Technocracy Rising, Global Transformation by Patrick M. Wood

In this episode, Jason Hartman interviews the founder of Citizens For Free Speech, Patrick M. Wood, about technocracy. They talk about the current technocrats, Agenda 21, and the Great Reset. Jason and Patrick also discuss the shift away from high-rise living due to COVID-19, the Trilateral Commission, and its connection between several positions of power.

Announcer 0:01
This show is produced by the Hartman media company. For more information and links to all our great podcasts, visit Hartman media.com.

Announcer 0:12
Welcome to the American monetary associations podcast where we explore how monetary policy impacts the real lives of real people and the action steps necessary to preserve wealth and enhance one’s lifestyle.

Jason Hartman 0:29
It’s my pleasure to welcome Patrick M. Wood. He is editor of the August forecast and the August review. He’s author of technocracy rising the Trojan horse of global transformation. He’s founder and executive director of citizens for free speech. Patrick, welcome. How are you?

Patrick M. Wood 0:47
I’m doing great. Thanks for having me on again.

Jason Hartman 0:49
Yeah, it’s good to have you. Where are you located?

Patrick M. Wood 0:51
Mesa, Arizona, actually, it’s hot and mostly dry.

Jason Hartman 0:55
Fantastic. Fantastic. Well, you know, when they talk about the heat in Arizona, I used to live there in the you know, it’s a dry heat, so it’s not so bad. Good stuff. Well, hey, this is a fascinating topic. And your book is just fascinating. You really just cover so many areas of life of business of I mean, it’s just so wide ranging. But first of all, the word technocracy, where did that come from? I mean, when we were talking off here, I tend to think of it as kind of a new thing, and from the angle of the tyranny of these tech companies abusing their power. But how do you mean it in the title of the book?

Patrick M. Wood 1:37
Well, exactly technocracy, if you look in the dictionary, it simply means rule by experts, by scientists and engineers. But historically speaking, technocracy with a capital T was a system of economic thought that actually was an economic system itself that was designed in the 19, early 1930s, at Columbia University in particular. And that was during the heat of the Great Depression. Of course, many people thought capitalism was dead. And the scientists and engineers at Columbia rose up and said, Hey, we can do better we can do something different. Listen, van, a brand new economic system, because capitalism is going to die. And then we’ll waltz in and we’ll put this in place, and everybody will be happy, happy, happy, I guess. But capitalism recovered, technocracy kind of went to the wayside. And it stayed in the wayside for years and years, until the early 1970s, when it began to raise his head again. And today, we have a lot of evidence that this original system of technocracy is in play today, and still, you know, still knocking on the door trying to replace the economic system that we know and grew up with, which is, of course, free market economics, capitalism, free enterprise, whatever you’d like to call it. So this is this is, you know, the great concern today on on technocracy is if somebody wants to meddle with our economic system as it has been for the last hundreds and hundreds of years. That’s fine. But how about let’s just have a real discussion about it to this to decide, is this really what we want to do or not?

Jason Hartman 3:11
Well, you know, I guess the question of is it good or bad? We have to dive into this in more detail. I mean, it doesn’t seem like we have any experts running the world nowadays. So in some ways, I welcome some experts. But you know, we’ve got all these these folks that have been sitting in government for decades. And they just keep making the problems worse with their maybe unintended or intended consequences, I’m not sure. And they’re, they’re pushing for just more and more power, under the guise of giveaways, handouts, socialism, are they considered experts? I mean, what the technocracy who that we all know of would be considered an expert that’s like running the world today. Would it be Sergey Brin? And Jeff Bezos? Or would it be Zuckerberg? Or would it be like a government official. We tend to think of it as government, I think

