Hearts of Oak Podcast

The Week According To . . . Lewis Brackpool

From a wet and windy UK, welcome to our regular dive into the past weeks headlines, stories and talking points from across the web and social media.And to help us analyse this episodes offerings we welcome back our good friend, journalist and commentator, Lewis Brackpool.Plenty for Lewis and Peter to get their teeth stuck into from the past seven days, including...- Howling Mad Murdock joins Hearts of Oak!- Trans Awareness Month: Does this coincide with Mental Health month?- Check in on Your Mates: Leading cause of death in males between the ages of 20 - 49 in England is suicide.- We got Brexit done? Britain handed over more than £9billion to Brussels last year.- Andrew Bridgen MP takes on the power-hungry World Health Organization.- Anger at planned march for Palestine in London on Armistice Day.- Hey Labour Party. Whatever happened to your poppies?- Grooming Gangs UK: 70 years for gang who sexually abused girls 'like pieces of meat'.- Crypto King' Sam Bankman-Fried faces decades in jail after guilty verdict.-Trump 2024: DJT continues to hold a big lead in the Republican primary.
Lewis Brackpool is an independent journalist, reporter, broadcaster, commentator, and writer in politics, culture, news & current affairs.SUBSTACK:     https://lewisbrackpool.substack.com/GETTR:            https://gettr.com/user/lewis_brackpoolX:                     https://twitter.com/Lewis_Brackpool?s=20&t=ugH3aHz8n6Su4agPZJouqQTELEGRAM:    https://t.me/lewisbrackpool
Originally broadcast live 4.11.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and morehttps://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Links to topics discussed this episode.....Dwight Schultzhttps://heartsofoak.podbean.com/e/dwight-schultz-its-alright-to-be-dwight-001/Substackhttps://heartsofoak.substack.com/Trans https://x.com/DVATW/status/1720430158186684584?s=20 Killer Pods https://x.com/lotuseaters_com/status/1720168907036631160?s=20Suicide Podshttps://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1719714290611978490?s=20Male suicidehttps://x.com/Lewis_Brackpool/status/1717871827454775614?s=20Brexit https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12708683/Brexit-EU-Britain-Brussels.htmlAndrew Bridgen https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/now-andrew-bridgen-takes-on-the-power-hungry-world-health-organization Armistice Dayhttps://x.com/MartinDaubney/status/1720035360548192690?s=20Labour https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/1720527804716958044?t=cKrDaF9Z8O6in6gcuT5BBw&s=19 Grooming Gangshttps://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1830300/rochdale-gang-abuse-girls-sentenceSam Bankman-Fried https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/business-67281759.ampTrumphttps://pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker

Dwight Schultz - Its Alright to be Dwight: #002

Welcome to 'Its Alright to be Dwight'A podcast with the television, film and voice actor Dwight Schultz, exclusive to Hearts of Oak.This episode Dwight muses on 'The Sausage on a Stick' named Biden in The White House, World Totalitarians, The Persecution of Trump, Obama Judges, Prejudices and Lies, The Destruction of the United States and our Children, Narcissistic Feelings, Mike Lindell and War-Fare, Socialistic Nonsense and WEF Flesh Eating Cows! 
A respected performer on Broadway, Dwight Schultz found everlasting fame by playing the certifiable "Howling Mad" Murdock on the action series "The A-Team" (1983-86).A living, breathing cartoon with a seemingly endless selection of voices and accents at his command, Murdock provided the air power for the A-Team's clandestine adventures, provided that his compatriots could break him out of the mental hospital where he resided.One of the show's most popular and memorable figures, Murdock ensured Schultz steady work on television and on the big screen playing Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation"An accomplished voice actor, Dwight can be heard in numerous hit computer games and in countless animated shows. To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!

Naomi Wolf - Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith and Resistance in a New Dark Age

Show Notes and Transcript
Naomi Wolf's latest book is something a little different. Yes, it looks at the dark age which we all find ourselves living in, a world of wrong-think and de-platforming. But it also tells a different story, one of an unexpected political, personal and spiritual transformation in Naomi's life that mirrors the change many of have seen in our own social circles. Her high profile pilgrimage for truth saw Naomi cast out from her social and media circles for the crimes of challenging authority and questioning the narrative. In this book she shares the personal story of re-finding herself in terms of politics and in terms of spirituality. This is an honest story of the cost of defending truth and of the joy of rediscovering faith and a higher purpose.
Naomi Wolf is a bestselling author, columnist, and professor; she is a graduate of Yale University and received a doctorate from Oxford.She is cofounder and CEO of DailyClout.io, a successful civic tech company.Since the publication of her landmark international bestseller, The Beauty Myth, which The New York Times called “one of the most important books of the 20th century," Naomi’s other seven bestsellers have been translated worldwide.The End of America and Give Me Liberty: A Handbook For American Revolutionaries, predicted the current crisis in authoritarianism and presented effective tools for citizens to promote civic engagement.Naomi trains thought leaders of tomorrow, teaching public presentation to Rhodes Scholars and co-leading a Stony Brook University that gave professors skills to become public intellectuals.She was a Rhodes scholar herself, and was an advisor to the Clinton re-election campaign and to Vice President Al Gore. Dr Wolf has written for every major news outlet in the US and many globally; she had four opinion columns, including in The Guardian and the Sunday Times of London.She lives with her husband, veteran and private detective Brian, in the Hudson Valley.
'Facing the Beast: Courage, Faith, and Resistance in a New Dark Age'Available in paperback, e-book and audio-book from 9th November 2023  https://amzn.eu/d/dgSoBZJ
Connect with Dr Wolf and Daily CloutWebsite:     https://www.dailyclout.io/GETTR:       https://gettr.com/user/drnaomirwolf                    https://gettr.com/user/dailycloutX:                 https://twitter.com/naomirwolf?s=20&t=C3Z2HzsjHsBtvAirPK3YoA                    https://twitter.com/DailyClout?s=20&t=C3Z2HzsjHsBtvAirPK3YoASubstack:   https://naomiwolf.substack.com/
Interview recorded 26.10.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!
 
