Patrick Wood, Editor-in-Chief of Technocracy News & Trends, brings his decades of experience researching the Trilateral Commission and other quiet organizations that seek to install a new system of government in our world.
You can read the conversation between Leslie and Patrick below.
Leslie: Hi, everybody. I am Leslie Manookian, President and Founder of Health Freedom Defense Fund, and I am absolutely delighted and honored to have Patrick Wood of technocracy.news here today multiple author to join me as my guest to discuss some of the most important issues facing human beings and Americans. Let me just say thank you for being here, Patrick. You are a leading and critical expert on sustainable development, green economy, agenda 21, 2030, and historic technocracy. Patrick is the author of Technocracy Rising the Trojan Horse of Global Transformation and also coauthor of Trilaterals Over Washington. Patrick is a leading expert on the elitist trilateral commission, which we’ll go into. I’m sure a lot of people don’t know about that. The trilateral commission’s policies and achievements in creating their self-proclaimed new international economic order which is the essence of the sustainable development agenda that we are dealing with on a global scale.
Patrick, thank you so much for being here.
Patrick: I’ve been looking forward to this. Thanks for having me on. I really appreciate it.
Leslie: Oh, I’m so glad to hear that you’ve been looking forward to it. It’s going to be so fun. So the first thing I really want to ask you is, you have been in this for a long time. You are very familiar with the nomenclature surrounding sustainability, technocracy all these issues. Can you please explain to our viewers what technocracy really is? It’s your website, technocracy.news. Your book Technocracy Rising, what does it mean?
Patrick: Somebody introduced me when I did an interview in South Africa; the guy was a really good interviewer, but he introduced me as the living expert on technocracy, that’s shortened it right down. It has turned out that way that I have developed this expertise in technocracy for many years now. I’ve been talking about it for at least probably 14 or 15 years. But I want to go back even further. I’m one of the probably few people alive today that has a critical analysis of modern globalization that followed it from the very start. And that was back in the early 1970s. When what I call modern globalization started. There was significant differences, and it was written about by the global elite at the time that, hey, we need to do something different. We’re not getting anywhere with our old plans or strategies, so we’re going to do something new, and they call it the new international economic order. That was their writing. And it was all over their literature, as a matter of fact. So in 1973, when the trilateral commission was formed, they said, well, this is what we’re going to do. The new international economic order. And that was started originally by David Rockefeller, the big-money guy at the time. And Zbigniew Brzeziński, a brilliant political scientist out of Columbia University. And they started this group called the trilateral commission to execute what they called an end run around national sovereignty to achieve their new international economic order.
We didn’t fully understand at the time what new meant. I know that sounds silly, but there was no frame of reference in our minds at that point “new” we thought, well, they’re just going to rearrange capitalists and somehow make it pay off for them instead of everybody else. And that was true to a point, but that was not the point when I discovered historic technocracy.
Somewhere probably around, I started in earnest, probably around 2006. It became immediately apparent to me that the trilateral commissions’ new economic, international economic order was technocracy, and there were plenty of reasons for that. One is it was new. There had never been an economic model created from scratch in the history of the world.
We’d always dealt with different flavors of free enterprise, like a price-based economic system of supply and demand. That sort of thing. If demand is high and supply is low, prices go up and vice versa. And as they say, necessity is the mother of invention. If people need things, somebody seems to invent stuff, and then they sell it.
Then they make a profit, and businesses have gone up and down in the world for all these centuries and millennia based on price-based economics of some form or another. What was different about technocracy, by the way, was developed at Columbia University by engineers and scientists in 1932. The purpose of the model of technocracy was to create a resource-based economic system, not price-based, but resource based. It would be based on control over the resources in society that were available to support society. So, that meant direct control over the resources of the world. That meant direct control over the consumers of those resources of the world as well. And that’s exactly what they said in 1932. That’s what they wanted to do is just take over the whole system, and remove the political system altogether. They figured that’s useless. We have science on our side. They said, so, if we know scientifically what people ought to do and how much should be consumed, everything. So what’s to discuss? You don’t need a political system. We’ll do it. We’ll just tell you what to do, and you just go do it, and everybody will be happy.