Patrick M. Wood 4:04
That’s right, become a tendency to kind of look at government politics via the government. It’s pretty natural, because that’s where all the conflict and stuff as economics is, you know, a whole area of economics is just boring to most people. And it’s like watching the paint dry, you know, in your bathroom or something, just, you know, to get away from here. But it’s really an economic issue. It’s not a political issue. The original technocrats believe that politicians were incompetent, probably means spirited, and they hated their guts. They wanted to get rid of all the politicians altogether, and simply create an org chart for scientists and engineers to run the country. This, of course, was, you know, pretty preposterous, according to you know, just based on our Constitution, the political structure we have, but these people really believe that they could do a better job than any politician. Well, that antipathy still exists between technocrats and politicians today. In fact, a lot of people are mad at politicians today for the same reasons They were in 1932. Because they looked at as bumbling fools and, you know, illogical and that sort of thing. And there’s good, I think are probably pretty good reason for that. But the technocrats themselves today would look down their nose at the political system and say, you know, it’s just flat out busted is broken and broken beyond repair. Why don’t we just get rid of the politicians and listen to science? The mantra today of science says is kind of like Simon says, The old game we played in our kids, it is the dangerous thing here. science does not always say, what society should do. That’s why we have elected politicians are supposed to anyway, so you look at like, the Jeff Bezos of the world, you look at the Eric Schmidt’s of the world, the Sergi brands of the world and so on these people most definitely would be considered as technocrats. They’re not Marxist for In my opinion, I’ve studied this quite a bit that I don’t look at them as Marxist at all. I look at them as technocrats, they’re using technology to to promote the science of social engineering, as they call it, where they intend to engineer society and the people in society for their own, you know, proprietary economic interest. And this is not really what America bargained for. In the COVID world today, we see people like Anthony Fauci, for instance, standing behind the president with his white coat and his arms folded, mostly looking down his nose. And he would like to basically just say, look, this, just follow my policies, and don’t worry about anything else. But the here’s the problem with this whole, so so Fauci would be considered a technocrat. Absolutely, absolutely. So and and there’s a there’s a host of people like that, who think that they know better how to run society than anybody else. But here’s the deal, the people like the fallacies that that caused the great Panic of 2020, as I call it, you have to ask the question, Who in the world in the history of the entire planet, Who in the world had the power or the strategy to shut down and destroy the entire global economic system? This has never happened before in the history of the world, right. And most people aren’t paying attention to it, because it’s kind of economic in nature. Well, you know, okay, big depression coming and that sort of thing. But these people have had an axe out to kill capitalism and free enterprise ever since the early 1930s. And they’re still doing they’re still have bass have the same motive today, that they had back then. And, you know, as I write about technocracy, today, I say, this is the great this is the clear and present danger, today’s world, we need to really worry about these people. Because why, you know, why are they so intent on destroying the economic system of our planet, and especially in our country, in particular, people understand what’s going on here. But you and I probably understand it’s going on in the whole world right now. It’s not just America.

Jason Hartman 7:53
Now. No, it is. Well, I mean, why would they rush to destroy the economy and so many other things? while of course, it’s always to gain power and gain influence and gain wealth. And when these kinds of things happen? There are huge transfers of wealth and power. I mean, they’re giant in their significance, especially now, and we’re continuing to see it. I mean, maybe you can unpack that a little more.

Patrick M. Wood 8:19
Well, absolutely. I think about this a lot. And because of my background, I’m, I’m kind of sinking up of what you just said here. The United Nations has been the torchbearer for technocracy for whatever since 1992, for sure, but probably before that, as well,

Jason Hartman 8:37
what happened in 1992? Internet?

Patrick M. Wood 8:39
What happened in 1992, was the Rio de Janeiro conference that spawned that was a United Nations big global meeting that spawned the so called agenda 21.

Jason Hartman 8:54
So agenda 21 was 1992. Hmm, I’ve done some shows on that before. And so maybe you can just tell everybody quickly, what is agenda 21?

Patrick M. Wood 9:03
Well, it was the agenda for the 21st century. But the key thing to it was, it brought out the economic system called sustainable development that is a resource based economic system instead of one that’s based on supply and demand and and, you know, a price moderated economic system like we know and understand today. A resource based economic system is based on controlling the resources and controlling the consumption of people who consume those resources. So it gave birth to sustainable development as a doctrine as an economic policy, which was identical as I documented my book to the early technocracy movement and from the 1930s. But the head of climate change a few years ago, did a press conference and Europe and she was ahead of climate change. Her name is Christiana Figueres. She was the one that drove the Paris Agreement. At a meeting that resulted in a big climate change pact across the world, she said in this press release or the presser, and this is a direct quote from her lab, she said, this is the first time in the history of mankind, that we’re setting ourselves the task of intentionally within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been raining for at least 150 years since the Industrial Revolution. We don’t have to read between the lines to figure out what she’s talking about. She’s got this new economic model, the old economic model isn’t adequate. That’s capitalism, free enterprise, free market economics. and sustainable development is the new economic system. And she says that the United Nations has an attention has a time plan, a time frame, and also the tools to create this new economic development model. And it’s called sustainable development. Well, this is antithetic to free market economics completely.