Subscribe now
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
Naomi Wolf, it is wonderful to have you back. Thank you so much for your time today.
(Naomi Wolf)
Thank you so much, Peter. I'm really happy to be talking to you again.
Great, and we are going to look at your latest book, which is out, I think it's out on 9th of November, is it? 
Yes.
So it's just coming out. Perfect Christmas present. And I have loved reading through it, especially the spiritual aspect that comes out.But let me bring it up.That is it. Facing the beast.Courage, faith and resistance in a new dark age.People can obviously find you on Twitter on GETTR or anywhere else.That's your handle. And dailyclout.io, you, of course, are the co-founder and CEO.And we've had we had Amy Kelly on probably six months ago. Great conversation with her on the Pfizer documents and delved into that. I actually thought, it's interesting that you've come from the left and I read the Tucker Carlson piece right at the beginning. Naomi Wolf is one of the bravest and clearest thinking people I know. The reason you hear the forces of repression so desperately trying to dismiss her is because she is right. I wondered how long ago would you have to go to think that a endorsement by Tucker would have been the kiss of death.Yeah. You know, I've never really been, I've been a fixture on the legacy media left for my whole career.But I never really understood like tribalism. I've always been really happy to talk to conservatives or, you know, anyone.I mean.That's how I learned things. So, I think I would have always been happy to talk to Tucker Carlson, but it is absolutely true that the minute I began talking to conservatives, also the minute I began reporting accurately on the dangers of the mRNA injection, which happened to coincide, I became a non-person on the left, and that is part of the story I tell in Facing the Beast.
Absolutely. The beginning was intriguing, chapter one of Lost Small Town.And one of the lines in it is, I forgive my neighbour who froze when I hugged her.I forgive my other neighbours who told me she was making homemade soup and fresh bread and that I could join her for some if I was vaccinated. If I was unvaccinated, however, she explained, someday she might consent to walk outdoors with me.And I think when people experience the last three years, many people are stuck at that stage of anger, at what has happened.And it's wonderful to talk, to see you referring so many times to actually forgive those injustices.And maybe you want to just touch on how you've arrived at that, because forgiveness is not necessarily a natural emotion. Anger is the first one that comes up, but you've moved well past that.And I think that's enlightening.Well, I don't want to overstate my evolved nature as a human on the planet.Forgiveness doesn't mean I'm not furious.I think, you know, I keep using that quote from Fitzgerald, the genius is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in your mind at the same time and still function.I am furious. I'm furious at all of them. And I forgive them, right?If all I am is furious then I'm gonna shrivel up and die from rage, right? But a lot of the book is also about accountability and a lot of my life day by day is about accountability because maybe not the men and women in the street whom I described in that chapter who were forced by the local boards of health putting pressure on the local, I guess, business council, whatever or regulates businesses, I guess all the Board of Health.They were the ones who forced these small business people who had everything to lose by their businesses going under, forced them to become police of their neighbours' bodies, forced teenagers working at the local movie theatre to shun and enforce a two-tier society, forced the florist to leap at customers and say, are you vaccinated?No one sane would have wanted to do that. But a lot of what I explore, and I'm the granddaughter of Jews in Europe and of a woman particularly who lost nine brothers and sisters in the Holocaust, but a lot of what I'm exploring in Facing the Beast is that parallel with 1931 to 1933, when people were forced to do things they didn't want to do that ended up in genociding their neighbours.That's exactly where we were and are at. So yes, forgiveness is just like, how do I remain emotionally and spiritually alive and growing, but it doesn't mean we don't haul the leaders of this effort off to, you know, in handcuffs, to prison, you know, to face trial and criminal charges. We do.
Chapter two, opening boxes from 2019, and in it you talked about 11th of March 2020, you and Brian looked at each other and said we're getting out of here and that was through the governor there, Andrew Cuomo, beginning to lock down, I think he talked about Broadway being closed. Now that was intriguing, because I think you talked to a lot of people, it took a while to realise actually what is happening is not going to blow over in a couple of weeks and people hoped and believed that actually within three months we might be past it and then the penny begun to drop. And I've talked to friends, friends in Canada actually, who fled Canada, who did the same thing, got in a car and just drove out of there. Tell us that, because you saw bad things were coming right at the beginning. Most people aren't willing to take that jump. They kind of sit and they hope it will go away and don't act as quickly as you did.
Yeah, that was such an interesting moment. And I, you know, I'm often so grateful that that my husband, Brian O'Shea, has life experiences that are not the same as mine.He spent much of his career in military intelligence embedded with special forces and in conflict areas around the world, and the balance of his career in intelligence, intelligence.So it weirdly mirrors being a journalist in conflict areas And journalists and spies, both are researchers.So we really understand each other. But I think both of us, from different times in our lives when we've been in conflict areas and very unstable political situations, when the governor can say Broadway is closing and Broadway closes all at once, both of us immediately understood that it wasn't America anymore.In America, you can't just close someone's business by fear, right?And in America business owners who don't want to close, don't close, you know, it's their decision.So, once the state can do something as draconian as closing a gigantic cultural engine which employs thousands of people in the greatest city on earth, then they can build quarantine camps, they can put people in quarantine camps, they can force injections, they can force organ harvesting, they can really do whatever they want.And so I'd written a book in 2008 called The End of America that looked at closing societies, times and places where fragile democracies were undermined or overthrown by totalitarians on the left or on the right.And I saw that there's a map that they all take the same 10 steps.So by having done that research, I realized, well, emergency law, which this governor declared, is step 10.And he wasn't lifting it. it was two weeks to flatten this curve.He wasn't lifting it in April, in May, in June. It was still emergency law.And so by June, when we were already in the woods and it was unlawful according to him by no representative process for us to have more than six people in our home, I realized this is full-on totalitarianism.They're never gonna let us out without a fight. I put that on social media, this is it.They're not letting us out.And I invited 50 people into my home for a potluck and I put it on social media because I at that point realized the only way we're going to have a democracy back ever, and this is history informing me, is if we all resist immediately and refuse to comply and do it very flagrantly.Now, chapter 3, what is a miracle? You talk about feeling overwhelmed at what was happening, how can we overcome the adversaries that we face.And you mention a moment where the mountain range seems to light up.And you realize I started laughing, it was as if God was saying, don't be silly, just look at me.Was the depth of my despair answered by a massive blaze of gold just when I needed a miracle, or was a miracle simply happened to look up and notice something?That line, was a miracle, I think it was Eric Metaxas, I think, wrote a book about miracles.As a fascinating concept, being a Brit, not one, never discussing faith, and obviously in the US it's a different, bolder attitude, but still amongst many people this is not a conversation you have, and certainly miracles are definitely not on the conversation topic. I love just that title, What is a miracle is a fascinating title. 
Yeah, thank you. Yeah, well, you know, Peter, as you have seen, I've kind of dropped a lot of my prohibitions and inhibitions. You know, really my de-personing by the left was a blessing in disguise because I have nothing left to lose by saying what I really think. And you're absolutely right, I lived in Britain for many years. I lived in Scotland too. You're Scottish, right? No?
I'm Northern Irish, but we have an affinity with the Scots just across the water.
Right. I think I've asked you that before. Forgive me. But yes, the Celts.Britain is super, it's not just secular, it's like it is considered very tacky to talk about faith.And it's considered very tacky to talk about faith in my sophisticated, you know, Ivy League.You know, West and East Coast elite world. You're allowed to go to synagogue, you know, and say, well, I'm, you know, I went up for Yom Kippur, I went for Rosh Hashanah.Or if you're Christian, you can have Christmas, I suppose. But really, it's weird if you go to church on Sunday.It's certainly weird if you, I mean, miracles and that whole discourse of God actually having a hand in your actual life is really interestingly considered to be so vulgar to discuss.It's like worse, it's more taboo than sex addiction or gambling addiction or alcoholism.It's like super unsayable.But I was having, the story of the last two and a half years is also a story of a journey of faith on my part.And I did have experiences that you really can't explain and that were positive.But also, as I pointed out, what's a miracle?There are miracles all around us that we just don't categorize as miracles.Like a baby being born, that's a miracle.So much has to go right for that to happen. And the fact that there can be life is a miracle.Actually, Orthodox Jews understand this. They're always thanking God for very mundane things that we overlook.But love is a miracle. Families are miracles. It's all a miracle, right?Healing is a miracle.I did have this super weird experience, which I've videotaped, of my little dog Mushroom was passing away at 18.And as he was dying, in the river near our house, there was a long, suddenly out of nowhere, it was midwinter, a long stemmed red rose, a real one, just not over the water, not under the water, like hovering under the water about 10 inches under this rushing icy stream.And it literally just stayed there for 10 days. It wasn't caught on anything.It was completely not understandable in any physical terms that I had.And I showed Brian. Literally, I posted this. He's a witness.A million people are witnesses that this happened.And then when Mushroom died, the petals released, and it flowed away.But roses have all kinds of symbolic meaning in a bunch of religions.Was it a miracle? I don't know, and that was Brian's line, what's a miracle?Maybe that's the wrong question.Like maybe it's all a miracle, and it just takes our noticing it.I mean, part of why I shared that is I also more quickly came to the conclusion that there was a force of evil that had been unleashed in 2020 that is still with us, that is more massive and gigantic and not explainable in normal human political rationalist terms than I had ever witnessed in my lifetime.And that it was like negative proof. If a force of evil can be this big, this sophisticated, get all the leaders of all the nations to do exactly the same things with the exact same language and exactly the same time sequence and cast a spirit of delusion on so many people I knew and loved that was impenetrable, but not open to any fact, and divide families, and allow a two-tier discriminatory society all over the West in nations predicated by law and human rights and equality under the law, overnight, that everyone embraced a discrimination society.Not to mention other horrible things like sacrificing children, feeding children up to an experimental injection, the idea of the loss of bodily autonomy, which is part of slavery, right?Like all of this was so big and happening in a way that human history doesn't unfold, right? Human history, even with the worst tyrants, there are factions, there's backbiting, there's assassination attempts. Not everyone goes along with it all over the world all at once, ever. So I had to conclude that that scale of evil was metaphysical. Because human practice, even the worst human politics can't accomplish that.And subsequently I concluded that if something that evil was metaphysical, it must be aimed at something metaphysical that was good. And so I became much more open to the idea that God or the creative force in the world that is good exists and exists in a really intimate way and cares about humanity and that this was a struggle between good and evil for the bodies and souls of humanity. 
And that whole struggle against good and evil, I mean, that's personally one of the issues which has helped me through it, and that is not a stick to lean on, that's accepting truth. Because chapter 5, thinking like a tyrant, and if you look into what has happened, the evil, but then your chapter 4, principalities and powers, that you realize that there is something more behind it. Because if all you see is the evil in humanity, then it's hopelessness.But if you do believe and understand and realise there is that battle between good and evil which is bigger than that human aspect, then it means you can sit back, you can reassess it, and it's not hopelessness, it's actually looking past that. And to me that is the way we actually live through and see past the chaos that we've faced over the last three years. 
Yeah, I mean I agree with you if I understand what you're saying but I'm not sure that I agree that humanity is essentially good. I think and this is a difference between, I think it's a, I've had really interesting conversations that reveal the real differences in heritage between Jews and Christians. Christians are pretty sanguine right now because they in their book it all ends happily. Revelation, Jesus returns, it's all fine. And as a Jew, I'm freaking out.And I'm freaking out because it doesn't really necessarily end happily in our story, right?There were times when, you know, Jerusalem was reduced to rubble and its inhabitants were, you know, killed or enslaved.There were times when we were exiled to Babylon and we wept beside the waters of Babylon and we missed Zion.There were times when we were fed into ovens, you know, in post kind of Christian history or murdered by the Inquisition, like.It doesn't end happily necessarily for us. That said, like without, without, how can I put it?I think we're in a time of moral testing, and I don't think it's just going to be okay if we don't step up. And that's really the message of the Hebrew Bible, which I'm reading the 1560 Bible, aloud, which is the Founders Bible, very important Bible in England and Scotland. It was a Bible created before the King James Bible by English dissidents, reformers, who would be put to death in England, some of them were put to death, but they fled to Geneva. And there they just translated the Bible into English from the Hebrew. So it's the most accurate direct translation I've read.I read Hebrew as well. And I'm not surprised that it's the Founders Bible and the Puritans Bible, because it has such a different, the translation is so different from the King James and other subsequent Bibles. My point is, it's definitely a Bible that conveys the message of the Hebrew Bible, which is don't wait for an intermediary. Someone else is not gonna make it okay. You have to, you know, walk with God, you know, along in the relationship that God set out and sought out, you know, with human beings if you want to be blessed, if you want life, like literally. And horrible things happen, not because of a punitive God, but because of universal laws, when people choose to worship themselves as, you know, as it's put, I think, several times in the Hebrew Bible. So, I guess I'm not saying you're not right. I personally don't think labels matter anymore.I'm not saying I'm right. I'm just saying there are different kind of calculus is in the different religions about what we do.And right now I'm very much in the Hebrew Bible calculus of, I don't think we're gonna survive this if we don't proactively, every single one of us, kind of align with the relationship that God set out for us with him.A hundred percent. Following God, I don't think, negates our responsibility, because back if Abraham had not followed the call of God, then the history would be different. So we have our role to play, but I think probably the promises are what God says for a thousand generations. So it lasts past good times and bad times, and then goes further. But none of that negates our position and responsibility to do what we can do, that we are called to do, and the skills and the abilities and the talents that we have to actually make a difference.
I agree with you, absolutely. 
Chapter 6, the subtlety of monsters. Again, it can be over, you talk about vaccines did not manage to wipe out humanity's ability to reproduce, though live births are down 13 to 20 percent, it was central bank digital currencies, 15-minute cities, internet of things, GMO mosquitoes, there are whole, Dutch farmers de-banking as a whole plethora.I've probably, when you see that, because it all comes, it is subtle.It is for our good, for our health, to help us, for our convenience.Convenience comes up often. How do you get past, or how do you kind of persuade people that these are evil?Because often you can point out these issues, 15 minutes cities, oh, well, being local is good.No, no, no, it's about restricting you, controlling you. And sometimes people cannot, despite what's happened the last three years, cannot see past that government propaganda, I guess.
Right. Yeah. Wow. That's such an important question.And again, I think there are regional differences in how easy or hard it is to persuade the people around you that, you know, it may seem convenient or green, but it's really going to enslave you and your children forever.So I wrote in The Bodies of Others, my last book, about the really toxic threat that the EU represents, in my view.And I'm sure from what you just said, you might agree with this.Or you already agree, and I should learn from you.But the EU, again, having lived in Britain before Brexit for many years, I was very aware that Britain has a robust tradition of individualism and freedom of speech and the rule of law and people clamouring, Chartism, clamouring for representation in government.It's not a Marxist communitarian history at all, or even that's not even organic to Britain's, not Britain, not Wales, not Ireland, not Scotland, no one's ideology.It's not an organic part of the culture. And yet, I noticed over 10 or 15 years how really communist ideas were chipping away, chipping away, chipping away at that British tradition.And then I really noticed in about 2015 or 16 that no one knew how to lobby their MPs anymore.And when I would ask people later under, I'm not sure I have the timeline right, when Britain was part of Europe, I would say, do you know how to lobby your MEP?And of course, then I looked at the structure of the European Union, and sure enough, it was a giantmess that pretty much came down to, it's not a representative government at all, you know, not a meta government, it's not a government thing, it's a corporate thing that doesn't allow any real representation. And literally British journalists I knew didn't know that, right? They didn't know that, like the Sunday Times journalists did not know that the structure the EU did not allow for any actual representation. It's kind of, there's fog of war, you know, or glitter thrown in people's eyes about like red tape and bureaucrats. It's much more serious than that. There's like no representation, no transparency, no accountability. It's a coup, like Europe is a coup. So where I'm going with this is, and in retrospect that explained a lot of the opposition to Brexit, I think, and the efforts to kind of soften and soften and soften Brexit, as if you can soften one country not being part of, you know, another group of countries.That's the world we're in, where that ideology is you can have a kind of virtual separation of countries that isn't real. I'm going somewhere with that, which is, I think it's now a lot harder for you in Britain to persuade people that the state isn't the source of everything, then it would have been even 15 years ago. And the other problem is people get so many benefits from the state in Europe and in Britain, and that's messaged as well, as benefits, right? And it's very tempting. Well, I have this free this and free that.And I love it. Like, I used to be thoroughly on board with free health care and free universities and everything. Why not? I mean, fabulous.The people deserve it.But the dark side is that the discourse of individualism and individual rights becomes very theoretical.Once they give you all these good things, then when they say, but you can't drive your car from here to here, it's very hard to realise that that was a poisoned gift.In America, we're in a little bit of a different situation, thankfully, again, historically.And I don't mean to be like, nyah, nyah, nyah. I really don't.I think both countries have their challenges.But just like there's a downside of individualism, like kids don't always get fed, and elders don't always get looked after and so on.The upside is now in this crisis, we are like, hell no. And we also have a wonderful thing that the founders left for us, which is states.And so states at a state level can reject lockdowns or mandatory vaccination or masking or closures of businesses, even if a federal government is out of control.So what I've seen in America is people becoming very aware, based on an ideology of individual rights and individualism, that how central bank digital currency can switch you off, for instance.Or my video about in March of 2021, I think about how vaccine passports that are digital can become a social credit system very quickly to banning them in 33 states.But it's a constant fight to remind people, your liberty depends on protecting your liberty.Luckily, we have a discourse of that still.I feel like in Britain, that discourse got really, I mean, you're almost a racist in Britain or in Europe.If you talked about being proud of being British or being proud of being French, that necessarily have to be a racist posture at all, but I think there was a deliberate cultural attack on the language of individualism and rights in Britain and in Europe.Completely. I could delve much deeper in that, but I won't.Chapter 7, White Feathers, you say in the DMs, people whom I knew socially or professionally, people from journalism, politics, medicine, would say, Naomi, I really respect your actions right now, I totally agree with what you're saying, but of course I can't do anything, and often these people were in positions of power, they could do something. And you mentioned individuals who have stood up, Dr. Peter McCullough, Ed Dowd, Steve Bannon in journalism, many others. I kind of thought that the desire to do right would rise up and would win the day, but obviously not. How did you, were you as surprised at that? The people who, the penny kind of was dropping and yet they just refused to do the right thing because of fear of what would happen? 
You know, Peter, I was completely surprised. I, to this day, I'm really in shock at what I witnessed because we all assumed, you know, we would know what to do if it was Germany in 1933 and that we would stand up against the Nazis and we would hide Anne Frank and we would, or, you know, if it was 1854, we would shelter that runaway slave. You know, we on the left, especially thought we were the good guys, you know, and that we stood up against tyrants.So I was, and remain, appalled at the quisling, colours revealed by my former peers and friends that the, and even more appalled that they, they're not ashamed.You know, like I've literally had people say, you know, loved ones say, well, I, you know, I'm going to get a booster, not because I believe in it or want to, but because I don't want to be kicked out of my bridge group or my, you know, play group, my mom's play group or, well, you know, as I wrote in facing the beast, the, the men, I mean, I'm sorry to gender this, but, you know, I've, I've kind of among the many things I've rethought on my journey is the point of men, and I mean, I've always been a fan of men as much as women, but like, men are kind of supposed to protect women and children, you know, in battle conditions or in dangerous conditions. I don't know why, I just think that's evolutionary necessity and also kind of the appropriate way to honour women and children.So I guess what I was astonished to find is that on the right, men still think they should be courageous and stand up for their ideals and take risks on behalf of the greater good or their loved ones who are dependent on them.And on the left, I was astonished to see grown men telling me why they were, you know, I'm not going to say the word because it's a naughty word, but, you know, very cowardly.You know? And have no shame or self-consciousness about it.And it's like, I'm out here at the front, man. You know, I'm taking the hits.I have to, I had to have two armed, like retired NYPD detectives flanking me at my last speech.I'm scared. Of course, I married my bodyguard, but out in the world, I'm still scared.These guys are like, well, obviously, I'm not going to say anything because my boss might get mad at me or I might lose some marginal professional advantage or major professional advantage.It's like people's lives are at stake. Children are at stake. They're injecting these tiny people who are not old enough to make decisions for themselves, who have no informed consent because they're minors. And you're not going to step out front with something you know to be wrong and say it's wrong. Or, I mean, don't get me started because obviously I have a lot of unprocessed grief and rage about this, but the two-tier society. All of these people are so right on. They would never discriminate against a gay couple or a lesbian couple or a person of colour ever, ever. They think that conservatives are the haters, right, and the people who discriminate. But these same people overnight in New York City and LA and other cities embraced a discrimination society and colluded with it a thousand percent and had no problem with the fact that I could not walk into, you know, most of the buildings in New York City. I could not sit indoors and eat with my family in a restaurant. I had to sit in the street like an animal. You know, they had no problem with that.They had no problem with turning away or firing, you know, workers and students, disproportionately people of colour and lower income people. No problem. They had no problem with laws that were basically Jim Crow laws that applied to vaccination status. And a lot of them like gave rise to hateful rhetoric, you know, exactly like racism or anti-Semitism related to unvaccinated people. So I lost all respect, you know, I could go on to like subcategories like feminists, right? We know it's not, we're not babes in the woods. We know that big pharma has experimented on women's bodies and that corporations sometimes exploit women. We know that. I helped to break the story about silicone breast implants that were taken off the market. We know about thalidomide. We know about vaginal mesh. We know about estrogen being too high in birth control pills. This is so like feminism 101 that corporations and pharma and medicine can exploit women. It's not news. And I was a heroine when when I pointed this out with like industrialized birthing practices in my previous books among these same people.But the fact that these injections are 62% of the adverse events are women, they're creating massive disabilities based on like bleeding among women.They're sterilizing women. They're compromising placentas. Maternal deaths are up by 40%.Babies are being born, birthed two months premature because the placentas are impaired by these lipid nanoparticles.There's poison in breast milk. It's a war on women, especially women's bodies.And I'm the crazy person for reminding people that women are being harmed and babies are being harmed.Where are, and I talk about this in detail, I name names, like Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan.They went on and on and on about my body, my choice when it came to abortion rights.And they ruled against people having the right to decide what's injected into their own bodies, it's the same rhetoric. So yes, I lost a lot of respect for these people.But obviously it was you pointing that out as a tweet that first brought you into being a conspiracy theorist, brought you into being a Tad, and then the FIDR documents, when you brought that out there. So what you look at over the last, I think, three years and you see points where individuals or organizations have produced the evidence this is what is happening. With Ed Dowd with his book listing, showing all the sudden deaths. With this, the Pfizer documents, how you and Daily Clout and the thousands of volunteers pulled that together. I mean, Tell us about the response to that, because when you put the information, you say, there it is, it is happening, here is the data. It's not just a tweet, it's just the data with all the references to it. And yes, hmm, hmm, oh well, we just carry on. Tell us about that, kind of the response to that, because that document was key.
Yeah, sure. I mean, God bless all these people now that their loved ones are or getting sick or dealing with turbo cancers or strokes, or they're reaching out for medical advice.It's so heart-breaking.So your audience may know that I oversee a project of 3,250 doctors and nurses and scientists and medical fraud investigators, biostatisticians, a range of high-level experts going through the Pfizer documents, which are these 450,000 pages released under court order that the FDA asked the court to keep hidden for 75 years.And we've issued 89 reports. They're all on that upper right-hand corner of Daily Clout.You can order them in book format. And they've documented the greatest crime against humanity in recorded history, again with a special focus on sterilization.I'm going to skip ahead. And as you say, it's not my opinion, I'm not a medical doctor or a scientist.All of these reports link to the primary source documents. So you can see for yourself, you know, we've got a report, someone just told me that her mom had a stroke.And we've got a report showing that 48% of the serious adverse events, including death, in the stroke category, which is a massive category for adverse events after injection, half of them took place within 48 hours of the injection. You know, I could go on and on with the various categories that, you know, emerged among the many other headlines this team broke.You know, blood clots, lung clots, leg clots, thrombotic thrombocytopenia, neurological damage at scale, haemorrhages, dementias, Alzheimer's, Bell's palsy, joint pain, interestingly, arthritis is number one side effect. Myalgia, which is muscle pain, is number two. Number three is COVID, because the injections by November of 2020 were proven internally not to stop COVID, to be completely ineffective. Vaccine failure was the internal language Pfizer used.You know, there's not enough time for me to like document the headlines that the team has surfaced about harms that these people knew they were doing, again, especially reproductive harms.But what is really important to bring people up to date on is the last four reports.The first two last week showed that through a FOIA by our lawyer, Ed Berkovich, the White House drove a concealment in May of 2021 of harms brought to their attention that were blood damage, blood clots, and myocarditis.And they looped in Dr. Walensky, Dr. Fauci, Dr. Collins, but it was 15 White House staffers convening a freak-out meeting to create a script, their language which is 17 pages long, all redacted to cover up this harm. And remember what happened in 2021 was mandates. Knowing this damage that it caused, they mandated it to kids, to soldiers, sailors, college students, and so on. But I'll skip ahead to the last really important story that your audience needs to know. Other, researchers, including Kevin McKernan at Medicinal Genomics, Dr. Philip Buchholz in South Carolina, they've independently found that the injections are contaminated.And that the contaminants are fragments of DNA, fragmented DNA, and plasmids grown in E. coli which can enter your nucleus and cause untold harm, but also very concerning SV40, simian virus 40, which is a carcinogen. NIH and OSHA categorize it as a carcinogen that causes cancer in laboratory animals. So we're seeing these turbo cancers, you know, three, four months, someone goes from perfectly healthy to very sick to dead, things oncologists have never seen before.And oncologists like Dr. Flowers on our team, Dr. Cole are really worried that this SV40 is a carcinogen that is related to these turbo cancers. And the last thing I'll say politically is that our team, Amy Kelly, my COO, found that Pfizer is concealing, redacting, while all these questions are coming up, how did this happen? How did it get contaminated and adulterated in this way? Pfizer created at the very end of the process, the process they, brought for emergency use authorizations called Process 1. And FDA signed off on it. It's fine. It's clean. Then Pfizer substituted an internal secret trial of process two. 200 people were injected with these contaminated formulations. They had a 2.4 times rate of adverse events as the other group. Then process two, a bait and switch, was rolled out into everyone's arms.And process two has the carcinogens and the DNA fragments in it. And Pfizer has now redacted the manufacturing process with the FDA's collusion in their papers.
Well, I think you've laid out a perfect reason why people need to make sure and go on dailyclout.io and get themselves up to speed because it never ends. There's always something coming out. And I know our viewers and listeners will be eager to know what else is happening. Can we just finish, there are so many, the Chapter 8, Rethinking the Second Amendment, I would love to, but I'm not going to touch that. Chapter 12, Thanksgiving, gathering that, the kingdom of God, that connection of community. Chapter 16, How the Ancient Gods Returned, I love that just because the whole spiritual aspect, there's so much. But maybe just to finish off, I, never having written a book, but I assume you start out with a plan. This is what you want to do.And I assume through the process, you learn things along the way. And as you put it together, people can get it from the 9th of November. What do you want to leave with people? What do you want to portray as they get the book, as they read it, what do you want that lasting thought to be with them as they read through it?Great question Peter. May I note that you can pre-order it now even before the 9th of November and that's important because it sends a signal to the publishing industry when people pre-order, so please do, so I won't get cancelled yet again.Let's see. What do I want people to leave with? Well, I guess this is kind of a different book than my other books. It's not an argument, it's a reflection and I think a lot of us have maybe all of us have been traumatized by the last two and a half years and also traumatized by the fact that our suffering and the shock we endured is being papered over and kind of dropped through the memory hole So, I was really inspired by a book called I Will Bear Witness by Victor Klemperer, which is just literally almost a journal of, you know, his life, I think, in Munich, you know, as the before and as the Nazis were coming to power, and just bit by bit, he couldn't shop in his local store, and bit by bit, he lost his housing, bit by bit, he, you know, the neighbours turned away from him, and he just chronicled it.I think it's really important for there to just be a witness to this time, you know, in my humble way I tried to do that. And I think it's healing for people to have their experience kind of validated and reflected. It helps us actually move forward instead of being kind of pushed forward by the tyrants who want us to forget about it. That's number one. And I guess number two, what do I want? Well, I guess we're not allowed to proselytize in Judaism, and I don't like to ever. I think all these things are so personal. But I actually do think we're at an inflection point in history, Peter, where we may not survive if we don't look at ourselves in the mirror. And if that leads to us reconnecting to God, I think that will help us survive.So I probably hope that that might happen as well, that people might,I mean, such a surprise to me is to read the Geneva Bible and see that the persona of God is completely different from the way his persona has been translated in subsequent 500 years of translations.And it turns out, in the original Hebrew and the Geneva Bible, super nice guy, like very different from this distant, remote, judgmental, irrational, punitive, censorious persona, which is all about the intermediary.It turns out you don't need an intermediary. I mean, God isn't in heaven, it turns out.That's a mistranslation. God is in the sky.Like literally, God keeps being written out of translations.But Jacob didn't wrestle with the angel.It was God preparing him for this very difficult day. Like over and over again in the original, God just shows up for us in a non-scary, very human way, I guess I'd say.And that's a surprise to me. So I guess I would want people who are feeling lost to have a sense of that, because it's very hopeful news.
Well, I certainly read not as an argument, you're right, but as you grasping, wrestling, understanding, for you personally, and also what it means to have a faith and to look up in these times.And people can, yeah, it's available as e-book, as audio book, and as a physical copy.So if nothing else, if you want to take away from this, then I encourage the viewers, listeners, to go click on the link, it'll be in the description, and you can pre-order that and get that from the 9th of November.Naomi, I appreciate you coming on, love the book. Thank you so much for sharing with me and our audience.
Thank you so much, Peter. We always love talking to you. Thank you so much.