Leslie: And Patrick, when you talk about they- you talked about the trilateral commission being founded in 1973, but now you’re talking about 1932 and they who’s the “they.”
Patrick: The “they” back then, of course, was the scientists and engineers at Columbia University. Columbia was the seat of progressivism at the time. It was the Fountainhead of progressivism in America certainly, and probably in the world. And this was viewed as kind of a progressive ideology, but when capitalism was struggling during the great depression, 1932 was a horrible time, no doubt. There was no mandate for these engineers and scientists at Columbia to step up and say, well, you know, we’re pretty smart. We should be able to do something better, but they did. And they created this very sophisticated model of an economic system that we still have with us today. And people didn’t pay much attention to it back then. I have to say it made a big splash for about four or five years, and then it just kind of dwindled off. And you know, I say hung out in the halls of academia. Like radical ideas tend to do. And it re-emerged in the late 1960s, at least early seventies.
It re-emerged as an ideology picked up by the global elite at that point that says, gee, we can use this system to get control of the resources of the world. And that really was kind of the bottom line of it. I don’t want to overthink it and make it over sophisticated. It was a resource grab by the global elite when they saw the light that with technocracy, they could use that to get resources and their hands and out of our hands.
They set about a very sophisticated plan to do it. And you know, like the big ocean liner out in the sea, you can’t just turn it on a dime, right? It, you, it takes a long time to turn an ocean liner or a big ship. And likewise, the global economy, it’s not something that you can just go flip and turn and all of a sudden you’re going another direction. It would take time. And the last 50 years have been dedicated to that goal, ultimately of getting rid of capitalism and free enterprise and instituting this new system of a resource-based economy. This is what we see today. Maybe it looks good to explain it in a minute, but this is what we see today with the United Nations program for sustainable development. That is resource-based economic system is what we see at the world economic forum with their so-called great reset. They are the WEF, by the way, is very tight with the United Nations. It’s hard to tell where one begins, and the other ends, but their policies are totally intertwined. So you see, in America, things like the Green New Deal made a big splash a year and a half ago. And it’s still there, of course, where everything’s going to be reorganized in society. They want to get rid of all fossil fuels. They want to have people ride bicycles and use their foot power more and get out of cars, and they want to change our diet, you know, get away from all the stuff we love to eat, and we should eat insects, insect protein or something. It’s just absolutely insane.
Leslie: Synthetic food, synthetic meat. Who owns a stake in all the big synthetic meat producers in America is Bill Gates.
Patrick: That’s right. So we see this, we see the global elite today; for instance, when we look at the world economic forum and the people there, there are a thousand companies right now that are following along the kind of membership of the world economic forum. Those thousand companies are the largest companies in the world. They represent probably 80% of the gross domestic product in the world. They’re huge. They have huge power, but the makeup of that group today is roughly the same as the makeup of the trilateral commission in 1973. They had, of course, directors and CEOs of giant corporations, and they had banks represented. They had politicians. They had lawyers. They had media companies that were involved with them as well to spread the propaganda. And while the trilateral commission people kind of hid out from public view in the seventies and eighties, today, through the auspices of the world economic forum, they’re in plain sight now. They’re, holding nothing back. There are no secrets whatsoever about their intentions, about their plans. And anybody, not just you, but you probably have, but anybody can go to the world economic forum and read their blog and see what they’re saying it is without excuse-
Leslie: You mean it’s not a conspiracy theory?
Patrick: And I have to say this, that I, not to brag, but myself and my coauthor, Anthony Sutton, back in that day, who had gotten bounced out of Stanford University, he was a research fellow at the Hoover Institution for war peace and revolution world-class writer and researchers. Amazing. By the time we started on the trilateral commission as a research project and started producing our newsletter, which is called trilateral observer at the time, we later converted all of those issues into a book, actually two books.