Jason Hartman 11:00
Well, they you know, you know what, you know what they say, green trees have red roots.

Patrick M. Wood 11:04
That’s right.

Jason Hartman 11:06
Red implying communism?

Patrick M. Wood 11:09
I know. We see this today, you know, every revolution, by the way has had you as useful idiots. You know, we got that term from the Bolshevik Revolution, the useful idiots that Sherpa thought they were doing good all of

Jason Hartman 11:21
us though,

Patrick M. Wood 11:22
They were the first ones that got killed after the the Bolsheviks power. And they were what went wrong, you know, we thought we were helping you.

Jason Hartman 11:31
But there’s no shortage of useful idiots. Just go to downtown Seattle, downtown Portland, downtown Chicago, they’re all over the place now. And they’re, you know, we’ve had this, this school system that has just discouraged critical thinking. I mean, it’s shocking. When you watch a news program, and you see people interviewed, or you go on social media, and have a debate about anything. It doesn’t matter what side you’re on what you believe. It’s just the ability to think critically, and to weigh both sides of an issue is just that has evaporated. I mean, that is just evaporated.

Patrick M. Wood 12:09
Yes. And this is not I don’t believe this by mistake. I’ve been following education in general for probably almost four decades now. And I have seen the intentional dumbing down of our education system, there have been books written about it by very

Jason Hartman 12:26
Sure. I interviewed them. Yeah. The dumbing down, oh, gosh, what were the names of those, but I’ve had that guy on my show. Can’t remember, but

Patrick M. Wood 12:35
I can’t remember his first name. Gotta was his last name. That was one guy. And then there was Charlotte iserbyt. But it also did a piece on it, or a book on it. But this is legendary at this point, you know, the the school system has been turned into a propaganda delivery system, it’s not education anymore. It’s not reading, writing and arithmetic. It’s not critical thinking skills. It’s, it’s not writing skills. It’s simply a propaganda machine, that that brainwashes the poor children today into all this social justice, you know, green stuff, and, you know, love Mother Earth, or whatever. And, you know, kids cannot probably there’s three or four generations now, children who have grown up, who absolutely aren’t capable of thinking beyond the end of their nose, they just can’t do it. They struggle with every basic thought to get through it. And then they end up believing two different things at the same time and think it’s okay.

Jason Hartman 13:32
Yeah, I know, it’s a and then never understand that there are consequences for everything. So you’re making a trade off? Do you love humanity? Or do you love Mother Earth? Or do you just say, well, there has to be a balance between the two, you know, that humans have a right to be here to just like all the other animals. And you know, we have to have some sort of balance, but it’s just so I don’t know, I don’t even know where to start. Well, so tell us about how transforming economics really, I think you’ve addressed that, right.

Patrick M. Wood 14:05
I certainly did. And I pretty much do it on a continuous basis when when people are sensitive to economic issues, because there’s a sea change going on right now. And most people haven’t really seen the distinction because they don’t understand the history of it. But when an AOC that’s Alexandria ocasio Cortez stands up and Congress and says, we’re going to have a green new deal and then she promotes all this, you know, this sustainable development stuff that we’re going to completely rebuild and transform America into something different. everybody laughed at first they thought Oh, you idiot, you know, you know, get out of here ain’t gonna happen. And they looked at her some kind of radical, radical, radical person, and it seemed it doesn’t matter she has arisen but the point is, since that since she originally said, proposed the green New Deal. Now all of a sudden, Republicans and Democrats are jumping on board. And they’re, they’re promoting various elements of Democrats, especially, but republicans are promoting many, many aspects of the green new deal now. And it’s almost to the point of becoming mainstream. And what we see around the world now is I look at this stuff on a global basis, all of the stimulus money that’s being spent today to fight the COVID emergency, you know, and, and the shutdown of the global economic system, they’re trying to get it resuscitated. Again, this stimulus money is not being spent on traditional economic aspects that you and I would probably say, that’s what we should do. It’s being spent on green initiatives. And in Europe, they’re actually using the term green New Deal, that to rebuild the economic system from the ground up into something altogether different than what we’ve had in the past.

