Patrick Wood - Davos, the WEF and Trilateral Commission: A World Wide Web of Control

Davos has been all over the news because the World Economic Forum have just held their annual gathering there and our guest today has been warning us for the past 40 years about the rise of these types of globalization plans and how we are losing control of our own self determination and independence as citizens.
Patrick Wood is a world leading expert on technocracies and knows all about the workings of the World Economic Forum and the Trilateral Commission, and he makes a welcome return to Hearts of Oak to delve deeper into both organisations.
Back in 1978 he co-wrote, with the late Antony C. Sutton, ‘Trilaterals over Washington’ which tells the story of the Trilateral Commission, founded in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski, with the specific purpose of creating a ‘New International Economic Order’.
While Klaus Schwab and his institution take all the headlines, the Trilateral Commission gets almost zero media coverage and yet it is just as powerful, if not more so, than the WEF.
Patrick explains to us what exactly is at play, who the main actors are and how worried the UK should really be with the fact that Sir Keir Starmer, the leader of the Labour Party and possible future Prime Minister, is a longstanding member of the Trilateral Commission.

Patrick Wood is a leading and critical expert on Sustainable Development, Green Economy, Agenda 21, 2030 Agenda and historic Technocracy.
He is the author of Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation (2015) and co-author of Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II (1978-1980) with the late Antony C. Sutton.
Patrick remains a leading expert on the elitist Trilateral Commission, their policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed “New International Economic Order” which is the essence of Sustainable Development on a global scale.
An economist by education, a financial analyst and writer by profession and an American Constitutionalist by choice, he maintains a Biblical world view and has deep historical insights into the modern attacks on sovereignty, property rights and personal freedom. Such attacks are epitomized by the implementation of U.N. policies such as Agenda 21, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth and in education, the widespread adoption of Common Core State Standards.
He is a frequent speaker and guest on radio shows around the nation. His current research builds on Trilateral Commission hegemony, focusing on Technocracy, Transhumanism and Scientism, and how these are transforming global economics, politics and religion.
Patrick is also the Executive Director and Founder of ‘Citizens for Free Speech’ (CFFS) which is dedicated to preserving free speech and enabling citizens to exercise their rights as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.

Follow and support Patrick at the following links...
Website: https://www.technocracy.news/
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/PatrickWood
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TechnocracyRising/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/stoptechnocracy
Podcast: http://technocracy.podbean.com/

Citizens for Free Speech...
Website: https://www.citizensforfreespeech.org/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/citizensforfreespeech/
Twitter: https://twitter.com/citizens_free

'Trilaterals over Washington' and all of Patrick's books available on Amazon...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trilaterals-Over-Washington-Volumes-II/dp/0986373923/ref=sr_1_6?crid=31PUWCFBCX3P0&keywords=patrick+wood&qid=1674656655&sprefix=patrick+wood%2Caps%2C305&sr=8-6

Interview recorded 20.1.23

Audio Podcast version available on Podbean and all major podcast directories.
⁣https://heartsofoak.podbean.com/

To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more
https://heartsofoak.org/connect/

Hello, Hearts of Oak. We have an interview just coming up with Patrick Wood. Patrick Patrick has been with us before, we're going to talk about the WEF, Davos, obviously just been happening, the Trilateral Commission, which Patrick has written about extensively.
Back in 1980, he wrote probably one of the few books, there may not be any others on the Trilateral Commission.
And we're looking at a worldwide web of control. These organizations weave through politics, through media, through academia, through NGO, through religious organizations.
It is all to do with control. So much has been discussed, obviously, with those meetings in Davos.
And Patrick talks to us, connects some of those organizations together, tells us what happens behind the scenes.
We talk about the Young Global Leaders Program, how it's looking at the next generation. Should we be worried at King Charles, his close links to the WEF? He helped launch the Great Reset back in 2020, the WEF.
[1:23] Should we be worried about Keir Starmer and his membership of the Trilateral Commission? Probably will be in number 10 in a number of years. Patrick joined us to look at all these issues and of course talk about technocracy.news
[1:35] where you find a wealth of information and up to date news on all of these issues. Enjoy.

And hello, Hearts of Oak. Thank you once again for joining us on a pre-record coming to you a few days before and it is wonderful to have Patrick Wood back with us once again. Patrick, thank you for your time today.

My pleasure. This is always a good conversation.