But, we were kind of the stimulus that led the global elite to come up with the term conspiracy theory. And that’s what they used against us. That’s how they smeared us. All that’s not true. They’re just spinning tales. No, we never spun a tail, not once. Because of Sutton, the superior research skills, we were able to get ahold of all of the published writings of the trilateral commission from day one. They had a magazine. They had a journal. They had papers that their scholars had written for different universities in highfalutin, you know, like, policy review and big-time academic journals. He was able to get all that stuff, and we just sat down and read it just like we do today when you go to the world economic forum website, we just sat down and read it. We said, gee, this sounds like we don’t like that. So we just started writing about it and saying, well, this is what they said.
Leslie: Patrick. Why do you think they put all this information in plain view? Like a lot of the naysayers, right? Those who call us conspiracy theorists. If it was a conspiracy, they’d never put it out there in the public view for you to watch; they’d hide it. They would conceal it. What’s your view on that?
Patrick: Well, at this point, I think there are two ways I could explain this, and I’m kind of ambivalent on it, I guess. One is that they’re overplaying their egotistic hand, that they figure we got this, the world is screwed, we got this, and we’re just gonna blow the trumpet for the whole world to hear like we’ve got enough people. We got the United Nations behind us with all of their penetration into countries around the world. And all we need to do is blow the trumpet, and the whole world is just gonna cave in our direction. The other way to look at it is they’re just tooting their horn because they have to. They’re like compelled. Megalomaniac personalities have a desperate need to brag about their plans. This is the way a lot of criminals are caught by police, by law enforcement agencies.
After a crime is committed, the foolish person that committed the crime brags to somebody, a family member, a friend, or somebody in a bar. Well, you know what I did last week, man, I did this, that, and the other, and word gets out the police come and say, we heard what you were saying, and you were under arrest. So there’s that aspect to it. I’m not sure which is which right now. My feeling is Klaus Schwab, and I just watch him on videos. He’s the founder and organizer of the World Economic Forums, and you look at him, just his demeanor and the way he speaks, he’s very certain that he has control of the world.
Leslie: Yeah. You know, I think there’s another explanation, certainly many people I’ve spoken with have suggested that- I mean, I personally believe this. We are spiritual beings having a physical experience, and there are certain spiritual laws, and one of them is about consent. And so as long as they put it out there, If you don’t fight back, if you don’t stand up and say no, if you just comply, then it’s on you. You have tacitly consented.
It’s an interesting way of looking at it. But I think it’s another potential explanation for why it’s there for anybody to read. And, of course, they control the media so much. They can just deride us, but it’s there. If you want to see it, if you care to avail yourself with the information, so then it’s on you. It’s not on them what they’re trying to accomplish.
Patrick: And I would agree with that too, whether it’s causative or not, if it’s true, it’s exactly what’s happened, and this phenomena is played against us all the time, all the time continuously. This is what we heard at the United Nations; starting from day one, everything was voluntary. They said everything was voluntary. It’s all voluntary. Nobody’s forcing anybody to do anything. And then all of a sudden, you know, like, they’re still saying this today, it’s a voluntary program, but so how come everybody in the world is following after a sustainable development and United Nations and stuff, and they’re sucked into all their programs. Now they can’t get out. They can’t get out of these programs once you’re in them. And they say, well, it was all voluntary, which means you did it to yourself. You know, what are you whining about? You did it to yourself. We just offered you the fentanyl. Oops. , and you took it. So it wasn’t my fault that I offered you the fentanyl; it’s that you took it. And if you’re dying from an overdose, don’t blame me. It was voluntary. You didn’t have to buy it from me.
Leslie: No, exactly, exactly.
Patrick: It’s crazy.