Jason Hartman 15:55
Well, I mean, sadly, Europe, Europe is a disaster. I mean, no one could deny that Listen, I was born in Europe, I grew up, you know, we usually go there a couple times a year, and it’s just a disaster. I mean, Europe is over. It’s, it’s a mess. Europe has basically and you know, of course, I’m generalizing, because each country is obviously different. But you know, it has destroyed itself through the government socialist tendencies, mass immigration takeovers, and political correctness where you can no longer even speak in some European countries, literally free speech is gone. And these are countries that consider themselves democratic countries. It’s absolutely nuts. But that’s happening in the US where we see that here too.

Patrick M. Wood 16:38
But if you look at people, and you’re right, Europe is a train wreck. But if you look at people like Klaus Schwab, the founder of the World Economic Forum, which is clearly a global elite organization, which, which,

Jason Hartman 16:50
Which I must say, as much as I, I do agree with you, I still it’s on my bucket list to go to Davos.

Patrick M. Wood 16:57
I would like to

Jason Hartman 16:58
I want to be in the cool club, I want to go to fly 1100 jets to job, Davos, 1100 private jets, so I can talk about the environment. It’s unbelievable.

Patrick M. Wood 17:12
While Schwab is leading the pack Anyway, today, talking about the great reset, he uses that word, that phrase, the great reset. And in terms of economic policy, whatever the great reset is, that should be a great concern to folks like you and I, what do you mean by the great reset? Because these are powerful people, they have a lot of influence around the world. And if their planet if they’re planning a quote unquote, great reset of the economic system, then I want to know what that is. I want to know, could you please define your terms? And tell me what you mean by the great reset? What do you think is going to look like after it’s done if you can pull it off, and a lot of people that this right now but what Klaus is talking about is about this green New Deal type of mentality where, where everything is going to be cheating, you know, swapped over into a Resource Based economic system, away from the supply and demand. And here’s the big issue on this, I think you’ll grasp this immediately. Sustainable Development was never really about a fair market economics. It just wasn’t. But what it promotes is a resource grab, it’s not a monetary grab, per se, it’s grabbing the resources, and everybody knows you’re in the real estate business. Everybody knows, historically, wealth is always generated from the ground, that’s, it doesn’t matter what it is, everything comes out of the ground.

Jason Hartman 18:36
And the same thing, you know, the gold comes out of the ground, the silver comes out of the ground, the oil, the food, everything.

Patrick M. Wood 18:42
Yeah. So if you control the resources, it doesn’t matter what the monetary system is, you, you have the wealth, you have the control over, you know, the humanity within your reach, because you can decide what happens with those resources. And so this, in my opinion, this has been a major theme, at least since the early 1970s, that that sustainable development could be used as a platform by the global elite to grab resources on an epic scale around the planet. And for the resources that they could not grab directly. The United Nations has practice for a long time now policy of taking resources offline and simply declaring them to be you know, vacant of human activity just stay away from it like the opposite of like the, you know, the heritage zones and stuff, the mat, you know, massive plots of land that basically just been taken out of human protection.

Jason Hartman 19:41
Well, I’ll tell you something. So when you say resources, you’re pretty much talking about land, right? Absolutely. Okay. Okay. So that resources are land, but go ahead with what you’re saying about that.

Patrick M. Wood 19:55
Well, things that come from, by extension things that come from the land

Jason Hartman 19:58
Okay, guys,

Patrick M. Wood 19:59
so, Oil, timber, the food and etc.

Jason Hartman 20:03
Years ago when I had the brilliant Thomas Sewell on my show I in that during that interview with him, I coined a new term. And I called it environmental racism. And basically, when I lived in Orange County, California, Irvine, Newport Beach, and very nice areas, I would notice they dedicate all this land is Oh, permanent open space. And then the people that went and bought homes, they’re, you know, all my nice white neighbors. And I’m white too. So, I mean, it’s just kind of I’m noticing it and talking about it, at least. But they would basically start circulating all sorts of petitions and getting activists about, they got to dedicate more open space and more for the environment. And really, that was just to keep their property prices up, or to drive them up, and to keep people out to keep others out to make it inaccessible to other people of lower incomes. And so that’s what’s going on around the world. And that’s agenda 21 is like that. But the interesting thing about it is that if anybody considers COVID-19, to be, you know, some people are way out there, and they think it’s a total conspiracy. I don’t think that, but it is an opportunity. If you’re in power, and you want more power, there are certainly a lot of power grabs going on. But this is doing the opposite of that. This is making people just spit in the face of agenda 21 ideas where people are going to the country and living in rural areas or car based suburban areas. I mean, nobody’s going to be interested in high rise living in mass transit, if you’ve got a deadly virus and a bunch of race riots going on in your city, right, who wants to live in a city anymore? I mean, you know, that that seems like it’s a, an opposite current, right?

