The Troubles with Elon, A Defense of BRICS and US Election Scenarios

This week I was asked by Vivianne Fischer to defend the BRICS+, and give my two cents on the dynamic in the USA, transhumanism, the occult etc... Now I just want to say that I have received more than a few angry emails for giving an interview to the woman who put Reiner Fullmich in jail.

I will say this once, here and now, I have looked into the case and she did not "put him in jail".

I like Reiner as a person, but he made foolish mistakes that resulted in a misuse of funds for buying property (involving a couple of Scientology connected characters) and had already left Germany for safer haven in Mexico before the accounting shenanigans were ever made public by Fischer.

Again, that doesn't make the disproportionate state response legitimate and he is being treated unfairly IMO, BUT I cannot find Fischer at fault for this one. And so, I hope you enjoy the interview,and if you want to come out yelling at me, consider this my pre-emptive response

Or watch on Rumble here, Bitchute here, or Soundcloud here

Transcript of the show:

Viviane:
Now I greet our next guest, it’s Matthew Ehret. We’ve spoken to Matthew Ehret in the past, and he’s always been full of very interesting observations on the state of the world and what has led to this current situation. I’m glad you’re here today again to give us your thoughts about what’s going on. Maybe could you just introduce yourself for the people? I think it’s very few who might not know you yet.

Matthew Ehret:
Oh, thank you, Viviane. It’s a joy to be back. And unfortunately, I wish that the circumstances of our conversation could be a little bit more positive, but we are in the battleground, so we do what we can do. But yeah, a little bit of backstory. I am myself the editor and chief of the Canadian Patriot Review.

I’m a writer. I’ve written a bunch of books on the origins of the deep state, the newest one being “The Anglo-Venetian Roots of the Deep State”, which helped me sort of map out some of the dynamics shaping this thing that’s latched onto humanity over the past 2000 years and has infiltrated so many of our institutions. And I say 2000 years because you really do have to go back to the days of the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire, the transformation of Rome and Greece into empires and the loss of their own moral claim to natural law.

So I try to do that with a longer sort of scope as I try to get a sense of, well, what are the Rhodes Scholars? What are the Fabian Society? What are these things that seeded such nefarious institutions as the World Economic Forum or the earlier Bilderberger Group into our Western civilization with this idea of restoring effectively feudalism. So those books are available. I’ve given a lot of talks on the structure of that. Today, whatever you’d like to speak about, I could happily oblige.

Fischer:
We just spoke about the, you know, we revisited the topic of the New World Order and now the BRICS states just came up with sort of their own New World Order. Could you maybe address that? What do you think of that? Or a plan for a New World Order or like a remodeling what they think is great?

Ehret:
Yeah, Well, my method is I’m as an analyst, I have a certain philosophical method, and I tend to look at everything from the standpoint of processes, not so much– you can look at things from the standpoint of nouns or verbs as your– and just take both into consideration, since the world is made up of objects, but also transformative processes, the verbs.

And it’s where you choose to place your emphasis that will sometimes color differently, people looking at the same thing. So for me, when I look at the BRICS-plus that some– It just happened in Kazan, and the broader evidence of a battle between two systems, that’s the way I’m looking at it. So I tend to see things and I wrote a whole book on the clash between open and closed systems. So that helps me a little bit as far as not getting caught sometimes in words, because sometimes throughout history, bad people will use good words to advance bad agendas. And sometimes good people will use bad words to advance good agendas.

And the only way to determine whether or not the action has a certain value is to look at, well, what were they doing as far as it pertains to– In my mind, I think it helps a lot to look at, do they want to create systems that are better open? I don’t mean “open society” like George Soros here. I’m talking about like, are you bringing on line processes that will increase the power of productive labor, the power of human creative thought or leaping over the limits to growth by encouraging new discoveries, the ability to create more abundance that destroys the sort of what’s known as the Malthusian trap. This goes before the days of even Thomas Malthus being the grand priest of the British Empire, who tried to posit that the only type of way to look at humanity is as a closed system, and that all we do by increasing our population is we destroy nature.

So all we can do is increase scarcity as populations attempt to try to grow. So that was the Malthusian trap and that animated the entire British empire. It’s behind the Henry Kissinger Trilateral Commission ideology that turned our economy into a, our Western economies into a speculative consumer society bubble in the 1970s that was designed to collapse. So they created something over the dead bodies of people like Bobby Kennedy, John F. Kennedy, which was still, we had still a viable industrial economy and an associated moral ethos that’s tied to, that was tied to the idea that human beings are the– we do good for our children and grandkids to come. And that’s the source of our identities and moralities properly.

That’s what we lost. That was targeted in favor of a new type of culture and a new type of economic and geopolitical architecture in the early 70s, which now has taken three generations of decay that we’ve now adopted this idea of living for the moment, feeling good for the now, being a consumer is how to be a good citizen. Don’t think about what we’re doing for exploiting child labour or sweatshops that use effectively economic slaves abroad or don’t think about the consequences of Africa and the destruction of what has had to happen to Africa in order to meet our first-world living expectations.

Those considerations were for the past age of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. And RFK who talked about that. Our generation, we think about happiness in the now. Don’t think about the future, the past, what’s going on outside of your comfort zone. So now we’re paying the piper.

The consequence has been just a world of disorder, most of the severe disequilibrium and a time bomb that is set to blow up. That is our banking system. That’s been set up for, like I said, a long time. This is not something that just occurred with coronavirus or in the last few years. This is something that’s been built in to blow up as a weapon of mass destruction, the US dollar and the associated Bretton Woods system.

So what I’m looking at when I look at the types of policies coming out of a lot of those countries that use words like new world order, they’ll use words like sustainability on both sides. You’ll have the Klaus Schwab networks use those same words and you’ll have words like that being used at the BRICS Kazan declaration or speech or two. For me, it’s not the words, it’s what are they doing? So when I look at where do I see any actual policies that are resisting this depopulation feudal agenda to create scarcity that we adapt to.

I do see that coming out of the policies of China, Russia, increasingly India and the associated countries that have grouped together to try to create a power block sufficient to do some form of battle with the death cult, which has taken control of our transatlantic community. And would like to, this death cult would like to take control of the world as they had so much influence back in the 1990s or even the 1980s over what was known as “the end of history”.

So our Schwabian deep-state architects had full control through George Soros of the economy of China in the 80s. And they still had a lot of influence in the 90s. They had the whole, the almost near total control of Russia in the 90s as well. CIA had full control of the Russian military, its CIA offices inside of the Kremlin, inside of the highest security complexes of Russia. And at a new era of sociopathic billionaires was created by the city of London that granted a bunch of horrors for the oligarchy to gain control of the privatized Russian economy.

So there’s been a battle against that foreign deep- state system in these various countries that I’ve been trying to map out also in my books, which has also given me the confidence to say that Russia and China, though they sometimes use words that look similar as words to the psychopaths in the West, when I look at what have they done to pull people out of poverty, to create systems that enforce national sovereignty, and to create essentially a lot of abundance by greening deserts, by empowering people to have productive work, to do battle with the woke agenda, the brainwashing of kids. That stuff I’ve seen mapped out very, very clearly. And I’ve seen a fight.

It’s not like it’s being done easily. There’s a real battle that I’ve been looking at. So it gives me confidence that this is a legitimate resistance to the big kill of humanity, which is because the oligarchy– I’ll just say this, then I’ll wrap it up. The oligarchy, part of what they want as an ambition, which goes back again 2,000 years, is effectively a highly-reduced population. Let’s say about five to ten percent of the current numbers of the population on the globe today are what the oligarchy would like, and all they believe that should be permitted. The quality of that population that they want to permit has to be extremely stupid, extremely superstitious, not capable of utilizing their God-given powers of moral reason.

They don’t want those powers to be activated in those people. So they have to be really dumb, degenerate as possible. Very much inclined to tribalism, local tribalism, where people only think that they could talk to and understand people who think exactly like them in a tribe, and thus are also inclined to be weaponized against other cultures that are not them. That was part of what made the medieval crusades so destructive, is that it was forever-wars a thousand years ago between Christian, Muslim worlds, Christian, Jewish worlds, all of this stuff. So that’s the sort of thing that they want to bring back again today, is forever-wars divide to conquer, get people to think local only and not thinking about the fight over sovereign nations and culture.

They don’t want them to think about those things. That’s only for the elites to think about. Yeah. So that’s where we’re at, I think, in my assessment. And so I, again, I’m much more positive about the BRICS summit, the broader fight for a new security economic architecture coming out of the BRICS that I don’t think is– unlike I know a lot of people in our community– I don’t think that they’re controlled opposition.

Fischer: 2:52:05
Okay, so you’re actually pretty optimistic that this is– because you have seen, please elaborate a little bit on what kind of improvements have you seen in these countries that makes you believe that it’s actually going in that direction? I mean, they’re very, let’s say, diverse, these countries. I mean, we have like, you know, like China and India is not really comparable. But do you see like in both countries that they strive for like making life better for the normal person, or…?

Well, in terms of what I could say is, there’s a variety of statistics that one could look at that could help triangulate the mind into a judgment call. Some of those considerations that I think are very important involve things like the fact that in the year 2000, China had a population in the middle income bracket of their population represented about three to four percent of their whole population. Today it’s about 54%. The average life expectancy in China back in 1970 was about 53 years of age on average. Today it’s about 78.9 years of age.

The US has collapsed. So in the same frame of the last four years, the US went from having the longest longevity, average life expectancy, they’ve collapsed two years. And that’s increasingly the case across the board of the transatlantic is a conscious shutdown of the things that allowed us to enjoy or expect to enjoy living standards that would be befitting of a modern civilization. I’d look at the other things that involve– in Russia, there’s been a 32% increase in the past 18 years of per capita GDP. Living qualities of life have increased by and large by a dramatic margin. I don’t have the number for that one in front of me.

The BRICS-plus countries today represent 36% of the GDP. So the ability to have industrial advanced progress and even advanced technologies that we once were the leaders of in Germany, in the West, in Canada, in the US. I live in Canada, by the way. I don’t know if I made that clear, but we used to be the cutting edge as far as new technologies were concerned.

That’s been consciously destroyed by that same Trilateral Commission death cult that took over our societies and murdered our leaders in the 1960s. They made sure that all of the cutting edge things that– hypersonic planes that we were pioneering in the West, France had the Concords, high-speed rail, including magnetic levitation rail, advanced nuclear power, third-, fourth-generation, investments into fusion, into space, all of those things we were cutting edge. And this oligarchy didn’t want to permit any of that. So they shut all of those things down to keep us addicted to coal, oil, things that they already monopolized, so that they could control the scarcity and the wars that would be the consequence. So in the case of Russia and China, and also of India, I’m seeing advances on all of those things where they’ve lept outside of everything that we’ve ever done and are now pioneering new tech that are not just for their military.

Like in the case of the Cold War in the West, a lot of this tech was being driven by the military and by the desire of the military-industrial complex. So only some of it was getting spun off into civilian goods. In the case of Russia and China, I’m seeing a lot of it. They’ve got 40,000 kilometers of high-speed rail. That’s another point of positivity. The cheapness to travel 3, 000 kilometers in China, one side of the country to the other is very, very cheap, very easy for everybody, even people who are not rich.

Whereas in Canada, we have zero high speed rail, the US has zero. And what little rail we have in travel is very expensive. And I think most importantly, they’re going for policies– when I look at their foreign policies of, especially Russia and China, but also of India, they’re … putting fires out. So where the divide-to-conquer ideologues have created fires in the Middle East and Africa of forever wars, I’m seeing a different philosophy with a different strategy for building real infrastructure, providing the means for everybody to pull themselves out of poverty. A billion people have been pulled out of poverty, mostly because of the investments of China.

Peace deals have been made not because of the West, but between Saudi Arabia, Yemen, between Syria, which was targeted for an Iraqi-style destruction or a Libyan-style destruction. Syria was so targeted. And they’ve been saved because of, again, the efforts of Russia to jump in and say, no, if you go for a full destruction of Syria, that’s war with Russia. China’s come in with massive investment strategies, but they need to create stability. The same thing for Africa.

There’s been a lot of investments that are of a sort that indicate not an intention to exploit and destroy the people the way we’ve been doing in the West for 80 years or longer. But what I’m looking at, my friends in Kenya, I’ve got a lot of contacts in Ethiopia, in Rwanda that I speak with, and I look at what’s being done, what’s being built. It’s just, it’s very good. It’s quite hopeful on that level too.

So I’ve got all of these factors that I’m bringing into consideration. Another one is the food production. I mean, Russia and China have been creating bumper crops. They’ve been doing everything possible to outpace their production of agriculture, while at the same time fighting off a lot of the pressures to bring in GMOs, CRISPR technology. They fought that stuff off both on the vaccine level but also in their agricultural levels.

They’re not bringing in an mRNA, gene therapies or CRISPR both for food or for vaccines. There was a fight and it wasn’t easy. I was mapping that in live time. That was an ongoing fight, with different Western agents within fifth-column structures within both Russia and China. Yeah, I mean, I could go on to other factors, but nuclear power.

Fischer:
Yeah, I understand. So it seems to be a lot of good development while at the same time, we like for instance in Germany, we see all these crazy whatever restrictions that are coming up for like, there was this law that they made that you could not use the, that basically in all the houses that were built a long time ago, you could not use them any more because the heating regulations, they changed so people would have needed to just move out of their houses because it didn’t make any sense financially any more or something like that.

They pulled that law, but it was like, I mean, you see a lot of these things that are making our living conditions much more undesirable all the time, while it seems that over there– I mean, also this whole energy agenda with like pumping out these windmills and so on, you know, making it unattractive for people to live out there in the countryside and so on. I mean, it’s a lot of super-crazy things going on at the same time. But I want to ask you one thing, like, you know, this AI thing, we just talked with Richard about this, the push for AI.

That’s been going on for quite a while, and it seems to be now really catching up speed. I was wondering, this is clearly going to affect the amount of jobs that are going to be available for the regular Joe and even for the software engineer, as we just said before, because his job might also be taken over by some robot or some AI and so on. So my question is, I asked Richard what he thought would like to get your opinion. I mean, this whole thing, the AI, is that so strong that push into that direction from all kinds of players that it’s just not possible to kind of blackshelf the whole thing? So is that also why they, I mean, you know, like earlier on, now it’s out there anyway, but like we see a lot of these sort of these stakeholders, like behind the AI, you know, like Google or whatever, like working heavily in these areas.

So is that something, Is that a means in order to make people useless eaters or are the useless eaters just a side effect of something that’s unstoppable anyway? I mean, that’s a very conspiratorial question.

Ehret:
Yes, it is a very conspiratorial question. You sound like a conspiracy theorist. I like you.

Yeah, no, I think that you have to be a little bit of a conspiracy theorist, if you want to think about reality, since reality is shaped by ideas and intentions of people who think, who agree to a goal, and then they put it into motion, big or small, right? I mean, everything is conspiracy in that sense. That involves doing something more than yourself. It’s just when more than one person tries to get something done.

And if you have a lot of resources and some really bad ideas, and then you could do a lot of damage that might even be transgenerational. And similarly, if you have very good ideas and you’re able to think ahead, as has happened now and again throughout history, then you can create good conspiracies, too. A lot of the good things that have subverted the oligarchy’s agenda– because it’s not a new thing. The way I look at it is that what they want today is what they’ve always wanted. And it’s not like they’ve been slowly trying to get this moment now in history for the past 2000 years.

They have tried so many times to put the hammer down, just in the last century and a half. I can count a number of moments when they tried to finalize their restoration of feudalism with the eugenics type religion for the elite to manage the depopulated, dumbed down herd of human talking cattle. And they’ve been subverted because people were smarter than many of those in leadership positions today and were able to creatively flank and undermine those ambitions to create new world orders throughout the past.

So, you know, again, conspiracy can be either good or bad. On the AI front, my thinking on this, looking at the technology underlying machine learning and different types of, you know, logarithms that are applied to govern the behavior of technology of machines that take past experience of what’s been done already and finds probability, like utilizing statistical probability, they take various algorithms that will be able to accomplish a task as, as best as the prompts will allow.

Now, that unto itself is not intrinsically a bad thing per se, if you have, let’s say, good goals. Like let’s say you don’t want to risk people’s lives here. I was thinking of some positive examples of AI, OK? Like one is, let’s say you’re in a society which has got a big goal or big ambition that involves, perhaps, tunneling or mining or exploring what’s below the crust of the earth, right? So far, here’s the thing. Humanity has dug approximately at maximum about 16 miles into the crust of the earth, or maybe it’s even kilometers. It might be kilometers. But I think it’s miles.

The crust is about 40 to 60 miles in depth. And then you’ve got something that we think is the mantle and then something that we think is a core. But it’s all speculative, you know. Like what’s actually the mechanism of what creates oil, creates water, creates a lot of the things we take for granted. A lot of it’s speculative. The magnetic fields, the fluctuating magnetic fields of the earth. It’s obviously being shaped by processes going on inside of the earth, and we don’t know any of it. Now the problem is, things get very destructive to life when you go down.

It gets hot, it gets volatile, there’s more dangerous … earthquake, other types of things. You don’t want to put a human being into such an environment. But you’ll encounter things you may not have encountered before that would require so-called human thought to think on the toes. So having some form of machine learning, governing the automated sort of machines that might be doing most of that labor would be better because you’d be saving a lot of lives or let’s say deep space work, mining asteroids, things like that, where you don’t want to put human beings in harm’s way. That’s all useful.

Another example I have that I was just reading about this week was one of the, I think it’s the eighth- largest hydroelectric dam in the world, which has just been built by China. I forget on which river, it might be the Yangtze, but I don’t know. I’ve got to verify. This dam used something like 20 human beings to build it in record time. It’s going to create massive hydroelectric power for industry and residential use, thus decreasing the price, the cost of electricity.

It’s going to increase water availability for farmers. It was built, like I said, with 20 or so actual human beings involved. It’s absurd … in a good way. Otherwise, it was AI that was managing the governance of the various machines that would build the pylons, set the concrete, do all of the things. It’s quite complex and astounding and nobody’s putting harm’s way.

So that’s another example of, like a positive use of AI as a servant. Now, when I look at, unfortunately, there’s this AI cult, which is a Gnostic sort of religion that has been groomed through Silicon Valley, through theosophists as well, who have been implanted into like a lot of, there’s occult societies that have been implanted into the Western world since the 19th century, grooming the growth of Silicon Valley with a philosophy. And this goes back over a century. It’s not new. It just got really bad after World War II.

The philosophy was sick. It was based on the idea that humanity would– there would be a splitting off of humanity, and the uber menchen breeds that Madam Blavatsky, who is the founder of Theosophists and all of her followers called the sixth root race. They believed in, they had this weird cosmology of root races that were sort of growing in a mystical, Darwinian sort of vibe. And then the sixth root race would be the Aryan sort of thing that would be the pioneer, the vanguard that would usher in a transformation of the species and the elimination of all of the unfit species.

And this became the heart of eugenics, the eugenics movement. It became the heart of transhumanism. That was the name given to it in 1955 by Julian Huxley. And they promoted this cultish obsession with transhumanism with a focus on, Blavatsky said, it will be California, the west coast of America, where West meets East. That was her philosophy, which will be the transformation of the human species into this post-human thing.

And the form it took after World War II, when cybernetics was innovated by a figure who was a student of Bertrand Russell, a leading Fabian British grand strategist, Lord Bertrand Russell, his student Norbert Wiener generated something called cybernetics as a way of looking at the world and managing systems. It was like a science of control. And it was based on the philosophy that everything could be assumed to be a closed system, whether it’s the solar system or whether it’s a cell or whether it’s human society or the ecosystems.

They were obsessed with control, and they were obsessed with this idea that everything was a closed, self-contained system. Because it’s closed and self-contained, they also posited as an axiomatic belief that it was controlled by entropy or sometimes known as the second law of thermodynamics, which was something that was generated as an ideology by the Royal Society in the 1860s by a Royal Society member named Rudolf Clausius, who is a figure closely affiliated with Thomas Huxley, the grandfather of Julian, through the Royal Society.

And he basically said, okay, well, just like a heat engine, a gas tank is closed. You’re going to put some form of fuel into a heat engine. It will burn the heat as the heat causes pistons to move and the machine will do its job, but it will never create more energy than was put into it. So in that sense, it’s true that all heat engines are animated by decay, by a heat death in the future that’s pulling them forward in a sense. Now that’s correct and fine to use for a machine or for a match in your hand, right? But when they tried to then universalize it, saying that that’s the mechanism shaping everything, all human beings, all life on the earth, the universe.

And so these groupings started putting this intellectual lattice cage onto society, saying that that’s how we have to assume that the universe is dying. It’s going into a heat death. After a big bang, now we’re moving to a heat death. It’s a closed system after all. Every human society is, must by its destiny decay.

And so people stopped thinking about a healthier modality, right, the more they allowed this type of thinking to adopt, to penetrate their brains. And so cybernetics became this sort of … magical wand that was being celebrated by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Josiah Macy Foundation, which were sponsoring these conferences on applying cybernetics to everything, to the military, to the economy in 1946, 47, 48. This is where Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, Alan Dulles were all participating in these things that shaped the behavior of the CIA, of the entire Cold War. And so one of the things that Norbert Wiener, the student of Russell, postulated is that machines would at some point become self-aware.

And that at that future time, there would be some form of a replacement of humanity by the machines. And his followers continued to add more coloring to this philosophy. Now, they saw the value in technology as being simply for command [and] control of the masses. They didn’t see it for the service of the masses. They saw it for the service of the elite that would use AI or use any technology, the knowledge of the atom, whatever, and technologies associated with that, or simply for control and depopulation of slaves.

So they had a sick, toxic philosophy. That didn’t mean that the technology itself is to blame, but their philosophy was. It’s not the gun to blame, it’s who shoots it, the intention of the person who fires the gun. So this is where I think that these groupings which generated such transhumanists today, the whole Silicon Valley movement comes out of the military-industrial complex. Peter Thiel, who worked closely in the 90s with Elon Musk, is a transhumanist.

Elon Musk is a transhumanist who believed that we have to merge with machines in order to stay relevant. He’s using his Tesla factories to produce, you know, mRNA vaccines more effectively for society. That’s something he teamed up with the biggest vaccine producer in Germany a couple of years back. They’re still advancing on that. But yeah, all of these guys, Bill Gates, every, they’re all parts of families that are tied to this theosophical death cult that’s infused with the military industrial complex within DARPA.

Sam Altman, Jeff Bezos’ grandfather was a leader at DARPA. So they create these cardboard cutouts. Bill Gates is a cardboard cutout. His father, Bill Gates, Sr. Was a close ally of David Rockefeller and a priest of depopulation under Planned Parenthood. His mother was tied to IBM as an executive, which was very closely aligned to the Nazis. And they needed, you know, a cardboard cutout of somebody to be the front man for a tech that would be brought in by design to people’s desktops, their home computers, other things.

So that’s part of the transhumanist ideal, cult, which wants to just use AI for the bad. Now, again, for me, AI could be good as long as you know what it is, you know, to the degree that we allow it to to become more than it is, it becomes destructive. Like, I mean, it shouldn’t be– in my mind, AI should not be involved in the arts, in art creation, maybe to do like background paintings or matte paintings for a cartoon or something, maybe.

But as soon as you allow that type of thing to write books from scratch or to generate creative content, you’re undermining humanity’s soul deeply and you’re making us become willfully inferior than we could be as we allow for something which simply is an accumulation of algorithms. I said logarithms, algorithms. It’s just the accumulation of algorithms as a stew, garbage in, garbage out. It can’t create a new discovery of something that’s never been discovered by a human before. Machine learning cannot ontologically do that.

So that you’ll always need the human factor to provide for that type of what you might call human creative mentation that makes discoveries possible, that breaks from closed systems of mathematical formula that don’t account for a new discovery of like for example What is creating water from within the earth? What is going on inside the Sun or the harmonics of the solar system, which no human has yet discovered but could? An AI cannot; it can just take in data, read the data according to algorithms that have been pre-programmed, but it can’t do anything beyond that. So that’s my philosophy on AI.

Fischer:
And I mean, what we can see now with all these digital development and the web and all these forms of communications, we can always see it has two sides. Maybe it was the idea for them, I say them now, to have it as another means of control, like pushing out their messages on the individual phone and so on.

But now we see what we could do with all that during the crisis. This was our means basically of communication. Had there just been the TV set or a radio station, what could we have done? Maybe we could have set up a radio station. We wouldn’t have gotten a license from the government to do so.

So I mean basically for us the internet was what basically saved our butts if I may say that.

Ehret:
Absolutely, I agree.

Fischer:
So what is your, I mean could you maybe, do you have this, like, how can we make sure, you know, that what we are looking at, like, I mean, you, you’ve written that book on the science, the scientific approach and how can we make sure that, you know, what we are looking at, that we’re doing like a proper analysis of what’s going on? Because like what we can see now is that, you know, with certain things like say the coronavirus, I mean, a lot of people in our crowd or in the these say the people that who were like doubtful of the measures taken were adequate. Yeah?

They have come to some sort of finding or some, you know, like results of their investigation that they think, okay, it was exaggerated, the vaccine was no good and so on. But then you see that even though a lot of people saw through that or saw the sort of the downsides of what was going on there, the same people are not able to maybe question say climate change or like a whatever like some social developments and so on. So it’s how can we have our thinking head on all the time or what are the, if there’s a, other criteria by which, you know, that we can say people, I mean, okay, you have to always use these kinds of tools so you do not get manipulated or like, you know, people tell you all kinds of lies and you fall for that. In another field.

Ehret:
Yeah, a very good question. It’s a very good question. And that is something that I’ve been chewing on for a long time. That sort of question was in my heart when I wrote the “Science Unshackled” book, which is subtitled “Restoring Causality to a World in Chaos”, because in my deep dives into original writings of thinkers who made discoveries. Here I can include upon that list the writings of Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz, Max Planck.

I’ve not read all of their writings, but I’ve read enough of their original writings, The Harmony of the Worlds, The New Astronomy. I did it in a social process when I was with, I was for a period working with the Lyndon LaRouche organization for about a decade, some years back. And that was one of the positive things that I had access to through that decision to volunteer with that organization was a curriculum whereby over the course of months and months, every evening myself and a few other people would read through and we’d have, you know, we’d do astronomy nights and we’d read through the works of Kepler and we’d read through the works of Plato, just as a group dialogue process to see well, what is being said? What are the hyp– how are these potent thinkers generating their discoveries?

And when you read these things enough, you start seeing that they’re using a similar method of analysis. It’s always the same thing. They’re never just telling you what the answers are. They’re bringing you into their entire process that their minds went through in an efficient way. That went from ignorance into a eureka, a discovery process. What were the false hypotheses that they entertained along their path?

So Kepler is taking you through years of laborious false hypotheses that he’s sharing very, very generously with his readers who are able to not waste years of their lives the way Kepler wasted years of his life. But he’s doing it because he wants you to know this is a reasonable hypothesis that was holding onto me when I was trying to account for the strange anomalous behavior of Mars, the one red planet, the red star, which every 687 days will stop in its path. If you come out at the same time in the evening every night, let’s say 9 p.m., and map out where Mars is, it will always move in a certain way. And then once every 687 days, it will stop, it will be in the same path the next night, the same position, And for the next two weeks, it will be moving backwards. You’ll see it breaking its cycle, and then it will continue on its path for the next 287 days.

And ancient philosophers, natural scientists observed this, but nobody could account for why, what was the mechanism accounting for such an anomaly? And because there were certain standard models that were dominant within the professional community, within society, there were blinders, there were assumptions, axioms, that you could not question but had to assume were true, that [were] preventing people from making a more potent discovery.

Of those, the two that Kepler pointed out were causing people to be blinded from the discovery or prevented, was the belief that all– that because God is perfect, and because the circle is the most perfect of all shapes, God must have created the heavens through circular action only, perfect circles. If that’s true, well then the anomaly of Mars’ retrograde motion as they called it could only be accounted for all of a sudden by creating new entities, basically creative lieing. And these entities would be like, for example, well, either shells within shells would account for why the planets were maintaining any kind of orbit whatsoever. That’s what Aristotle said. He posited that there’d be like 47 crystal, crystal globes around the earth.

But then for the, for the circles, you had either Tyco Brahe or Ptolemy or Copernicus who all said, okay, perfect circles is the motion. But that retrograde motion of Mars must be caused by a smaller, what’s called an epicycle, these little epicycles, these small cycles upon cycles, a circle upon a circle that the planet is actually going around this tiny circle, which is itself being moved around an invisible dot, which is on the circumference of a bigger circle. And that accounted for the observation pretty well within a degree of error, but it was absurd.

It broke down. The more you try to extend it into the future, the less it actually worked as an ability to allow forecast of the future. So Kepler had to break free of that. And so what I do in my book, it looks like this is the cover. If anybody wants to read it, I go through how Kepler made his discovery in the first three chapters. And he basically was able to prove that that is impossible because he was a Platonist. He studied Plato’s method. He cites Plato extensively.

And he makes a point that Plato is not giving you the answers. He’s teaching you how to think about your assumptions, the things we take for granted. And by assuming that our core… it’s not– sometimes two people could agree on opinions, they’ll have very similar opinions, they seem to agree on 95% of what they’re saying, but then there’s this underlying disagreement that was never even stated, which makes them live in two different universes.

It’s those underlying axioms, the root of the tree of thoughts that have branches that you have to get at. And so Plato and his dialogues that Kepler is studying, he’s citing the Meno dialogue, the Timaeus, he’s citing all of these things that were known in his day in the 17th century. It’s all about looking for paradoxes, looking for where your assumptions, your hypothesis about reality break down when you press your thoughts onto the evidence of reality itself. It’s the breakdown, it’s the retrograde motion of Mars. That’s where you’ll find the fruits of a new discovery.

It won’t be to try to create a model that explains something in a way that serves as a comfort blanket to reinforce what you already believe as a prejudice. That type of thinking often causes us to ignore a lot of spectrums of reality that we should not ignore because we want our comfort blanket. We don’t– like it hurts sometimes to encounter that cognitive dissonance. But I would say in my mind, in my experience, the time you grow is when you– the baby bird flies when it’s pushed off the branch, when it’s uncomfortable. It doesn’t grow, it doesn’t fly, if it stays on the branch. So it’s getting, it’s learning to be comfortable and even in the discomfort, like leaning into the unknown with the confidence that you have intellectual wings that will be able to fly and not plummet into the abyss.

But that has to, that comes with, with earned. You have to do, like people have to do more intellectually rigorous work on themselves to merit that confidence. Sometimes if they just jump into the unknown, they will fall. They will have nothing that they’ve earned as an ability to fly, and they will make a mess of it. That’s something that I would also caution people, measure 10 times, cut once.

So the judgment is the cut. When we pass a judgment that creates a conviction, that we’re like, aha, this is, that positive judgment has to come through the fires of a lot of measuring, re-measuring, and self-analysis, self-examination of the heart, of mind, throwing out false hypotheses, like judging false thoughts to be false, that maybe looked seductive, but didn’t work. And you have to have the courage to do that, and then make the judgment. Say, okay, now a eureka moment has come. And that type of thing, a computer can never do; an AI cannot do what Kepler did. An AI can only make models with more epicycles that will more perfectly mathematically measure the observable data utilizing epicycles and equants and perfect circles, but it will not be able to come up with, because what did Kepler do?

He discovered the three laws of planetary motion, of which the third and most important was– like one was the elliptical function, that the sun is the cause. It’s not just something floating in space. It’s actually the cause of motion and heat and of life. It occupies one of the foci of an ellipse, the circle just being one special case of ellipse in Kepler’s mind. It’s not like the circle is a thing unto itself.

And the other one being the harmonic law, the law of musicality that Plato first postulated 2000 years earlier through the Timaeus dialogue, which is that the, that God made, God is a creator, is a process. God created the universe to be perfectible and beautiful and good and made us in the image of that process that could participate and discover creation and act within creation harmoniously, such that the planetary orbits around the sun are arranged harmoniously, harmonically and musically, which Kepler did with his third musical law.

That became the most important law of all known physics, which Gottfried Leibniz was able to pick up and utilize in his principles of pre-existent harmony and his discoveries and work on the infinitesimal calculus. He was a follower, in fact, of Kepler. And Max Planck also wrote in his philosophy of physics in 1935 of his appreciation for Kepler and Kepler’s method and Plato’s method. He writes about all of these things.

And they all have a sense, like Max Planck’s work on the quantum, he didn’t call it the quantum. He didn’t think of it as a particle, as an object. He literally said the quantum domain is a domain of harmonic oscillations. They were thinking in a different way than the standard model ideologues who came in through the reforms of the Rockefeller Foundation in science that was trying to bring in statisticians, mathematicians into our scientific domain to enforce the idea that being a true scientist is simply memorizing the right accepted formula, being peer reviewed by people who already think like you, right? And saying the right things that will allow you to keep your job in an academic university or to keep getting grants for lab work you’re doing.

And so you have to utilize certain common axioms, right? About, like what is a virus? Or what is the cause of climate change? You know, there’s a consensus that was enforced almost by intimidation that said, it’s this molecule called carbon, which is what we all have to give all of our focus to. It’s the driving force. And by the way, carbon tends to come from humans. It tends to be food for life. It’s a derivative of almost every industrial production you could imagine, agro or industrial.

So if we want to like, you know, account for why the climate is changing, don’t look at the sun. Don’t look at what’s going on inside of the earth. Right. Don’t look at the magnetic fields, the oscillating magnetic field. Don’t look at the cosmic radiation, which is seeding clouds that’s actually tempering the climate. Don’t look at any of those things, because that might cause you to be too disruptive. And maybe you might– but no, you have to look at this carbon dioxide molecule, which seems to be food for life and then account for all climate change as bad, destructive and caused by CO2.

So then you’ve got consensus building. You know, people start thinking like computers. And the more they think like computers, because they’re just using dominant, acceptable axioms enforced by standard models that they all have to abide by, they cannot refute the claims made that a computer will replace them at some point. Because you’re like, yeah, they don’t think like humans. They’ve been trained to think like computers.

And so when somebody says, well, a computer thinks faster than you, it calculates faster. It has more access to precedents than you do. You will be irrelevant. You will be a useless eater soon. Right. And all that we could do is give you drugs and video games while you wait for your suicide pill in euthanasia fairy land.

Fischer:
It’s terrible.

Ehret:
It is. It’s sad. It’s sad. That’s my response.

Fischer:
I have another question. Now we see a lot of emotionalized approaches to questions, like to topics. Sometimes I think, okay, it’s just too complicated for people to look at the details. They don’t want to, they don’t bother, you know, they don’t want to be bothered. They are just bored by it. They do not understand, if it’s like a legal topic or a technical topic or something like that.

Plus, maybe they’re a little bit afraid if they look into this whatever cloud seeding or other stuff. And then they just come up with an emotional response and say, “Ah, I don’t believe it”, or “I believe this person”, or whatever, “He’s going to be our savior”, or whatever, you know, these kinds of things. So they switch to some more pseudo-intuitive approach to like finding out what the truth is, or like determining what the truth is, or whatever.

But do you think that is something that is just a natural human approach, or is this also engineered, that people are, that we’ve seen a lot of emotionalization of things, you know, like, I mean, coming up with, okay, here’s the war against terror, the war against the virus. So it’s like emotionally loaded, overloaded kind of a lot of the topics.

So it’s maybe hard to just withdraw and say, okay, I look at the details just like sort of analytical, use my brain and like be very intellectual about it and then come to some final decision if I believe or not and then use the cutting knife in the end, you know?

Ehret:
Yeah... Well, the way I’m going to choose to address that great question is… Okay, well, you’re in Germany, right? So, okay, there was in the 19th century a major effort to cut and separate what’s called a geisteswissenschaft from naturwissenschaft, right?

Like the natural sciences from the spiritual sciences, philosophy, arts had to be cut off from analytical things like math and science and physics and chemistry. That had to be broken apart. And they did that everywhere. This is part of what Thomas Huxley was doing with the X-Club as well. Human beings feel and we think, and you know, in Germany there was this amazingly high density of discoveries in the 17th, 18th, 19th centuries especially, leading all the way up through Max Planck, who was a musician, right?

Max Planck was a concert, he could have been a concert pianist. Albert Einstein was a violinist, and they would perform together. And, you know, there was a different culture, where the scientists and the artists who were more potent knew that they were both expressing the same thing, different aspects of the same thing, which is the tunements of the human mind and soul to the universe, to God’s creation. And you do it through not just cold analytical reasoning, which is just computer, that’s computer logic.

Cold analytical logic is computer logic. It’s not different. It’s just analysis based on axioms. But if we assume that the universe that we were created into is also created both rational and good, morally, and beautiful, that the flower is not just an illusion to make you like flowers. It’s not just the consequence of like some Darwinian impulse somehow to think a flower is beautiful so that it doesn’t want to get eaten by a human or something. And that’s why it’s beautiful. I don’t know.

Like Darwinians will come up with all sorts of weird leaps sometimes to account for, to try to ignore the evidence for beauty’s existence. So if we assume that these are all three sides of the same thing, goodness, beauty, and reasonability, that are imbibed in creation and that we are part of that creation, then we have to also enhance our aesthetical sensibilities that ennoble our feelings to what Schiller, Friedrich Schiller, calls and described beautifully as the sublime.

So the sublime being, you know, something which occurs as the consequence of ennobling your emotions and harmonizing your emotions to reason, so that duty and freedom become increasingly unified in a mature being, which recognizes that we’re part of a tapestry of creation and that our freedoms come with responsibilities.

Our freedom is not like our right to just be left alone or do whatever we want to do. That’s an anarchist- level, lower-level freedom. And that’s not of the higher-level humanity. The higher level of humanity sees that each freedom comes with a responsibility to be a part of and amplify the good that I was born into and that’s gonna resonate after I die. So that’s like mature humans tend to tap into that to varying degrees and Schiller was no exception.

Now Schiller in his aesthetical letters does a deep dive, a very, very competent, difficult to read, but very competent and important analysis into exactly what you just said, which was the assessment of the failures of the French revolution, which he was living through in 1789. And there was a lot of hope for lovers of liberty in Europe, that the revolutionary experience of the United States would be something that could be replicated across Europe, such that Europe could be finally, could free itself of the controls of hereditary institutions, the empire system that harkened back to the days of the Roman Empire, with the leading families that would live in their castles, that would utilize agencies to manipulate the masses and keep them as serfs or feudal slaves.

That system had to be overthrown. It had to work in France. If it was going to be able to happen elsewhere, it first had to work in France. And in the early days of the French Revolution, there was a lot of good people, scientists, statesmen like Lavoisier was a leader of the revolution. Jean-Sylvain Bayy, who was the president of the Assemblée Nationale and the mayor of Paris. He was the greatest astronomer and historian of France. He was an intellect like Benjamin Franklin-level intellect of France.

Now these guys ended up getting their heads cut off, unfortunately. That great beautiful potential of the early stages got undermined by foreign-directed agents often operating through Freemasonic agencies tied to British intelligence, the British Scottish Rites that infiltrated the French Grand Orient Lodge. They were doing the same thing in Austria and Vienna against Mozart’s lodge, which was the Nine Muses, the Lodge of the Nine Sisters, the Nine Muses. So there were good lodges, bad lodges, good people, bad people. But the point being here that Schiller was sad to see that all of the good people who are like qualified to actually lead and had that integrated mind, morals, maturity, all got their heads cut off.

And the mob was turned into a weaponized, like the peasants were turned into a weaponized mob that then burnt down everything. 40,000 people got their heads cut off, and the people didn’t realize– It was kind of like today’s color revolutions, or the revolution of the Bolsheviks or later on in our current day.

The type of way the CIA creates, you know, mass proletariat democracy, regime change in Ukraine and Georgia and in a variety, beginning in the Arab Spring, in Hong Kong, is that they take people like they take people’s emotions and sense of feeling slighted by corruption in government.

And then they direct that into something that is destructive to the maximum. Now Schiller was saying the problem was that you had what he called, and maybe this is not politically correct, was a problem of two dysfunctional cultures of France that was not a problem in that same way in America. In France, the problem was you had the culture of the elites that he called “the barbarians” and the culture of the impoverished feudal serfs– because you still had seignories; there was not a lot of education amongst the 98 percent of the poor– that he called “the savages”.

So the barbarian-savage problem. The barbarians, he said, had an over-atrophied intellect. So that the elites were contaminated by a culture that was a very high culture, educationally, scientifically, very high culture, But their hearts had atrophied. There was a culture of disdain for humanity, a disdain for the poor, an uber-menchen ideology that was detached.

The masses had a lot of heart. There was so much intuition, intuitive feelings from within the masses, but they didn’t have the tempering of the mind and of culture, of reasoning to become sovereign individuals. In the case of the United States, it was a little bit different. There was more– because of the works of people like Cotton Mather, Benjamin Franklin over a century earlier, before the American Revolution– there were efforts to create high levels of literacy, high level– like you had what was known as the Latin farmer in the American colonies, people who could read the Bible in Latin, even, who could read Shakespeare. It was something that was more part of the culture so that they could read.

Any farmer could read a pamphlet of a Thomas Paine with its concept of justice and realize that it’s actually more reasonable to risk my … comfort, my security, and maybe my life in order to have liberty. Those philosophical ideas had fertile soil in the Americas. They didn’t have that in a place where nobody could even read because the elites had banned the right to use your mind. So it became a bloodbath. It became a bloody terror for five years of civil war. Like I said, it became a– it was disgusting.

And it resulted in Napoleon as the strong man being infused by the same bankers who subverted the revolution, then brought in their strong men, who then created a new age of forever wars in Europe in his efforts to reclaim, to revive the Roman Empire, which is what Napoleon saw as his right and duty to create a new Roman Empire, which ultimately was put down. But that was one possible pathway to a new world order. The Carlsbad decrees in the Congress of Vienna that came in the wake of the Napoleonic Wars was essentially the great reset, the restoration of the oligarchies that banned, you know, reading Percy Shelley and Kepler. You couldn’t read any of these things in universities. You couldn’t publish them. You would go to jail as a publisher if you tried to publish the banned books, the bad thinkers that gave rise to things like the revolutionary efforts of the Americans in Europe.

So it became suffocating. It became a very dangerous time of censorship and mass assassinations. But it didn’t work. They didn’t get their one-world global feudal consolidation either, because you still had a viable fight from people in Germany who came largely at that point. They escaped Germany and went to America, which helped America out a lot because the United States was still viable. And it became the base of the anti-imperial resistance during those 19th century years.

And despite the fact that a deep state under things like the Skull and Bones Agency, other Freemasonic organizations loyal to London, were still embedded in America working to subvert that goodness. So that’s the way I try to, when I look at the problem of people rejecting bad uses of logic and then going to the other extreme of just being an intuitive, it’s like, I’m a feeling person. It’s like, fine, you’re a feeling person, but that can also lead you into some really bad places if you– you know, people feel all sorts of things that change moment to moment. And the oligarchy knows how to use your feelings.

So I’d say, look at, read Schiller, read Schiller’s Aesthetical Letters, think about his work on the sublime, and think about what are those higher universal sentiments that Schiller is working through his art when he writes his plays like “Don Carlos” or “Wilhelm Tell” or “The Maid of Orleans”. He’s doing these plays in order– and his poetry. He’s trying to awaken through negation, through tragedy oftentimes, because it’s often through negation, like what Plato does in his dialogues, he’s taking you through what is not true, what is a false hypothesis, what is the absence of the principle, how do you feel, what are the feelings that occur when there’s an injustice, what are the feelings that occur when there’s an absence of truth or an intention to destroy truth?

What are those feelings? Because those feelings are tied to something universal about humanity and about you, that you want to keep those and grow those feelings. Because that’s going to guide your mind when you want to make a proper cut, a proper judgment about where are we as a society, where are we going, what do I do, how do I understand the context that I’m operating in? A lot of people, they don’t want to take the time to understand the context, culturally, spiritually, physically, geographically that they’re operating within before they act. It’s that jumping into action without earning it first, that causes people to fall and to do damage to their cause.

As we’ve seen, the oligarchy managed so many civil wars, revolutions that destroyed the people who were participating in the revolution. As we saw with the Bolshevik revolution, we saw it again with all of these color revolutions. We saw it with the French revolution as the oligarchy will take our hearts and cause us to be the weapon of our own destruction and enslavement. They’re trying to do it in the United States today, too. They want to weaponize the conservatives and nudge them to become violent. They want a new civil war in America. That’s one of the scenarios in play currently. It can only work if people do exactly what Schiller said don’t do.

Fischer:
So what– I mean, that leads me to America. What do you think the whole, what’s the situation there now? I mean it’s going to be a few days and we’re going to have the voting and we’ll– or results, and then we’ll, what do you think is going on over there? You say they want to weaponize, is that, I mean, is it possible for them to instigate some sort of revolution or like some violence? Is that possible?

Ehret:
Oh, it’s possible. It’s bloody possible. I have trepidation when commenting on something as wild as the American elections so soon because there’s so many factors at play that are out of our control, out of my control. I mean, I can share some considerations of which, you know, like I just read somebody sent me something. I didn’t verify it this, but this morning they sent me a little message with a link about a tabletop war game exercise being gamed out on the day of the elections by some grouping in the US military. I don’t know. Are they going to do a false flag?

I just heard Liz Cheney and Kamala Harris going on a tour giving speeches about a new Pearl Harbor. And they were utilizing the messaging of Pearl Harbor quite a bit, which is the same messaging that Liz Cheney’s father, Dick Cheney, was applying in the buildup to 9-11 as something which would organize the population around fear of an enemy. And that’s what’s been animating us now for 20, 25 or 24 years is crisis management, and … false flags that … create a fear of others. So are they going to do something? I’m throwing this out here, right? I don’t know.

But are they going to do something to their own people, whether a cyber attack or something else that they then blame on China or blame on Russia or blame on Iran or blame on Venezuela or some combination of all of them? They might, they might. It’s not out, it’s not out, you know, unheard of. Might they carry out the same type of fraud they did in 2020? I don’t know if that’s possible. I think people are too aware of, of that working. If they tried that, I think that that might break a lot of people who’ve been holding it together and they might just go crazy.

Do they think that maybe– here’s a scenario: let’s say Trump gets in. So then in my mind, there’s three possibilities. If Trump gets in either he’s been utilizing, he’s been befriending very dangerous power structures affiliated with the transhumanist I mentioned earlier, Peter Thiel, and the other transhumanist I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk, who have a lot of resources, both of them, one through Palantir especially, one through Starlink and his other operations that are tied to the US military in a very deep way.

But does he think that compromises were adequate and sufficient such that he could use them in order to ultimately defend the patriot movement by reclaiming power? I hope so.

Does he think that he could appease them, maybe make certain offers to the powers that control Musk and Thiel? Because I don’t think that either Musk or Thiel are their own men. And then break away from them and then do his own thing and pull the carpet out from under them the way that Putin kind of did, you know, in the 1990s when Putin was playing a game, offering all of these promises, acting like he was going to be a puppet for the the Russian elites that were made billionaires by the city of London and Wall Street in the 1990s, and he was acting like their friend, and then pulled the carpet out from under their feet increasingly and started sending them all to jail, and started putting a different policy in that reclaimed Russia’s sovereignty that started creating peaceful relationships with China that were not supposed to happen and with India. Might Trump do something like that? It’s possible. I hope so.

But if he does, I hope he knows how to stay alive because, you know, they could get a President Vance in, in a number of ways, if Trump is brought in. And that– I’ve seen examples throughout history of like, look at, look at how they got president Truman in or President Teddy Roosevelt or President, the first President Johnson after Lincoln is they get somebody who’s controlled, who’s part of like in the case of Vance, he’s a member of the Pilgrim Society. That’s what Henry Kissinger was the leader of for a number of decades.

The Pilgrim Society was set up in 1902 in London as an Anglo-American think tank or a club, if you would call it, of elites only, very, very limited membership allowed, that would advance the Cecil Rhodes ambition to reclaim the United States and bring in Brit– create an Anglo-American world government. That was the Pilgrim Society in 1902 when it was created, and that’s been its purpose for the next 120 years. Vance is a member. He’s been a stooge of Peter Thiel, who’s a member of the Order of Malta. That’s a serious order. So is Eric Schmidt, at least the last I checked. Oh no, Eric Prince. Sorry, Eric Prince. He’s also a Bilderberger group steering committee member. He’s not a Bilderberger group member. He’s on the steering committee.

Sorry, somebody’s calling me right now. I’m going to shut down that call. Sorry, I was getting a call there.

So at that point, could they get in a President Vance by eliminating Trump after Trump is elected? It’s possible. It’s possible that, like I said, it happened with Teddy Roosevelt being brought in, in 1901. As soon as William McKinley, the Lincoln Republican was murdered by an anarchist shill who was deployed by Emma Goldman in America, because there were all of these anarchist communes, just like you had in Europe, you had the same thing in America. And they would often like brainwash individuals to go and carry out acts of terrorism or direct assassination. That was a big thing then, still a big thing now under a few different names.

So that’s a consideration. So if Trump does actually act the part of the patriot that I hope he is and has the ability to pull the carpet out from under their feet, then that would be the best scenario, if he’s able to stay alive. If he’s got a proper strategy of protection and doing it in a very effective way. I know you’ve got to make compromises with people who are not necessarily, let’s say, noble souls.

But at the same time here, look, there is a big chunk of the elite that made vast fortunes under the age of globalization, who have billions, billions of dollars. They operate a lot of big, big companies, but they also can recognize that there is no place for them in a depopulated green New World Order that doesn’t allow for abundance, production of anything beyond windmills and solar panels. So I think you have a pragmatism factor amongst a faction, possibly a significant faction of the business community of Europe, which has not been doing a very good job, I must add, of resisting, as Volkswagen’s getting shut down now. Four or five new Volkswagen plants were shut down in Germany this week, or announced.

So that being said, it’s still a factor, though. There’s still political influence that these companies have, and the people who are being assigned to be flushed are putting their backing in various right-wing leaders who represent a patriot message and recognize that it’s bad business to go to thermonuclear World War III, who recognize that it’s bad business to just kill off 90 percent of the world population, because that’s your customer base.

So that’s a factor that I try to hold in my mind that I think, that I hope Trump is very well organized with. Not that they’re good, they’re not good, but they don’t want, they know that they’re going to be, they’re not going to make it. They’re not part of the special people.

I think the same thing is applicable to Saudi Arabia or the UAE, whose entire economy has been based upon oil and hydrocarbon fuels. They have no place in the New World Order beyond being a little slave colony. I think that that’s where these countries have found it– have found the courage, especially around the figure of Mohammed bin Sultan, who’s in a very difficult place or Erdogan as well, to do battle with the Western-directed deep-state complexes that have been heavily embedded for generations within those, those countries of Turkey, within Saudi Arabia, within the UAE. And I’ve seen battles because of this reality. Just like I saw it in Russia and I still see it in Russia. There’s still … traitors with power in Russia. China’s done a better job of dealing with these traitors, but there are still … those who have influence. and they’re bad. The head of AstraZeneca in China just got thrown in jail.

You know, the World Economic Forum puppets like Jack Ma, who’s a World Economic Forum trustee, one of the richest men in China, got taken down because he called for an overthrow of the Chinese government in 2020. So they’re doing a better job than we are at taking their Bill Gates operatives and putting them in prison and removing them from power, which is also why there’s so much effort being made to spread certain narratives within the alternative media community to get us to hate and fear Russia, China, and that whole thing, in my mind. That’s my assessment. Because they’re actually doing a viable fight that we could learn from, which actually has precedent in the times in our deep past, where we were better and we didn’t suck and we were able to utilize the power of the sovereign nation-state to do battle with the oligarchy.

We don’t have that. We let go of that. We stopped even trying to use the sovereign nation-state. At this point, everyone’s just trying to go local and build parallel micro economies. And they’ve given up on trying to recapture the sovereign nation-state — except for Trump, who’s still trying. And that, for me, is very important. If we give up on the fight for recapturing the sovereign nation-states and utilizing the sovereign nation-state as a power, it’s a great power that could do great damage as we have seen or great good, if you have a noble culture and a noble, you know, orientation, like a real qualified leader, like a John F. Kennedy type who’s willing to die for their conscience. If you have that, then you could do a lot of good to defend people and to battle the oligarchy, as I see many of those nations of Eurasia doing a more advanced job and a better job competently than we are. That’s my take.

Fischer:
Yeah, it’s interesting. I think there’s a lot of this going local. Of course, on a certain level, it’s important. It’s like, you know, looking at what the local farmer has and connecting and having like a viable neighborhood and like a self-help organizations and so on.

Ehret:
Yeah, I do that too. Like my wife and I, we bought a little house in a farmland, because we’re preparing for those scenarios. We buy local. Don’t get me wrong.

Fischer:
No, no, no. I completely understand, but I’m also doubtful about this. I mean, because that is also like an EU topic. There shouldn’t be any borders and you should be like small regions and then even regions who don’t even share the same language or don’t share the same kind of history, you know, where there’s no connection. And then you have like this, this group of people that, you know, it’s, I mean, it’s much easier to, to overcome these, these people when you have a sort of like an authoritarian agenda than when you have like a crowd who’s been like, you know, together for like generations of families or like a family run businesses they want to defend and so on, that’s of course it’s much tougher then.

So I completely, I’m also not in favor of these no nation- state. I mean, a nation-state doesn’t have to be nationalistic in the sense of that everyone who’s moved here is now excluded or whatever. We don’t want to have only people who have been here for 200 generations or something like that. But on the other hand, if you give up completely on this idea that maybe you share a language, history, some common beliefs and so on, it can also weaken the people who are there. So it has to be absolutely really looked at.

I have one more question. Do you know the Elon Musk, the whole satellite you mentioned that you think he’s basically a front or could be a front or his companies could be a front for military. So you think that maybe these satellites are a military project and it would just be nasty to say, “Oh, the military is putting up all these satellites up there. Look, you know, they’re surveilling us from all over and it’s an army project. Oh, are they going to shoot at us?” and so on.

So it’s much more, much better sellable to the common public if it’s this young startup guy who maybe also started up in a garage or like, you know, these kinds of things. So that’s the story. And you think he’s not a real hero, whatever, for people? Yeah.

I don’t think that there’s, I think– he has said in his own words that he doesn’t– he believes that we’re living in a computer simulation. He doesn’t believe in reality. He believes that humans as our nature are simply complex logarithms. When he was asked to, on an interview to describe what it’s like to be a father watching his kids grow up, he described a girl net. And then the interviewer is like, “What are you talking about? I asked you about your kids.” And he’s like, “I asked you about a child.” And he’s like, “I am talking about a child.” I recognize this way of thinking as being like, my enemy. Like, all of the worst people in the world that I’ve studied think like that.

And he also believes that we need to merge with machines through things that he’s actually bringing on line, whether he’s doing it or not. I mean, it might be, I think he’s a front for something else that’s bringing this stuff on line, as far as neural chips that he believes must be implanted into our, into all of our brains in order to have what he believes some form of weird, gnostic, telepathic communication with robots that he thinks are spiritualized beings [in] some weird way. He’s got this philosophy that comes through in some of his interviews where he believes that we are immortal, in his mind. The proof of the soul, in his mind, is simply that when we die, the imprint of our emails, of our social media, are imprinted forever in some etheric space. That’s sufficient for him of like, what is metaphysics?

Nothing about– nothing beyond that. And to stay relevant in a Darwinian struggle for survival, he believes we need to merge with machines, as does Peter Thiel. And again, these are all recipe books for fascism. When I look at Elon Musk, and I just wrote a piece, I’m actually going to be publishing a book in a couple of weeks on going into this, which will actually deal with the fraud of Tesla. Number one, Nikola, and number two, Tesla 2.0, in the form of this other golem. There’s a story of the golem, right? This Jewish Kabbalist mystic who created a golem.

Fischer:
Like a Frankenstein basically.

Ehret:
Yeah, I see these characters as golems. I see Elon as a golem. I see Bill Gates as a golem. George Soros is a golem. They’re completely other-directed. They will never be in a position where the environment that they go into is not extremely controlled and curated.

The image we’re supposed to feel of these people and different people or different audiences that have a different messaging targeted for them. But when we have a feeling about Musk, the great hero, that messaging, that feeling that we have had that awakes in people who think so positively of this great savior, It’s been groomed there by a vast, highly-controlled propaganda campaign.

And it’s very similar to what was done to the young girls in 1963, who were brought in from high schools to an airport, they were each paid $20 and bussed to this airport and told to scream for the cameras when whoever walks out of that plane walks out. And say the word “Beatles” a lot. Say “Beatles”, try to scream. And the next day, and the girls were like, who, what are we screaming for? The crickets or something? And they’re like, no, the Beatles. I don’t know. And then they started screaming just like they were supposed to.

And the next day, all of the press had the British invasion, Beatlemania, and everybody, all of a sudden, you know, women were swooning, passing out because the power of the feeling was so strongly embedded.

That’s the type of thing that they’ve been doing. They did that with Trudeau Mania to get Pierre Elliott Trudeau elected. They used the same marketing template of the Beatles in 1968 to get Pierre Elliott Trudeau to become, it was called Trudeau mania. He was like a rock star celebrity.

So they do that. They always do that in their own ways. Now you have Jordan Peterson and Joe Rogan and other influencers who are going over the top. Even they’ve got Trump saying over the top positive things about Elon. That’s all just reinforcing this story of what he is and ignoring the fact that, no, his grandpa, Joshua Haldeman is somebody who is at the highest levels of the Silicon Valley transhumanist Nazis of the 1930s and 40s and 50s. He was the head of the Technocracy Party, Incorporated, which I think is directly at play right now. But the Technocracy Party, Incorporated was run by Joshua Haldeman.

I have a whole article. It’s a very big article on my sub-stack going through all of this history. It’s going to be a part of my new book. Haldeman’s idea was to create a technate, a global technate with sub-technates in different regions of the world managed by scientific managers, experts, engineers, to manage the scarcity of society and what technology would be permittable for society under a post-national age. And it was very much in alignment with the globalist agenda.

He got put in jail in 1941 for being on the wrong side of World War II in Canada, because he was also extremely… It’s fascism with a different flavouring, but it’s still fascism. And then after he got out of jail, he picked up his family, including his daughter, Mae, Mae Haldeman, who became Mae Musk, and flew to South Africa and became one of the richest white elites of apartheid South Africa the year that it went apartheid. His father, Errol Musk, was immensely wealthy, owned an Emerald mine, invested in his son’s first startup companies in the 90s after he dropped out of Stanford after two days. So I don’t know about some of the details, but this is the thing that immediately joined in with Peter Thiel.

You know, he was obviously vetted, selected, you know, just like Bill Gates was earlier, just like Jeff Bezos was vetted, selected, assigned a certain privilege to be the front man, the rock star for certain things that people wouldn’t trust the military doing. Like in the case of Microsoft, people still associated IBM with the Nazis, correctly so in the seventies, and they needed to get somebody to market IBM entering people’s households, which became Microsoft in the form of the child of Bill Gates Sr. So they built a whole aura around him about the story of him just starting it up in a garage, being a genius kid in a garage. It’s always like, no, Zuckerberg.

Facebook itself, the entire social media architecture grew out of psychiatrists and anthropologists who had been tied to MK-Ultra and Tavistock, working with DARPA in the 1960s and 70s figuring out how do you create social networks of self-profiling maps of people who would then only become tribal, tribal speaking only and networking only with people who geographically might be separated, but would intellectually be the same identity profiles as they were.

And that was the point of why social media was brought on line through military channels. And then they had to market it through a figure like, you know, Zuckerberg, a Harvard kid who was just brilliant. And they did the same thing for Twitter. So yeah, I think Musk, he had early contacts as soon as they sold one of his Zip2 companies and you know, and then you had PayPal also.

And X actually was also one of those things that he was doing back in the 90s, his everything app. When that was sold, he made a big billionaire, a millionaire. He was brought into In-Q-Tel, which is the commercial front for the CIA. And it was an In-Q-Tel executive that brought both Elon and Peter Thiel into their operations back in the year 2002, 2003 through the creation of Starlink. Not Starlink, what we, yeah, Starlink was originally an In-Q-Tel initiative. They just needed Elon to be there. Also SpaceX grew out of that.

For Peter Thiel, his Palantir was always part of the total surveillance dragnet that Dick Cheney was pushing, that Palantir was created to be a civilian front for this thing. So yeah, I don’t trust any of that stuff at all. And yeah, I think it’s a very dangerous game.

Wow. I mean, that clearly shows like what we discussed before, that you have to really question all these things and have to apply proper analytical thinking and proper, you know, like a thorough, what you suggested, like ask the right questions and stay vigilant and, I don’t know, do a combination of listening to your heart and to the universe and to also use your head. I think what you have to develop in addition is really this capacity to be at ease with chaos or at ease with not, an unsure situation, you know, like with being outside of your comfort zone that you can still be relaxed because that is gets a lot of people into, you know, so much trouble that they then have to hop on a solution and say, oh, you know this, I don’t need to bother, Elon Musk is a great guy, or he’s going to save us, or whatever you might pick, or nature or the trees, I just have to try to hug the trees and then everything’s going to be good. So I think you have to really be, I don’t know, just like stay in a kind of receptive mind of what’s going on and at the same time have some sort of deep water within you where just the surface has a little bit of waves going on, but the rest stays calm. I guess that’s maybe the best way to get over these really violent and confusing times.

Ehret:
I– very well said, yeah, I couldn’t agree more. I couldn’t agree more.

Fischer:
Well, Matthews, thanks so much for having joined up with us today again. And it’s always so fruitful, the conversations with you, and it’s so inspiring. And I’m very much looking forward to the new book. That sounds very promising, the Tesla–

Ehret:
You know what it’s going to be? It’s going to be three books I’m releasing at the same time. I’ve been working the past year on three books simultaneously, and they’re all ending at the same place.

I’ve never done this before. So yeah, they’re all converging in the same point; and they seem to be different, but they’re the same. So yeah, I’m just going to make them all come out at the same time as a trilogy, probably at the end of the month after I just clean them up and edit them a little bit more.

Fischer:
Okay cool, so there might be something to read for like the Christmas holidays, then. But could you give us a hint what it’s about like it’s the Tesla thing, or like some–

Ehret:
Yeah it’s “The Revenge of the Mystery Cults”, volume one to three. So the first one is going to be a little bit more on what are the ancient Gnostic and earlier mystery cults that shaped the ancient world, and how did they transmogrify or rebrand themselves after Rome collapsed? So that story is going to involve the emergence, what created the Templars, the Knights Hospitaller, the other Gnostic knights, Cathar knights and stuff. And like, how did that interface with things like the Vikings that were always sort of the ISIS kind of groupings that were deployed by the old Roman patrician families and ancient higher priesthood to do basically dirty work, whether it’s pillage this or pillage that or take control, you know take control of Russia, destroy this kingdom, whatever, take control of England, do the Norman invasion, take control of Spain and Italy, do that.

That was part of what their assignment was. And a lot of these things became a lot of the families, slightly lower-tier, but still very high-up families of Europe. And I’m going to map out some of those things and how that manifested in the 20th-century occult revival.

Book two is going to be on the occult Tesla, number one and number two. So what was Nikola Tesla actually doing? What was he a part of? And I will maintain, I went into it liking Tesla, like everybody. I thought he was the great hero and electrical genius that he’s marketed as. And I discovered in doing my digging that there’s a darker– it’s kind of like the Elon story that I went through. It’s kind of like, there’s something like that, that’s even more twisted for Nicola. That brings in Alistair Crowley the satanist and others. It gets, it’s going to be a weird story. But anyway, that’s gonna be volume two.

Volume three is going to be on Edgar Allan Poe and what was Poe doing to revive this method of analysis in his philosophy and literature, as well as in his political works, and how can we use it to dissect and diagnose a lot of things today. And that’s going to go through the story of Jack– I’ve got several chapters on there going through what the Jack the Ripper story was actually about, which is not what anybody can imagine. It’s so much– So that that’s going to be volume three.

Very interesting. Sounds very promising. And I think you need a lot of, as I said, deep water to digest this stuff, to see some more waves on the surface. But this could be bigger waves. So far, I’ve thought that the old Tesla is just a decent guy with a lot of whatever inventions and so, but if that is not the case, it might be something that we have to swallow. I’m looking forward to that. It’s going to be interesting.

Ehret:
I’ll send you a free copy. Let me know what you think.

Fischer:
Okay. Cool. Thanks so much. And then stay at the edit, I guess. That’s a lot of work now for the, if you have to finalize these three books, you’re going to be super busy.

Ehret:
Thank you. Yeah, I’ll, I’ll try and we’ll, we’ll keep talking, but thank you for giving me a chance to share some ideas. I loved your questions and looking forward to future chats.

Fischer:
Super. Thanks so much and have a great weekend then.

Ehret:
Thank you, you too. Bye.

Fischer:
Bye.

 

 

 

Follow my work on Telegram at: T.me/CanadianPatriotPress