Dwight Schultz - Its Alright to be Dwight: #001

Welcome to the inaugural episode of the 'Its Alright to be Dwight' podcast with the television, film and voice actor Dwight Schultz, exclusive to Hearts of Oak.Listen in for a stream of consciousness that drops from his brain to his mouth and then falls out, interjected with some light humour but having everything to do with the contemporaneous political situation that we find ourselves in.
A respected performer on Broadway, Dwight Schultz found everlasting fame by playing the certifiable "Howling Mad" Murdock on the action series "The A-Team" (1983-86).A living, breathing cartoon with a seemingly endless selection of voices and accents at his command, Murdock provided the air power for the A-Team's clandestine adventures, provided that his compatriots could break him out of the mental hospital where he resided.One of the show's most popular and memorable figures, Murdock ensured Schultz steady work on television and on the big screen playing Reginald Barclay in "Star Trek: The Next Generation"An accomplished voice actor, Dwight can be heard in numerous hit computer games and in countless animated shows.
Books recommended in this show...Red Spy Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley https://amzn.eu/d/2LCJevGTragedy and Hope: A History of The World In Our Time by Carroll Quigley https://amzn.eu/d/1Fa1s1ZTragedy and Hope 101: The Illusion of Justice, Freedom, and Democracy by Joseph Plummer https://amzn.eu/d/9p6NEEOIn Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage by John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr https://amzn.eu/d/1MEAq0Y
Originally Aired 1.11.23  To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!