Patrick M. Wood 21:56
It does. And and I have to say that the the flood of people leaving right now just panicked, almost leaving cities, completely flies in the face of the global elites predictions that there’s going to be 75% or 80%, of all the people in the world having a city someday. And that’s why we need to make smart cities and, you know, have all the monitoring stuff and, and everything connected with the internet of things to you know, control, everybody. They’ve had all these great, lofty plans. And they’re running a little bit off the rails right now, I have to say, and you know, what they’re thinking at this point, is anybody’s guess. But the rural communities, I have to throw this in the rural communities, by definition, have already been included into the major metro areas. As far as regulatory, you know, action activity is concerned. And this is something that most rural communities do not recognize at this point, agenda. 21 is sustainable development, the 2030 agenda, those doctrines as rules are being set in place within a major city. They also were including in their master plan, all of the surrounding rural communities as well. And so the regulations from the city extend out into the rural areas. I studied this in California quite a bit. And you look at one Bay, one plan for the Bay Area. And you’ll see that it extends up into the foothills of Northern California, which is far, far away from the cities, all the way through all the agricultural land.

Jason Hartman 23:28
And those people the irony of it is, those people in the foothills and all these outlying areas have no voting power. And they probably don’t have any money to go and lobby. So they’ll just get overrun by the city slickers. In terms of the regulation. Right,

Patrick M. Wood 23:44
Exactly. And that’s exactly what happened. I grew up in Northern California, so I’m sensitive to it. And I know ranchers and farmers up there. And that’s exactly the case they, you know, they say, Well, what can we do? You know, I mean, you know, we don’t like it and, and we complain about it, but we don’t have the voting power. When I have the voting bloc, we don’t have the influence or the, or the megaphone or microphone to speak out against it. And so we’re just getting sucked into it like a vortex. And we have no choice. But what people are going to find as they flee the cities to live in the suburbs or out in the rural areas, smaller cities, for instance, that maybe only have five or 10,000 people right now. They will find when they get there that many of the things that they fled will follow them that’s all I’m that’s the only thing I would say maybe not immediately, but those same types of manipulative regulations will follow them and, and I’m afraid already that some of these radical groups like an Tifa and, and BLM have already said well, they’re coming to the suburbs or cubby to the rural communities. And I don’t know what that means yet, but

Jason Hartman 24:56
They’ve been in coralayne, Idaho and they are doing that. But it’s hard for them. And so we’ll see that but all of these manipulative regulations and stuff, it’s, it’s hard for them to be meaningful if you live in the suburbs or in rural areas, you know, so they might have regulations and restrictions, but it’s gonna be hard for them to enforce them or make it meaningful. I think the thing that the powers that be can do, if they want to gain more power, and really hurt people, is they really need to control and they already do control it in terms of the content of it, but they need to control like the speed of the Internet, and the access to information. And if they, if they can make it so that it’s hard to have good internet in rural areas, then that will push people back into their crowded cities where agenda 21 wants them that listen, although the green New Deal doesn’t work without mass transit. Okay, you know, it doesn’t work in suburbia very well, it works in cities better, you know, it works in high rises, it works in mass transit areas. It doesn’t work in car base culture. So that’s the opposite of what they want. Right?

Patrick M. Wood 26:11
Well, it is. And you know, it’s interesting, interesting up in the, in the Portland area, a few months ago, maybe three months ago, or so there was 100 miles of street that, that were shut down for the sake of COVID. And I thought to myself at the time is that well, that fits right in with what they’ve always wanted to do is get all the cars off the streets, and, you know, force people into mass transit and riding their bicycles and stuff like that. And I don’t know if they ever lifted that ban on those particular streets. But it was kind of a humorous way to, well, wasn’t funny to them, people living our I guess, but it was kind of funny to me, that they were trying to find COVID by shutting down the streets. And then they showed pictures of people riding their bicycles on these empty streets. And you know, they’re riding along and of course, they you know, they’re riding in pairs and groups and stuff like that, which is just seems to be anti static thing policies that would that would fight the disease in the first place.