Leslie: So you have this; you have accomplished so much. You are so incredibly knowledgeable. You have this breadth and depth. Experience and knowledge it’s not strictly health freedom, right? What I do is health freedom, but what I’m really wondering is, even though your work’s not strictly about that, you’re raising awareness about these other issues which threaten our sovereignty. And I’m wondering, like, why do you do what you do? What got you involved in this? And what does health freedom mean to you? Here we are today, in April of 2022. What does it mean to you?
Patrick: Well, when I originally partnered with Anthony Sutton, it was- I’ll just call it a divine appointment that we met in the first place. It was so bizarre. We both attended a gold conference independently. I didn’t have any idea who he was, but back then, gold bugs were kind of the thing, you know, there are conferences on gold and precious metals and stuff because gold had been decoupled from the dollar, and gold is going up.
And there was a community of a few thousand people around the country that were really into gold. And I was one of those. So I went to a gold conference down in New Orleans from Scottsdale, Arizona, down to New Orleans. And here I was in this hotel and, in New Orleans, I think it was close to the party area.
And they were overbooked. The conference had way too many people at it. They just didn’t know. But people started coming, and the little restaurant they had in the hotel was so crowded. One morning, I went down to breakfast, and oh my gosh, it was a line out the door.
I said, oh, I’m in trouble. And I’m starving to death, and they said it’s European style, folks. If you want to eat well, European style, some people know what that is, but what it is is when your turn comes up, we’ll seat you where there’s an empty chair. It doesn’t matter what table is at. So you ended up sitting with total strangers, and that’s not my cup of tea in the morning for sure.
But they sat me down at a two-person table across from Anthony Sutton. And, and I’m thinking, I don’t even want to talk to this guy, you know, I mean, but we had to because we were face to face, nose to nose. And I just discovered he was British because he had a British accent, which fascinated me. You know, I always have loved to hear people speak from Britain. And we started talking and sharing what we knew. And I had independently been studying the trilateral commission already for a couple of years. I didn’t know what it meant. I was a young guy. I was in over my head literally, but I knew that it was big trouble, a big story. And I was still trying to figure it out. Sutton was there. And he also had been studying the trilateral commission at the Hoover institution. That’s what got him fired from there because the President of Stanford was a member of the trilateral commission that was David Packard of Hewlett Packard back in those days.
So, he was studying this too and had no place to write about it because he’d lost his university status, and he was just kind of floating, you know? And I said, darn, we’re talking about the same thing here. By the time we were done with that meal, we shook hands on the need to publish what we knew, what we were finding. We said the story is so big that we simply cannot let it pass. We must write about this, and you know, you get that kind of, you get that kind of thing in your heart. I’m sure maybe you have experienced it somewhere along the way. Cause you kind of did a career switch along the way, but when you get something in your heart that, you know, is the biggest story of the century, you just can’t sit on it and do nothing about it.
You just can’t; that’s complicity at that point, I guess. But we had a, just a burning passion at that point to expose what was going on with the trilateral commission. And it just so happened again, an odd coincidence that I happened to be running a printing business in Scottsdale, Arizona, at the time, printing newsletters and direct mail packages and stuff for people that were doing newsletters back then.
And it was the perfect format for us to write a newsletter and also to print a book ultimately, and we did, so we just started cranking this stuff out, doing the research, and putting it out. And I crank up the printing presses, and we’d send out tens of thousands of newsletters around the country on a subscription basis.
But all that to say, when this started, we knew it was a big story. As time has gone on, especially when I discovered historic technocracy, the story got even bigger. I know that’s kind of fantastical to say; maybe I’m the only one that can understand that, but the story got measurably bigger when I discovered historic technocracy because it put roots to the tree that we never saw. And all of a sudden, it’s like, wow!
Leslie: It’s the same thing. That’s exactly what was the impetus behind me making The Greater Good, the movie documentary on vaccines that I made. I discovered this, and I was like, this is huge. Children are being injured and killed by these shots, and it’s being covered up.
And then, when I started to realize that polio wasn’t really polio. It was actually neurotoxicity, and that they had changed the diagnostic criteria to make it look like polio went away when they introduced the vaccine. And the same thing had happened with smallpox, where the people who got the shots were actually more likely to get sick.
I mean, of course, it still persists. People still don’t realize, but these things are very, very deep. Very, very deep.
Patrick: Yeah, it really is.
Leslie: So tell me, how, how do you think about health freedom with that background? And that, context.
Patrick: Well, I’m going to read you a couple of quotes that I kind of knew you were headed that way.
And I’m going to see if I can find these two quotes here. Yes, I can, which is good. I’m just trying to think about where to start. I could start from 1932, but I don’t think I’ll do that. I think I’ll just start with the 1992 earth summit, which was in Rio de Janeiro.
That’s the summit that produced agenda 21, which was the agenda for the 21st century. That’s where sustainable development was born. Right? As a doctrine, as a global doctrine. That’s I argue that technology, the entire Agenda 21 program, and sustainable development was created by a United Nations commission called the Brundtland commission that operated from 83 to 87
it was chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland from Europe, a member of the trilateral commission. She was the primary architect and author of the book our common future, which later became the seed document for the Agenda 21 conference. She’s highly acclaimed as the mother of sustainable development by the United Nations itself, and I’m not making this up. But it was the trilateral policy that was given to the United Nations for sustainable development. Okay. They had in view at the time that they were going to control all the resources of the world. Not just the real estate, not just the drilling, not just the gold, the agriculture, timber, the water, the fish, all the resources of the world. We typically think that’s the resources of the world, air, the air we breathe, the water we get in our house, and so on. Well, unbeknownst to most at the time, for sure, because it was too fantastical. All resources also include you and me because we’re resources to them.
Leslie: Human resources.
Patrick: Human resources. That’s right. Make no bones about it. We are human resources, and we’re a resource just as much as the cattle in the field, the pigs in the trough, whatever,
Leslie: a hundred percent
Patrick: We’re just animals. Okay. To them, we’re resources to be controlled, and I’ll tell you how this works.
Leslie: And harnessed
Patrick: And harnessed, that’s right.
To be used for their benefit. And this was always in view. When I went back and re-read documents from the 1930s, I saw this all over the place. I didn’t really recognize it the first time through, but I saw it clearly later that they intended to manage all of the resources of the world and include people.
But during the period of time when Rio de Janeiro was underway, there was people came from all over the planet to go to that convention. It was, I think, 187 countries that ended up signing the treaty for the Agenda 21 document and parallel to the Agenda 21 track, but there was also the biodiversity convention that was running.
It was very tightly integrated with the Agenda 21 track, but you know how conferences are, right? You can have one conference, but you could have multiple tracks at the same conference. You know, Like if you had a medical conference. You might have, the heart thing might have internal might have, pulmonary, whatever.
I mean, you could have different tracks going on within the same convention. And that’s what the biodiversity convention was all about. It kind of provided practical explanations on, well, how this would really work. This Agenda 21? What would it mean? What is sustainable? What isn’t sustainable?
So they produced this 1200-page book that weighs about 10 pounds that gave all the criteria and details for what Agenda 21 is. Anyway, at the real conference, there were two people that attended as principals to that whole process. They were fairly high-level academics. They went in hopes that there would be some reformation in the world over the whole development issue of the processes that have been taken place that had been so damaging to third world countries.
And, they were kind of the original greens if you’re well, you know, the original environmentalist, they came away pretty disillusioned from, from the whole conference. And they wrote a book two years later called the earth brokers. The idea is that the real convention essentially brokered the earth, and on the other hand, it didn’t really solve the problems that the rest of the world wanted to solve.
But indeed, it just caused it was going to push the world into another existence that would just crush it even further. And this book was really instrumental. And I quote it a lot because these were not people that were on the conservative side of the spectrum at all. They were critics of their own movement. So that makes their testimony even more powerful to me. But here’s what they wrote in this book, just to set the stage. We argue that UNCED stands for United Nations Conference on Economic Development; I’ll call it UNCED. We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its habitats.