Robert W Malone MD - What is Woke? An Intolerant and Moralising Ideology

Show Notes and Transcript
Robert Malone's Substack has become essential reading for many of us. Every day nuggets of wisdom and insight, information and humour drop into inboxes all over the world. One of the recent emails caught our eye. What is Woke? It's a word that we have come familiar with but many of us would struggle to define it. It is an intolerant ideology that is sowing seeds of confusion and division. Robert returns once again to Hearts of Oak to discuss what sparked the article and we have a close look at 15 examples of wokeness that he has referenced before we touch on another of his Substacks about 'Adulteration', which is a topic that we hope to come back to in more detail soon. 
Robert W Malone MD, MS Inventor of mRNA & DNA vaccines, RNA as a drug. Scientist, physician, writer, podcaster, commentator and advocate. Believer in our fundamental freedom of free speech.
Connect with Dr Malone.....GETTR:          https://gettr.com/user/rwmalonemdX:                   https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD?s=20WEBSITE:      https://www.rwmalonemd.com/                       https://maloneinstitute.org/SUBSTACK:   https://rwmalonemd.substack.com/
Interview recorded 26.10.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
Robert W. Malone, MD. It is wonderful to have you back.Thanks so much for joining us today, Robert.
(Robert Malone MD)
Peter, thanks for your friendship. It's been a pleasure to host you on the farm a couple of times and all of our many podcasts.I don't know how many we're up to right now, but I always enjoy talking to you and through your to your audience. So thanks for having me on again.
No, thank you. And if what you're doing doesn't work out, if everyone deserts you on Substack, then I think you do have another future, which is steaks.I think that was the best steak I've had outside Texas. So I say, open up a steak restaurant, Robert.
Yeah, that might be my future if the powers that be have their way with me.
If you say too much, because that's just safer.But just for the viewers, @rwmallonemd on Twitter, on GETTR, anywhere else, And of course, Substack, rwmalonemd.substack.com.You just type in Substack, Robert Malone will come up. All the links are in the description.And that is also a way to support what Robert does in the many places he travels, speaks, interviews, and all of that.That is a one way of supporting him. or getting his book, which I had beside me, Lies My Government Told Me.There it is, Lies My Government Told Me. Make sure if you haven't got a copy of that, get a copy, it's a great Christmas present. 
About to come out in Norwegian for all of your Norwegian listeners and in Dutch.I think we're gonna have the book launch in Norway in early December and the book launch in the Netherlands sometime in February.So stay tuned for that. And then we have another book that is just nearing completion on Cy-War and Sovereignty, which is the big propaganda, you know, there in the UK, you're certainly familiar with nudge technology and the 77th Brigade and MI6 and all of their various nefarious activities through the COVID crisis.
Oh, yeah. I look forward to that coming out. The Norwegian languages, maybe I'll give it a miss.So I'll wait for the new book. 
We've got a great cover.I look forward to it. Robert, I love your Substack.There may be four different sub-stacks that I follow because you can have an avalanche of information and yours is one of those. And my favorite thing is you don't know what you're going to get.Each day is different.It could be on the farm, it could be travel, it could be latest scientific research coming out, it could be government agencies and how they work.And I love that huge mix and that wide array. And one of the recent ones just days ago was, what is woke and intolerant and moralizing ideology?And you had a little cartoon at the beginning and at the end, the definition was stuff I don't like, which I actually thought was a good definition.But it's a term that I think we now use frequently and we kind of know how to describe things as woke, but we're not very sure what exactly that is.If we see something, oh, that's woke, why?
The definition of pornography, I can't define it but I know it when I see it.Same with woke. And yeah, so thanks. This was almost kind of a throwaway Substack, that Jill put together on the fly.Basically, we tend to wake up in the morning or as we're going to sleep the night before.This is our lives. Hey, welcome to our lives.We lay in bed and talk between the two of us. Well, when are we gonna write tomorrow? I don't know.Good heavens. And so, in this case, what transpired was we, when we like to turn off our brains, we turn to the, you know, streaming.We never watch television per se, but we stream.And they tend to fall into two categories, basically, science fiction and documentaries about history or travel.That's kind of our lives. I know it's pretty exciting.And so we were watching this new Netflix series called Bodies.And it proceeds because it's a kind of a multi-timeline thing that is all wrapped around the UK and London is the setting for the series.And I don't want to go into the plot line, but basically, in episode three, suddenly we have the insertion of this gratuitous, let's say, gently man love, with a fairly explicit scenery associated with it.And it was absolutely gratuitous, not necessary for the plot line.It was clearly another woke agenda insertion, as we have come to expect from Netflix routinely.And this one was so in your face that we just, both of us, looked at each other and flipped off the TV.Okay, enough of that. Time to go to bed.And then Jill, in the morning, woke up and she said, I've got to find some way to be able to pre-screen, these various streaming broadcasts for their woke content. I wonder if there's anything out there on the internet.And so she started searching, and she found this delicious site that is mentioned in the article.
Notwokeshows.com, which I've delved into. 
Yeah, so she finds notwokeshows.com, and she's like, hallelujah, this is a goldmine, because they have listed all these criteria that they apply to define whether or not a show is woke, and whether or not they're going to include it in their recommended broadcast that one who is, let's say, not enjoying the woke agenda can safely view.I guess this is akin to the censorship board there that the BBC sponsors for you lucky members of the United Kingdom.And so you're all so fortunate that the government looks out for you so carefully and maintains your mental health in alignment with their interests.So in any case, she finds this website and it's such a rich repository of, you know, a little bit tongue in cheek, but on point.Commentary about what constitutes woke from the perspective of some group that is seeking to delineate woke from non-woke, broadcasting and being able to to list, non-woke content, that she writes to the authors and they write back and because we've become quite sensitized to issues concerning copyright.And so they write back and they say, yes, absolutely. You're free to use this.We're so grateful and all happy, happy.And so she takes basically their content and disambiguates or redacts it or restructures it so that it's not specifically about programming, but speaking more directly about what is WOKE and from the framework of these individuals that put together this website that previously has been relatively unknown and blasted out together with the crosslink to the source material, et cetera.And that's what gives rise to this fun little throwaway essay, which was her basically, uh-oh, we've got to get something out this morning.How about if we do this? while I happen to be writing an in-depth technical piece about adulteration and the RNA vaccines, which was going to take much longer. So we wanted to get something out to our Substack subscribers so they have it with their morning coffee. And that's the genesis of this particular essay. 
And I will finish on adulteration, another word that we've come across only in the last few days. But I love this article simply because it's what people are facing, the people are, and what you described is exactly what millions and millions of people across any country face.You look at something and you're not sure where to watch it and you're not sure what the plot line will be and often it...I've watched different shows and they start off one way, being macho with a hero, like all 24 type.And then by the end, it's something completely different.
They slipped it in. They've really gotten quite clever about it in advancing this agenda of a particular way of looking at the world.And of course, the UK has been one of the world leaders in advancing nudge technology, which is what this really is, that we're encountering in broadcast media, is applied nudge.And, you know, this is another case of a slippery slope. Who's against reducing public tobacco consumption?Oh, you know, we're all for that. We don't want passive smoke.And well then, so then it's okay to use nudge to reduce that.And then, well, who's not in favour of more tolerance against ethnic minorities?Well, of course we all want that. Well, how are we gonna do it?Well, we'll take this same nudge technology and apply it like a great big hammer to that one.And so then we, I'm gonna, this is a sacred cow.So then we have the infamous Dr. Who has suddenly become a femme, et cetera.And that kind of went over like a lead balloon, as I recall.But it doesn't matter. In pursuit of the social engineering agenda, profitability and audience uptake and acceptance are totally secondary to the broader mission of advancing social equity as defined by whomever they are that established all these agendas and try to propagate it globally.Another one that I ran into recently was a CNN broadcast looking at travel and food in Italy.Who isn't interested in Italian food and travel? I mean, that's a great topic.And this is coming off of Anthony Bourdain's suicide and how successful his series was, because I think CNN is trying to pick up the ball.And so they get another actor, a well-known Italian, I'm not gonna beat him up, that tours Italy.And we're in about three episodes and suddenly we're getting propagandized about, in favour of basically Italian socialism, and the importance of accepting immigrants from North Africa and integrating them into Italian society and that these far right people, or go Giorgio Moloney, et cetera.Because anybody who is against immigration is obviously far right by definition.And Mussolini is just right there.Don't like immigration, you're one step away from full-on Mussolini fascism.And so that's how that particular series has gone.As another example is that it's become a platform for advancing these same social theories, ostensibly under the guise of a travel show focused on Italian cuisine.I mean, it pervades everything.
It does, and I know that you give 15 examples. You go through, of course, The one that stands out, which you've also known for the last three years is called COVID-19 virtue signalling.Virtue signalling is a term that links with woke.But that maybe took it to a new level of advisories, COVID advisories under videos, giving you the different side.And Andrew Bridgen speaking in the House of Commons, whenever he was talking about vaccine injuries, at the bottom, it kept bringing up all these piece of information of why, what he was saying was rubbish.But even on the COVID stuff, the mask, the double, the triple masking, or people getting a sticker to say they've had a jab, it was in your face, in public, I guess, in a way that we hadn't seen before.And the social distancing, I mean, all these things had no, even though they were cloaked in scientism.Which is, you know, we've got to be careful about using that term, Jill constantly reminds me, because it is actually formally defined as, the belief system around everything that is true and real can be directly perceived and detected.So that's the essence of scientism. And in definition, it's in opposition to, let's say mysticism at one parameter and belief in theology and religion in another parameter, or we could talk about the ancient Celtic religions of paganism, for instance, all of that being in opposition to this belief that only things that we can measure and detect are true.But the term scientism has been kind of transformed a little bit with Dr. Fauci being the poster child of scientific truth is that which is asserted by largely the government and government agents that their interpretation of scientific truth is the one and only truth and there shall be no debate.And the BBC and the Trusted News Initiative have become the guarantors and the enforcers, of that logic that the only scientific truth, quote-unquote, in this post-truth, post-modern world is that which is advanced in the approved narrative endorsed by the government.And you start off, right at the beginning, it is alphabetical, but the 15th, you talk about anti-religious bias, and I'm shocked at how we see that so prevalent, that those with a belief system, and often a belief system in Christianity, are hateful or certainly hypocritical or, I mean, the level of vitriol that is attached to someone who believes something and I guess the whole issue of belief of absolutes is completely alien to a woke agenda where anything goes and truth is subjective and that level of mocking and ridiculing is dangerous certainly in a country as in yours based on biblical foundations and Christian truths and yet now we are encouraged to attack the very foundations on which our societies were based on.Right, and this is all rife with paradox. So you point out that Christianity, and in particular, traditional Christianity, and in most particular, this new insurgent movement within the Catholic Church in opposition to the Pope called Trad-Cath, those folks are in particular demonized for the sin of wanting to receive the liturgy in Latin.You can't make this up.It's so intrinsically absurd. And the bizarre paradox is that, in parallel, the prior religious orientation that was so heavily weaponized, that being radical Islam and Islam, you know, generalized Islam suddenly is aligned, in a paradoxical way with the woke slash progressive or approved agenda, in this enormous rift that has occurred in the context of, let's say gently, the IDF Gaza conflict.And I absolutely don't want to go there because I find thatinformation landscape to be so heavily contaminated with very advanced Psy-War capabilities on both sides that once again this is absolutely a post-truth, post-modern battleground of two highly developed Psy-War capabilities going head-to-head on the world stage in which we could debate who are the victims and who are the perpetrators here, but I think truth is absolutely on the victim list.It's become completely subjective, and that's what's happened throughout all of this, is, as I keep saying, this is postmodernism, in which truth is a subjective quality that is, not intrinsic, but rather is subjective and is the product of exertion of force and capabilities in the information landscape, and is defined by those who are able to dominate that information landscape.Truth is entirely subjective and is a function of whoever is the dominant party in what I call this post-modern golden rule, those with the gold make the rules.And it's now those with the gold define truth.
It's so true. We've just had today, there was Rishi Sunak, sadly, our Prime Minister here in the UK, little in substance, little in size, little in vision, but Rishi Sunak- 
Well, now don't be staturist.
But Rishi Sunak, he was talking about a new AI Institute, which the UK is setting up, and it's going to be the world's first AI Safety Institute.And he talked about, we want to have a AI consensus on what's good and bad, just like we have a climate change census.
Right, so AI has been sold to the public as a neutral arbiter of truth, but we know from the various AI applications and algorithms that are available now.That AI and machine learning and deep learning are very much a consequence, a derivative, of the source information that is used to build those algorithms, that train them.And so by selecting the information, so for instance, it's just like Wikipedia.Wikipedia defines truth as basically the work product of corporate media, which is to say the Trusted News Initiative. So if it's endorsed by TNI, then it must be true.And that is what comes out in those. So it's not even, it's beyond scientific papers.It's whatever large corporate media puts out with their spin becomes the only allowed input vector for Wikipedia.And this is done, you know, when we now know that Wikipedia is being edited in real time algorithmically by our intelligence community, including your lovely MI6.And so it, you know, people still perceive wiki as a source of basically akin to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but it's absolutely not.Now, I haven't dove into how badly Encyclopaedia Britannica is being manipulated.I don't know the answer to that now.But the AI-based engineshave absolutely been shown to have political biases that are, you know, apparently derived from their training source material.And so, for instance, the other day, Steve Kirsch gave an inquiry to one of them, that I was not familiar with previously and asked if anybody, that had been a anti-vaxxer had turned to being in favour of the vaccines.And he was very comforted by the fact that he was not so identified.But myself and Jessica Rose, and there was another person, were identified as having previously been anti-vaxxers.I'm the vaccine developer anti-vaxxer who invented RNA vaccine technology.That, you know, you have to, this is for, you know, park your cognitive dissonance is irrelevant.But then had now strongly endorsed the COVID vaccines, and indicated that everybody should get them. Absolute lie, absolute propaganda, none of that true that was listed, but that's what spat out in response to that question.And with Jessica Rose, it asserted that she was a former beauty queen.I've never heard her talk about that before. I got to ask her about whether or not she was once a beauty queen. And also went into the same kind of a flip-flop, which I know has not happened.So it's, those of us, and this is another part of my background that most people are unaware.For the first two years of my undergraduate, I was a computer science student and actually took top honours for that time. I just didn't wanna spend the rest of my life in a basement looking at a CRT tube.I was taught early on, garbage in, garbage out. With any program-based algorithm that abstracts from data, your source data will determine the product.You can have the most sophisticated deep learning algorithm, but if it is employing a biased data set, it will give you a biased answer.And that's absolutely what's happening, but it's being pitched to the public as if this is a godlike, neutral arbiter of truth, and it is so easily manipulated.The question is, is Rishi in the cohort of...I don't really understand the technology, but it seems awfully cool.And this tension always exists between nefarious intent and incompetence.And is he merely an incompetent or is he aware of how readily artificial intelligence algorithms can be manipulated?I don't know the answer to that.
The dangerous thing is, I think he is aware, because I think his wife's family made the money off tech industry, partially through tech, so he should be aware of it.
Exactly. He should be a sophisticated user, and then the derivative of that would be, this is not a guy that can be trusted because he's misrepresenting truth to the British public.I know that you would probably be shocked and we will probably be de-platformed and severely, maybe I better be careful because I want to fly back into London to help out Andrew on December 4th, so I don't want to get arrested when I land at Heathrow.
Well, we'll see how that happens. You may just stay in the UK for a while and that will keep you.
Government hospitality.
You started by talking about that Netflix series, the slipping in of man love, as you said, and I've been watching another BBC programme and three series in, oh, suddenly now there's the other side, woman love and that slipped in, doesn't fit with the story, doesn't add to it at all. But in your article, you talk about bad masculinity and where male behaviour is inherently toxic and negative.But then again, the fun side, because you have to sit back and with a smile and begin to mock the chaos and confusion and people trying to jump through hoops and put these together.You've got the whole infinite genders and how that works. And I was sitting watching GB News yesterday and they had someone on who I think was, I'm not sure whether male or female, a strange hybrid.They were talking about- 
What's wrong with you? It's irrelevant.
I no longer know what it means a trans woman.A trans woman, I think, okay, just go back to basics. How did the person start?That's where I need to start with.But this confusion, if male psychic or identification is toxic, then what happens if a woman then decides she's a man, is that then still toxic or is that now acceptable? And this chaos and confusion.
Yes. Oh, like I said, the cognitive dissonance associated with this, which has no well-structured underlying logic, is profound.And so you have, like with any cognitive dissonance, you have to just park that, don't confront it, because it will drive you mad. It's, cognitive dissonance is one of the major sources of psychological pain, and, but only if you confront it. And so for your mental health, you should, Peter, you should really need to stop thinking about things like that. And, go back and and reread 1984, but consider it to be a guidance document rather than a warning document, and it will all be fine.Along those lines, I strongly, in terms of content to consider in streaming, often overlooked is this lovely little sci-fi piece with Uma Thurman, as I recall, called Gattaca.And I strongly recommend, GATTAGA is actually intended to be a DNA sequence in this particular sci-fi piece, which is very well-produced, way ahead of its time, and absolutely predicts the almost as prescient as 1984 was, absolutely predicts this new reality, postmodern reality, that we're walking into, where your genetics define, who you are and what you're allowed to be on behalf of government industry and everything else.So that absolutely should be on everybody's watch list if you haven't already seen Gattaca.But this logic that you're talking about, toxic masculinity of course, is what Jordan Peterson, has been so reviled for speaking against. And of course we all know that Jordan Peterson is now, subject to re-education by edict of his local health authority, I think in Toronto, as I recall.And they are also subjecting other physicians to what re-education processes that have had, you know, sinned by prescribing ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine for early treatment and written statements recommending that individuals should not, they should not necessarily be required to take the mRNA vaccine products or other genetic vaccine products, which the government so heavily advocates.And in those re-education processes, which the individuals are required to pay for, by the way, the state doesn't pay for that re-education. it's like three to 5,000 bucks.And at the end of which you have to write a letter demonstrating that you have successfully incorporated the teaching of the re-education process and that you are sufficiently contrite for your past sins.And if you do not show sufficient contrition in this letter, I mean, this is full on Soviet, right?If you don't show sufficient contrition, Then you will have to pay for another round of re-education ad nauseum until the overseers believe, they become convinced, that you have provided the necessary written, signed documentation that demonstrates that you are requesting humbly forgiveness for your sins, and that you have indicated clearly in this public document that you will not sin again.And so anybody that asserts that this is not actually a false religion isn't paying attention, because that's what we have, this, whatever you want to call it, wokeism or whatever, this new censorship, industrial complex, propaganda infrastructure that so much of it traces back to UK social science, I'm sorry to say, is now enforcing itself on the population using the classic totalitarian methodology.And I'm reminded, someone pointed out to me the other day when I was at Shannon Joy's event in Rochester, that Mattias Desmet, when he speaks of totalitarianism, he's not, a key differentiator between authoritarianism and totalitarianism is that authoritarianism under a dictatorship or other structure is a minority imposing its will on the population.Totalitarianism, it is the totality of society that is acting in this way. It is a social consensus, in this case a manufactured one, but it is a social consensus that this is the way we shall be. And one of the key factors in when totalitarianism emerges in a society and basically integrates itself into the entire systemis that you can turn over the leadership, ergo Rishi and the prior prime minister that you guys, that brief stint that you all experienced.
Forty-five days.
You can replace the leadership, and it will not change the process until the entire population wakes up from what's happening.Because there will be new leaders emerge organically from the society to fill that role of dear leader.Because this is absolutely a function of a deep psychological process that is consumed the society.So we can all in our little bubble of resistance cell, Is it 20% of people?Is it 5%? We can go back and forth.We can all laugh at the sheep and what's going on and point out their logical inconsistencies.It's irrelevant until such point as people literally wake up and recognize that this is, at a minimum, not meeting their needs.You know, this is the classic question, are you better off than you were earlier on under this, I guess it's conservative government that you have that is not acting very conservative? Yeah. are you better off now than you were then? And at some point the culture says, no, we need a change.And they collectively wake up, but when that's gonna be, is it gonna be next year?Is it gonna be next decade? Or is it gonna be 100 years from now?There's no way to predict.Yeah, I'm just imagining, sorry, I'm just imagining Jordan Peterson writing a letter of apology to the Canadian government saying how wrong he was. I think this actually could be a series, you could have different, I'm sure you would love to do one program, you know, many people, a whole 45-minute fly on the wall, high-profile individuals writing I'm so sorry letters, sounds perfect. 
Yeah, I think Babylon Bee needs to take this up immediately.Hey, there's one more. 
Russell Brand ought to do this. This is absolutely made for Russell Brand.I think you need to patent this idea immediately. 
Russell Brand's an intriguing character. I'm not going to go there.One other thing I'd pull out, distorted racism, and this pitting people against others.Living in London, being in a very mixed culture, coming from Northern Ireland, being in a mono culture, and enjoying that mix and all that brings, and then this push to, no, you must see racism behind everything.That on top of everything else, it is, the tension that is developing in society is frightening.The people are encouraged to pit themselves against someone else instead of agreeing to disagree, not allowed to agree to disagree. And if you don't agree, you're wrong, you must be hated, you must be mocked, you must be attacked.You see as well in the States that that tension is bubbling under the surface.
And it's just, I mean, we're laughing at our Canadian colleagues, but we know that they have been at the tip of the spear in advancing a lot of these agendas, most notably the de-banking, is the most egregious example. And Nigel can, there in the UK, can speak eloquently at length about the debanking agenda and its intended linkage with social credit system.Yeah, so the question is, I think for all of us, again, this grappling with the tension between incompetence and nefarious intent, which is so hard to disambiguate unless we're mind readers or we are able to get through Freedom of Information Act, the smoking gun documents that establish nefarious intent.But this division of society, again and again and again, repeated division into subgroups on top of subgroups on top of subgroups, absolutely has the appearance of serving the interests of large financial and power interests, which may be transnational, multinational, or globalist.We have these euphemisms that are all used. Just as the hypothetical, not saying necessarily this is what's happening, but if you had, let's say, traditional monarchists or large banking conglomerates.Or we can go down the list of potential actors that were interested in further enhancing their power and financial base at the expense of what ostensibly is a self-governing populace, then I hesitate to use the term democracy.And I would get attacked if I used the term democracy in the United States, because we don't technically have a democracy, just like technically you don't have a constitution.But it certainly has appeared to be in the interests of these very large concentrated power blocks that are led by a very small number of individuals who happen to be, have accumulated, you know, calling it wealth is kind of almost a misnomer, assets in power that they have, they and their families or progenitors or associates have historically exploited to further concentrate and exert their influence over world affairs.That's my attempt to be politically correct and wrap things with words that the average person would just say, well, they're all corrupt and they want to run the world.And as I get, again, I cite back the postmodern golden rule, those of us of a certain age recall when the golden rule was due unto others as you would have them do unto you.And in the postmodern world, the golden rule is those with the gold make the rules.Maybe it's always been that way.I don't know. Maybe I was just naïve back then when I was listening to my pastor speak on the lectern in the Episcopalian church that my parents used to go to.And that's another thing that I find fascinating When you think about it, we all, many people used to...I'll say, make fun of the Church of England in its leadership in advancing what we now recognize as a woke agenda.But it is increasingly normalized across much of the Christian theologic space, notably including the Catholic Church, the current pope.So maybe we got it all wrong. Maybe the Episcopalians were actually the tip of the spear in advancing the new world order. I don't know.But it kind of increasingly looks that way. One would never imagine the Episcopalian clergy as, I don't think any stereotype would label them as the avant garde cutting edge of social change.And yet, so it would seem. 
Yeah, that fight for truth in the church, whenever it's there in black and white in the Bible.Can we finish on, word of the week, adulteration, this, I guess, 
Great memes circulating, with, I guess the Sermon on the Mount with the stone tablets, with the 10 commandments and the statement, thou shalt not commit adulteration. And no, it's not adultery.Yeah, so this is a scientific technical term and a regulatory term.It's actually entrenched in American federal law and throughout the world in regulatory statutes, and policies that have largely been enforced and structured, through the International Committee on Harmonization, throwing out some buzzwords there for all of you wokes, which is kind of the international body that has harmonized it.You know, that's another good woke term, very important in European politics.We all want to be harmonized and aligned.But harmonized regulatory policies globally, so that Mr. Pharma doesn't have the inconvenience of having to restructure their regulatory documents for each nation state that they submitted to.So harmonization is important, and a key term throughout all of this is adulteration, which is in its simplest form.It is the incorporation of adulterants or impure material into, in the original American statute, food, devices, or drugs.Remember, we have the Food and Drug Administration that's responsible for this.And it goes back to the time of the scandals that Upton Sinclair revealed in his classic works, literary works, concerning the Chicago slaughterhouse environment and contamination of food with rat faeces and other materials. So rat faeces or other awful, you know, excrement from animal species contaminating foodstuffs is absolutely considered to be an adulterant.But technically in the drug space, adulteration consists of inclusion of materials in a final drug product, that are not specifically disclosed in the label.Remember the label also includes that little package insert that goes in the box that says all those things that nobody ever reads in the very fine print.But basically, as one is allowed to market a drug product, typically that requires the final drug product, I'll say this way, is defined as the sum total of everything that goes into making it.So the manufacturing process, the testing and release, the regulatory documentation, the documentation about the clinical trials, all of that, it's not just the stuff that's in the pill or in the syringe, but it's all that stuff, that documentation and information that surrounds it, that cloud of information.And so technically, if a regulatory authority together with a manufacturer disclose that, well, In fact, in our product, there is a certain fraction of rat feces, but we have a test for rat feces, and those rat feces cannot exceed 0.001% or whatever the thing is.That type of thing makes that not an adulterant. If it is disclosed and you have some parameters around it, then that's acceptable.What's happened here with these RNA genetic products is that two things have not been disclosed. And basically, they have been detected, by two different laboratory groups, one in the United States and one in the University of Guelph.You'll remember University of Guelph being the home of Byron Bridle.And so now we have another Guelph dissenter, solid, rock-solid scientist in his group that does DNA sequencing that these two groups have acquired at great difficulty because, of course, this is forbidden in most nation states to be able to analyze the vials that Pfizer or Moderna give us.We're told to just accept them that they are as they are asserted to be, which has never been the case with other drugs.Always a national authority like Paul Ehrlich or the European Union will independently verify that what is in the vial by random sampling is in fact what pharma says is in the vial.And it's within those limitation parameters that are predefined in the regulatory package.But it turns out that they were asleep at the switch or wilfully ignorant or we can extend that out, and hopefully someday we'll have the documentation to allow us to discern how the heck this happened.But we are hearing now more and more a cascade of mea culpa statements, from European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, Australian regulatory authorities, yet to hear this from the FDA for some reason, that in fact, we're guilty.We weren't aware. Mr. Pharma misled us. 
Pfizer, Moderna, whomever, misled us. And in fact, there is quite a bit of these small linear DNA fragments contaminating the final drug product.And by the way, the DNA source, a circular piece of DNA that was used to manufacture the RNA, it was grown in bacteria.And that leads to another whole can of worms is the endotoxin contamination.And whether it's been adequately monitored.Endotoxin being something that's known to cause shock in humans when injected, humans turn out to be exquisitely sensitive to injected endotoxin compared to many other species.And that may have something to do with some of the anaphylactic reactions that patients develop within the first 24 to 48 hours.Certainly that is consistent with endotoxin contamination. but also that we have this DNA contamination.And so, because it wasn't disclosed.And furthermore, the composition sequence of the plasmid from which these short DNA fragments are derived was not disclosed.And in particular, the existence of some sequences derived from simian virus 40 were not disclosed.And a lot of then this constitutes an indulgent.And the EMA and some of these other health agencies are now basically saying, not our fault, Pfizer didn't tell us about it. And Pfizer is coming out with statements saying, well, we didn't tell you about it because we didn't think it was important. I'm paraphrasing, but that's the essence of the argument. And it turns out this is not okay, because short linear DNA fragments that are produced by degrading these plasmids are among the most highly active DNA molecules if you want to mutate a genome, let's say, of a cell line or an experimental animal.And normally, that level of DNA contamination would be below the threshold that has historically been imposed for vaccines.So it's a chronic problem, DNA contamination in vaccines. Basically, it was a major reason why the Solvay program that I was on got killed, because they couldn't get rid of all the DNA they needed to from the cell lines that were growing the flu.That's a tangent. But it's a known problem in biologics manufacturing.And so technically, the threshold level of DNA fragments that are there are below the historic allowed DNA contamination.But it's kind of apples and oranges because with an injectable, let's say, a flu vaccine, it's not designed to be a polynucleotide delivery system.Okay, but what we have here with these RNA products, thanks to the enabling technology created at the University of British Columbia by Peter Cullis and his colleagues after decades of work, by the way, they were the ones, if anybody's going to get the Nobel Prize for the enabling technology advance, it was those guys, not the pseudouridine people, but that's another tangent. So shout out to Peter Cullis, I guess, for enabling this technology in vivo. But that tech is agnostic about whether it's DNA or RNA. And so you have the most potent non-viral delivery system ever devised by man being formulated with not only RNA, in RNA that isn't really natural RNA, it has a very, very long half-life and it's immunosuppressive if that was by design, but also with these short DNA fragments, which are known to be highly mutagenic.It hasn't been proven in these formulations, but the literature is explicit on that and abundant, that short linear DNA fragments will drive mutations in your cells in your body, if it's injected through your body.And then perhaps most worrisome, we know that these formulations, based on the Pfizer common technical document that was submitted, that's the non-clinical package to get authorization to proceed.That was kind of the last shot at doing the real toxicology, revealed that these particles have a surprisingly high affinity for ovarian tissue.Which is where germ cells reside in the form of eggs, ova, and not tested was whether or not these ova take up these particles, but certainly the ovarian tissue in general does.And then of course, we also have the recommendation that pregnant women should be receiving these products.And we know from the literature that these products cross the placenta.So they are getting into baby, and baby is in first trimester in a highly, rapidly developing embryonic environment.And so my determination is this is a true risk.It is one that will manifest in the form of somatic cell cancers, particularly lymphomas and leukaemia's, which by the way, we do happen to be seeing a surgeon inexplicably.But if you wanted to, in an experimental model, drive the development of leukaemia's and lymphomas, you could use retroviral gene therapy vectors.That's why it basically killed retroviral gene therapy was because of these side effects of leukaemia's and lymphomas because of insertional immunogenesis.And you could do it experimentally if you wanted to discover oncogenes or tumour suppressor genes, because that's how this technology was used.You could deliver, using these cool new formulations from Cullis et al, short DNA fragments, and they would absolutely disrupt the genome.And so there's the cancer risk, and there's obviously a germline foetal development mutagenesis risk.And I'm confident enough, because this was the area of molecular biology that I literally cut my teeth on originally.Mouse memory tumour virus, intentional mutagenesis, and searchable mutagenesis in order to search for oncogenes and tumour suppressor genes, under the mentorship of MD, PhD pathologist, one of the first molecular pathologists who had just finished a sabbatical with Bishop Envarmus, who got the Nobel prize for discovering oncogenes.Okay, so I know this area, the literature is clear and explicit, and I'm so confident about these observations that I'm willing to put my reputation on the line and say, this is happening at some frequency.We just don't know what the frequency is right now.Well, it's a huge topic and it's a perfect end. And I know another reason to get your Substack is you've just put an article up on this, republished a trial site news piece on this and people can delve into that.But Robert, I always appreciate your time for coming on and congratulations on having a speaker in the house.Now the Republicans can continue to use their majority for to do nothing. So well done.
Oh what a bizarre world we live in. So yes, all true. I'm from Louisiana and we now have a Republican governor in Louisiana who I've known and worked with. It's been my pleasure.And the new speaker talks the talk, so let's see if he'll be able to walk the walk about all these various issues.And time will tell on that, but they are under a pretty short deadline to fund the government.And are we going to continue to see basically kick the can down the road, continuing resolution, or are we going to see the Republican marginal Republican majority in the House that ostensibly is the ones that are supposed to create the budget actually do what they have been saying they're going to do and take up all these independent budgets for funding the various public agencies, including Department of Defense Homeland Security with CISA, the intelligence community and their black budget, and all of these other weird and wonderful agencies that we have developed here in the United States that are bleeding us all dry and driving...The other day, I was reading Doug Casey's International Man, and he used the metaphor that the American government is like Wile E. Coyote in the Roadrunner series.It's already run off the edge of the cliff and it just isn't aware that it's about to plummet down to the bottom and get crushed.We are way past the danger zone in terms of our indebtedness.I don't know what's gonna happen. 
100%. For the viewers and for listeners, make sure and follow Robert if you don't already on his Twitter or on GETTR, on the Substack, and lies my government told me, is a perfect Christmas present gift.So do look out for that.
Do get a...
Oh yeah, please. 
A copy. And pass out, but- 
I've heard it referred to as an important historic document.
Oh, it is. Oh, it is. 
Because it was written in real time.And that could never be written today because many of the references have been getting scrubbed from the internet.
Yeah. Yeah, we've seen that. Absolutely. Robert, thanks so much for coming on, sharing your latest Substack and a number of other thoughts. So thank you.
Thanks, Peter. Anytime.

The Week According To . . . Charlotte: The Baroness

Welcome to our regular look back at the news, media and talking points from the past seven days as we roll out the red carpet for the return of a true free speech crusader, Charlotte, The Baroness of Burnley!Charlotte has become a prominent social media voice and commentator since the beginning of the ‘scamdemic’ madness in March 2020.She prides herself on pointing out Government inconsistencies, hypocrisy and media manipulation techniques with an added dose of much-needed humour on a daily basis, Charlotte’s X account is the one to follow.So who better to help us look back over the past seven days news, articles and at what has caught our attention on the web and on social media including...- Avoiding Armageddon at this point is going to be very difficult.- Father Calvin Robinson: The anti-woke cleric that's too reactionary for GB News?- Online Safety Bill becomes law making the UK the safest place in the world to be on the web?- MP Crispin Blunt arrested on suspicion of rape.- Swimming competition allows 50-year-old transgender swimmer to compete with teenage girls.- Safe and Effective: An extract from the signed Pfizer / South Africa COVID-19 Vaccine Contract from 2020.- Brave final photo of Manchester United and England icon revealed.- Matt Hancock tells lawyers he wants immunity from Covid care home deaths during the scamdemic.- Boris Johnson spotted on the way to his new job at GB News.
Connect with Charlotte on....X: https://twitter.com/CharlotteEmmaUK?s=20&t=SU4Nn4u_4vcXHOk3-UP0OwGETTR: https://gettr.com/user/charlotteemmaukTELEGRAM: https://t.me/letscutthecrap
Originally broadcast live 28.10.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share! 
Links to topics...Armageddon https://twitter.com/DougAMacgregor/status/1717755091824820683Calvin Robinsonhttps://archive.ph/JWIcBOnline Safety Bill https://www.gov.uk/government/news/overwhelming-support-for-online-safety-act-as-rules-making-uk-the-safest-place-in-the-world-to-be-online-become-law#:~:text=The%20Online%20Safety%20Bill%20yesterday,duties%20on%20social%20media%20platforms.MP Crispin Blunt https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67233090Trans https://www.sportskeeda.com/swimming/news-trans-age-next-new-thing-riley-gaines-reacts-swimming-competition-allowing-50-year-old-transgender-swimmer-compete-teenage-girlsPfizerhttps://x.com/wolsned/status/1717057562581877094?s=20Charltonhttps://x.com/CharlotteEmmaUK/status/1716895468515721668?s=20Hancock  https://x.com/ScottAnd67/status/1716787263672049692?s=20Borishttps://x.com/CharlotteEmmaUK/status/1717976479236038884?s=20