Jason Hartman 27:13
Yeah, it’s a crazy time. What is the Trilateral Commission has to do with all of this and what is the Trilateral Commission? You know, there’s this thing about presidents that have been members of the trilateral have been trilateral realist, I guess I should say, or not. And like Reagan wasn’t in he had an assassination attempt. And it seems to immunize you from assassination attempts or something. Is that true? What is that all about?

Patrick M. Wood 27:42
Well, Trilateral Commission was founded by David Rockefeller as a big new Brzezinski kind of the beauty and the beast, sort of a combination, back in 1973. And they drew members from, from Europe, Japan, and North America, very elite, members of the global economic community, the business community, the political community, legal community, the press community. And their goal back then was to create a new international economic order. And we debated Tony Sutton and I debated members of the Trilateral Commission back in those days before they caught on to, you know, our critical stance on it. And they said consistently, that they were that they were after creating a new economic system in the world, that they were not interested in politics, and even though they had politicians and their members, membership, but what I discovered is that, in spite of all the members of the Trilateral Commission, who got into the political system, especially with Jimmy Carter, because Carter was a member, Mondale, his vice president was a member and most all of his cabinet were members of the Trilateral Commission. They weren’t after capturing the or, you know, just running the political system, what they were after, was getting their hands on the economic machinery that that was represented by that political system. They wanted to get into the control situation over the global economic system in order to transform it. So for instance, over succeeding years, eight out of 10 of the World Bank presidents that the President appointed, were members of the Trilateral Commission, you had nine out of 12 member, people who were appointed to the US Trade Representative, nine out of 12 were members of the Trilateral Commission. The giant trade treaties, like like NAFTA and cafta, were written by members of the Trilateral Commission. So this was about economics from day one. It wasn’t about a political coup, like a lot of people thought, and they have come and gone members of the Commission have come and gone from government over the years. And but I believe personally, their goal is still the same. It’s to transform the economic system. And if

Jason Hartman 29:56
You keep saying transform, but what does that mean? I mean, transform it to resource based. And, and it sounds like pretty much consistently globalism. Would you agree with that? Right?

Patrick M. Wood 30:09
Absolutely.

Jason Hartman 30:10
Globalism, which means the nations, they don’t have the power. It’s kind of like the states rights debate between the states and the federal government who has the power, right. Same idea on an international scale. But you know, the thing COVID will do for the power hungry folks that we’re discussing, it will push us toward a digital cryptocurrency. And I don’t mean Bitcoin. I mean, a government backed central bank backed cryptocurrency, China is doing it. And they have every excuse, I’ve seen several articles about dirty money, meaning that you know, touching coins and dollar in bills, that’s dangerous, that can transmit the disease, they say, and, you know, they may well be right. And so it’s, it’s an opportunity to say, hey, look, you know, we’ve got to make this digital, and then we will lose our spending privacy completely. And another another thing, the last bastion, maybe of privacy that’s left is, you know, the ability deems cash and buy something without everybody knowing what we did, it will be lost. So that’s, I guess, if you’re on a check chessboard, I would call that check. And then, if there is a global digital fiat money, if it’s one currency, a world currency, that’s checkmate. It’s just game over for the citizens of the world right there. Because there will be zero privacy, and they could do what China is doing with his social scoring. And literally just take your money away with a click of a mouse. And you could become destitute and starve and, you know, your resources could be just completely cut off, because you said something bad about the internet, or wrote something bad on social media, you know, and not about the internet about the government.