We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get richer. The poor poorer while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process. That’s profound. I mean, that’s just huge. They said, yeah, disingenuous at its core, so then they wrote not only on Agenda 21 but also on the biodiversity convention.
And this is where it gets really interesting. And again, remember, this was 1994 before a lot of the modern technology where we have today was not in existence yet, but this is what they wrote. So, on pages 42 and 43, they said the convention implicitly equates the diversity of life, animals, and plants. And remember, you’re an animal. Well, you’re not, but I mean, they think you’re an animal. It equates to the diversity of life, animals, and plants to the diversity of genetic codes. By doing so, diversity becomes something modern science can manipulate. It promotes biotechnology as being, quote, essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Now, this was a sea change in the definition of what you and I might think of as biodiversity diversity being, well, you know, there’s froggies in the forest, and there’s snakes in the grass, and there’s birds in the sky. This was not their definition of biodiversity. It had to do with genetic codes and manipulating genetic codes. They went on to say the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention, not the minor stake, not just one stake. They said the main stake, which means that this was the incessant talk that was going on at the biodiversity convention. I’ll start again on the quote; the main stake raised by the biodiversity convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity.
The major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries, close quote. Now you can see now, I, I hope, very clearly why we are where we are today with messenger RNA-based vaccinations. Experimental Use Authorization only in most places in the world has been used to inject humanity with a templating system that potentially could change the DNA structure of the human germline.
Leslie: It does. We know that.
Patrick: This is huge.
Leslie: We do know that it actually does now. That’s. Been demonstrated.
Patrick: It has.
Leslie: It actually inserts into the nucleus of the cell and changes the genetic, the DNA inside the nucleus. So it actually does. They promised us it didn’t, but it does, it enters the cell, and it changes the genetic imprint, the genetic imprint of the human being for sure.
Patrick: So here’s how we’ve seen this play out from 92 to 2022. What’s that 30 years, right? Just 30 short years. Short to me, maybe not so short to you in 30 years, what we’ve seen by what I just read. We have seen Monsanto, for instance, modify while Monsanto and a few other companies like them modify virtually every crop seed on the earth.
They have patented those seeds. They own those seeds. Now they licensed those seeds for growth and the farmer in the fields of farmers and ranchers. And so on. You’ve seen genetic modification of insects. This is in the news right now with a company called Oxitec out of Great Britain producing genetically modified mosquitoes to wipe out mosquito populations that they say carry horrible diseases and whatever, but that’s another story.
But, you see the genetic modification of fish where for instance, salmon are now genetically modified to grow twice as fast as the natural species of fish, so they can be farm raised. And now you have seen that genetic modification of animals and all over the place on animals and birds as well, include them, where you have pigs that are double-muscled, where you have actually one experiment had a transgenic, put jellyfish genes for luminescence and the pigs and the pigs ended up glowing in the dark, the pigs’ offspring, right. They glowed in the dark when he hit him with a black light.
So you have seen all these different bacteria have been modified as well for all kinds of different purposes, like oil spills, for instance. Okay. They’re now using genetically modified bacteria. Well, there are two other aspects to genetic modification. They’re way beyond just natural selection, which farmers used to do, where they would just cross-species of not species, but they’d cross, um, uh, plants with each other to develop certain characteristics in the offspring. And that, that was a that was an art form. Really many, many farmers save their own seed stock from year to year.
So if they could continue to plant their superior seeds, well, you have regular genetic modification now with tools like CRISPR that allow snipping from here and putting over here, but more dangerously. You have a technique called a transgenic modification where you take a snippet of genetic code out of a different species altogether, and you put that into the species over here. And then, in addition to that, you have another discipline of genetic modification, which has to do with this outright synthesis from scratch of genetic code. And put that into another species. Whether it be a seed or whatever. Well, all
of these things…
Leslie: They took a fish gene and put it into a tomato to make them more resistant to the cold, right?
Patric