Great to have you on, I think it was back in August.I remember vividly because I was on Holiday in Bulgaria, so I remember when it was because I didn't have my usual studio. But we want to talk about lots happening and if I can,
just mention to the viewers, at Stop Technocracy on Twitter, it's very worthwhile a follow.
But also the website, so technocracy.news, citizensforfreespeech.org will not get into, but that is the links in the description. So if you're watching, it'll be there, or if you're listening on the podcasting apps, it will be there in the description.
But technocracy.news is really worthwhile following them. I think we are bombarded with information and it covers so much.
It pulls in but doesn't overload it. Sometimes you get different news sites and it's overload where you're just getting maybe one or two stories a day and from different writers, different artists, different sources.
[2:59] And I just think for the viewers and listeners, it's certainly worthwhile putting technocracy.news into your normal list of sites that you look at and you check out.
So the links are in the description. And of course, make sure and follow Patrick on Twitter. But Patrick, I think we could start off with Davos.
Davos is just finishing up. And it's strange that
a little place in the middle of Switzerland would become a focal point of this crazy, huge gathering and of course invite only. I've seen a number of journalists there, saw
[3:38] Rebel media there. Ezra Levant was there trying to interview people, talk to people in his great way. But Davos World Economic Forum, it's something people hear about and I think,
over the last few years, people have begun to delve more deeply into this kind of secretive world. And it's one of these, probably the major organization in the world that controls
what we do. And most people have no idea about it. So you've obviously, you watch proceedings from afar at Davos. Tell us a little bit more about kind of what happens and why people,
go there?

 

