, and here's my little tiny bone to pick with you about the nature of fascism. Fascism is corporatism, I concur, as defined by Benito Mussolini, but it is classically the fusion between corporatism and socialism from whence fascism emerges. And we explicitly have the confluence of a socialist United Nations and the underpinning socialist logic of stakeholder capitalism with the corporatism that is reflected by this trade union of the thousand largest companies in the world, which is the World Economic Forum. So we absolutely have that. And of course, the whole logic of left and right political spectrum is increasingly obsolete. But for the sake of argument, we'll call it the left or in the States, we might call it the uniparty. And perhaps that exists a little bit there in Canada. It certainly occurs in Great Britain. This conflict of interest is strangely always driven towards solutions that provide economic benefits for a certain caste. And this is the case with the Green New Deal. And if you want to dispute this, I cite as example one, the policies that are referred to as green colonialism or green imperialism, in which the World Bank, here's just a one example case study. In Africa, they have abundant natural gas resources. As a matter of discussion about running natural gas lines from Africa up to Europe as an alternative for Nord Strait. So abundant natural gas resources. And the World Bank has a policy that they will not provide capital, which is to say basically that Africa cannot access capital for energy project development that involves petroleum-based solutions. So they're sitting on large amount of natural gas that they cannot get capital to build the infrastructure to develop and use, and which would raise the standard of living in Africa immensely, because the real problem in Africa is access to energy. Because you're not going to be able to develop your agriculture solutions, for instance, or make the desert bloom as has happened in Israel, if you can't get energy to pump and process water. Maria can't wash her clothes in a commercial, in a laundry, mechanized laundry. She's got to go down and use suboptimal water sources in creeks or carry water, et cetera, et cetera. And so they can never raise themselves up, because even though they're sitting on large amounts of energy, they can't use it. And that seems to support the interests of various global third parties. And what they can do is they can take out a loan if you're one of the African nation-states. You can get a loan for developing green energy and building windmills and solar farms, but you can't get capital for developing your own petroleum-based resources. (30:09 - 35:16) And so who are you going to spend that capital with? Where are you going to get that tech? Well, you got to buy it from the very people that are controlling the allocation of the resources through the World Bank. You got to go to Europe and North America, and in particular, China, in order to purchase these things. And of course, the easy solution is you take the money and you participate in the Chinese industrial development initiatives that are so gladly placed at your doorstep. And all you got to do is consent to allowing access to various natural resources or build out of other facilities that support the agenda of the CCP and the Belt Road Initiative. And that's the way the world is, right? But who wins? People that win as the same old people, the folks that control the money. And frankly, in all of this, my observation in watching, in particular, European politics play out, like Liz Truss's getting trust, or Giorgio Maloney's, the technical term is melonification. Remember, she came in spitting piss and vinegar and firing brimstone, and within a couple of weeks, the cat was belled. And the only thing that she's spoken about since are basically social justice issues and nothing about finance because, like happened with Liz Truss, she was told by the bond market and the large financial interests that she will comply or she will be out. And that's pretty much the way of the world right now. If you want to implement change, people seem to not appreciate that right now, the way things are constructed, the nature of the world right now, as far as I can tell, and the nature, looping it back to what drove the Von Leiden appointment, is the financial interests, the large financial interests in the bond market. They control the world. And we don't have to go down the rabbit hole of citing this particular family or that family and their banking interests and the Bank of International Settlements. I think we can just leave it as clearly the globalized financial interests control elections. They control policy and we just live in their world. Yes. So, all of this ties together, Robert, because you've talked about the political structure and where these people are being appointed. Von der Leiden, of course, I mean, technically she's elected by the parliament, but there's a lot of influence there. So, she becomes a president of the EU. She gets a very influential seat on the council. And yeah, she's appointed. And here in Canada, this is certainly a problem that we understand the great risk to democracy. We have appointed senators, appointed judges, appointed police chiefs, and who do they get appointed by? They get appointed by the people who are in power. So- And the people who are in power have been put into power intentionally, largely by the WEF and the WEF actually brags about it. Right. Exactly. And they come right up. Klaus Schwab came right up and said that about Canada and how he owns half of Trudeau's cabinet. So, we've got that aspect of it where it's kind of an old boys club or girls club, whatever. People get in there and then they bring in more of their people. Then you talked about Africa and accessing the resources. And some people would look at that and say, well, it's just a way to keep Africa poor. But no, that's not what it's about. It's about controlling the resources. So, now they've got this club and they control all the resources and that's power. And as you said, you can't get outside influence because they won't let any outsiders in. Right. And they don't want them in. So, for me, if you talked to me three years ago about this, I would basically try to find some way to distance myself from you because clearly this is all a crazy conspiracy theory. I remember the first time that somebody came to the farm and interviewed me with a film crew, they were talking about the great reset. And I just thought that was crazy talk. They had asserted that they had been to Davos. They were well familiar with these things and this was the nature of the world. And I thought they were frankly batshit crazy. And then I read the book, The Great Reset by Klaus Schwab and his co-writer, ghost writer. And clearly it's not a conspiracy theory and tracked it down that it was first announced by the current King of England. (35:17 - 41:47) So, there you have it. And then the other one that was kind of an eye opener, of course, we've heard again and again and again that there is an agenda to reduce population globally. And that this is all seen as a necessary thing. And there's various global population targets that have been mentioned. And that also sounded just a little too over the top for me until I read the Henry Kissinger report that had been generated. I think it was under Nixon and then verified by the subsequent president and made US policy. But this Kissinger report is still the policy of the United States government and the State Department. And if you read through it, Kissinger report, easy to find if you Google it. It explicitly talks about the need to suppress population growth in these emerging economies, because it's in particular the growth of a young male population, because it's necessary in order to preserve access to various resources, including particularly mineral and petroleum resources. So, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's there in black and white. Anybody can read it. It's American foreign policy. And it absolutely supports a depopulation agenda. And more importantly, a population control agenda that is quite explicit in terms of what would be currently labeled as racism by corporate media. But it's right there in black and white, and it is the policy of what's difficult to construe as anything other than imperial America, imperial United States. And I get all kinds of pushback from certain people in certain sectors these days, because I'm aligned with conservative media, and I'm, quote, repeating conservative talking points. I need to deprogram myself from conservative media, and I need to be more centrist, and I need to extend empathy to the people that are advancing these various agendas. And frankly, I see that as, at best, grossly naive. These agendas are real. They are anti-human in a very real sense. And they are, at best, amoral or anti-moral. They are not aligned with the morality that I was taught. And many of us in the rapidly disappearing middle class were taught as the way to be in the world. This seems to be these self-appointed leaders seem to exist in a very, very different moral structure than the one that the likes of you and I assume should guide human behavior, and which is taught in a variety of religious texts, not the least of which is the Bible. And that feeds into all these other things that used to be conspiracy theories, like this massive problem of child sex trafficking. The involvement of many of these folks in those activities is documented in a variety of different ways. The world of Davos man is a very different reality from what you and I inhabit. And you and I have had very similar experiences when I launched our freedom organization, Strong and Free Canada, in the summer of 2020 to fight for our constitutional rights. It didn't take very long before I attracted a group of volunteers who wanted to help my wife and I with that. And on that group, there was one young lady who kept telling me, oh, it's all a great reset. And for the first six, eight months, I was just going, ah, that's all history. And then sure enough, the more you delve into it, the more you realize, no, this is not a conspiracy theory. This is what is happening. This is all very much planned. I want to get back to something you were talking about earlier, rather we were talking about earlier, and that's fascism. Because you also wrote an article not long ago, because we on the right get accused of being fascist, but you made a very good point that no, fascism is actually a