Col (Ret) John R Mills - War Against the Deep State

Show Notes and Transcript
Col (Ret) John Mills returns to Hearts of Oak to discuss his latest book 'War Against The Deep State', a follow up to 'The Nation Will Follow'. John’s background of decades in the US military gives him an unparalleled understanding of the role of The Deep State through the institutions. In this book he starts in the same way as he started his last, with family, with mums (Moms for our American viewers!) and how they will win this war. John then shows the importance of getting involved at a local level and then we look at Big Tech and how Private Public Partnerships are being used to push a big state agenda. Stay tuned until the end as John delivers us a message of hope and tells us why this battle we find ourselves in, is a fight that can and must be won.
COL (Ret) John R. Mills and Former Director, Cybersecurity Policy, Strategy, and International Affairs, Office of the Secretary of DefenseCOL (Ret) Mills has had an immense impact on a number of significant national security events over the last 40 years, from the Cold War, Peace Dividend, War on Terror, World in Chaos, and the era of Great Power Competition and the showdown with China. He has served multiple combat tours. This service has been both in uniform and as a senior civilian for the Department of Defense and included service with the National Security Council at the White House across two Administrations. He has served in joint, conventional, and special operations units and as a senior staff planner on the Chairman’s Joint StaffJohn is a part of the Center for Security Policy, Committee on Present Danger China, Spectrum consulting group, an adjunct Professor for a major University’s Graduate Program, founder of the National Election Integrity Association, and a regular Op-Ed contributor for Newsmax, Epoch Times, Real America's Voice, and Daily Middle East.
"War Against The Deep State" outlines the development of the mass surveillance program started in 2007 to protect Americans, the weaponization of mass surveillance against the American Citizen, and the rise of the unlawful 4th, 5th, and 6th branches of Government. These unlawful branches of Government are the Administrative State, the collusion and marriage of Law Enforcement, Intelligence, and Big Tech, and the Non-Profits that unduly steer and influence Government.
In "The Nation Will Follow", John is a modern day Whitaker Chambers (who successfully exposed Communists in the State Department in the late 1940s and 1950s) and gives his account of finding himself in the middle of Spygate/Russiagate, realizing there is a Deep State, his four year path to getting in front of the Durham investigation, and gives the action plan for citizens to re-take their counties. American governance and elections are all based on the 3,300 counties and county equivalents. 
Available on Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/author/B0B999YZPK
Connect with Colonel John....WEBSITE: https://thenationwillfollow.com/GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/colonelretjohnTRUTH: https://truthsocial.com/@ColonelRETJohnSUBSTACK: https://substack.com/@colonelretjohn
Interview recorded 24.10.23 
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
Colonel John Mills. It is wonderful to have you back with us. Thanks so much for your time today.
(Col John Mills)
Oh, Peter, thank you. An honour to be on your show again with you. Thank you so much.
Great to have you. And of course, you're one of the regular War Room Posse, and it's to all the War Room Posse watching on Rumble and GETTR, great to have you with us. And today we have one of your own, one of the regular ones with Steve. And I think last time, John, we were looking at your other book, your first book. Let me bring that up on the screen. And the first one was The Nation Will Follow, and that is that first-hand experiences fighting the deep state and the action plan for the American citizen. And today we're going to look at your latest book, which is just out and it is War Against the Deep State. I will get into, I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through it. I will pull out a number of the different chapter points in it. But maybe, John, the first question, often individuals write book and then they move on to something often quite different. You've stayed on a similar thread. Do you want to just let the viewers know why this is something kind of you feel fixed on and why it's so important to produce a second book on a similar topic?Well, thank you, Peter. I always intended this to be a two-book series. The first book, in many ways, was about what I gave to the Durham investigation and my different statements and submissions to the Durham investigation and my personal war against, or my personal combat and experience fighting the deep state while I was inside of government.We do have a very important arrest out of the Durham investigation.It hadn't gotten a lot of attention and it was technically it was separated out from the Durham investigation, but I think that was pure Department of Justice front office, quibbling with Merrick Garland and John Durham who says, okay, John, we'll give you this, But you have to separate it out from the core Durham investigation.But it's Charles McGonigal, Charles McGonigal, the former director of counterintelligence to the New York field office.This is just like some of the famous British spy cases where it was found to be trusted people who were actually working for the Russians.It turns out McGonigal was the guy feeding us information in early 2016 about Trump, Trump, Trump, Russia, Russia, Russia, or actually it was Russia, Russia, Russia, Trump, Trump, Trump. And it was like, oh, okay, I'm a sworn professional. Okay. If it was, if Trump was in on this, I mean, I want to know. And that led to the, to the total fraudulent Intel community assessment of November, December, 2016. So that's, what, you know, a lot of what book one was about. And it was about, you know, the action plan right in your county.Book two is far more detail into how we've really arrived at the unlawful fourth, fifth, and sixth branches of government in America.And this is really the deep state manifesting itself. And in the American system, the unlawful for those who've been, their brains have been mushed by Howard's in history books in the American public school system.It's the fourth branch of government is the administrative state.The fifth branch of government is the coming together of federal law enforcement, federal intelligence and big tech to unlawfully surveil.And then the sixth branch of government are in the American tax code and system than what we call the non-profits, the 501C3s.So that's really the deep state manifesting itself and the order of hierarchy from the top to the lower levels is always, at this point in time in the year 2023, it's China, globalists manifested by Klaus.We must have a reset. We must establish an enduring reset.So Klaus and the Globalists.And then we always have to throw in Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea, and in America it's our uniparty that is enabling these unlawful fourth, fifth, and sixth branches of government.So that's why there was a two-book series.And then also more detail and success cases, success stories of the foundation of the American system is at the county and county equivalent level.So that's where most Americans should spend all of their time and energy, and if they want to have great effect at the national level is crash the market capitalization of these woke companies, such as Disney, okay?So there's a lot of victories and success stories here, and in America there's too many people on our side of the ledger disappointed, disillusioned, oh, nothing we can do, they'll It's worthless.It's over. You know, I'm a Churchill guy, and Churchill was both an American and a sovereign UK citizen, okay?I'm never, ever, ever give up, never, ever, ever surrender, ever.And so we will win if we put our shoulder to the wheel here.So in war against the deep state, I go over this. And I was part of the interagency team that put together the mass surveillance system in 2007 and 2014, which had a very strong enabling factor with the linkage with the Five Eyes, the five English-speaking nations, because our five intelligence services work, extremely closer, there's no closer relationship in the world.And then we have Five Eyes Plus, I'm not going to name any countries, but there's a number of other countries in the Five Eyes Plus category.So that's the transition from Book One, and the nation will fall into Book Two, War Against the Deep State.
Okay, there are a lot of things we want to pick up and we'll get towards those fourth, fifth and sixth sections of the government, the administrative state, the surveillance state and the C3s, that charitable sectors as we call it in the UK and all those areas by themselves are fascinating, all those areas could be a book in themselves, no pressure on you, John, but you start chapter one, you start in a similar way to the first book, a paragraph from it.If you have read book one, the nation will follow, and if you haven't, I strongly advise that you do, then you will know that I started the book with a similar message, Moms will win this war.Tell me why you start with that same message about the importance of moms in this fight.Two reasons. I think there is a distinct identifiable, the women have been at the forefront of this fight in America and I think in many places. Women are often the first to respond to the message of Christ, they're the first to respond to many messages and actions and I think it is quite noteworthy and laudable of the role because many women in addition to being mothers have said I am NOT going put up with this insanity that I'm dealing with in my county school board.And they're the first ones to show up.So one, a bravo and more encouragement. That's great. That's wonderful.It's beautiful. But it's also a message to the men to get off the couch and get on, get in the game.Yeah, there's a lot of the men I've noticed have this attitude, well, especially in a traditional family which is a good and noble thing. It's a foundation for any society. If you don't have family, if you don't have borders, you don't have a civilization. If you don't have families, you don't have a civilization. And we're all addressing dealing with this collapse in birth rates. Having children is a God-ordained thing. Come on people, stop. Well, I'm too busy with my professional life. Oh, you know, I can't afford another child. I mean, give me a break. Come on, Let's get out there, have families, have children, but the role of women, and also a message to the men, put down the bowl of loudmouth soup, stop bellowing on social media, stop going, I might lose my job, and get into the game and provide backup and reinforcement for these incredible women.And I love what many of the women organisations are doing. We've had Moms for Liberty on, Tina a number of times and that's just one of many, I think, organisations across the state that have taken the fight back to the system and are standing up for their rights as parents and also the rights for their children. So it's exciting to see that happening right before our eyes. Another part of the ballot, chapter two, understanding your county. And this is.There are a number of chapters through the books that make me sit back and think, actually, yeah, you're right. I didn't necessarily see that as part of the fight, but it is. Tell us about the county, because I think most people automatically think the swamp, DC, central government, that's the enemy, that's the bad one. But you go down to the county level and tell us the importance of being involved there. Why is it so important? 
Well, in the American system, and you know, after 35 plus years of working at the federal level and facing outward to battle the external threat, I didn't even realize it. And in the American system, the county and the county equivalent are the foundation of the Constitutional Republic. If you're county or county equivalent, the Census Bureau rosters 3300 county-county equivalents across America and in different states they could be called different things like in Louisiana they're parishes, in Alaska, forgive me, I think it's districts, so there's different possible names but predominantly they're called counties, county equivalents, that's the foundation for a constitutional republic.That's the foundation for our voting system. If you have a dirty vote in a county, it's not, as we learned on January 6, 2020, it's not going to get cleaner or better as it goes up toward Congress.The state is unlikely to fix it. The federal system is unlikely to fix it.They say, well, hey, this is your vote. I'm just going by what your vote said.And I think we learned a hard lesson and we forgot the importance of right where we live.Right where I live and I spend most of my energy fighting, fighting the deep state right in my county.We used to be a deep red county. We're now a bluish, bluish purplish county.And I think a lot of it is fraudulent activity, but most of the activists, conservative activists in our county just kind of said, hey, we're in Red County, what do we got to worry about?We just, we got it under control. And it was stolen right out, right from behind our back as we were thinking, hey, we're in, we got this county.No, no.So in the American system, the county is, that's where it starts, that's the foundation.Deep state at the federal level would not exist if we had clean counties. And in the American system, the 2024 vote is the big three are Maricopa in Arizona, Fulton in Georgia, and the worst of the worst, Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. 
One of the subsections is establishing information dominance. I mean, tell us about that, because that's where you're sure-footed, that's where confidence comes from, that's where boldness comes from when you understand the position you're in, the fight in your area. Tell us more, and it doesn't just apply to a country level, it applies in every area that information is key. 
It's being able to articulate a mastery of the legal landscape, of the personality landscape. Now having worked years and in the special operations community and counterterrorism and I'm very careful about using this term because people start freaking out and taking all kinds of misinterpretations but when when I coach and mentor others I always say you need to create a target book, a target book for your county and that's where you you know exactly who is in what position what exactly are their position, policy positions on different topics and you know how and when these personalities and those seven groups, when they meet, when they have public comment periods and you can show up and say something intelligent, thoughtful and actionable. Action, action, action at all times.So and this is the challenge. A lot of people are upset and I say well how many show up to these meetings, few people, and I say, okay, of those who show up, how many say something?Even fewer people of what's left.And then I go, okay, and what did you say, or write? And then we start to go through it, and I think sometimes people need to work a little bit on their vocabulary and presentation, because sometimes it may be counterproductive.I say, oh, you wrote a letter to the county board. Can I see that letter?And I go, whoa, that's interesting.I wouldn't have written it.I wouldn't have written it that manner.In fact, if I was a public official receiving this letter, I would interpret this as a physical threat, okay?So we need to be more thoughtful in how we come across.And people say, well, you're just becoming part of the uniparty.No, no, no, this is part of civil society and we need to get tough, we need to get smart and we need to get like, dominate the information environment.We need to know the state laws on elections, okay? We need to know the state codes on these different topics.We need to know exactly the governance venue in which these laws are actually applied.We need to know what the school board, who is saying what.You need to prepare and dominate this environment. And that way when you stand up and you say something, if you have a clean county, the officials are going to pay attention because they're going to go, oh, geez, I actually haven't even read that law in 20 years. I'd better go back and read that law.And if you have a dirty county, people are going to get very nervous.
You're a hundred percent. Chapter three is another one that kind of is under the radar, I think, and that's public-private partnerships.What could possibly go wrong? And you start with a quote, the most dangerous man in any government is the man who's able to think things out for himself without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos, almost inevitably comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable, I love it.And so if he is romantic, he tries to change it. But tell us about that private partnership because these are connections, these are relationships that maybe many of the public will have no idea are in place and are happening and are shaping our lives.
Well, yeah, when I first came into the office of Secretary of Defense in 2004, I think it was.Everybody was using this term public-private partnerships. We got to create a public-private partnership on, Information sharing which also led to that, mass surveillance program starting in 2007 now in the American system, I mean the elites love to use that expression and so I would I set up some of the original be even before 2007 some of the original public-private, CONFABs, CONFAB, at least in my Webster's, is a small intimate gathering where you can talk, talk in detail.Well, we would have these public-private gatherings. There is no legal definition of a public-private gathering in the American system. One of the things I realized after a while, there is no legal definition.So you can do whatever you want to do. Now, we do have laws such as the FACA, FACA.Federal Advisory and I think FACA, Federal Advisory and Consulting Act, which does lay some boundaries on how and when groups, individuals can participate in helping to formulate federal policy, which is not law, it's policy, but this led to the Enduring security framework, it led to, which was our way to, and we established it lawfully, but we essentially did end around the FACA Act because we cited exceptions, and we very artfully did that.At the time, it sounded like a good idea, but this led to us establishing a relationship with Silicon Valley.And this started at the end of the Bush years, 2006, 2007, 2008, hey, they have a lot of great technologies, we're involved in this war on terror, we need a surveillance system that is broad, that's pervasive, that's enduring, and frankly we can't do this without a public-private partnership with all these evolving big tech companies, which led to the program we set up in 2007 and 2014, which was the foundation for the modern pervasive surveillance state.A blurring together of federal law enforcement, federal intelligence, and big tech, and the Five Eyes component with our UK, Canadian, Australian, and then the two people in New Zealand that we work with, that was a joke, was very important.
So that and you go on to the government returns Silicon Valley next chapter which which widens that whole conversation on big tech. I know big tech was part of the focus of the first book.But tell us because we've had exposés on big tech collusion with the government and it seems, nothing much happens and in this chapter you delve into I think you call it what the four corners of innovation and you delve into different areas. I mean, tell us more about that and why has nothing really happened in that area? 
Oh, contraire, my good Peter. Many good things have happened. I mean, we got McGonigal, but we also got, it's a huge case that's developing huge energy and that's the beauty of states and the relationship of states and federal government. It's the Missouri-Louisiana case against DHS-CISA, Jen Easterly, who used to work at NSA, and used to be one of my colleagues.Great energy. And I'm actually becoming a party to this case, but the Fifth Circuit just shwacked down.That's a legal technical term.So they just shwacked down Missouri and Louisiana, I mean, DHS-CISA and FBI says, if you want to for national security reasons, talk to big tech. That's one thing.But in no way, shape or form can you share names, I'm one of them, of Americans to be targeted, silenced and censored.That is absolutely, egregiously unlawful and there was just, and this dysfunctional public-private partnership of NewsGuard.NewsGuard, which had the same personalities that I've named in book one and book two.General Mike Hayden is on the board of NewsGuard.It's a non-profit, it's a fraud, and it gets government money and it also again is absolutely unlawful because they're just like the FBI, just like DHS-CISA, they're giving names of Americans to be targeted, silenced, and censored on social media. So this is huge victories are amassing in this area. This is gaining unstoppable momentum and so they've been told, you know, DHS-CISA and and the FBI said, absolutely, if you want to meet with them.For national security reasons, that's one thing, but you, in no way, shape, or form can this be a venue or obfuscate the unlawful, say, I want you, here's a list of names of people to target silence and censor, and that goes both ways.That goes neither, and industry can't give that to the government. So this is huge.It's just huge what's going on, and I, we've uncovered a list that actually had my name on it and it's like hmm what did I do that was so egregious, why was I one of the names listed so this is this is the out-of-control nature and of these of these deep staters who just you know, law is just for the little people. We're going to do whatever we want to do.And you know, Jen Easterly is up there arguing through her lawyers in the Fifth Circuit.No, it's very important that DHS modulate and regulate public discourse. Really? Where does it say that? I mean, in the UK might be a different story. But I'm sorry, the American system. Absolutely not. There is absolutely no this is DHS is monitoring election infrastructure. I'm going, where's the law on this? There actually is no statute that says DHS CISA, it's your job to federalize and operate and provide mass surveillance of the election system.There's no law that says that. There's no law that says they can give names to big tech. So that's what's going on here. And that's for these chapters. 
Is that a step change? Because you've got a lot of experience with the military and intelligence and the agencies and understanding that, I mean traditionally probably most of the public thought that those agencies were focused on hostile threats abroad, bad countries, bad actors outside the US, but it seems as though there's been a whole flip over of the focus now being on those internally and law abiding citizens now been followed. Is that a change or has that really always been happening?I think maybe in the past some of this has happened. In a later chapter in the book I talk about the Church Commission that Senator Frank Church who led a very noteworthy event in, 1974-75 to really review the misbehavior in the intelligence community.We need a modern commission, but it needs to go far broader and deeper.And we need to literally start over with some of these agencies.I'm all for, we have to have an aggressive law enforcement, a federal law enforcement, and intelligence.But there must be absolute transparency and accountability. And it's to protect the American people.But in no way can it be weaponized. And yes, somehow, somebody missed the memo on this.And it just started and it grew and it grew.But General Mike Hayden, who I used to think highly of, was a poster child.His most recent, one of his X-Twitters, tweets, what do we call it, an X-tweet, an X-X, I don't know what we call it.But he, you know, made some very unthoughtful comments about Senator Tuberville of Alabama.And it's like, you know, essentially I would have taken it as a physical threat, and Senator Tuberville, very rightly so, turned him in to Capitol Hill Police as this former official is making a violent threat.And I think he was. And he needs to be, again, a technical term, he needs to be schwacked for that.And it's just very unthoughtful.But it's just, you have Dr. Malone coming on in the near future.It's that mass psychosis has taken over and formerly reasonable people have just gone bat guano crazy.Another technical term, is where, they just they went berserk on this and we, it's we must modulate what Americans are saying in social media.Really? What is that? It's that mass psychosis inside of the deep staters are career civilians, are political civilians, our uniformed military, all the contractors.Yeah, the government always know best, come on John, you should know that by now.Chapter six goes, the title is An Angry County Registrar, an incremental win in taking back our counties. And you start by saying, as I have already mentioned, I never ask anyone to do something that I would not be willing to do myself. I want to take this opportunity to highlight some successes that I've had myself. And you touch on, talk to your attorney general, you talk about finding the sheriff, get an office call with a judge.Maybe you can just touch on that because those are ways that practically people can get involved.Because I think often people think it's too big. And I think one of the beauties of your book is that you break it down into manageable chunks so people can say, I can do that.So maybe touch on some of those local engagements.Yeah, thank you, Peter. Yeah, I mean, if you're gonna eat an elephant, I don't know if this is an appropriate term in 2023.I haven't run this by the censors yet, but if you're gonna eat an elephant, you gotta start a bite at a time here. And you gotta really start, again, information dominance and mastery, understand who does what in your county.And this is where in 2019, I started tangling with our former registrar.In our county, a registrar runs an election.In Arizona, they're called recorders. Again, in other states, they may be called different things, but essentially the same, very similar roles and functions.And so I started tangling with Michelle White and it just, man, she just sent me some.And this was, I didn't, because this had not resolved by the time we published book one.So I wanted to give kind of a journey here.It's still on, the battle's still ongoing.But long story short, in early 22, I was asked to give a presentation to our, Jason Miyares staff, our Attorney General in Virginia, who came in with Governor Youngkin in a kind of a red wave.And so he said, so what's going on in Prince William County?So I said, okay, here's what I think.Well, I presented my documented series of tanglings with Michelle White.I was able to force her out. I wasn't the only one probably, there was other things going on, but I was the one who really duked it out with her, it out with her, and she resigned shortly after the 2020 November election.And you know, the only person who got really angry, the only group that really got angry was the county Republican Party, who sent me just a vicious, nasty letter on it.That's another story.But she resigned. But then in early 22, the Miyares team said, OK, what's going on? I gave him that.That's it's in the American system. It just can't be one person's word.You have to have multiple parties who make statements and they're cooperated.But after that led to other people, that led to more conversations, a grand jury panel was, a grand jury was impaneled.That's a high bar to get to that. And then they ran it and the grand jury returned several felony indictments against Michelle White.So my former registrar, so she's going through the legal process right now, for election fraud in 2020.So and all the people, there's no election fraud in 2020. Well, yeah, actually my registrar has been charged with election fraud.So I'm tangling with my current registrar, who just a few months ago, the Republican election board could have easily, no questions asked, replaced the new registrar, who I have grave concerns with also, and they choked and their inner Mitt Romney came to the forefront and they renewed the contract of this registrar.And so next board meeting, I said, I went through it, said, members of the board, in short, I said they've demonstrated their absolute fecklessness and I insisted that they all three resign.The two Republicans and one Democrat need to resign. We need to start fresh with the election board.They failed in their basic duties to ensure, because they hire and fire the registrar.So I'm battling, since they failed and choked, they could have easily brought in a new registrar, said, okay, fine.I want their, in that case, I want the election board's resignation and I'm working to hammer that through.I want to move on to chapter 7 and it's in the foreword by Ed Martin which was short and right to the point and he pulls the three of the six, the last three branches of government that go under the radar and that is the administrative state which we've touched on a little bit, unlawful mass surveillance as the fifth branch and I know you certainly focused on that in in the first book. But it's also the third part of it or the sixth branch which is the non-profits, composed of IRS recognized c3 non-profits. This has been an extremely intelligent way that the battle has moved on using entities that seem to be very good or therefore good to do positive and to take them and to use them.Maybe you want to touch on either of the other two, but it was certainly the non-profit side that intrigued me because once again this goes under the radar I think and now and then we have flashes in even in the mainstream media of how some of these organizations are used and they then we're told that's a one-off, but it seems to be a trend.Yeah, I'm all for IRS 501c3s, these non-profits in the American system.Two basic elements, they're always supposed to be non-partisan and apolitical, which are two different things, but they're not supposed to get involved.So in the American system, the poster child for bad behavior here is what we call the the University of Pennsylvania Biden Center.So after he left office in 2016, or January 2017, he created this adjunct appendage, of the big University of Pennsylvania, which is a tens of billions of dollars nonprofit itself.Most universities in America are non-profits.And so we got this UPenn Biden Center, But we don't know what it is, and this is where Tony Blinken, now Secretary of State, who led this UPenn Biden Center, he ran the greatest election interference operation in history for 2020 with the 51 intel officer letter, 11 of which I had worked for or worked with.And so it shows you right there, the UPenn Biden Center, which we can't find the IRS Form 990.It's actually not in the, I've searched the IRS database multiple times.And I've talked to the lawyers at University of Pennsylvania.And supposedly it's buried somewhere. You can have a nonprofit within a nonprofit. That's legally okay.But the universities are just gargantuan nonprofits, tens of billions of dollars of wealth, ten of billions of dollars of annual revenue and yet they they're just again that whole theme of transparency and accountability.Who at the IRS is checking to, you know, the UPenn Biden Center, which again, we can't find this, 990. Blinken ran this election interference operation. You can't do that. You can't do that.And it was the greatest election interference operation in history. And everybody goes, oh, well, let's just move on. Come on. Don't ask any questions. There was no there was no matters with election fraud.So this is the poster child for bad behaviour among the nonprofits.Moving on, and I'm keen to give a flavour because you pull in so much in the book, which actually is a short read as well. Chapter eight, FBI gone wild.And I thought, well, that could go anywhere. but two areas you pull up on, the Whitmer scam and also the FBI riot on J6.Maybe you wanna touch on those as examples of how the FBI have gone wild or gone rogue.Yeah, this is where transparency and accountability must be demanded.And so in the Michigan case, there was this group that was portrayed as right wing.However, when you peel back the onion and actually look at the forensics, they were left wing and they were like the Wolverines or something like that.And, but, you know, it's, they're white males. So, well, obviously it's right wing if they're right white males. No, no, actually they actually, part of their gig and thing was providing security for BLM and Antifa events.So these people were clearly, but the big media soundbite was, you know, must be right wing.Well, there was this kidnapping hoax that was, that was supposedly there was this kidnapping threat against Governor Whitmer, the current governor in Michigan, who's just a absolutely bat guano crazy psycho.But, so here, there was 20-something informants, or excuse me, 20-something in this group thinking about kidnapping Whitmer.However, more than 50%, it was something like 13 of the 21 or 20, 13 were either FBI agents or FBI informants.Now I have a little bit of experience in these kind of activities and when over 50% of the group is penetrated by your own informants.It's no longer, I mean you're creating, you're creating the group. I don't buy this that, so and there has been multiple charges, a number of them have been dismissed, there have been some convictions but even then I would say hold on a second, the FBI created this group because normally you have, depending on the size, scope and scale, you know you always want to get at least two and usually those informants don't know about each other.You want to keep them separate and distinct, but you have at least two.But not 50% plus of the group is actually made up of government informants and agents.That's, you're creating the group.So that's one example. And then January 6th, and this is where we have the greatest mass incarceration in American history.Never since the Japanese Americans were interned during the Second World War have we seen something like this.We still, we don't know truth on exactly how many J6s are detained.There is no running publicly formulated and public facing list from Department of Justice, of how many J6s are interned.And we can't have truth on J6 until we have an absolute revelation of everything the FBI did in federal law enforcement and coordinated with state and local law enforcement, because January 6th, until there is full accountability, what I term it as a FBI riot.Hmm. Yeah, we've had Jake Lang on twice and a number of others who have been regularly targeted, for simply going there and filming what was happening.Chapter 10, the name of the game is Regime Change. Who's in? And you start by saying I want to begin this chapter with an example of regime change, of which I have personal experience over with Saddam Hussein. So you've been involved in that process abroad. I mean, tell us about that and kind of what you've learned from some of those experiences. 
Well, again, we need a proactive, aggressive law enforcement and intelligence that protects America. And I always point on the CIA website, I urge everybody to read the Doolittle report. This is the same Army Air Corps Lieutenant Colonel who flew Army bombers off of Navy carriers to bomb Tokyo.Eisenhower brought him in and said, what do I do with this new thing called the CIA?And it was just, I mean, you just want to stand up at the position of attention and salute the flag when you read this report. Cause I said, that is what we need.That is weak, cause he said, Doolittle said, we have never had to deal with something like the Soviet threat before and we need to take off the gloves and fight dirty.We still have boundaries and we still have responsibility and transparency and accountability but we need to take off the gloves and if we put them in a chokehold and gouge their eyes out while pouring gasoline on them and setting them on fire, that's what we need to do.That's what we need to do. This is a life or death struggle with the Soviets.His chapter was about, I'm all for this, but the whole Saddam thing kind of went out of control and I think it was kind of the early stages of a wokeness and Saddam was a bad person.He needed to be changed out.There were, was evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I point to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence 2006 report that documented thousands of pieces, elements of WMD and then said, in the body, but then in the executive summary, no evidence of WMD.And we're going, well, you just listed literally thousands in the document.So, but we could have done it better and smarter. Saddam was a bad guy, a ruthless killer, needed to go.I think we could have done it a lot better, but I wanted to show that of how things in the forever war complex kind of just really manifested itself.We could have done it a lot better with a lot more, a lot less resources bloodshed, but it just spun out of control. Yeah, we got rid of him.And then a bunch of Shia pulled, yanked them out of his, after a couple of years, yanked them out of his cell and hung them.And then they told us about it.You know, so it just was my personal involvement in regime change.Every Iraqi I worked with was killed.I mean, it's a bloody, messy business. And so we shouldn't take these things lightly.There's conditions where we need to do stuff like this, but it can be very bloody and messy.
To finish off, the last two chapters, the four corners of innovation, re-establishing America, innovation and production dominance, and then the final chapter, defeating the deep state.Obviously, you don't enter a war, you don't enter a battle unless you believe that you can win that or else you're fighting just for the sake of it. And looking at the end of the book, it's a message of, this is possible. I mean, tell us about that. I think it's a good place to leave the viewers because often these issues can be so big. I mean, whenever the topic of deep state comes up, it's huge and you've broken it down into smaller chunks, but you end on a positive note. Tell us more about that and why you believe that's possible.I give a vision of what an America-first society looks like and the pathway to returning to functional governance, functional society in the American system that is based on a constitutional republic.Four corners of innovation, which are good, but they've been perverted by the elite.Big academia is good, big companies can be good, innovators can be good, academics are important, big finance, or excuse me, venture capital can be good. Those are good, but they've been perverted and we need to, that's for creating an innovative society that makes things, and more importantly, makes things that makes things.The concept of managed decline, which most in the UK understand the concept and the heritage of where that came from, yeah, I'm going to throw that right in the trash bin.I want nothing to do with managed decline.I want growth.I want ascendancy at all times, and that's the problem with the elite.They kind of achieve this climax, and they go, there's really nothing we can do beyond this. We might as well just stop having children and just kind of lead from behind.No, forget that, never, never, ever, ever.And so I wanna give a picture of what a productive constitutionally-based system looks like.That is focused on ascendancy, an ascendancy for good, not ascendancy for dominating, an ascendancy for the good of the society.And all societies should be focused on this. All nations and the world works best when there's functional nation-states putting the interests of their citizens first and working out these matters in a functional way with other countries and that's the vision of the future and yes we can do this.
John, it's always wonderful talking to you. Let me bring up once again. That is the book War Against the Deep State is available now just out weeks ago. Do get hold of your copy. I find it fascinating to read, as I did the first one, and I think it makes simple a topic which often can be complex and shows the part we can play. So John, I appreciate you coming on and sharing.Thank you so much. 
Peter, thank you. I just always enjoy these. Looking forward the next one. It's an honour to be on your show. Thank you so much.
I hope the next one we can actually do it on an aircraft carrier.I'll work on that. I'll work on that. 
Thank you so much, John. 
Okay, thank you, Peter. Take care.
Please subscribe, like and share!

Andrew Bridgen MP - First Excess Deaths Debate in UK Parliament

Show notes and Transcript
At long last it has happened. Andrew Bridgen MP (Reclaim Party) secured a debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament. Nearly twenty requests were turned down but Andrew simply would not give up. His courage and determination to find out the truth won in the end. Andrew gave a 25 minute presentation of all the data and facts which show a shocking rise in excess deaths since the covid jab rollout. The fact that many people have died after receiving an injection appears to be the very reason every government wants total silence on this issue. As you watch Andrew speak, be inspired to speak truth in the circles you find yourself in. Use the information in the speech to arm yourself with the facts. We now await a much longer 3 hour debate on excess deaths which Andrew is requesting.*This episode contains a background of the debate, the full speech by Andrew Bridgen MP, his message afterwards to the supporters gathered outside in Parliament Square and Peter catches a few words with the man himself.
Andrew Bridgen Member of Parliament for North West Leicestershire since 2010https://www.reclaimparty.co.uk/andrew-bridgen 
Some Key Points Made During the Speech...- Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies ranged from a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout, from then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since.  - The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red, but no one’s looking.- Payments for Personal Independent Payments (PIP) for people who have developed a disability and cannot work, have rocketed with the vaccine rollout and have continued to rise ever since.- The trial data showed that one in eight hundred injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning the risk of this was twice as high than the chance of preventing a Covid hospitalisation.- There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds, before vaccination, from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths in this age group alone.- There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 – 19-year-old males,  but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included.
Recorded 20.10.23
*Special thanks to Bosch Fawstin for recording our intro/outro on this podcast.
Check out his art https://theboschfawstinstore.blogspot.com/ and follow him on GETTR https://gettr.com/user/BoschFawstin and Twitter https://twitter.com/TheBoschFawstin?s=20 
To sign up for our weekly email, find our social media, podcasts, video, livestreaming platforms and more... https://heartsofoak.org/connect/
Support Hearts of Oak by purchasing one of our fancy T-Shirts.... https://heartsofoak.org/shop/
Please subscribe, like and share!
 
Subscribe now
Transcript
(Hearts of Oak)
Hello, Hearts of Oak. Today we are here with Andrew Bridgen at a debate in Parliament, the first debate in this Parliament, on excess deaths. There's been very little debates, very little discussions on vaccine harms here. Of course, this is the issue that Andrew Bridgen MP was thrown out of the Conservative Party, the Tories, for beginning to raise the issue of vaccine harms and now raising the issue of excess deaths was simply is not discussed in this place. I've seen discussion in other parts of the world, especially Germany, with the AFD. But Andrew Bridgen has made this the hill that he will fight and die on. And he has been thrown out of the Conservative Party. He's lost that position he had for many years. Andrew Bridgen, of course, is one of the original Brexiteers, well known to any of us involved in the Brexit movement, in the UKIP movement.And Andrew has been fearless.He's one of those strange beasts in Westminster.He is led by conviction. He is led by courage and led by a desire to do what is right.And he had no desire to climb up the greasy pole. He's traditionally been a backbencher.So has stood his ground, kept his position as a lowly MP and not wanted to rise to the ministerial level, because that gives him the freedom to discuss what he wants.He's not held, he's not restricted by government restrictions, but he can say what he thinks and do what is right for his constituents, for those who vote for him, and realise that he is the servant of the people and he is not the servant of the government. So today there will be a debate led by Andrew Bridgen, I assume he will be one of maybe very few, one of one, who will actually speak on this. I'm really curious to see. I've seen a couple of Conservative, MPs who have touched on this, who have spoken a little bit about this, sometimes on GB News, but they have not gone as far as Andrew Bridgen. And Andrew Bridgen has gone this far. He has lost his job over it, and he doesn't care, because this is the right thing to do when a jab when an experimental vaccine, so-called vaccine, was rolled out and everyone was coerced and more or less forced to take it. Andrew was in that, he also took it, now regrets that and wants to keep raising the alarm on the ongoing effects of this and of course to challenge this government overreach that wants to force this upon everyone. This of course is a conservative government supposedly that stands up for freedom of speech, personal responsibility, rights, and yet all those traditional understandings of a conservative party have been completely upended and is no longer a party of freedom and liberty but is now a party of coercion and control. A number of MPs I assume will come in and speak after Andrew will present his position on excess deaths and ask the question, why is this? It seems to correlate to the rollout of the jab.You and I know that. We've seen the data. Andrew will be careful in how he puts it forward. He will use parliamentary language. He's skilled enough in this chamber to know what to say, what not to say, what connects with those in the chamber, and to win them over. Because ultimately, politics is about the art of persuasion. It is about winning the public over. And today, it is not necessarily the public is winning over, although you will watch the debate in a few moments, but actually is winning over MPs. And that also is crucial. Whatever you think, we still have 650 individuals and many of us mistrust absolutely, many of us detest. Many of us have had a traditional understanding of politics where there was a level of trust with our institutions and that included those in the building behind me. That is gone. I think for all of us, that is completely gone.And to have an individual who is a champion on the issue of curtailing that government overreach, asking questions, following the money, saying, was this just a push by big pharma for profits?Was this something darker? There are a whole load of areas we can go into, but Andrew has, wisely stayed within the areas he can understand. He has read papers, he has, understood them and he has presented those and I think he has been extremely wise on how far he has gone on this because it is a case of winning people over. That's what we have faced, all of us, over the last three years of winning friends, family, colleagues, connections over to persuade them that this is a dangerous experiment on not only the UK population but on the world population.We have a police car. I hope they don't want to arrest Andrew before his debate.I don't think even our government would do that, would they? Anyway, I will let you watch the debate, watch Andrew speaking, and then after I will try and catch up with a number of the people who have been here to support Andrew. I saw, Mike Yeadon earlier heading into the debate and I saw Matt Le Tissier earlier, I saw Fiona Hines earlier, I saw a big group of people who are here to support Andrew as he speaks truth and to let him know that he is not alone because it must feel very alone in that chamber. No one to back you, no one to support you and you feel as though you are a lonely voice crying out in the wilderness and yet.Many people have come to show Andrew that there are many people behind him who are indebted to him for actually speaking truth in this place and are standing with him shoulder-to-shoulder. So we'll hopefully talk to a few of those people after the debate.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We've experienced more excess deaths since July 2021, than the whole of 2020. Unlike the pandemic, however, these deaths are not disproportionately of the old.In other words, the excessive deaths are striking down people in the prime of life.But no one seems to care. I fear history will not judge this House kindly.Worse still, in a country supposedly committed to free and frank exchange of views, it appears that no one cares that no one cares.Well, I care, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I credit those members here in attendance today who also care.And I'd also like to thank the Honourable Member for Lincoln for his support, and I'm, sorry that he couldn't attend today's debate.It's taken a lot of effort and more than 20 rejections to be allowed to raise this topic, But at last we're here to discuss the number of people dying.Nothing could be more serious. Numerous countries are currently gripped in a period of unexpected mortality, and no one wants to talk about it.It's quite normal for death numbers to fluctuate up and down by chance alone, but what we're seeing here is a pattern, repeated across countries, and the rise has not let up.I'll give way to my Honourable Gentleman. 
(Phillip Davies MP)
I'm very grateful and can I commend him for the tenacious way he's battled on this particular, issue. I certainly admire him for that. I just wonder where he found the media was in all of this, because of course during the Covid pandemic, every day, the media, particularly the BBC, couldn't wait to tell us how many people had died in that particular day without any context of those figures whatsoever. But they seem to have gone strangely quiet over these excess deaths now.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
I thank the gentleman for his intervention. He's absolutely right. The media have let the British public down badly.There will be a full press pack going out to all media outlets following my speech with all the evidence to back up all the claims I'll make in that speech.But I don't doubt there'll be no mention of it in the mainstream media.You might think that a debate about excess deaths is going to be full of numbers.This speech does not have that many numbers because most of the important numbers have been kept hidden.Other data has been oddly presented in a distorted way, and concerned people seeking to highlight important findings and ask questions have found themselves inexplicably under attack.Before debating excess deaths, it's important to understand how excess death is determined.To understand if there is an excess, by definition you need to estimate how many deaths it would have been expected.The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development used 2015-2019 as a baseline, and the Government's Office of Health Disparities and Improvement used its 2015-2019 baseline modelled to allow for ageing, and I've used that data here.Unforgivably, the Office of National Statistics have included deaths in 2021 as part of their baseline calculation for expected deaths, as if there was anything normal about the deaths in 2021.Exaggerating the number of deaths expected, the number of excess can be minimized. Why would the ONS want to do that? There's just too much that we don't know and it's not good enough Mr. Deputy Speaker. The ONS published promptly each week the number of deaths that were registered and while this is commendable it's not the data point that really matters. There's a total failure to collect, never mind publish, data on deaths that are referred for investigation to the coroner. Why does this matter? A referral means that it can be many months and, given the backlog, many years before a death is formally registered.Needing to investigate the cause of a death is fair enough. Failing to record when the death happened is not. Because of this problem, we actually have no idea how many people actually died in 2021. Even now, the problem is greatest for the younger age groups, where there's, a higher proportion of deaths are investigated. This date of failure is unacceptable. It must change. There's nothing in a coroner's report that can bring anyone back from the dead and those deaths should be reported. The youngest age groups are important not only because they should have their whole lives ahead of them.If there is a new cause of excess mortality across the board, it would not be noticed so much in the older cohorts because the extra deaths would be drowned out amongst the expected deaths.However, in the youngest cohorts, that is not the case. There were nearly two extra deaths a day in the second half of 2021 among 15 to 19 year old males, but potentially even more if those referred to the coroner were fully included. In a judicial review of the decision to vaccinate yet younger children, the ONS refused in court to give anonymised details about these deaths. They, admitted that the data they were withholding was statistically significant and I quote they said, the ONS recognises that more work could be undertaken to examine the mortality rates of young people in 2021 and intends to do so once more reliable data are available.How many more extra deaths in 15 to 19 year olds would it take to trigger such work?Surely the ONS should be desperately keen to investigate deaths in young men.Why else have an independent body charged with examining mortality data?Surely the ONS has a responsibility to collect data from the coroners to produce timely information?Let's move on to old people, because most deaths in the old are registered promptly and we do have a better feel for how many older people are dying.Deaths from dementia and Alzheimer's show what we ought to expect.There was a period of high mortality coinciding with COVID and lockdowns, but ever since there have been fewer deaths than expected.After a period of high mortality, we expect, and historically have seen, a period of low mortality because those who have sadly died cannot die again.Those whose deaths were slightly premature because of COVID and lockdowns, died earlier than they otherwise would have.This principle should hold true for every cause of death and every age group, but that's not what we're seeing.Even for the over 85-year-olds, according to the Office of Health Improvement and Disparities, there were 8,000 excess deaths, 4% above the expected levels, for the 12 months starting in July 2020.That includes all of the autumn 2020 wave of COVID, when we had tiering, the second lockdown, and it includes all of the first COVID winter.However, for the year starting July 2022, there have been over 18,000 excess deaths in this age group, 9% above expected levels, more than twice as many in a period when there should have been a deficit.And when deaths from diseases previously associated with old age were actually fewer than expected.Mr Deputy Speaker, I have raised my concerns around NG163 and the use of midazolam and morphine, which may have caused and may still be causing premature deaths in the vulnerable, but that is sadly a debate for another day. There were just over 14,000 excess deaths in the under 65-year-olds before vaccination from April 2020 to the end of March 2021. However, since that time there have been over 21,000 excess deaths, ignoring the registration delay problem, the majority, 58% of these deaths, were not attributed to Covid. We turned society upside down before vaccination for fear of excess deaths from Covid. Today we have substantially more excess deaths, and in younger people, and there's complete and eerie silence, Mr Deputy, Speaker. The evidence is unequivocal. There was a clear stepwise increase in mortality following the vaccine rollout. There was a reprieve in the winter of 2021-22 because there were fewer than expected respiratory deaths, but otherwise the excess has been incessantly at this high level.Ambulance data for England provides another clue. Ambulance calls for life-threatening emergencies were running at a steady 2,000 calls per day until the vaccine rollout. From then it rose to 2,500 daily and calls have stayed at this level since. The surveillance systems designed to spot a safety problem have all flashed red but no one's looking. Claims for personal independence payments for people who've developed a disability and cannot work rocketed with the vaccine rollout and it's, continued to rise ever since. The same was seen in the USA, also started with the vaccine rollout, not with Covid. A study to determine the vaccination status of a sample of such claimants, would be relatively quick and inexpensive to perform, yet nobody seems interested in ascertaining this vital information. Officials have chosen to turn a blind eye to this disturbing, irrefutable and frightening data, much like Nelson did, but for far less honourable reasons. He would be ashamed of us, Mr Deputy Speaker. Furthermore, data that has been used to sing the praises of the vaccines is deeply flawed. Only one COVID-related death was prevented in each of the initial major trials that led to authorisation of the vaccines and that is taking their data entirely at face value, whereas a growing number of inconsistencies and anomalies suggest we ought not to do this.Extrapolating from that means that between 15,000 and 20,000 people had to be injected to prevent a single death from COVID.To prevent a single COVID hospitalisation, over 1,500 people needed to be injected.The trial data showed that 1 in 800 injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning they were hospitalised or had a life-changing or life-threatening condition.The risk of this was twice as high as the chance of preventing a COVID hospitalisation.We're harming 1 in 800 people to supposedly save 1 in 20,000.This is madness.The strongest claims have too often been based on modelling carried out on the basis of flawed assumptions. Where observational studies have been carried out, researchers will correct, for age and comorbidities to make the vaccines look better. However, they never correct for socio-economic or ethnic differences that would make the vaccines look worse. This matters.For example, claims of high mortality in less vaccinated regions in the United States, took no account of the fact that this was the case before the vaccines were rolled out.That is why studies that claim to show the vaccines prevented Covid deaths also showed a marked effect of them preventing non-Covid deaths.The prevention of non-Covid deaths is always a statistical illusion and claims of preventing Covid deaths should not be assumed when that illusion has not been corrected for.And when it is corrected for, the claims of efficacy for the vaccines vanish with it.COVID disproportionately killed people from ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups.During the 2020, during the pandemic, the deaths among the most deprived were up by 23%, compared to 17% for the least deprived. However, since 2022, the pattern has reversed, with 5% excess mortality amongst the most deprived, compared to 7% among the least deprived. These deaths are being caused by something different. In 2020, the excess was highest in the oldest cohorts and there were fewer than expected deaths amongst the younger age groups. But since 2022, the 50 to 64 year old cohort has had the highest excess mortality.Even the youngest age groups are now seeing substantial excess, with a 9% excess in the under 50s since 2022 compared to 5% now in the over 75 group.Despite London being a younger region, the excess in London is only 3%, whereas it is higher in every more heavily vaccinated region of the UK. It should be noted that London is famously the least vaccinated region in the UK by some margin. Studies comparing regions on a larger scale show the same thing. There are studies from the Netherlands, Germany and the whole world each showing that the highest mortality after vaccination was seen in the most heavily vaccinated regions. So we need to ask, what are people dying of? Since 2022, there has been 11% excess in ischemic heart disease deaths and a 16% excess in heart failure deaths. In meantime, cancer deaths, only 1% above expected levels, which is further evidence that it is not simply, some other factor that affects deaths across the board, such as a failing to account for an aging population or a failing NHS. In fact, the excess itself has a seasonality with a peak in the winter months. The fact it returns to baseline levels in summer is a further indication that this is not due to some statistical error or an ageing population alone. Dr Clare Craig from the Heart Group first highlighted a stepwise increase in cardiac arrest calls after the vaccine rollout in May 2021 and Heart have repeatedly raised concerns about the increase in cardiac deaths and they have every reason to be concerned. Four participants in the vaccine group of the Pfizer trial died from cardiac arrest compared to only one in the placebo group. Overall there were 21 deaths in the vaccine group up to March 2021 compared to 17 in the placebo group.And there are serious anomalies about the reporting of the deaths within this trial, with the deaths in the vaccine group taking much longer to report than those in the placebo group.And that's highly suggestive, Mr Deputy Speaker, of a significant bias in what was supposed to be a blinded trial. An Israeli study clearly showed an increase in cardiac hospital attendances, among 18 to 39 year olds that correlated with vaccination, not with COVID. There have now been several postmortem studies demonstrating a causal link between vaccination and coronary artery disease leading to death up to four months after the last dose. And we need to remember that the safety trial was cut short to only two months. So there's no evidence of any vaccine safety beyond that point. The decision to unblind the trials after two months and vaccinate the placebo group is nothing less than a public health scandal. Everyone involved failed in their duty to the truth. But no one cares, Mr Deputy Speaker. The one place that can help us understand exactly what caused this is Australia. Australia had almost no Covid when vaccines were first introduced, making them the perfect control group. The state of South Australia had only a thousand cases of Covid across its whole population by December 2021, before Omicron arrived. What was the impact of vaccination there? For 15 to 44 year olds there was historically 1,300 emergency cardiac presentations a month. With vaccine rollout in the under 50s this rocketed to 2,172 cases in November 2021 in this age group alone, a 67% more than usual. Overall there were 17,900 South Australians who had a cardiac emergency in 2021, compared to only 13,250 in 2018, a 35% increase.It is clearly the vaccine that must be the number one suspect in this and it cannot be dismissed as just a coincidence. Australian mortality overall has increased from early 2021 and the increase is due to cardiac deaths. These excess deaths are not due to an ageing population because there are fewer deaths in the diseases of old age. These deaths are not an effect of COVID because they've happened in places where COVID have not reached and they're not due to low statin prescriptions or under-treated hypertension, as Chris Whitty would suggest, because prescriptions did not change and in any effect would have taken many years and been very small. The prime suspect must be something that was introduced to the population as a whole, something novel. The prime hypothesis must be the experimental COVID-19 vaccines.The ONS published a data set of deaths by vaccinated and unvaccinated. At first glance, it appears to show that the vaccines are safe and effective.However, there were several huge problems with how they presented that data.One was that for the first three-week period after injection, the ONS claimed, there were only a tiny number of deaths.The number the ONS would normally predict to occur in a single week.Where were the deaths from the usual causes? When this was raised, the ONS claimed that the sickest people did not get vaccinated, and therefore people who were taking the vaccination were self-selecting for those least likely to die.Not only is this not the case in the real world, with even hospices heavily vaccinating their residents, but the ONS's own data showed that the proportion of sickest people was equal in the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups.This inevitably raises serious questions about the ONS's data presentation.There were so many problems with the methodology used by the ONS that the Statistics Regulator agreed that the ONS data could not be used to assess vaccine efficacy or safety.That tells you something about the ONS.Consequently, Hart asked the UK Health Security Agency to provide the data they had on people who had died and therefore needed to be removed from their vaccination dataset.This request has been repeatedly refused, with excuses given, including the false claim that anonymising this data will be equivalent to creating it even though there is case law that, anonymization is not considered creation of new data. Mr Deputy Speaker I believe if this data was released it would be damning.That so many lives have been saved by mass vaccination that any amount of harm, suffering and death caused by the vaccines is a price worth paying.They're delusional, Mr Deputy Speaker. The claim of 20 million lives saved is based on now discredited models which assume that Covid waves do not peak without intervention.There have been numerous waves globally that now demonstrate that is not the case, and it was also based on there having been more than half a million lives saved in the UK.That's more than the worst-case scenario predicted at the beginning of the pandemic.For the claim to have been true, the rate at which Covid killed people would have to have taken off dramatically at the beginning of 2021 in the absence of vaccination.This is ludicrous and it bears no relationship to the truth.In the real world, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea had a mortality rate of 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2022, after they were first hit with Omicron.So how does that compare with the Wuhan strain? France and Europe as a whole had a mortality rate of under 400 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020.Australia, New Zealand and South Korea were all heavily vaccinated before infection.So tell me, where was the benefit?The UK had just over 800 deaths per million up to the summer of 2020. So twice as much.But we know that Omicron is half as deadly as the Wuhan variant.The death rates per million are the same before and after vaccination.So where was the benefits of vaccination?The regulators have failed in their duty to protect the public.They've allowed these novel products to skip crucial safety testing by letting them be described as vaccines.They've failed to insist on safety testing being done in the years since the first temporary emergency authorisation.Even now, no one can tell you how much spike protein is produced on vaccination and for how long.Yet another example of where there is no data for me to share with the House.And when it comes to properly recording deaths due to vaccination, the system's broken.Not a single doctor registered a death from a rare brain clot before doctors in Scandinavia forced the issue and the MHRA acknowledged the problem.Only then did these deaths start to be certified by doctors in the UK.It turns out that doctors were waiting for permission from the regulator and the regulators were waiting to be alerted by the doctors.This is a lethal circularity.Furthermore, coroners have written Regulation 28 reports highlighting deaths from vaccination to prevent further deaths, yet the MHRA said in a response to an FOI that they had not received any of them.The system we have in place is clearly not functioning to protect the public.The regulators also missed the fact that the Pfizer trial, in the Pfizer trial, the vaccine was made for the trial participants in a highly controlled environment, in stark contrast to the manufacturing process used for the public rollout, which was based on a completely different technology.And just over 200 participants were given the same product that was given to the public.But not only was the data from these people never compared to those in the trial for efficacy and safety, But the MHRA have admitted that they dropped the requirement to provide the data.That means there was never a trial on the Pfizer product that was actually rolled out to the public.And that product has never been compared to the product that was actually trialled.The vaccine mass production processes use vats of Escherichia coli and present a risk of contamination with DNA from the bacteria as well as bacterial cell walls which can, cause dangerous reactions.This is not theoretical, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is now sound evidence that has been replicated by several labs across the world, and the mRNA vaccines were contaminated by DNA which far exceeded the usual permissible levels.Given that this DNA is enclosed in the lipid nanoparticle delivery system, it is arguable that even the permissible levels have been far too high.These lipid nanoparticles are known to enter every organ of the body, as well as this potentially causing some of the acute adverse reactions seen, there is a serious risk that this foreign bacterial DNA is inserting itself into human DNA. Will anybody investigate? No, they won't.I'll give way on that point. 
(Danny Kruger MP)
I am conscious that time is tight. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that the Government should be looking at this properly and should commission of review into the excess deaths, partly so that we can reassure our constituents that the case he's making is not in fact valid and that the vaccines have no cause behind these excess deaths.(Andrew Bridgen MP)
I thank the Honourable Gentleman for his support on this topic and of course that is what exactly any responsible government should do. I wrote to the Prime Minister on the 7th August 2023 with all the evidence of this but sadly Mr Deputy Speaker I still await a response.What will it take to stop these products? Their complete failure to stop infection was not enough and we all know plenty of vaccinated people who have caught and spread Covid. The, mutation of the virus to a weaker variant, Omicron, that wasn't enough. The increasing evidence of the serious harms to those of us that were vaccinated. That's not enough.And now the cardiac deaths and the deaths of young people is apparently not enough either.It's high time these experimental vaccines were suspended and a full investigation into the harms they've caused initiated. History will be a harsh judge if we don't start using evidence-based medicine. We need to return to basic science, basic ethics immediately, which means listening to all voices and investigating all concerns.In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, the experimental Covid-19 vaccines are not safe and they're not effective. Despite there only being limited interest in the chamber from colleagues, and I'm very grateful for those who have attended, we can see from the public gallery there is considerable public interest. I would implore all members of the House, present and those not.Support calls for a three-hour debate on this important issue. And Mr Deputy Speaker, this might be the first debate on excess deaths in our Parliament. Indeed, it might be the first debate on excess deaths in the world, but very sadly I promise you won't be the last.(Parliament Square Speech Andrew Bridgen MP)
But without further ado let's welcome to the stage Mr Andrew Bridgen.Thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming down here to support the debate today, and thank you for supporting me and the cause.More? I just spoke for 25 minutes. Blood. It's been quite a week.Start of the week, get attacked from behind by a blunt instrument.But what an ending to this week. We have made history today. Nine months, more than 20 refused attempts to get a debate on excess deaths, the first debate on excess deaths in the UK, Parliament, the first proper debate on excess deaths in the world and I promise you, I absolutely promise you, it won't be the last. We will get a three hour debate in the next few weeks now on excess deaths.We've got two democracies under challenge all over the world. We're hanging over and using what we've got to make sure we get our message out there. On Tuesday next week I'm, I'm bringing in a bill, a ten minute rule motion, a bill called the Sovereignty and Referendums Bill. I'm going to put it to the House. That would stop, if we could bring that in, that would stop the WHO power grab of the people of the UK.I've been invited to speak as well next week on Zoom to some African political leaders, to try and persuade them to resist the WHO power grab, because it doesn't matter where we break this, we can break it in the UK, we can break it anywhere else in the world.This is a worldwide problem, an absolute assault on humanity, and we've all got to stick together.I've been an MP for nearly 14 years. I've given a lot of speeches in that chamber.That I was a bit nervous today because I knew there was never going to be a more important, speech I've ever given.I've never been in a more important speech than the one I was giving today.Can't you hear at the back?Turn up the PA. So, here we go. There was never going to be a more important speech than the one I was giving today, and, even after 14 years as an MP I was a little bit nervous standing up.But what really got me was, OK, there wasn't as many MPs in the chamber as I'd liked, but, the public gallery was full and the support from there was absolutely incredible.And they always say the politicians, that place over there, is in the Westminster bubble.We are going to burst the bubble in Westminster. Absolutely.Ultimately, my message to send you away with is that your determination, your cheerfulness, your resilience will deliver us victory. Thank you very much for coming today.
(Hearts of Oak)Andrew, we've just been in on the debate on vaccine harms. Tell us about the process, because it's been a long, hard battle, which you talk about in the chamber.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
Yeah, I've been putting in since January every week for a backbench business debate.That was refused. I've put in for a Westminster Hall debate on a weekly basis and I've put in for an adjournment debate. Eventually, after nine months and more than 20 rejections, we had the first debate on excess deaths in the UK Parliament.I think it's the first one in the world, but I promise you it won't be the last.I think the dozen or so MPs who attended today's debate, I'm hoping I'll be able to get a get them to sign up that we can have a three-hour debate well before Christmas and then it's going to grow from there because ultimately the data that I imparted in the chamber today, it's all backed up with the science. Every MP is going to be getting a copy of my Hansard speech and the full data pack of all the evidence that backs up everything I've said. There's no excuses now. So this goes to law because it's a no-brainer really to have these conversations because we've all seen excess deaths across Europe.Ask yourself in a democracy why don't they want to have a conversation about anything? I mean, I'm aware that in the Australian Senate four or five senators asked for a debate on excess deaths they ended up having a debate on whether you should have a debate on excess deaths and the consensus of the Australian Senate was they didn't want to have a debate on excess deaths.Well, I mean that's a red flag straight away, isn't it?
(Hearts of Oak)
Last question, I assume you believe that there are some MPs that can be won over, that public figures have kept quiet a further reputation, which you don't care about and you've walked away from the party.Tell us about those who you think you can possibly win over and then support you publicly on this.
(Andrew Bridgen MP)
Well certainly some of the ones that were there today, I know of some who weren't there today who will support calling for a much bigger debate on excess deaths.And ultimately it's the pressure of the electorate, the people, and you could see that although the House wasn't very full of members, the public gallery was full and that shows you that public opinion is they want this issue debated, they want to know what's gone on, and it's their right to have it happen.And that will become an irresistible force for politicians. That's how democracy works.(Hearts of Oak)
Well, we've just had the debate in Parliament, a debate that I actually, to be honest, didn't think would happen. I thought that it would be stopped and held off.Only one member of 650 MPs in that place was willing to stand up and have this conversation, on vaccine arms as on excess deaths. He spoke for 24 minutes, presented everything in a measured calm manner, no emotion. One of the many things Andrew is great at, that he just lays it out gently, softly, step by step, that he doesn't raise the hyperball that maybe some others will rise to. And he laid it out in 24 minutes. And of course, the government's response is, Well, excess deaths are other factors, lifestyle factors, like smoking, like cholesterol, even fatty foods.So the government are blaming all the excess deaths over a period of a sudden spike in, smoking and a spike in eating fish and chips.That's what the government. Wow.Like ostriches with their heads in the sand. So Andrew presented his figures. The great thing is that we expect now there to be a much longer debate in Parliament. That was a short motion, a short debate, a 30 minute session. Andrew is hopeful that this can now go to a three hour fuller debate and that will be really interesting to see whether that gets tabled and whether it actually does go ahead and I would like to see other MPs backing Andrew and I think the more he speaks the more courage they will get. Andrew is someone with courage, with conviction, with a backbone, with a determination to speak truth and often, that is a rarity across there, it really is, really people want to, keep their heads down, they want to climb up the greasy pole and attain those higher levels of political achievement. So we obviously will watch this, follow Andrew. He is a hero. There's no one else in that Parliament across the way that's a hero like Andrew. And what else? I mean, it's the hill that he's chosen to die on. It's the hill that he has chosen to fight on. It's the hill that he has lost his career in the Conservative Party. And why? Because people are dying and no one is talking about it. What more important issue is there apart from life and death? And if something has been introduced and it's killing people, you need to look at it, you need to address, you need to understand it, to analyse it and then see what you do with that. So we have won here amongst 650. We will follow this and watch this closely as we see this move towards a fuller debate in Parliament and certainly my hope and prayer is that many other MPs stand up and speak, and that this happens across the world. We've seen a debate happening, I know, in the German Parliament with the AfD. I know we've seen debates happening in the Australian Parliament and the One Nation Party with Pauline and Malcolm are doing a fantastic job there.And here is one individual. Obviously, the Reclaim Party is behind Andrew Bridgen. He's a member of that of Lawrence Fox's party. And Andrew will continue to speak. And as he speaks, I believe that we will see ripple effects across the world because the world watches what happens here.This is called the mother of parliament and I believe that as Andrew continues to speak and continues to speak within this chamber that we will see other parliaments around the world address this issue.But this doesn't affect future debt, I mean, the damage is done, the deaths are happening.But at least you have to hold people to account.And for me, this is about justice. It's about honesty.It's about clarity. It is about truth, which is something that's been in short supply over the last couple of years during the COVID tyranny.So keep an eye on this space for Andrew to continue to push this.And when that longer three hour debate does happen, we will be here reporting on us and reporting on those who have come out to support Andrew today. Matt Le Tissier was here, Le God was in the chamber watching Andrew, Mike Yeadon was here speaking, Fiona Hine has done a great job in pulling people together. There is massive support and I think the parliamentarians in the government want individuals like Andrew Bridgton to feel they are alone, but they are not alone. They are backed by masses of the population and today was a small subset, of that, but Andrew knows he is not alone. Make sure and post this video, let others see what has happened here in the UK Parliament and have hope, because I think often that's also in short supply and I think what has happened today is a day of hope, is a day of reckoning and is a day of moving forward to actually presenting the truth and holding people to account.