Well, it's a number one is a networking group. Maybe people don't quite understand what that is, but in business, it's not unusual, whether it's a local or some type of a regional
meeting where people get together and they trade business cards and they try and stump some business for themselves. That's called just networking. And of course, personal networking, when in a dating
scenario, they have that context there works too, or you meet with a bunch of people and you say, well would you like to go out with me? No I wouldn't.
[4:53] Whatever. But Davos is not a policy making organization per se. It really is more of a discussion slash networking slash backroom deals. Perhaps my guess is most of the deals
really don't happen at Davos itself, but that's where they get together and make acquaintances and trade business cards and hey I'll call you and your people call me or whatever and it opens channels for business to get done you know for work to get their work to get done. What's interesting about Davos to me in particular is that the makeup of Davos is very the membership by tease is very similar to the makeup of the membership of the trilateral commission And this is not surprising because going back to pre trilateral commission days, which was founded in 1973.
[5:51] Going back before that Klaus Schwab, a young Klaus Schwab was attending university in America.
[6:01] And he ran into Henry Kissinger. And Kissinger took him under his wing.
mentored him and taught him what basically Kissinger doctrine at that time.
Kissinger was a visionary, but even back then he really was. And he encouraged Schwab to go back to Europe and start what now we know as the World Economic Forum. They wanted, and this was a specific thing.
[6:38] Kissinger and crew wanted, and by the way, Kissinger was a founding member of the trilateral commission. He wasn't a co-founder like Brzezinski and Rockefeller, but he was one of the first members. That crowd spearheaded by Kissinger wanted to have a European beachhead.
[6:59] And the way to do that, and this was before the trilateral commission was formed, the way to do that he believed was to start an organization like what we now know as the World Economic Forum.
Bring leaders together, bring them together and indoctrinate and brainwash them into trilateral commission policy. When the trilateral commission was formed
[7:21] they drew a membership from three regions. There was Japan specifically, which now is broadened Asia. And then there was North America, mostly from the United States. There were a few Canadians
and no Mexicans at the time. And then you have Europe. And so a third of the membership came from Europe, a third of it came from Japan, and a third of it came from North America.
Well, the European contingent of the Trilateral Commission, which kind of operated together with the whole organization, but they also had their own leader, their own director for Europe
and deputy director, and they had their own meetings in Europe as well, as they did in Japan.
So what Schwab did, what Kissinger did with Schwab is he sent him back to Europe to start this organization, essentially a networking organization. It was followed up in a couple of years with the
[8:22] Founding of the Trilateral Commission and all of a sudden now you have the real mucky mucks in Europe joining the trilateral commission by
[8:31] invitation only. It was strictly invitation only and mostly handpicked by Zbigniew Brzezinski, I might add, and Rockefeller I'm sure had input. But the two organizations have worked in parallel.
Ever since 1973. And originally in 73, the Trilateral commission was very secretive. They didn't want anybody know what they're doing. Even though they had extensive literature really of their, you know,
we discovered their own writings. We were able to get a hold of their own magazine called Trialog.
[9:09] Which is distributed mostly to members. But it was available. We got a hold of it for the asking, and we read them all. And we also read what the academics were writing that belonged to
[9:22] The Trilateral commission. They were, they were open. They were, they published articles like in the, you know, New York Times and Washington Post and Foreign Affairs Magazine and you know,
the Brown Journal and all kinds of highfalutin university publications. So getting literature on their writings on what they were talking about was not difficult. We attempted to expose the Trilateral Commission during the 70s and early 80s. We actually did break it down very well. Of course,
we were censored to death. But they were secretive. And Rockefeller later in the 90s,
when he wrote his book memoirs, he alluded to this very, very directly. He said, we're grateful to those media companies that we invited to belong to the Trilateral Commission. That included Newsweek magazine, included Time magazine, included the Wall Street Journal, you know, the biggies, right?
I think Chicago Sun Times, there's about six different media conglomerates that were invited to be part of the Trilateral Commission. But they were allowed to attend the meetings,
but they weren't allowed to write about them. So essentially, it became a gag order, right?
[10:40] And so Rockefeller later said, well, we're grateful to all those companies that acted in discretion to attend our meetings but not to necessarily write about extensively what we were talking about.
And well, it all came out in time. And you know, we know a lot more about it.
[10:59] Everything we need to know about it today. We didn't maybe know in 1976 or 7, pretty new back then. On the other hand now, secretive as the trilateral commission was, and they still are.
Very, they hold their cards very close to the chest as they say. They don't want anybody to see
what they're doing even today. The world economic forum on the other hand is completely out of the closet. Yeah, completely. Wide open, spread it to the world. Get everybody involved that you can.
[11:37] I look at it as the old kind of the old bums rush where, you know, where salesmen swoop in to convince some poor little old lady that she needs to buy this new car or whatever, you know, puts
pressure on her. And this is what's happened with the World Economic Forum in recent years. They're out of the closet. They're wide open. They're telling you exactly what they're
going to do. Klaus Schwab, an academic, has been writing books like The Great Reset was one. Another one was The Great Narrative that they're promoting. So they're trying to convince the world right now,
through business channels, taking all the doctrine from United Nations on sustainable development, which I believe is just technocracy from the 1930s, and shoving it down the throats
of the world. Their pitch is getting very thin. However, I just want to emphasize that.
Their pitch is getting very thin, in my opinion. And I think a lot of other people are looking at at these people and say, who are these people anyway?
You know, what on earth are they doing talking about nothing, you know, it's seemingly nothing makes sense.
Just today I, I posted, well, we won't say when today is, but it's soon.
[13:01] Your show, um, Al Gore, who is the poster child for global warming. What a nut.
[13:09] This guy isn't just, this guy's just insane. He has a, he, he makes a rant in front of a large audience at world economic forum.
[13:19] And when I say rant, he gets on the edge of his chair, he turns beat red and he shakes his fist. He's having it, you know, he has a rant and he's just letting them have it, belting it out. And I think back to the days of when he said all the polar bears are going to die and ice caps are going to melt in 12 years.
Well, that didn't work out too well for him, the idiot. there are more polar bears now than ever before. and that and looks to me like the Antarctic and Arctic are still there
[13:50] doing just fine, right? He gets up in his rant and he says, global warming, this is a direct quote, is the global warming adds enough heat to the, unnatural heat to the atmosphere.
That is the equivalent of 600,000 Hiroshima bombs daily.
[14:13] He says this publicly in the videos out there, 600,000 Hiroshima bombs every day, he says, it's the equivalent of every day exploding that many bombs.
That's what's happening to our atmosphere because of global warming. And everybody in the audience like, wow, oh, Al, you're just so prophetic.
How does this guy, how does this guy get a microphone?

Yeah, yeah. Well, also, John Kerry is there and he's of the same ilk. But can I, it's the, is there a difference in makeup because WEF is wide. I mean, they focus on with NGOs and academia,
and religious leaders, not just political. And in fact, they've got the young global leaders program.
So they're looking very much the next generation. This is not just to be a one off thing that dies out with Klaus Schwab, but this is something that will live long past him. Tell us about that,
because there's a lot of thinking for the future. It's not just the here and now.