Patrick M. Wood 32:03
This is Yeah, this is one of the great risks, I believe, that we face right now. And I’ve one of my favorite topics over the years has been the Bank for International Settlements. And I studied down extensively in years past and nothing much has changed there. But you know, they are the central bank to central banks around the world system. And they’re very powerful. They have tons of influence on what happens in the world economically. And just recently, it’s been revealed that the BBs is creating a series of innovation hubs, they call them that they’re putting around in various countries, including the United States and Canada, and countries in Europe to, as they say, plot the the future of money. And these innovation hubs are lathered with money from the big boss. And their goal is to hire the brightest and the best, you know, computer programmers and monetary, whatever. cryptocurrency type people that are, you know, big on blockchain, that sort of thing to come up with a digital payment system using AI and cybersecurity and all that kind of stuff that would be suitable for the entire planet. Now, individual central banks have been working on stuff for a lot for some time that are fed has the the Fed coin idea, the bank for the Bank of England has their own little SWAT team of researchers who are working on digital currencies and so on down the line, China’s you said have been working on it. But now the big is the elephant in the living room has weighed in, that they’re putting, they’re putting a network of so called innovation hubs together around the world, to create an integrated global monetary digital system. And that’s on the books. Now we can look at that we can study it, they’ve got papers out on it. And it’s like, you know, I look at it go, Oh, boy, here we go. Here, you know, they’re weighing in on it. And you can just see where this has gone.

Jason Hartman 34:00
If they control where people can build, how they can build, you know, a home for themselves. If they control every body of water, a little pond on your property. If they control your money, they control the energy you have access to whether you’re allowed to catch rainwater or not. It consolidate all the tech companies so that they can control speech, which is what they’re doing as a proxy for the government, the big tech companies, that’s exactly what they’re doing that, you know, the government can control your speech in the US, right. But Twitter and Google sure can, and so can Facebook. And so these big tech companies just become a proxy for government. You don’t have first amendment rights against Twitter. Okay, you only have that against the government. So these are pretty crazy times. Last thing. I mean, we’ve got to wrap it up. But this has been an interesting talk, Patrick, where’s the economy going? And I mean, I know what you’re gonna say. It’s a load Question. But, you know, dice it up for us a little bit. It’s always more complicated than just a question like that.

Patrick M. Wood 35:07
It really is. And the simple term would be, I think, by the beginning of next year that there will be every attempt to kind of Prop things up between now and the election. But starting in November, December, January, sometime within three or four month period, after that, I think, I think the Great Depression, too, will be recognized around the world. And it will force governments to probably react again with new stimulus and how we’re gonna get out of this. And, yeah, you know, I mean, who knows?

Jason Hartman 35:40
I mean, no government wants that. I mean, the all of the powers that be say that the reason we have the Great Depression was because we didn’t do enough, right. So we, I think we can all pretty much bank on that the Fed and the government and other central banks and other governments around the world are going to stimulate as much as they need to they there is no tether whatsoever on the amount of money they can pump into a system. So if they do that, I mean, does that mean inflation? You know, when you say, well, there’s going to be a depression? Is that an inflationary depression? Is it a deflationary depression? Is it neither? These are nuanced issues? For sure.

Patrick M. Wood 36:27
Oh, absolutely. They are. And it doesn’t make it doesn’t make a difference. I personally, I believe that we’ll be headed into a deflationary depression.

Jason Hartman 36:34
But why would they let that happen? Because they don’t they don’t want deflation. It makes their debt burden bigger and, you know, look at all the debt the US has, why would they allow that? They’ll just print so much. They’ll just create inflation, right?

Patrick M. Wood 36:47
Yes, that’s right. But the the cycles of inflation and deflation often have a life of their own, once they’re started, they often have a life of their own. And I think that’s what’s going to happen here. But here’s my here’s my prediction. As far as technocracy is concerned, what people will beg for in the app is answers and solutions to make society work again. And I can almost just see this in my mind today that leaders and people on the street Main Street as they call it, will be begging for somebody to come along and provide solutions to make society work. Again, just make it work. and fix it is broken, fix the society, get the crime off the streets, get that, you know, kind of get the economy going again, that will be the day that these technocrats rise up again, make themselves visible and say, we have solutions if you just ask us for them. And we will come in and help you fix a system. here’s the here’s the case in point to back that up. Back in 1933. When FDR was just coming into the presidency, he’d been elected and he was yet to be seated in January. And the technocrats of that day actually published a book and this was a big movement. Back then, by the way, there was hundreds of 1000s of people who are card carrying dues paying members of the technocracy incorporated movement across North America, they actually wrote a book that bagged FDR, to declare himself dictator, once you got into office, to dismiss all of the political system, Congress, courts everything, and simply allow those engineers and scientists to set up a structure where everything could be managed by them. You didn’t need a political system, they said we can do it we can make everybody’s needs will be met, then everybody will be, you know, they’ll have what they need, and they won’t have to work so hard, and you know, everything is going to be good. Well, this is a pollyannish dream. But the mean spirited attitude came out with this demand of FDR to declare himself dictator, say a holy macro you and I got this book, it’s a rare book, I got a copy of it, I read it in a backdrop my teeth. Well, we’re going to be back in a situation similar to this at some point where people are simply not going to care about the political system in charge, whether it’s socialism, communism, or anything, they’re just going to say, look, can anybody come along and make the system work again?