leftist idea. Yes. So it always, to the best of my knowledge, of course, what we're really talking about is totalitarianism and the allied authoritarianism, which it turns out is really what I've been talking about in many ways for years now since I popularized Matthias Desmet's theory about mass formation, or helped popularize it. All credit to Matthias for the scholarship. But we are in a bizarre world that I didn't ever anticipate, and probably from what you just said, you didn't either, that is kind of a strange parallel reality that this phenomenon of emerging utilitarian, the intersection of utilitarianism and Malthusianism, which is the structure of a belief that humankind is exceeding the supporting capacity of the earth, and there's no other option other than to reduce human population. The various texts that came out in the 60s that justified the government policies about propagandizing all of us to have small families, remember that, two or less is best, and now suddenly the governments of the world find themselves, particularly the West and China, in a dilemma because they don't have enough younger people to support their elders. (41:48 - 44:26) All of this was advanced and propagandized under what increasingly is revealed as socialist or communist logic. And James Lindsay, I think, makes an excellent case that what we're encountering on a routine basis now is a kind of a redirection of Marxism away from the economic argument towards more of a social justice argument, which is what underpins the DEI and what we call wokeism, this logic that it's necessary to empower all of those that can make claim to having been disaffected in some way, shape, or form. And now we're running down all these rabbit holes of who's the most disaffected and how much power should they accrue as consequence to their prior suppression and harms that have been generated in suppressing them. So all of this, I talked about that this authoritarianism pattern that we call fascism, this alliance between socialism and corporatism, historically is always coming from the left. But as Matthias points out, with each iteration, it has unique nuances. And so the term techno-totalitarianism applies. The level of thought control and information control was foreshadowed by Orwell and Huxley. But I don't think they could have imagined the pervasiveness of modern digital communication, including corporate communication. And that is what's powering a lot of this and making the modern application of psychology to control populations so incredibly powerful, is these ancillary technologies that are referred to as surveillance capitalism, referred to as psychological bioterrorism, and all of the other surrounding capabilities that are being used against our populations in order to control them. (44:27 - 48:16) One, you probably up there in Kanata haven't been attuned to this recent house report from the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Kathy McMurray Rogers. But this month, just a bombshell damning report came out about a $1 billion federal contract. It was what's called an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity contract issued to Fors Marsh, which is what supported all of the, or certainly a large segment of the domestic US propaganda campaign in favor of the government policies of masking, social distancing, lockdown, and of course the vaccines, and the vaccine mandate. This is all supported by $1 billion in direct funding, plus many other programs and the censorship industrial complex coming through CISA and the activities in the CDC. And in that report, they documented that explicitly in the language of the contract offering from Fors Marsh to the CDC and the government, to HHS, was the explicit logic that they would promote fear of this virus in order to gain acceptance of these policies by the general population. So they laid out as a specific objective, psychological bioterrorism, the deployment of irrational fear of infectious disease, which they acknowledged was a overstated fear. They knew it from the get-go, from the contract start. They knew that they were spinning a false narrative about the lethality of SARS-CoV-2 and using it in order to manipulate population behavior in order to get compliance with these government policies. That's where we're at. Those that are asserting that the likes of myself or yourself or others are too biased and that we are spreading misinformation or disinformation and falsehoods and have fallen into our own false narrative, all they got to do is read this report. It's right there in black and white. All the things we've been saying, the things that we've been saying about the lockdown policies, about the mask policies, about the shutdowns, about the censorship, about your and our travel policy, I mean, I'm still shocked about what happened in Canada with basically not allowing Canadian citizens to use public transportation unless they complied with these various policies that are now shown to be at best ineffective and increasingly maladaptive, creating situations in which people are at greater risk if they comply than if they didn't. It's just the whole thing is stunning, and I guess the hidden gem or the light at the tunnel or whatever metaphor you want to use is that these heavy-handed policies that were implemented during the COVID crisis have allowed many of us to see things that we didn't even imagine existed, were just the literary contrivances of Huxley and Orwell. And I'm again reminded that the two were not aligned with how they saw totalitarianism creeping into Western society. Orwell thought it would be imposed, hence the big brother metaphor, etc. (48:17 - 49:12) Huxley thought we would all just go along with it and gratefully accept it. This is kind of aligned with the, we would seek self-gratification, and in doing so, we would buy directly into these totalitarian control policies of our own free will. And it seems like both of them were right. Yes. Yeah, and you were mentioning the travel ban case here in Canada, which of course, when it was brought to our courts, our captured courts with our appointed judges, the Supreme Court declared the case moot because the travel ban was no longer in play. Right. Yeah, same kind of stuff happened in the States. Yes, and which I've said many times is akin to declaring an assault case moot because the assault is no longer in progress. Well, it is. No, that's not a contrivance. That is the proper metaphor. What happened was assault. Yes. That is the correct metaphor. Assault upon our fundamental constitutional rights. (49:12 - 49:20) And assault upon your being. Assault on your body integrity. Assault on your businesses. (49:21 - 53:34) What this was, so that's the other thing for me that comes out of all this is I've become a fan of Murray Rothbard. And if you read the book, The Anatomy of the State, and I see that blank, that look, so it sounds like- Yes, I'm sorry, I don't know who he is, so you'll have to- Yeah, so Murray Rothbard, let me speak to your broader audience. And also, I gave a lecture at the Mises Institute, which is down in Alabama at Auburn, and is kind of the archive of the Austrian School of Economics and Murray Rothbard, and their thinking. And so that, just to highlight that, if you go to Mises Institute and look at their videos, you'll see my lecture on psychological warfare that is now like one and a half million people, biggest thing they've ever done, but it's been heavily promoted. So it's not that great, it's just- I suspect from your writings, Robert, that it is that great, you're being very humble. Yeah, so in any case, Rothbard wrote some really seminal works that were underappreciated at the time, largely in the 60s and 70s, he's passed away now. And the one that I recommend to your audience is, as the entry level, is Anatomy of the State. Rothbard and the Austrian School of Economics are what Javier Millet used to teach in economics down in Argentina. Javier Millet is an anarcho-capitalist, by his own words, and don't be put off by that term. Murray Rothbard is the one that coined it. And if you know of the history of the turn-of-the-century anarchists that are responsible for the assassinations of European aristocracy, you'll find it a very off-putting term. But here's where I'm going with this. And by the way, your audience, you and your audience, can download Anatomy of the State for free if you go and look up Mises Institute. And they will even send you a paperback copy if you fill out the forms. And another one that's really good, that's penned by him, another brief monograph, I mean, I read Anatomy of the State on a flight back from Europe, and I was done before I was halfway across the pond. It's not a big, long, hard read. These are little, short, concise pieces. The other one is, what have they done with our money? That examines just the nature of fiat currency and the underlying structure and promotes the logic that, for instance, inflation is the tool that is used by the modern nation-state in order to pay for the social welfare programs and wars. So when you hear the logic that taxation is theft, that's Austrian school logic. And one of the things that Rothbard develops in this fascinating little short tome, the Anatomy of the State, is that the role of the judiciary, ready for this? The role of the judiciary in the modern state is not to ensure equity or the rule of law. The role of the judiciary is to support and legitimize the state. Bang, that's it, okay? And you can't go through the last four years with your eyes open and not concede that Murray Rothbard has a point. Ah, Robert. I want to throw a little bit of a piece of information that you probably don't know, and I think most of my viewers don't either. Recently here in Canada, we had a judge who was promoting the idea that judiciary should have the right to write laws. No surprise. Yeah. (53:35 - 55:40) It's, you can't once... So the thing, Rothbard builds his logic tree up from absolute first principles. Kind of man is born naked into the world, and there's only two ways that one can accumulate wealth. One is through one's labors, and the other is through theft. And so everything in the world involving the accumulation of capital, it can be separated into one of those two categories. And of course, taxation under that structure is theft. And the nation state or the state is functionally akin to a warlord. It's just gotten big enough that it legitimizes itself. Yes, we get to elect our dictators. Yeah, right. Well, the state maintains complete control of violence. And under this logic, taking it a step further, taxation is not only theft, it's also violence. And that gets back to what you were saying before. But I strongly recommend, it sounds like you're ready, absolutely ready for Austrian school economics. And my big bitch about that school of thought right now is that it's largely being defended and supported by elders that are still fighting academic arguments from the 20th century. And I think that the Austrian school logic, the challenge and opportunity for the likes of you and I is to take Austrian school economics and apply it to the modern situation. Hence my argument that surveillance capitalism, which is the business model that drives the profits in Silicon Valley, it's built on theft. They are stealing, in my language, part of your soul. They would say they're acquiring your metadata, vacuuming it up as much as possible, and they're restructuring it into what are called behavioral futures and then selling them. (55:41 - 56:27) So to my thinking, they are literally stealing, if you take this into the language of Christian theology, they're literally stealing parts of your soul and reselling them. And that is what's driving their profit. And- And I would say it goes beyond that. They're not just stealing parts of your soul and reselling them. Those vacant bits that they've taken out, they're stuffing back in their own ideologies. Well put. Yeah. So the way I've phrased it, I like that. The way I've phrased it is that that becomes the input that is then used, moved into the AI-generated feedback loop that we all receive, which seeks to control all information, thought, beliefs, and emotions. (56:28 - 56:57) That's the essence of modern cyborg. And those that are being subjected to it, which is to say anybody that interacts on digital media or corporate media, we're all being constantly subjected to psychological warfare technology. Anyone who engages in that surreal battlescape has no way to know what is true and false because everything is being manipulated. (56:57 - 58:56) And furthermore, here's the nefarious part of it. You have no way to know who is truly friend or foe. I don't know whether or not you reflect a controlled opposition agenda, and you don't know whether or not I do. And we have to- We've all been accused of it. Right. Right. And so we both have to approach any transactional relationship with another person, particularly on the political landscape, very cautiously. And with kind of a devil and an angel sitting on each shoulder, talking into our ear that we have to be cautious because this person that you're interacting with may or may not be genuine in what they're saying and how they're presenting themselves. And the consequence of that, if you think it through, is further social division. It further fragments us as a society. We can't build communities because we can't exchange trust. The only way we can really build community and build friendships and associations is by exchanging some sort of token of trust. That's why being in person is so crucial in terms of setting up relationships. But this feeds right into Matthias Desmet's thesis, and that's another one of these key sockets. It's fun when all the things start to come together. You got to be wary that you're not just fooling yourself. But Matthias' thinking is that the preconditions which enable the totalitarianism to creep into our world and enables us to go through this process that he calls mass formation, in which we transform our social angst of not being connected to each other towards some authoritarian leader. That's the essence of it. We're all disconnected. We avidly seek social connections. And so a leader can come in and say, I have the solution to your pain. (58:56 - 1:01:03) Just follow me and follow my prescriptions. You should mask, blah, blah, blah. Tony Fauci is often mentioned in this light. That process is further exacerbated or enabled by this information landscape being so twisted and fragmented and parsed and intrinsically forcing us to not be able to trust. That further accelerates those conditions. And the thing that bothers me the most about all of this is that as I think about it, I'm not sure how much can be ascribed to the nefarious bad actors. And we can name them or we can use euphemisms where you talk about the Bilderbergs or the Atlantic Council or the WEF or whatever cutout we want to use. Gates Foundation, will you just go through the roster of nefarious actors? I'm increasingly worried that what is driving a large part of this is intrinsic issues with the nature of being human, which is why I put out that essay the other day in which I pointed out the propaganda around labeling Trump as fascist and talked about what would this—this was a reference to a ChatGPT a generated statement about what one could do if one was Satan or seeking to destroy the United States. And it came up with a series of statements that are pretty reproducible that in across multiple different AIs, you can ask the same questions and you get basically the same answers that seem to be very aligned with what we all observe around us in the world. (1:01:03 - 1:03:20) And I finished the essay by talking about the seven deadly sins. And I think that part of what's being—what's driving us is the combination of this social fragmentation, the effects that Matias talked about. But I think also part of it is fundamental nature of human soul and our competitiveness with each other, the kind of intrinsic dysfunctionalism that we all observe around us and that you and I am sure have both observed. I certainly have as I've gone through the last four years with—you mentioned the accusations of being controlled opposition. A lot of this revolves around envy and envy and greed and that whole cluster of things, lust for power. Many of these things that are classically identified as the seven deadly sins that have been discussed certainly since Greek times and throughout written history even probably reach back into prehistory awareness of this. I'm afraid that we are something about the emergent phenomena that surrounds us right now where we're increasingly looking to digital media rather than to local community to build our consensus about the nature of the world. I think that this is allowing some of these human—it's allowing the amplification of some of these intrinsic human flaws and that what we're observing and we're ascribing to these nefarious bad guys is—I closed with the quote, the famous quote from Julius Caesar. I think it's Cassius talking to Brutus before the assassination and he says, the fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves. Yes. All right. Robert, earlier you were talking about depopulation and this is something I myself, I have to admit I've been puzzling over because as you said, this is an agenda that's going on for a long time, trying to lower the world population, have people have fewer babies. (1:03:20 - 1:03:27) The mRNA injections are almost certainly going to greatly accelerate that depopulation. We've only seen the tip of the iceberg yet. You're looking that way. (1:03:27 - 1:04:06) Yes. And so what I'm puzzled about though is how does that play into their one world order control agenda? Why do they need to reduce the global population? So the thesis appears to be, as I said, grounded in Malthusianism or the tragedy of the commons, which is called Neo-Malthusianism. This famous book, I think from the early 70s that in many ways triggered together with Silent Spring, the back to nature movement certainly in North America. (1:04:07 - 1:07:14) So the thesis behind Malthusianism and Neo-Malthusianism is that human beings left to their own affairs will overuse available resources and like any other species will expand to the point because we're so dominant, we don't have any natural predators unless you want to consider the micro flora to be our natural predators. We don't have any natural predators. So we will expand as a population to the point where we are limited by available resources. That's fundamental biology. It's like growth of bacteria in a broth. And this has certain kinetics and certain consequences as a bacterial species overgrows its growth broth, you will have a population crash as it accumulates waste products. This is just biology 1A. And so that it's believed that under the Malthusian logic that this applies to humans and that humans will expand their populations to the point where they basically destroy the earth, but they don't at the present have another earth to migrate to. And so it's going to be necessary to artificially constrain human population growth by some means, wars are one, in order to avoid overuse of natural resources. The derivative of that is the logic that underpins transhumanism now, which is that the human species has been a poor shepherd, basically, of global resources historically, and its usefulness has been outlived. And the human species needs to be replaced by something that will be more effective at managing and shepherding global resources. And by the way, also empowering space exploration. And that entity logic new species would be either some human machine fusion or pure machine-based driven by artificial intelligence that in general artificial intelligence or the new super intelligence that is likely to emerge from general artificial intelligence that will have the equivalent of an IQ in the thousands. And that should logically supplant the human species and that humans at best should be preserved as pets. And that's our future. (1:07:14 - 1:08:08) So- That's transhumanism. Yep. That's where all of this is going. And so- So that- The logic seems to be- Because I want your comment on this as part of what you're saying. That transhumanism, from everything we've just discussed, it's very obvious that what this is, is a means of, and you said the Malthusian idea that we'd have to replace human beings with something that will better manage the resources of the planet. And so, as you said, they replace it either with a machine, an AI, or with these people that we've been talking about that have been, had their souls ripped out, programmed to be compliant, to go along with whatever they're told to do. So- Typically with neural implants. Right. Complete with possibly neural implants so that they can all be controlled to, quote, unquote, be better stewards of the planet, but for who? Well, the people who control those AIs are those people. (1:08:09 - 1:09:51) Right. And that gets back to who are the puppet masters. And it would seem that, hard to escape the observation, that there does appear to be a global elite, which doesn't ascribe to the same moral logic that the likes of you and I are. It kind of almost makes us look like we're grossly naive to believe these fairy tales that we've been told about the importance of going along to get along and complying and being a good shepherd and being a good worker, et cetera, et cetera. Well, all that looks like it's, a case can be made that that's all just propaganda and falsehoods in order to support the interests of an oligarchy. And I hope that's not the case, but it gets harder and harder to overlook that. And then overlaid on that, you have these consortia. Flying the ointment for that is it assumes that they will succeed with the one world government agenda and that they can move forward on centralized planned economies and politics, which is where this is all going, right? This is like Maoism and Stalinism on steroids. And we know how that game ends, but they are- Completely global taxation. (1:09:52 - 1:10:52) Yeah, absolutely. And just to illustrate this, the last time I was in Italy, and I've been in Italy too much this last year, I heard people talking, remember I'm speaking mostly, I'm acknowledging, I'm speaking to center-right populists mostly because they're the ones that won't talk to me. And they kept using the term that we feel like we're serfs. I hadn't heard that before, that they are controlled and have very little options in their lives. They have to just go along and do what they're told. And when I've mentioned this to others in media, not naming, they come back with, well, basically the American exceptionalism argument that here in North America and the United States, we're still the freest of the world. (1:10:53 - 1:13:44) And it's much better those people in Italy don't appreciate all the benefits that they have compared to the poor souls that live under the CCP. But it overlooks the lived experience of those people. And it overlooks the fact that what they're talking about is the sense of being controlled actively by United States intelligence and military industrial complex and state department. And so trying to get back on track, the fly in the ointment, I think, is the emergence of the BRICS alliance and the increasing multilateralism. I think that paradoxically may be the thing that makes it not sustainable for this one world government globalist agenda is the rise of this multilateralism. And then what you have in the China is kind of a, like I said, it's predatory capitalism, opportunism, that they perceive the kind of intrinsic weakness politically, lack of political focus and will that is rampant in the West as we bow to the gods of diversity, equity, inclusion, and socialism. And they're very glad to support us to exploit those things. And they do so very effectively for their own agenda in which, remember, if you're a Chinese person in many of those Asian cultures, they truly do believe that they are the superior, they are intrinsically, in many cases, racist, and they believe they are a superior race. And it's right and proper that we should be subjugated. And we seem to just live in this la-la land of you'll own nothing and be happy that we're all going to sit around the pirates in Kumbaya. And that's just not the way human beings behave. And so, that's my frame of reference on all this is, yeah, Malthusianism is a convenient logic like green energy that can be weaponized and used to advance, we could call it nefarious interests or third party interests, interests that are not aligned with the vast majority of the evidence of the globe, the human inhabitants. (1:13:47 - 1:14:19) And George Carlin, I think, said it best, it's a big club and you're not in it. That's kind of the nature of what we're talking about. And the question is, what can we do about I think? Yes. Now, I want to take a bit of a left turn, Robert. Much earlier in the interview, when we were talking about the appointment of von der Leyen and the EU and the one world order and how it's all being applied there and how that relates to the war in Ukraine, I'm going to throw my own theory, and I'd very much like to hear your thoughts on it. I think you're one of the most qualified people to give your thoughts on this. (1:14:20 - 1:14:44) Okay. I believe that the Ukraine war was perhaps not started, but greatly accelerated by the globalists to push Zelensky to where he is right now, requesting membership in NATO, because if he gets it now under the NATO agreement, the other NATO countries are obliged to come to their defense. World War III. (1:14:44 - 1:16:48) That is explicit. And it was on, when I was in Geneva for the protests against the World Health Organization, kind of unilateral actions in the international health regulations, that was on everybody's lips, is there was a widespread expectation of a nuclear conflict this fall, which we're still not out of. And in terms of the geopolitics and American State Department positions and Victoria Newland and the likes of that, by the way, Victoria Newland is being repositioned in American media right now, advancing these various theories about Trump as a fascist or authoritarian, et cetera, which is ironic. But the data points such as the contract issued to BlackRock for rebuilding Ukraine is just right there in your face. The clear disregard of Russian on treaties earlier on by the Biden administration to come to some negotiated agreement that were just rejected out of hand. There's a whole series of these actions. And it's absolutely what's being discussed widely in, like I said, the center-right, which paradoxically is now anti-war, that there is a concerted effort to try to draw Europe into that conflict in terms of staffing it. And of course, aligned with the BRICS, we now apparently have North Korean soldiers coming on board to support the Russian interests. North Korea's staffing them with another 9,000 promised. (1:16:50 - 1:17:00) Yeah. So we're moving there very rapidly. And there are significant assets in Ukraine. (1:17:00 - 1:18:57) It's a bread basket. It's at the doorstep of Russia. Vladimir Putin is not good with the World Economic Forum agendas and that broader globalist agenda. He seems to want to track his own route. And the BRICS nations now, I think, far and away have the largest gold reserves, followed up by India, which is rapidly accumulating silver reserves. And I read an interesting piece the other day on this British online publication called UnHerd that I recommend also, speculating that the BRICS will inherit the world, I think was the title, provocative title. But it underscores the point that we're busy playing games, political games and military games here in the West. And those that we're identifying as our opponents have learned from how we behave and how our strategies are. And they are aligning themselves in ways that a case can be made. They may prevail over the long term, if not the short term. And we just seem as a NATO alliance to be locked into old thinking and old strategies and old geopolitical logic. But in terms of your thesis, in my interactions with European center right folks, such as Christina Anderson, that thesis is accepted as truth. (1:18:59 - 1:19:23) Yes. And I'd also like to add to the statistics you put out earlier, if Saudi Arabia gains membership in the BRICS nations, which it likely will at that time, BRICS will control more oil than OPEC. And that I think is what's going on with the war in Israel is attempting to remove them from the map so that the BRICS nations will have control of the Middle East. (1:19:26 - 1:21:43) Yeah, that is absolutely one of the theories of the case. And I think thinking, and Bobby Kennedy laid this all out, frankly, in his original Boston kickoff speech. But that didn't get much traction and the press, of course, suppressed it and nobody paid attention. They all paid attention to him being an anti-vaxxer. And now, fascinatingly, now the Make America Healthy Again movement is really starting to cut across the political spectrum and kind of destroy traditional political boundaries because we all want to have clean food. But these broader geopolitical issues are not part of the American discussion, the US discussion as in the run-up to the elections. There's just almost a total blackout on Ukraine, the war, geopolitical strategy, the rise of BRICS, the economic consequences. Fascinating J.D. Vance put out a tweet, so the Vice President Kennedy, who, by the way, is brilliant, put out a tweet in which he very, in kind of a squishy way, endorsed Rand Paul's position on the Federal Reserve in the United States, that he's coming around to the theory or belief, I forget what the word he used, that Rand Paul has been advancing concerning the Fed. That's suggesting, if this election goes as it's increasingly looking like it will go, and do I base that on polls? No, I base it on the fact that all the tech giants are busy sucking up to Donald Trump right now. And Jeff Bezos just this morning put out this op-ed in which he said that the Washington Post from now and forevermore, as far as he's concerned, will not be endorsing political candidates. The signs are that Trump is going to win. As Bannon was saying this morning, then all hell is going to cut loose because the deep state cannot tolerate that. (1:21:44 - 1:23:18) And there's going to be all kinds of post-election efforts to delegitimize the vote and the election, despite all their prior propaganda. And here in the States, I'm anticipating that this isn't going to be resolved until Christmastime, if then. It's going to be ugly. But if Trump gets in, the pressure, psychological warfare, the propaganda, whatever you want to call it, that's been deployed against him, seems to have driven him into a place where he's less and less likely to just go along with the status quo. And where he's talking the talk of letting Bobby loose on HHS, Elon Musk is on fire right now and talking about streamlining the government initiatives. We have just a growing groundswell of new thinkers that, under the banner of Trump and MEGA, that are truly imagining a new America, a new United States, and a new United States consensus about the nature of the world. And built within that is a rejection of the warmongering. Another one of the weird paradoxes is the Democrat Party has become the party of the military industrial complex. And we have Dick and Liz Cheney endorsing Kamala Harris. (1:23:18 - 1:24:25) And if that isn't a bizarre turn of events, I don't know what is. But I have a little spark of optimism in my heart right now that it might just happen that we move back to a period where America, United States, North America, moves from this apologist position that it's taken as it relates to, it seems like, everything, to an energized, muscular, future-looking frame of reference in which we are committed to taking on the challenges of the world from the frame of reference of pre-market principles and innovation-based solutions, rather than kind of centralized, command-economy-based solutions. So that's a forward-looking statement. (1:24:25 - 1:24:52) I haven't talked about it in any of the sub-stacks or anything, but I feel in my soul that the ground is shifting. Yes, and I agree with you. Now, I want to get back to the election in just a minute. But first, I want to ask this. So many people know you as the inventor of mRNA technology, which is true. Or they reject that narrative, and they say, I was a member of a team, and I'm inconsequential. (1:24:53 - 1:26:01) Well, whichever it is, the point is, those who have read your books, read your sub-stack, watched your interviews, know that you have many, many years of experience with the US deep state, that you understand what's going on behind the scenes in a way that many people do not. And so I want to ask this. If it occurs that Ukraine gets NATO membership, and it sparks World War III, how do you see that falling out? Ah, so then that's going to trigger the kind of BRICS consortium. It's going to absolutely play into the interests of China. And the problem is that the United States is invested in these carrier battle groups and these very large hardware-centric solutions that are increasingly obsolete in the face of drone warfare. And remember that most people aren't attuned to this, but I'm told that by people that work in drone warfare, that in Ukraine, they're now deploying autonomous battle drones that are powered by artificial intelligence. (1:26:01 - 1:26:44) The reason they're doing this, that means that there's no human being in the kiln. And the reason they're doing that is because it's easy to disrupt communications with drones. And so the strategy that was used throughout the Middle Eastern conflicts where drone warfare was piloted and pioneered, where you have some young kid that grew up in a World of Warcraft controlling a drone from North Dakota to shoot a missile at some poor soul in Afghanistan, that's no longer viable because those up and down links can be readily disrupted. (1:26:44 - 1:28:55) So we have to have, under this logic, we have to design battle drones that are autonomous. And so that apparently technology is part of what's being pioneered because this is what the United States government does in their military strategy, is they will engage in regional conflicts in order to kind of pioneer and develop new technology. So rotary wing aircraft warfare was part of the logic for the Vietnam conflict. That's part of why it was done, was to develop helicopter warfare. So likewise with drone warfare in the Ukraine. We will move towards a limited thermonuclear exchanges, autonomous battle drones, which by the way, just drilling on that thread, the logical extension of the development of modern battle drone, Skynet, if you want to use a film metaphor, technology is among other things, that these oligarchs that we've been talking about, these people that have massive amounts of wealth are likely to drive a more warlord, balkanized or Italians city state kind of world in which we're not talking about BRICS versus the West, but we're talking about a relatively autonomous warlord power centers. And all that's going to be necessary to establish yourself as the regional warlord in this kind of medieval landscape is to have enough resources and capabilities to acquire manufacturing facilities that can produce these battle drones. So you're no longer using the Italian city state metaphor, you're not going to need to hire mercenary armies, you're just going to manufacture. And that'll be the nature of conflict. (1:28:55 - 1:32:21) So what will happen as they trigger this, and it will be triggered, I'm convinced, whether it's Ukraine and proximal or it's 10 years down the road or five years down the road, and it's some other surrogate conflict, this is going to happen in my opinion. And unless somehow the human species just gets transformed because the aliens came in, whatever the thing was, enemy of my enemy. But barring that, I see this as kind of inevitable. And the Russian military capabilities and Chinese capabilities are a fraction of the United States, but are they the right capabilities? In order to invade Fortress of America, you got to come through the northern border and the southern border. You can't come from the east or west borders because the miles are too great and you'd have to have massive battle groups that don't exist. Or you would have to have some sort of space base or ballistic capability in order to do it. And in so doing, you would decimate the existing infrastructure. So I think North America remains relatively autonomous, but Europe, just like the Second World War, Europe and Africa are going to be the battleground and Asia. And God bless India and Pakistan and that whole Indian subcontinent because they're likely to become part of the battleground too, just like they did in the Second World War. And the thing about Russia, as I understand it, is that while their military industrial complex is a fraction of the United States, they produce an adequate quality product at a much lower price point. So if armed conflict is basically a function of economics, the ability to get access to capital or have accumulated capital, I think a strong case can be made that that's the case. Going back to certainly, again, medieval Italy and Britain and the British-French conflicts, et cetera, et cetera, this is all a history of who's got the most money to buy whatever the goodies are that they're going to deploy on their enemy. And meanwhile, the banks and financial interests are busy making book as this is happening. That's the history of the world. So if that's the case and how that play out in the future, having a manufacturing capability that produces an adequate quality product at a much lower price point means that you don't have to have the same level of economic resources in order to prevail and it becomes more sustainable. (1:32:21 - 1:33:26) So then the threat of Iran rises. And so how's it going to play out? Ugly. And those of us in North America are at risk mostly from the high ground of space-based, like these titanium shafts, I forget what they call them, that can be launched. And when they hit the ground, it can be launched- Connected energy reference. Pardon? Yeah, connected energy ones, but they have a specific program name for them that has some religious over time. I'm blaming on it right now, but apparently they are just incredibly effective. You use gravity to generate the energy and they go supersonic. And by the time they hit the ground, they have enormous destructive potential. So that kind of thing- The destructive power of a nuclear weapon without the radiation. (1:33:27 - 1:34:53) Right. And bunkers aren't going to protect you from that. So all these dark visions that we've seen play out in our science fiction media look prescient. And that's a future that I don't want my children to live in or my grandchildren. Yes. Now there's no question that warfare is changing. Every day we hear about six soldiers, 10 soldiers were killed in Ukraine, Russia, Israel, Lebanon, whatever. Certainly there's been civilian casualties, especially in Lebanon. And any decent human being is greatly saddened by that. But if we look at it historically, the death count in these two wars is minuscule compared to World War I, World War II. So what we're seeing is this, as you said, we're advancing towards this technological warfare, drones and all of that. And we're seeing lowered human casualties. So do you think we're going to get to a point in the future where warfare is essentially gets to a point where, well, all of our drones have destroyed all of your drones. We now control your airspace. So surrender or we wipe you out? As an intermediate step, remember that you talked about the nature of warfare is changing. (1:34:53 - 1:37:26) This gets into fifth generation warfare or cyborg and looping back from that to where the power of information and the ability to control minds is the ultimate. And that tech is getting quite advanced too. So much cheaper than kinetic warfare. And remember, this is a basic principle of NATO now. NATO's hybrid battle plan is very much invested in psychological warfare and fifth generation warfare because it's so much cheaper, so much more effective, so much less blowback to institute regime change instead of through kinetic warfare, which is what we're talking about, right? Lauswitz definition of war being an extension of diplomacy. Psychological warfare is so much less expensive, so much less disruptive, so much more effective that there is no future in which we don't see that technology further developed and deployed, in my opinion. We all basically say, hell no, we're not going to comply with this. And somehow we all become resistant to it. But again, people don't realize the color revolutions, particularly in the Middle East, were all managed by US government using social media. Social media is weapons. They are weapons of war. And the war that's being waged is the war for control of minds and thoughts. And when you can win that war, then you can have your way with a people, a region, resources, whatever else. And the drone issue becomes almost moot. The power of the United States military in fourth generation warfare has been repeatedly defeated by the Viet Cong, the Afghanis, Al-Qaeda, all of the movements in Syria. We're just getting beaten like a drum. And all of our tech isn't solving the problem, which is why they're going to CyWar. But that's going to be a hard arms race to win. (1:37:27 - 1:38:29) And of course, CyWar is vastly more profitable because you get control of your enemies' resources and land without having to rebuild everything. Right. Perfect. You don't have to decimate the... So right now what's happening, a strong case can be made that what's happening is they're depopulating Ukraine, certainly at males. And then they're going to, as part of the Black Rock plan, they're going to be bringing people in from other regions and nation states to repopulate and repatriate the Ukraine. And part of that, apparently, this is another one of these odd idiosyncrasies of AI is going on in Ukraine is apparently they're starting to implement AI for routine governmental process management. So the bureaucracy is going AI. And one of the paradoxes that I never anticipated was that AI is actually a lot less corrupt than a Ukrainian bureaucrat. And so the system is actually working better under the AI world, but it's a Ukraine that's been depopulated at males. (1:38:32 - 1:40:25) And I guess that has an advantage if you're seeking to exploit those resources. Yeah. It is hard not to get dark about where we're heading into. And I hate finishing podcasts on a dark note. So what I always resort to is reminding people that the predicate that is enabling all of this to creep into our lives is social fragmentation. And if you deconstruct it down to that, then the potential solution becomes self-evident, which is to recommit yourself to family, community, morals, et cetera, because that's what got us into this trouble in the first place. And a case can be made that that's intentional. Yes. Yeah. And I've said this myself, excuse me, many times, because I think it carries more weight coming from myself because I'm an atheist. And I have said many times, we got into this mess because we forgot our Judeo-Christian values. So amen to that. Or we de-legitimize them more than forgot them. We actively rejected them. Yes. And that's very perceptive. You're absolutely right. We did. Now, I know you don't like to finish on a dark note, but I need to take a left turn because I have you here and this has nothing to do with anything else that we have discussed. Recently, I did an in-depth interview on the replicon vaccines with Drs. Macus, Reidel, and Carroll. You're the creator of mRNA. What are your concerns about these replicon vaccines, Robert? Okay. So just, and remember that most of those guys were with me in Japan. (1:40:26 - 1:43:53) Yes. We did the, I think it was the sixth international crisis summit meeting, which is a Canadian initiative. Yay. So recognize it for what it is and good work. All of those names I deeply respect, particularly Breidel and Troese, who have just been subjected to withering fire in terms of psychological work. Yes. And continue to be subjected to withering fire. I was just seeing current chat from within the Shots Heard Around the World program that was again targeting Byron. This is the CDC-funded gang stalking program that he's been subjected to, and so have all of us. RNA, self-replicating RNA. Here's the points that I made, and this is hot in Japan because it's been approved and for COVID vaccines. It's a partnership between a Japanese firm and Commonwealth Serum Laboratories that also goes by the name Sequirus, which is Australian manufacturer of flu vaccines, among other things. And a group down in La Jolla that actually is a derivative, an extension of the old company that I helped create called VyCal, and this is Arturas. And that was founded by Magda Markwatt, who used to be a key player at VyCal and got disillusioned and decided to go on her own way. Used to do mostly diagnostics, but has really invested in this. And just to recap, I've been familiar with this tech virtually since about 91, when I was invited to visit Karolinska and discuss my work with RNA delivery with a guy that's now a full professor there, and then who sent his graduate student to be my first postdoc. And he has been one of the pioneers of the use of modified recombinant alpha viruses, particularly equine encephalitis virus-derived viruses, for gene delivery and vaccine purposes. So the way that tech works is that these viruses, these encephalitis viruses, alpha viruses, is that they don't actually, they carry their own polymerase sequences and the genetic information necessary to replicate in the cytoplasm autonomously. They're RNA-positive-stranded RNA viruses, so they don't have a DNA part of their life cycle like, for instance, a retrovirus does. And they don't need to get to the nucleus in order to do their business like a traditional DNA-based gene delivery system does. So they're able to autonomously replicate in the cytoplasm once they gain entry. (1:43:54 - 1:44:23) And they carry, they're a virus group that is almost kind of on the verge of, well, viruses in general, are they living or not living? Well, it all depends on how you look at it. But they are able to strip down to a bare minimum because they use a lot of the functionality that exists in the cytoplasm of ourselves. In order to do their business and the replication, they basically just hijack it to make more copies of themselves. (1:44:24 - 1:45:33) And they have intrinsic within that toolkit that they carry things that suppress the natural immune response and things like interference that normally would resist virus attack. Okay, so alpha viruses and equine encephalitis viruses. These viruses are known to cause encephalitis. Okay, so this intense inflammation of the brain because they often infect through the cribriform plate, the penetrating neurons that project from your brain down to the sense organ of your nose and your olfactory bulb. So we have these little holes basically at the base of our brain right in here that have neurons going through it. And so if you're Mr. Virus, Mr. Encephalitis Virus, you want to be picked up by those sensory neurons and olfactory system and transported up where you find nirvana, the central nervous system. (1:45:33 - 1:47:00) And in general, there's a socket between this technology of using this for recombinant gene delivery, genetic engineering, and biowarfare. What's the socket? There's a hole in the biowarfare treaty, a huge hole, you can drive a Mack truck through it, just use the metaphor, in that the very soft and squishy preventions that it does lay down are for agents which cause death. Agents which are disabling are not prohibited. So biowarfare agents that create a headache that's so wicked that you're never going to pick up a gun and do anything are perfectly legal under the biowarfare treaty. And so you can weaponize those and deploy them, which is why the US military and intelligence community and the Soviets are so focused on these, or the former Soviets were so focused on these agents and also on building vaccines for them. Because everybody knew that the other guys were doing it. Do you ever read Mad Magazine and Spy Versus Spy? Yeah. So Spy Versus Spy is the world we live in. And they all know what the other guy's doing, and they're basically doing the same thing to him and just hoping they can do it first. (1:47:01 - 1:47:58) So that's the case with these encephalitis viruses. And that relates to some of the stuff that was going on in the Ukraine biolabs, where they were basically gathering new pathogens in Ukraine that nobody had any immune response to that they could then weaponize. That's part of that whole agenda. But in the case of this tech, a lot of effort has been invested in developing the understanding, the molecular virology genetics for these twin applications. So this is another case of dual-use technology, the applications being gene delivery and biowarfare. And so, just as an aside, it turns out that the United States actually spent more on developing biowarfare capabilities than they spent on thermonuclear. (1:48:00 - 1:58:20) They came up, and a case is made by some in the community, that the thing that really shut down the Russians with Reagan's tear down this wall wasn't so much Star Wars, but it was the fact that we came up with a binary munition, in other words, two components, I'm not going to say what they were, that are readily manufactured and were tested actually in Alaska and validated. They could be administered from a flying vehicle in the East Asia being drawn, and were incredibly lethal. The problem with the neutron bomb and that kind of stuff is you could deploy it against the Soviet tank commanders in the metaphorical battle plan. You deploy it against the tank commanders, and it wouldn't kill them, they'd still be alive for long enough to make it to the English Channel. So that's not very useful. But these binary weapons would kill them dead in their tracks, fast. And so, that kind of neutralized the Soviet tank, sort of Damocles, and set off that cascade, at least that's one theory of the case. And that modern infrastructure throughout the West of molecular biology and virology and cell biology would never have existed. It is the product of massive federal investments in biowarfare. All of the heads of the American Society for Microbiology for years and years and years, were key linchpin players in the biowarfare complex. Which means that those threads extend out through academia all over North America, just to kind of put a pin on that. So the encephalitis virus tech has been distilled down to the point where you can make a... And another key point, naked RNA is infectious. That's what got me going on this whole thing in the first place, was the observation that you can take and purify poliovirus articles, extract the RNA, put that RNA onto cultured cells, and you will recreate poliovirus. You don't need any delivery system. It doesn't have to be very effective. This is the key for these self-replicating replicants. You don't have to have a very efficient delivery system because once it's inside the cell, it'll do its thing. It'll amplify itself. And in the case of a virus, of course, it amplifies itself, releases an infectious article that infects other cells, and you get kind of like a nuclear reaction, a chain reaction. And that's how viruses grow and spread. So in the case of these encephalitis virus replicants, it's been learned to reduce the system down to a very small number of open reading frames and moving parts and what we call cis-acting elements, the things that have to be present in the RNA in order for the polymerase to recognize it and make new copies of it. And that allows you to stuff your gene of interest, the payload, into the modified particle that has greatly reduced its genomic requirements because it's not doing all the other stuff that the virus normally needs to do, like make the proteins that are necessary to encapsulate the variant itself and infect other cells. So that's the nature of the tech. And the reason why I gave you the explanation about the infectious RNA is because it's increasingly clear that exosomes do exist, and they probably do transfer RNA, and they probably can transfer some limited amount of the mRNA that's present in a cell. And of course, if you have a virus replicant, a large fraction of the RNA in any transfected cell, that's the technical term for putting the RNA into a foreign cell, is rather than infection, it's transfection. Those cells may well be shedding exosomes, and those exosomes may well be respired or shed in sweat or breast milk or body fluids, sexual fluids, name it. And of course, no studies have been done on shedding with these agents. So what you have had approved is based on a modest to mid-size set of clinical trials in Vietnam and other places that have been short-term that have had some paradoxical results like the adverse events were higher in the control group than in the experimental group. That doesn't make any sense at all. That smells of manipulation. And on the basis of that, the Japanese regulatory authority has conceded to this consortium of three to go ahead and approve this, and it's now been deployed in Japan. The good news is that the protests that we participated and others have done, there's a nursing association that's come out strongly against it in Japan. The various protests in Japan have resulted in very, very poor uptake of this new technology in the elders in Japan, which is, of course, a key demographic in Japanese culture. So they've done this, they've deployed this, they've jammed it through the regulatory authority without doing the shedding studies, without doing the reproductive toxicity studies, without the usual kind of stuff that we saw with the mRNA products. And the Japanese descending population basically makes the case that what is going on, they use the metaphor of a third nuclear bomb being deployed by the against Japan. I thought it was an overstatement. It kind of disrespects in some way the experience of those that actually had to deal with two atomic bombs. But that's the metaphor they're using, and it has resulted in a widespread unwillingness to comply. But also the interesting nuance, I guess that's kind of a clinical way to put it, that the CEO of the Japanese partner company put out a press release in which he threatened those that were spreading, quote, misinformation about shedding risks and the overall risk of the product, threatened them with a jailing and legal action. So this seems to be a trend. There's also the Covaxin story, which is a protein based COVID vaccine in India, in which there was an academic peer review paper came out that documented the adverse events associated with Covaxin. And the company sued the journal and the authors, academic authors, and the journal immediately pulled the paper. So we seem to have a trend forming that the pharmaceutical industry is going to start using lawfare to shut down dissenting opinions. And so what are the risks here? One of the problems with these alpha vectors historically throughout their whole developmental cycle, which is now like 30 years, is back to basics, they are associated with encephalitis. And these are being delivered as lipid nanoparticles, which we know get into the brain, get across the blood brain barrier, and then are replicating. So it's quite likely that, in my opinion, that there will be some amount of neuroinflammation. How much, you know, this would be fodder for longer term clinical studies that should have been done. And neuroinflammation is associated with astrocyte and other inflammatory cell proliferation in the brain, and with eventual development of neurofibrillary tangles that are associated with Alzheimer's. So this is a situation where something is being deployed into a susceptible population, the elderly, that is reasonably likely to be associated with neuroinflammation, that has all of the intrinsic issues of lipid nanoparticle deployment, although at a lower dose. One of the paradoxes is that you're using a fraction of the dose of what you're using with Pfizer, and yet, with the more traditional mRNA product, and yet, because it's self-amplifying, right, so you don't have to get as much in, and then it just makes more of itself once it's in there, in addition to making more of the protein. But compared to Pfizer, a fraction of the dose, and yet still the same approximate level of adverse events. That's a red flag. So shedding, reproductive health, neurotoxicity, and the general phenomena that you are deploying something that is hijacking people's cells, and which will go all over the body, will infect a broad range of cell types, what would be likely to be less frequent in terms of adverse events would be the potential risks of DNA contamination, because the dose is so much smaller, and the risks associated intrinsically with the lipid nanoparticles with the click acid in, because once again, the dose is so much less. But then that seems to be counterbalanced by the risks of having these self-replicating particles. (1:58:21 - 1:59:08) So there, that's probably more than you were looking for, but that's how I see the tech, and acknowledging that my first postdoc is still working in this area, diligently, out of how to make the self-replicating RNAs work, as is my old colleague at the Karolinska. The Karolinska is associated with multiple manufacturing plants and R&D plants that may have something to do with the Nobel Prize decision, but they're very much invested as an institution in self-replicating RNA, and I imagine they're probably booking revenue from patents. So there's a lot, and the pharmaceutical industry loves this. (1:59:09 - 2:00:09) They see this platform as another happy hunting ground, because largely, it's a wide-open landscape for derivative tech, reduction of practice. So this sequence, and that sequence, and this indication, and that indication is all unexplored territory, so it's the wild west, and so we have hundreds of clinical trials ongoing right now. Yes. As a follow-up question, one of the good things that came out of the first-generation mRNA vaccines is that the harms were so obvious and egregious that vaccine uptake is way down. But these replicon vaccines, these self-replicating second-generation vaccines appear to be designed to spread from the vaccinated to the unvaccinated. Dr. Bridle made a comment in the interview that it might not take, and obviously, this is guesswork, we don't know for sure, might not take more than two or three molecules of this stuff to get inside your body before that replication is going to take place, and now your whole system's infected with it. (2:00:10 - 2:04:37) So if all of that is true, and if it's not, correct me, but if all of that is true, what percentage of the population would you guess would need to be injected with it before we're all at risk? So the only way to answer that question is to do the science, and I've avoided, the way I always phrase these things is, you know, until we have documentation, is that that is a theoretical risk, that is a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is grounded largely in the exosome theory for spread, because exosomes are absolutely used to shuttle information and molecules between cells and apparently between autonomous biologic entities, in other words, you and me. So how efficient is that? Unknown, because that's the only way to answer your question, and why is it unknown? Well, let's go to the regulatory guidance. The regulatory guidance all says throughout the West that for gene therapies, you have to do shedding studies, and for early-stage gene therapy testing, there has to be basically BSL-3 isolation of people that are receiving the product until the risk of shedding and transmission to third parties has been adequately evaluated, and all of that has just been thrown straight into the trash can during operational warp speed and the subsequent suspension of norms, because, and this is part of why the likes of Byram and I, when we said this is gene therapy, were attacked so vigorously, is because, in fact, if this is gene therapy technology, then they violated their own statutes and policies, which they have. So the only way to answer your question is for somebody who's doing science. The science involves shedding. Science is readily done. There are many animal models that would be appropriate. For instance, a ferris model is internationally accepted as the way to test shedding of influenza virus in infectivity. So there's many different models that could be used. We don't have to do this in human beings, but we should absolutely do it, and there's been just a firewall of resistance on the part of regulatory authorities across the world, particularly the West, that this will not be done. It's not necessary. And so I can't answer your question, and it may be that, you know, if this does happen, it's likely to, the efficiency of interpersonal transmission is likely to have a curve that looks something like this and then comes back down again. So delay period, a delta T between administration and when you start to see an uptick in the frequency, because that would reflect the mRNAs, replicating mRNAs, getting to their target, initiating the replication cycle, and then starting to expand that shedding process. And then at some point in time, you know, when people that are immunocompetent, those cells that have received the product and are replicating the RNA and presumably producing a protein, would be attacked by largely the cellular immune system. And so they should be cleared with some kinetics. So it should be eminently possible to do that, to figure all that out, to figure out if you must use this, what the quarantine time has to be. All of that science is doable, and actually not that expensive in the grand scheme of things. Doing paired studies is going to be a fraction of doing a phase three clinical trial, and let alone the potential economic impact of an inadvertent failure and a catastrophe. (2:04:38 - 2:06:34) Right. So that's all I can say about that is a theoretical risk. I wouldn't overstate it. I wouldn't understate it. The only way to know is to do the science, get the data, and then act with abundance of caution, because that's the way grown-ups act. That's the way that the system was designed, is to be modest and humble and recognize that no matter what individuals may think, grown-ups are aware that we don't know everything and we can't predict everything. So the answer to my question of how many people would have to be injected before it could potentially spread to everyone is, it depends upon data we don't have, and therefore it could be anything from it won't spread to you only need one person. That was the fear in Japan, and that once they deployed this, it would spread throughout the Japanese population. So we're seeing some sort of a real-world test, but then the question is, are they actively listening for that signal? Have systems been set up to detect it, or could it just occur in a surreptitious way and it wouldn't be detected or reported? I suspect that that's the case, that they have not set up public health surveillance to detect it if it did exist, because it's a catechism. Can't exist, therefore, why waste the money to look for that which can exist? Yes. Now, you've been extremely generous with your time, Robert. Thank you. I have one last question, and you said you like to finish on a positive note. So do I. So hopefully, this is going to be a positive note. The US election is gathering an awful lot of attention. (2:06:34 - 2:07:34) Even here in Canada, I'm aware of people who are holding parties on November the 5th. In fact, my wife and I are hosting one, so we can all get together and watch the election. And it is extremely important, and the globalists know this. Yuval Harari, who was Klaus Schwab's attack psychopath at the WF meeting last January, said, if Trump wins, it will mean the end of our plans. You believe he's going to win? I believe he's going to win. So everything we've talked about, all this nightmare scenario we've talked about today, is predicated upon the idea that the globalists win, and they're not necessarily going to. So Trump wins on Tuesday, November 5th. How do you see that changing things for the better? Well, to reference a term, it depends on whether he wins bigly. My crystal ball says there will not be resolution on January 5th. (2:07:36 - 2:09:40) That's a pretty safe position to take. Wisconsin has already said that, as I recall, they're not going to get the vote on election day. So this will draw out. Steve Bannon's big point, and he came out of jail. They let him out in the dark of night, but he was back up in DC because Marine sister picked him up, and I guess they flew up to DC. And he was on a 10. I listened a little bit of that when I was putting on my sub stack about him. And he's on fire and saying that, and I agree with him, talking about the nitty gritties of who and how is going to be deployed to delegitimize it if Trump does prevail bigly, and what that lawfare strategy is going to be. And so don't expect this to be resolved on November 5th. I'll be at a Palm Beach rally, a Make America Healthy Again rally, and broadcasting through various channels that put up on text, including calling in to Italy and Rome for another watch party, much like you're talking about. Don't get ahead of your skis, even if he has declared the winner, and the deep state is unable to sideline that in some way. The infrastructure momentum that he's up against is enormous, and I would anticipate that what we'll see is progress and disruption in some areas. (2:09:41 - 2:11:25) Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon, here's the paradox, the neurosurgeon who was placed during the prior administration in charge of housing and urban development, who would have thought that? But that's what was done. He basically set up a team and a process that methodically went through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, and the United States government, and just whacked a ton of regulations. When people talk about how many deregulation happened under the prior Trump administration, much if not almost all of that can be ascribed to Ben Carson's campaign through HUD. That kind of a strategy will have variable success in different departments. I think what we're going to see is piecemeal advancement of a revised logic about US government. The president and executive branch has almost complete control, and whether or not that succeeds is going to be very much a function of what happens in the House and the Senate. So those are elections that you should watch for. If the House goes Democrat, we're just going to be angled up in a mess for four years, or at least two. Likewise, Senate. Senate's looking good. House, I don't know. But the executive branch has almost complete authority over foreign policy. (2:11:27 - 2:11:52) So if he gets in and the deep state doesn't take him out by hook or crook, a strong case can be made they cannot allow him to become president functionally. So hold on to your suspenders. His intention is to shut down both wars right now. (2:11:53 - 2:12:09) Yes. So that would be huge. And he would also realign- It could potentially avoid World War III. Yeah. And he will realign, at least postpone it, let's say. Sure. (2:12:10 - 2:12:24) And he will realign energy policy. And hopefully he'll be able to whack the censorship industrial complex a bit and Homeland Security. That whole mess really needs some work. (2:12:26 - 2:13:36) He's talking the talk that he's going to let Bobby loose on HHS. The problem with all that and the theoretical possibility of Bobby being something like Secretary of Health and Human Services, a cabinet level position, is that Bobby's got to get through the Senate approval process. And that is going to be a tough challenge. There's a lot of buzz in various transition teams and people have talked to me and they talk to other people and they float this idea or that idea or whatever. But the truth is, DC is a wicked, wicked place. And all kinds of knives are going to come out for the poor souls. They're going to be picked for those plum jobs that have to be confirmed by the Senate. And I'm not saying when I'm choosing words that Bobby is going to make it through that meat grinder. And then if he doesn't, who? So if he does want that position, God bless him, because as I said to Dale Binkley the other day, he will age rapidly. (2:13:37 - 2:14:32) That is just a really tough job. But there does seem to be momentum that is across party lines, significant momentum in favor of make America healthy again. So that means that we may well see reform in US Department of Agriculture. We will absolutely see change in terms of immigration policy, deportations, border security, and tariffs. But are we going to see wholesale transformation in the United States government and NATO? Are we going to see unilateral withdrawal from the World Health Organization and the United Nations? I'm not holding my breath. J.D. Vance, who will become the heir of the MAGA movement, is not to be tribaled with. (2:14:33 - 2:18:43) That is a force intellectually and organizationally. And he is another one of this small number of politicians that are just able to take on corporate media and chew him up and spit him out. So are we going to see transformation in the tech sector, particularly in the censorship complex and in corporate media? Absolutely. I infer that from these efforts by the tech giants to make an accommodation with Donald Trump right now. That's the most hopeful sign, in my opinion, that Trump is going to get in. Because those guys, Mark Zuckerberg, et cetera, have their finger on the pulse of the American body politic and the global body politic more than anything that's ever existed. And the fact that they are seeking to negotiate a truce with MAGA and with Donald Trump suggests that they already know the outcome, at least I think they do. So it's going to be an interesting road. And I don't know that I get people asking me, do you want to work for the government? And my answer is, if I'm called to serve my country, I will do so. I don't seek it. And I absolutely hate D.C. And if I do it, it's going to be hold your nose and put on your hip waders, because it's going to be no fun at all. And the only way that I would do it is that if I had a supervisor that was backing me and Trump was committed to Schedule F so that people can actually be fired and held accountable for their behavior. Because if they're not, there's just going to be a wall of passive resistance that makes Yes Minister, the British program, look like child's play. Well, thank you for that. That's a very realistic portrayal of what Trump would be facing if he's elected. But I think I can say this, I'm always interested when I run into people here in Canada who are on the right and are not, to borrow your word, sanguine about Pierre Poliev and the Conservative Party. But what I keep pointing out to them is he's a damn sight better than Trudeau as liberals. And so despite all the challenges that Trump might face, a Trump win would be a damn sight better than the Democrats winning. Yeah. So I actually came out and endorsed Trump before Bobby did, because I could, in part, see the writing on the wall. And I was conflicted about, because I was asked to endorse Bobby, but I couldn't do that. And I've been kind of fence setting for a while. And then I just said, no, this is exactly the logic here laying down. In the face of the fact that I am a strong detractor of Operation Warp Speed, and Trump refused, he owns that. And he refuses to accommodate for what transpired under his watch. But even in the face of that, I hate to be in this position of holding your nose and jumping in and selecting the best of two options, the lesser evil. But the cluster, the band of, is it brothers or competitors that has assembled with Bobby, Tulsi, Elon, Ramaswamy, Tucker Carlson, so many, Turning Point USA. It's quite a coalition that's been of, the coalition of the disaffected has come together, kind of the rebel alliance. And what happens if they win is, if fast is any predictor of the future, at some point, many of those are going to turn on each other. But in the interim, hopefully we get some things done. (2:18:46 - 2:19:04) It's interesting you should say that, because I've said, we'll know that we're winning when the other side, the globalists start throwing each other under the bus. Yeah, true enough. But they've been at this game a long time. (2:19:05 - 2:19:42) Like we've been discussing, they're pretty entrenched. And the people that are really the puppet masters are masters of the fundamental fifth generation warfare principle that the true leaders should never be easily identified. And yeah, so I think we've covered the landscape pretty good. And the next couple of weeks are going to be a rocky road. And hang on to your chair there. And hope for the best and plan for the worst. That's kind of how I see it. Yes. Well, thank you so much for your generosity of your time today, Dr. Malone. (2:19:43 - 2:20:01) And I'm very much looking forward to reading yours and your wife, Jill's latest book, Psywar. I hope you've enjoyed this discussion because you know you're going to hear from me when I've read it and requested an interview on that. Absolutely. And I look forward to it. All right. Thank you so much.