Oh yes, you're absolutely right. From day one, going back to the early 70s, and I believe that's where modern globalization was founded was right there with the Trilateral Commission.
[15:35] Looking forward from 1973 they played the long game. Clearly they played the long game. It wasn't about, Oh, we're going to do this in five years. And by 1980, we're going to have all of our agenda together.
They were long-term strategists and Brzezinski undeniably. I don't care what you think about Brzezinski, whether you love him or hate him. Brzezinski was a master strategist and all of the books he wrote, all of them were looking forward 20, 30, 40, 50 years. He played the
[16:05] long game and Rockefeller the money man was playing the long game as well because his family I mean you know going back to John D Rockefeller originally in the early 18 1900s oil fortune then
Banking fortune and then medical fortunes they all played the long game they were used to playing the long game so when they said we need a new international economic order in 1973 they knew it wasn't going to happen overnight. It was going to take time. And so they started that
long game. Well, here's the thing. The Trilateral commission was still the, they were the master strategist for this whole thing, in my opinion. They had it all pretty much laid out even
back then. But what they did not have, all they had was a bunch of grumpy old men meeting,
basically meeting in a back room drinking scotch and smoking cigars. That's about all they had Originally, 300 people, 300 people. And that's not to be confused with the movie 300 or whatever it
was. They weren't anything like that, right? 300 people had to, their mission was to change the world. Now, how are you going to do that? Well, you need a couple of things. One, you need contagion for your ideas. You have to spread your ideas and you can't just put an article in New York Times or Wall Street Journal.
Oh, man, that's it. We're all going to run after and do this now. That's not the way the world works.
[17:31] So the contagion that they set upon eventually was the United Nations. As far as spreading the concept to other parts of the world and down deep into nation states.
The year after the commission was founded in 1974, I found this document on the UN website. It's there.
Is called the dec and this was a general resolution that was passed it was called declaration of the establishment of the new international economic order.
[18:09] That's 1974. That's the same language that was used by the trilateral commission to create a new international economic order. Was that coincidence? Well, no, the Rockefeller family
had had a long, long history with the United Nations already in 1973. They were the perfect
[18:31] contagion for Rockefeller to tap in order to take the crazy new international economic order, Brzezinski called it the tectonotronic era, to take that doctrine to all the nations of the world,
shove it down their throat and spread it, you know, just liberally spread it all over the world.
The second thing that they needed to have besides contagion was disciples, true disciples, not just forcing it down with treaties and legal agreements and memorandums, et cetera.
They needed to have disciples that would work within each country and each business entity order to implement the doctrine in a practical way, right? To action the nuts and bolts to make it
happen. This is where the world economic forum has blossomed as a training organization, not just,
you know, Hey, let's get together in Davos and have some brainwashing stuff that happens, you know, and like Al Gore has got everybody convinced now that that 600 Hiroshima bombs are going off every day and you wake up in the morning and you think, man, I better do something about
[19:45] global warming, these bombs are going to really get us, you know. But they do have the brainwashing type activities at Davos itself and other meetings. They have lots of regional meetings,
by the way, all over the place. They're having meetings probably every day at this point somewhere.
But they have started this organization like the young leaders group to train promising young people to take their position in society to be disciples for the new international
economic order.
And this is exactly what's happened. And you say, well, how could they do that?
Well this is somewhat of a mystery to me, but those people who look at young people and decide whether they're top timber or not.
[20:41] I'll give you a good example, I think another good example. What are the qualifications to get invited to become a Rhodes scholar?
If somebody can answer that question, then it would be very instructive as to how the young leaders are chosen.
They're invited. There's no application process to become, well, there kind of is, but you have to be sponsored.
That's kind of the way Rhodes Scholarship is too. you look at the people, for instance, in American politics, and I'm sure it's the same there, you look at their, their extended bio and you'll see that they were Rhodes scholars.
[21:29] At one time. That was a brainwashing type of a thing where they really got indoctrinated with the globalist theme. One big happy family, you know, one big global governance system. Well,
Well, this has been happening now with the young leaders group for, I don't know what, 20 years, 25 years since it started.
And all those young people, you say, well, how did they pick the one? Gee, isn't it strange?
They picked the ones that all ended up in high positions in government, high positions in business.
It's like, how did that happen? Well, there's a few outliers that didn't make it, right? I mean, they just kind of, they went through the program and then they went home and nothing happened.
[22:17] But you look at Canada, for instance, half of Trudeau's cabinet are young leader graduates, you can't make this up.
How did somebody know that those people that went through the program were going to get in? Well, maybe it was a push pull operation.

Maybe it was, Hey, we see this guy or this gal is extremely bright, is extremely malleable, is extremely impressionable and that's the kind of person we want to come to young leaders.
[22:52] And then as they graduate, they get to know them a little bit.
[22:57] Now they can push. First, they pull them in. Now they can push him out. Say, well, this person has the training to become involved with a cabinet member or be a cabinet member and Trudeau's government.
[23:12] So they get, they get pushed into positions of power by those who network them in in the first place. We see this, I've seen the same kind of thing, by the way, happen with
[23:27] secret society groups in America, like Skull and Bones. Same, same type of thing.
Seniors in college or university in Yale in particular that belong to Skull and Bones, seniors are just seniors. Most of them dumb kids, you know,
still trying to figure out where the sun comes up, right? When they're not,
you know, passed out on the, you know, after a big, big weekend party. They don't know anything about anything. They don't know, they don't know where they're going. They don't know what's going on. But if you pass through the
[24:01] halls of skull and bones secret society at Yale. You will be pushed into positions of influence where you can do the things that they taught you to do. And so we find that they show up in all kinds of positions of power. It's,
incredible. Absolutely incredible. John Kerry is a bonesman, for instance. Lots of them, George Bush is a bonesman.

Can I jump to, you talked about young leaders, and for the UK, if we look at older leaders, we may think actually this is a thing, the UK kind of feels ourselves separate from Europe,
we're not America, so we're safe.
But I just want to remind our viewers, you can pick up on this, the great reset which we all hear about, which was May 2020. And that was together with the WEF and Prince Charles.
[25:00] Now King Charles, Prince of Wales, sustainable markets initiative. And they launched this program together. So that means that, I guess, how worried should we be in the UK that the person
who is now King of United Kingdom was there two years ago or three years ago with the WEF,
launching this great reset which is something which has caused a lot of us much concern.

[25:30] Yes and it should. I don't know how you're going to deal with that in the near future, in the next two or three or four years. My first thought when he became King Charles was maybe all of his new responsibilities and activities might crowd out some of his nuttiness on sustainable development.

I doubt it. I'm thinking about I kind of doubt it. Because he has people he can just delegate it all to now, you know, you do this, you do that, whatever, and you can
push it out on other people. But it's a the thing, I think, actually, I think Britain is really picking up on this a lot of people in Britain, I think are picking up on this.
And that is that what these people are doing is patently anti human. And it's anti anti-civilizational. And I think when people begin to hurt as a result of it, and right now people are hurting not only from, from medical issues, carry over of the shots or
[26:32] whether it's a energy prices going through the roof. Uh, people can't turn on their, you know, get, get warm in the, uh, this, this hits the pocketbook. Now they're talking
about 15 minute cities where everybody's going to be, you know, the lockdown and you can't go within 15 minutes of your or outside of 15 minutes of your residence. I see pushback. I see people say, wait a minute, wait a minute. That's crazy. That's crazy talk. What are you, we're not going
to do that. People just need to rebel against this. Honestly, that if there was ever a call for civil disobedience, it's right now, just settle it, settle it now before they come after you with tanks and guns and mustard gas, I guess, because it's going to eventually end up with,
if the people continue to roll over to this stuff, they will eventually be completely annihilated.
It's anti-human and anti-civilizational. And those people who enjoy their country, I don't know if joy is the right word, but you know, you get my point that appreciate the fact
that they live in a country and it's their country. It's not our country. It's not Germany's
[27:41] country. It's your country. Those people who appreciate the fact that they do live in a country that has a culture, that has a language too.
[27:53] That has a history. This is very important to people. When they realize that somebody's coming to wipe that away, do away with it all, they draw the line. They say, no, I mean, even the most liberal,
whoever, when they're faced with that choice draws the line. No, you can't do that. You can't have that. So it's going to be tough.

 

Can I ask you about information? Another story you put up
from the WEF was that just published a report. And it talked about misinformation and disinformation being among the top global risks. And then you've got, that's the WEF saying that,
at the same time you've got the WHO, the World Health Organization, another body, which has,
I think, come to people's attention during the last three years. But they shared a video on Twitter citing their information, their claim that the anti-vaccine activism is deadlier than global terrorism, nuclear proliferation, gun violence.
You've got, and once you've got an organization talking about misinformation being so deadly, then you've got another organization that they will work closely together putting out absolute misinformation without any back.
[29:11] And it is this, I guess, battle for information, control of people. And it all goes down to control, because you control the information going out, you control what people do and how they respond and how they live.

Yes. Yes. I had a kind of a profound thought a couple of days ago that for all of the confusion and the finger pointing that goes on with quote unquote hate speech.
[29:40] You know, the all groups, you know, different groups, you know, You know, while you're doing hate speech against me, no, you're doing hate against me.
[29:47] And people get triggered, you know, but oh, that's hate speech. For all of the rhetoric that we hear about hate speech and misinformation and disinformation, they're all closely related in the big narrative.
When you listen to the people at the World Economic Forum this week, talk about misinformation, They are absolutely obsessed with this concept.
And it occurred to me why the only context for misinformation, disinformation and hate speech is in relation to their preconceived narrative. That's it. That's the only thing this is about.
If you talk against them, if you criticize their narrative, then you're executed. You have committed hate speech because in their mind they're thinking that maybe people.
Like you and me, I can't speak for you to speak for me.
I've written pretty extensively about it.
[31:01] They look at me and say, Pat would hate me. He hates me. that's hate. I can't do anything but have hate speech. I can't do anything but have misinformation.
I can't do anything. I say is disinformation to them because it's their narrative that they are protecting and their narrative only there's nothing else in the world that that can be that
that can be other than just confusing to people. But if you trace it back to the source, you can
see in their language, they are scared to death that people are
[31:40] criticizing them for their crackpot policies. No wonder they should be, they should be criticized. Obviously they should, but the only way for them to shut that down is to shut down free speech.
[31:55] That's their enemy. Free speech has become their absolute enemy. No wonder that PayPal pulled the finances of free speech union in Great Britain. Yeah. No wonder at all. You can't stand those
people. Free speech people get rid of them. They're criticizing us. They're telling us we're wrong.
They're telling us we're insane. Like laughing at Al Gore saying is the equivalent of 600,000 Hiroshima bombs going off every day. As long as you let this continue, just want you to know that's what we're facing and it's going to destroy us. It's going to kill us all.
And somebody stands up and says, Al Gore, you are insane. You're nuts. You belong in an insane asylum. Well, that's hate speech to them because how dare you criticize? Well, Al Gore thinks that
way. How dare you criticize me? The pontificate supreme of global warming, who knows everything and can foretell the future. Special tea leaves and tarot cards, I guess.
But not one thing he's ever said has come true, not one
[33:10] All of his crazy predictions have been completely discredited. And yet he still has a platform, yet he still shows up, yet they still give him a microphone,
yet he still ends up with his videos on YouTube so the whole world can see it.
If it was any other context, Al Gore could be compared to a homeless psychotic nutcase in San Francisco, babbling, babbling on the street corner, drooling into the gutter.
It's like, what's the difference between the two? It's just nonsense coming out, cannon fodder coming out of their mouth. It means nothing. It's just totally untrue.
And yet if you criticize them, they're threatened.

 

Is it true, I think I saw a report about the amount of money that Al Gore's made, I think, 300 million or 400 million dollars. Obviously what he's talking about is financially successful for him and he's benefited that way, irrelevant of any truth or not. It's money making business,
for him. With these other figures, it goes past financial side, it goes to I guess an,
absolute desire to control. Um, because certainly with the, with the COVID stuff, you think, well
[34:37] It's just financial benefit, but if it was only that you could tackle that, but it seems to be much deeper.

 

Yeah. Yes. It, it is. And remember that Al Gore for years was a member of the
trilateral commission along with Bill Clinton. They served together president and vice president during the 90s. And, you know, this is his
[35:03] alma mater, right? So he's been spouting the trilateral position ever since he became a member of the trilateral commission. And that preceded predated 1990 when he got elected.
So Clinton and Gore did more to promote sustainable development.
Remember 1992 was when the Rio conference took place and the Agenda 21 was created and sustainable development was born.
Right. That was during Clinton's administration. So Clinton and Gore embedded that in the US government, US economic machine.
Gore's been on it ever since. So it's Clinton, but Gore picked it up as, hey, I can make some money off this too. This is better than writing a book. You know, like a kiss and tell book.
[36:00] This is better than that. I can make a lot more money selling, pushing global warming and getting these green investments in my portfolio. And, but nevertheless, yes. Is there more? Yes.
He is a classic example of a technocrat. Classic.
Pure technocracy is what's on his mind. control over everything in the end. And he wants to be a big fish in a big pond.

 

How has the Trilateral Commission got away from scrutiny?
I know you have written about this. When I first began to hear about the Trilateral Commission, I thought just someone was talking gibberish and then I had to delve into it and really learn.
Everyone talks about Davos is kind of this sexy high profile meeting that people want to hear about.
It's on at the moment and our newspapers are full of, talking
[36:56] about it. And yet when you look at the trilateral commission, I don't think I've ever seen a single article in the UK media talk about the trilateral commission. How has that managed to keep off
any public agenda?

Mostly because they own the media or they'll say they control the media and they always have ever since 1973, they control the media. You're not going to get any stories come out on the trilateral commission, any mainstream media, nothing critical, nothing critical,
ever. It's never been. The only time that there might have been a couple of critical articles are back in the late 70s, early 80s. But nothing came of them and they were not continued.
The research was not continued. It's the most underreported story, in my opinion, of all of of the entire last century and today. It should be, but it's well documented. On the other hand,
it's not speculation. They call it a conspiracy theory. You know, we were relegated as being conspiracy theorists. That is Anthony Sutton and myself. Anthony Sutton was a Brit, by the way.
[38:09] Migrated immigrant, whatever, immigrant, he came to the United States, worked at UCLA as a professor of economics initially. But he was a Brit and great guy. But we wrote about and exposed the
trilateral commission and even back then, Tony, who was at the time working at the Hoover Institution
at Stanford as a research fellow, he was researching the trilateral commission. He hadn't written
[38:40] anything about it yet, but word got out that Sutton was researching the trilateral commission.
And the word percolated up through the Stanford network to the president of Stanford.
[38:52] Whose name was David Packard, who happened to be, that's Hewlett Packard, David Packard, who happened to be one of the founding members of the Trilateral commission,
like with Henry Kissinger, right? And so when Packard got wind of what Sutton was doing, Sutton's life was doing academic research and writing books. Packer said, this ain't
going in the right direction. We don't want a guy like Anthony Sutton breaking down what the Trilateral commission is all about. So they froze him out and drop kicked him, you know
from the 40 yard line out of Stanford and out of, they ruined his career.
Essentially they kicked him out. Summarily, short period after that was when I ran into him and met him. and I had also been studying the Trilateral commission.
Purely random meeting, but we met and we started talking to you. You know, something about the trilateral commission. We are. Yeah. Do you, you know, we just kind of mix it up.
And we realized that we had such a huge story, especially with him telling me. I didn't know what I had old of, honestly.
I was looking at it. I said, I know there's something wrong here. I just don't know what.
[40:14] But when he came along and said, I can tell you from the inside. Now the research I've already done.
And you are absolutely right. And this story is absolutely huge. And they are trying to squash it. And that gave us a reason to stiffen our necks and say, we're going to publish it. We're going to do this.
We're going to report on these people and expose them. But we were censored to death. We really got hammered.

 

And that was back, what, 1980 was it?
You published those? 1982?

 

Yeah. It started out in 1978 and 1980 was our last book. We did two volumes.

What else has been written? Have there been other authors? Have there been other books written about it?
Again it's something you never see and is that really the main work that's been done on them?

Yes, you want and you won't. The only other book that I know of was a book by a gal by the name of Holly Sklar. I can't remember the name of it. It had the word trilateral in it, but Holly Sklar was on the left,
side of the political spectrum. Actually, she was, as I remember, I think she was associated even, I don't remember if it was loosely or closely with Lyndon LaRouche organization, which was
[41:35] executive intelligence review or something like that. I never gave any credence whatsoever to that organization by the way I had no association with them whatsoever but that she did write a book,
and it did have some information in it there were also quite a bit of stuff that wasn't true wasn't right but other than that there had been no scholarly books written period none we were the
[42:03] the first and the last and by the way I did republish I did republish Trilaterals over Washington into a single book. I can't hold it up here. I don't have one right here. But in a single book, both volumes and it's available on well, like Amazon and,
Barnes and Noble, etc. It's also available on technocracy.news.

Well, we'll put a link in the description for people to get that. Certainly. Can I, I wanted to talk to you about the WHO new digital, I think it's just gone through in the US now where.
Your vaccine status will be down for all to see. There's the whole thing on, I think the The Wall Street Journal just had an article and the title was
Central bank digital currencies are coming ready or not. Those are two, but I think I'll park those because I just want to finish off. You gave a number of names of individuals.
[43:02] Wasn't Jimmy Carter one of the people who started the trilateral commission? Was he there at the beginning?

 

Oh yes, the founding member. Yes, indeed. So was his vice president, Walter Mondale.

Well, I mean, it goes through US politics, but over here, I've seen that Keir Starmer is a member of the Trilateral Commission.
He is the highest, probably British politician at the moment over in Davos at the WEF. He is also a member of the Trilateral Commission.
He probably will be the British Prime Minister in probably two years.
Our Conservative government, Conservative in name only, have done a disastrous job in mismanaging the British economy and doing everything a Conservative government should not do.
And I think Labour will get in by default because the Conservative Party are so weak. But with Keir Stammer then positioned for power, probably in two years, how worried should we be in Britain?
I asked you about King Charles, but the person in number 10 is the one who really does
[44:09] set the agenda and make the decisions. How concerned should we be as Brits of the person going into number 10, the prime minister being a member of the trilateral commission?

Yes, I would fight it tooth and nail personally. I don't know how, but I would fight it tooth and nail. I'll give you an anecdotal story. Back in 1979, when the election cycle was going on
to get rid of Jimmy Carter, worst president we ever had at the time.
[44:43] Ronald Reagan was running for president and his contender was George HW Bush. That Bush was running in other words in the primary Bush was running against Reagan.

For the presidency, you know, to be on the presidential ballot.
Yeah. And Bush did later become President, right? And he became Vice President for Reagan. But Bush was a member of the Trilateral Commission. And when we were in our prime of writing about the Trilateral Commission,
there were a lot of Americans very upset, very upset. And the colour of our book at the
[45:25] time was red and white. It was very distinctive. You could see it from 100 yards. If somebody held it up. You say, Oh, I know that book. Well, our members are readers of our book.
We're going to the political meetings of George HW Bush. He was stomping for the, you know, for to get the nomination. And people would show up with our books and they would yell
out, ask him, are you a member of the Trilateral Commission? Why are you a member of the Trilateral Commission. Why are you promoting a new international economic order that sounds like it's anti-American?
You know, those sorts of things. And they were holding up a copy, copies of our book.
As they would do that, they're asking questions right out of the text almost, right? Because they saw it was just crackpot. And so Bush took a lot of heat. Well, he went down to Florida, which is the biggest swing state at the time in the country, huge state. He was in Florida doing one of his political speeches, quite a few people in the hall, and somebody held up one of our books and hollered out a questionnaire, asked him a question, and he finally snapped.
He melted down, started cursing
[46:47] The, uh, the questioner just free. I mean, just completely just got beat red foul language, the whole thing.
And he stomped off the stage.
[47:02] And that was the end. That was the end of his candidacy.
[47:09] He was like disgraced because cameras are on him. And the next morning, the headline in local papers said, you got to appreciate these editors.
The headline said, have you ever seen a burning bush?
[47:26] Okay, well, here's, you know, here's, here's the thing. Bush was dropped out. That was the end of him as far as the primary is concerned.
Reagan cinched it after that and Bush dropped out.
But when the convention started, back room bargaining with other members of the Trilateral Commission like Henry Kissinger.
Basically said, Ron, it's George for your vice president.
[48:03] And I'm sure Reagan said, I don't want that slime ball for my vice president. you're taking them or you're not going to get in.
[48:10] And remember they tried to, somebody tried to kill, um, shot Reagan at some point and almost killed him.
It would have killed him if the bullet had been just a little bit in one direction.
But, um, you know, this, this is the way this group, this movement has gone forward is absolutely incredible.
They are not indestructible. I have to say if enough, if enough people in your country got wind of what the trilateral commission was doing and has done to destroy Europe and the whole
theatre over there, they would be hounding this person with at least if nothing else with our book, they would be hounding this person everywhere
They went asking them questions.
[48:57] Did you do this? Did you, did you support this? Why are you doing this? Why is this trilateral commission commission policy, blah, blah, blah, blah, and hound him to death until he melts down.
[49:08] Get rid of him. But I wish there was more literature. I really do. You know, people can get a hold of our book and I say don't order it over seas
[49:18] It costs bundles of money to send it from America to anywhere anymore. But it's available over there from electronic bookstores and stuff. I mean, you can get a copy over virtually overnight,
for instance, from Amazon, do it. If you want to copy the book, that's how to get it over there and get it quickly. But we don't need any more of these people anywhere in the world. They are the
enemy of civilization. Bottom line, they're the enemies of civilization. And if they're allowed to reign, they will in the end, destroy everything that we know and love. And this has been the,
I wouldn't say unintended consequence, but people even back in 1992 to 1994, that attended the Rio conference where sustainable development was born observers who were participants, not people like like you and me necessarily.
I mean, these were left-wing, you know, liberal environmentalists that went there. They looked at that, participated in that whole thing, and they came away and said, this is crazy talk.
This is going, all this is going to do is the rich are gonna get richer, the poor are gonna get poor, and the environment is gonna get destroyed in the process.
And that's exactly what's happened ever since. The rich have got richer, the poor have got poorer, and the environment is worse off today that has ever been in the history of our country or the world.
[50:43] These people are, this is their policy. This is their policies that have done this to us. It needs to stop.

[50:51] Well, I think that's a call to action to our viewers to, to learn and to act upon that information. It's, it's vital.
Um, Patrick, thank you so much for coming on. It's always great to have you.
And as I said, the beginning, I'll repeat at the end, Technocracy.News, I find extremely beneficial and helpful as I try and sift through the the amount of information we get.