Jason Hartman 39:25
Well, that’s where we already have some degree of that. Now, certainly, and we’ve had it for, you know, a long time. I mean, they just create a crisis, and then come in and rescue the people from the crisis that was created by government in the first place. So that’s, that’s, you know, create a crisis, then then solve it. And in they always gain more control. As they do. Every time they do that. It’s another layer of additional control, and additional wealth transfer. And that’s exactly what you have happen, isn’t it?

Patrick M. Wood 40:00
Exactly? Yeah, you know, I often refer to one of the stars, some of the Star Trek series that, that feature that that race called the Borg. And a lot of people under you don’t know what the Borg was just science fiction, of course, but they had this, this famous phrase, we will assimilate, you know, into the hive mind, we will assemble, are gonna grab people, all of a sudden, there’s technology all over him, and they assimilated them into the hive mind, you know, this is the essence of transformation today, in my opinion, to look around the world is that this thing just keeps marching on and basically the saying, when we touch you, we will assimilate you and this is exactly what’s happened.

Jason Hartman 40:46
Now. That’s the thing that’s the thing. Well, okay, wrap it up with what can anybody do about any of this stuff, it’s there’s it’s so wide reaching and you know, it’s it’s just, there’s just so much to it, but any action steps and then give out your website.

Patrick M. Wood 41:03
In 2018, I started an organization nonprofit organization called citizens for free speech, and that citizens for free speech dot o RG, to promote and defend the first amendment in particular and we’ve kind of been touching on that, during this entire interview. One way or another. Free speech is on the chopping block. As you know, the First Amendment is on the chopping block, and our ability to communicate, whether it’s through expression of religion, whether it’s through free speech, or freedom of the press, or the righteous peaceable assembly, or the right to redress the government for grievances, all of those things, concerned communication, and if we lose the ability to communicate in our country, we’re done. Europe you already alluded to has no such thing as free speech anymore. You say certain things, you’ll end up in jail. We’re headed that way. And you know, we have mounted a defense or the First Amendment free speech through citizens for free speech, our membership is growing like mad right now with all the COVID crisis going on. And you know, we’re we’re rapidly becoming a national voice for the free speech issues and I I would encourage people if you want to get involved with something to do something, go to citizens for free speech dot o RG doesn’t cost a thing to sign up and stand with us and say, Yep, I’m, I’m done with all this other stuff. We need to start standing up ourselves and making our own voices heard in our local communities especially.

Jason Hartman 42:26
Yeah, definitely. Okay. So is that the website you want to share? Do you want to share

Patrick M. Wood 42:30
Citizens for free speech. Most people that might be listening would if they know my name, or the word technocracy, they will find my professional website technocracy dot news very quickly. been around for a while. And you know, we have quite a bit of traffic coming to our site every day. So people can go there to technocracy dot news and follow along with the story of the saga of technocracy in the world today, and I bring articles from all over the world actually, to the bear, it has something to do with technocracy. And it’s not what I say that I want people to see is I want people to I want people here to see what the other side is saying, you know, people like the cloud Schwab’s of the world and, you know, the AO C’s of the world, whatever you got to see, listen to what they are saying, right? And if you do you get an idea real quickly, what they have in mind to do.

Jason Hartman 43:21
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Well, Patrick wood. Thank you for joining us.

Patrick M. Wood 43:25
My pleasure. I hope we could do it again sometime.

Jason Hartman 43:32
Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don’t miss any episodes. Be sure to check out the show’s specific website and our general website heart and Mediacom for appropriate disclaimers and Terms of Service. Remember that guest opinions are their own. And if you require specific legal or tax advice, or advice and any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional.

Jason Hartman 43:58
And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you’re using and write a review for the show we would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks