Skip to main content
Conversations on Health Freedom PodcastEducationInterviewsNews

Conversations on Health Freedom with Leslie Manookian – Episode 3 with Patrick Wood

By April 21, 2022February 27th, 2023No Comments

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 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, 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? 

Patrick: Exactly.

Leslie: And just so people know the reason that they do this genetic modification, one of the reasons is because they can’t patent naturally occurring things. You can’t patent a naturally occurring tomato, but you can pet patent a genetically modified one. Sorry. I just want to understand that.

Patrick: Exactly right. So here, before 2020 came around. With the great panic for 2020, I call it. But it’s the pandemic. Everything else on earth had been genetically modified. That would be perfectly understandable. If you understand what happened at the biodiversity convention in 1992, this was what they said they were going to do back then.

This was their goal. This was the main stake of the whole thing that brought something like 200,000 people together to talk about agenda 21 from all over the world. And this doctrine was spread all over the world immediately. When these people signed- the nations of the world signed it.

So, with all the other species of the world already modified genetically, we are now just getting a taste as they set their target on humanity itself. We’re saying in their mind we’re going to genetically modify humanity now. To recreate essentially to recreate a better species of humans. And this is where this whole messenger RNA stuff has come up, and you’re right. In one sense, you’ve got messenger RNA being stuck on people’s arms, but I would remind listeners that in India, a biotech company there has released a straight DNA injection that goes under the skin, not in the muscles. It goes under the skin, and it directly modifies your DNA down to the germline, which means your offspring will inherit it. 

Leslie: Of course, the J and J shot is a DNA shot as well. It’s not an mRNA shot. It’s a DNA shot. It’s double strands of genetic material. And it’s carried in something called an adenovirus or Adenovirus, which has fats around it, which then facilitates it entering cells. So very much so. What’s really interesting to me about what you just said is something that the Rockefellers and the Carnegie’s funded the Flexner report in order to tell Congress that we needed to standardize and license all hospitals and doctors to basically transfer control and, therefore, the money associated with it to a central location, to them who were chemical and petrochemical, magnets.

But what’s interesting also about that is it. Then that feeds into FDA and UN and all the things that you just spoke about. But Julian, Huxley, and UNESCO, they talked about these things as. 

Patrick: They did

Leslie: When did Julian Huxley basically say that, you know, and it feeds into the eugenics, um, agenda? Can you talk a little bit about that, Patrick?

Patrick: Sure. Yeah, it was; it was Julian Huxley. Of course, it was instrumental in creating the United Nations in the first place. He was the founder of UNESCO and served as President for several years. And he was certainly no friend of humanity, in my opinion, but he also had a brother that people know a lot about.

And that is Aldous Huxley. Yeah. They were both from Great Britain, by the way. They’re both Brits. Aldous Huxley wrote a book in 1932, the same year the technocracy was at Columbia University. I’ll explain that story a little bit more. It’s really interesting. But, I believe through my studies in original research that Huxley was writing that, that Aldous Huxley was writing technocracy when he created the book Brave New World. Brave New World is now in English vernacular. Yeah. Anything bad? Anything have, oh, there’s a brave new world. Isn’t it? And I have no idea what, you know, that it was a book. 

Leslie: I’ve read it twice. It’s amazing. 

Patrick: It is. 

Leslie: And people don’t know as well that all this Huxley was George Orwell, who wrote 1984’s teacher. And he told Orwell, no, no, no, no, you’re wrong. 1984 is wrong. My approach that people will volunteer for their own enslavement is the right way is what’s going to happen. So go ahead. 

Patrick: Well, I believe that there was good reason for Orwell to be looking at technocracy as he penned that book.

And part of the reason was because of the megalomaniac president of Columbia University at the time, and his name was Nicholas Murray Butler. They call them in the industry, miraculous Nicholas, the guy was just, he was over the top progressive for a one, but he was a hobnober spent most of his time in Europe, they used to complain about-, well where is he? Well, he’s over-talking with Benito Mussolini or somebody in Europe. And so he was a name dropper, and he loved the social life in Europe and in England. And so there was no doubt that Huxley and Butler would have crossed paths. And at the time in 1932, and just before technocracy was the gem of Columbia diversity, because they thought, oh man, this is a new scientific revolution.

We got all the engineers working on it, the scientists are working on it, and we’re creating this great, great new thing. It’s going to save the world, you know? And so Butler was over in Europe, touting his great achievements at Columbia University. One person said to me when I told them about Columbia they are in another Ph.D., by the way, some school in the west. He shook his head. He said, did anything good ever come out of Columbia? I don’t have any experience with Columbia, but I chuckled because, you know, that was his opinion. Well, what good did ever come out of Columbia? Well, Brave New World. If you haven’t read the book, go to a used bookstore and get it. You usually pay $2 or $3. They printed millions of these things. Go get it and read it. It’s a short read, half a day. You’re going to have it all. And in fact, there’s a movie on, and you can go to YouTube and listen to the movie if you want to. It’s called Brave New World, the same title. But what happened in Brave New World is all babies were genetically modified and engineered in test tubes, well, not test tubes, but incubators.

Leslie: Decanted. 

Patrick: That’s right. And they were engineered mentally, too, to be appropriate for the different levels of work that they were going to be assigned. So you have the Deltas, the Gamma’s and so on. You had the Alphas at the top of the thing, and they ran everything.

The Betas were below them, middle managers, and you had the lowest ones, I think were the Gammas, as I remember, and they were so happy with their work because they didn’t know any better. They were basically mentally retarded, but when 

Leslie: they played, as they were growing these babies in their decanters, they programmed them through audio tapes, telling them what they would do and who they would be and all this.

And then, of course, they self-medicated themselves with Soma, the drug that kept them happy. 

Patrick: That’s right. If you were ever unhappy or had any stress, you simply took, took the little Soma pill, which you carried with you everywhere you went. Now, there was no family structure. Marriage was verboten.

 Everybody belonged to everybody else sexually that then there’s, so there had to be no reservation whatsoever. That, but there was no family on it, and somebody fell in love with somebody else. They would get punished for it. And, of greatest interest to me, too, that I try to get through people’s heads today.

There was no political system. There was none, and there was no committees. There was nothing; there was no parliament. It was absent from the system. This is a principal tenant of technocracy. And one of the great dangers in our world today is these maniacs. I call them maniacs because I believe in people. I think people have a right to be people; we’re human. We’re not cattle in a field that gets shoved around from pen to pen by somebody else who doesn’t even know how to raise cattle in the first place. But you look back at that, and you’d look at it today. You can see the antithesis between the political system and the tech technocrats of the world.

The technocrats are using the political structure and the politicians as useful idiots, essentially. And I’ll give an example of that. Even going back to President Trump, when this whole pandemic thing started, who was standing behind President Trump while he made the proclamations of what was going to happen?

Well, it was Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx. They were ever present behind any proclamation. And who came up with those policies that came out of the lips of the President? It wasn’t the President. I guarantee you; it was the people standing behind him, the Anthony Fauci’s of the world. This happened in every country in the world where the politicians were manipulated to create these policies or to release these policies on the world for lockdowns or the social distancing, the masking, and ultimately taking the “vaccination,” not really a vaccine, but I’ll just use that, okay. And the politicians went along with it.

You could call it being complicit. They did. They went along with it, not knowing that they were being used as useful idiots. And that phrase comes from the Bolshevik revolution, by the way, that the people that helped bring the Bolshevik revolution to fruit were ultimately slaughtered. And they call them useful idiots.

We needed them for now, but now, you know, we don’t need them. So get rid of em. The political class in the world today does not realize that if technocracy is successful, they will be wiped out. 

Leslie: Yeah.

Patrick: They will be gone. There will be no political system in the world. There’ll be no democracy. There’ll be no political dictatorship. There’ll be no socialism. There’d be no communism. It’s just going to be a flat-out scientific dictatorship top-down. And I think probably the best book in the history of literature is Brave New World to explain that. Huxley was a visionary in that regard. 

Leslie: So, two questions. Do you think all this was criticizing Julian, or do you think he was showing the world? The roadmap? And then, secondly, why do you think the whole crisis happened when it happened in the last two years? 

Patrick: Yes, I think he was simply just writing a good book. It’s something he saw. Cause he was pretty young back then, but I think he saw an opportunity for a really good book when he understood what technocracy is trying to do.

Nobody else was writing about this. And remember, back in the twenties and thirties, there was a whole cauldron of things happening all over the world. That was a major philosophical mix going on, toss green salad if you want to call it, you know, there was a communist, there was a socialist, there was all kinds of splinters of religious philosophies going on back then that were hot debates.

 And then you had technocracy coming into it. Well, technocracy was really new because it focused on technology as being the way mankind can be saved. And that everybody knew that by that time that the scientific revolution was something, the wave of the future. So there was special interests in technocracy, I think because of that, you know, just the fascination with technology in general. And so I think Huxley probably, it’s just my guess, but I think he probably saw that topic and he said, dude, that’s a great book. I’m going to just extrapolate this out to the natural logical end where it would go.

And he came up with Brave New World, the book. I don’t, and I wouldn’t want to over-complicate it any more than that, but, you know, that’s just kinda my opinion. Could he have been inspired by demonic forces or something, as some people suggested maybe, but maybe not? I mean, I wouldn’t speculate on that.

Leslie: I think his comments to George Orwell are very interesting, though, that he said my view is going to play out and be the right one. 

Patrick: Yes. And, of course, they had those discussions. And pretty much, both of them had the same end in mind. One got there by pain, that’s 1984, and 1 got there by pleasure, which is Brave New World and they kind of both came to the same conclusion at the end. And Orwell, I think, probably described it just as good as anybody he said. Just imagine a jack or a boot stamping on your face forever. Either way, I mean, that’s what it is. It’s like-

Leslie: yeah. 

Patrick: So I forget where we’re going with the question.

Leslie: I think I had asked What you thought about all this writing the book and what he was trying to do. And then what was it about? It was about health and freedom, I think is what it was, but we can move on. I can’t remember. Oh, no, why now! Why do you think?

Patrick: That’s right. 

Leslie: Why do you think? Because I think it’s something I talk about a lot in my presentations if there’s a financial reason for why it’s happening now. But I’m really curious, why do you think this started in 2020? Why do you think this agenda, this crisis, all these measures have been implemented at this time? Why not? Ten years ago? Why not? In ten years? Why is it happening now, in your view? 

Patrick: I’m sure you’ve had an experience where you drive along a highway, or road, that you drive on every day to go somewhere to a store or something like that. All of a sudden, you look over, and there’s a new structure. Just, whoa, where’d that come from?

And it’s like a three-story bird, five-story building or something. Where’d that come from, and you never saw it before, and then it’s there. And you tell people, Hey, did you see that new building down there? Well, here’s the thing the building went out very quickly when it finally got down to business, but you realize it may have been years in the process of getting built. You had to have permits, you had to have architects, and you had to have materials lined up. You had to get all the city council, and everybody else lined up with building codes, permits, inspections, and all that kind of stuff. Well, that building, the 5% of the time that it took that building to go up, it took 95% of the time to get ready to get it up.

And so it is with any project truly that by the time you see it, you can be sure that it had plenty of preparation time to get there. We’ve had almost 50 years of preparation for the new international economic order. And now we see the building going up, and everybody’s shocked. Let’s see the building going up.

I’m not shocked, but listen, here’s what I wrote in 2015; I’m just writing an article right now, and this isn’t even published on my website right now. I’m going to finish it when we’re done here. I wrote here that I was the first to declare war on technocracy on December 18th, 2015. That’s a considerable amount of time before it was five years before it hit the fan in 2020 or early 2020.

Here’s what I wrote: America has been methodically and purposely conquered by an unseen enemy. Our shields are down. Our people are asleep. Our weapons are almost non-existent. The war has been waged in stealth. So the enemy has not yet been identified until now.

And that’s when I declared a big red bold type war on technocracy, not because we were declaring war on anybody, but because they declared war on us. I’m simply responding to it. And then, I wrote three days after the world health organization declared a pandemic that I wrote on February 1st, 2020. The title of the article was coronavirus and analysis in relation to technocracy.

And I said it was unmistakable that the pandemic narrative was exposed as technocracy is a global coup d’état. In other words, the silent war turned hot. I concluded, and this is how I concluded in that article in 2020. No matter what happens from this point forward, the economic impact of the Wuhan coronavirus will be an order of magnitude greater than the health impact.

And that’s exactly what’s happened. This has been the coup d’état of technocracy it had been planning for decades. They got enough of their criteria lined up in a row, ducks in a row like they say, where they realized they could pull it off, and they have pulled it off. And I’ll tell you, what really tipped me off to this was not any understanding of viruses at the time, which I didn’t really have any at all, other than I get sick once in a while. But what tipped me off was all of the people that were jumping on the bandwagon, the pandemic bandwagon, they were the same people that the month before. Had been writing on the climate alarmism bandwagon that the United Nations had been pushing and stumping for, you know, climate freak out, you got to accept sustainable development is the only answer.

You know, you gotta do this. You gotta do it our way. Let us have control of the resources, and we’ll take care of climate change. Well, all those nut cakes, in my opinion, that we’re riding that horse on global warming, their horse ran out of steam. Their horse couldn’t win any more races. The last thing that happened to that poor horse was poor little Greta Thunberg at the United Nations, jumping up and down, stopping her feet, turning red, and then blue, holding her breath because as she proclaimed your houses on fire, and I expect you to do something about it. It didn’t get any traction. People said, ah yawn, you know, even the United Nations yawned; she just got nowhere.

Well, at that point, when I saw all these people go over to the pandemic, I knew it was a phony narrative from day one. And you remember, even the first study that came out of England from imperial college, the very first study that came out of Imperial college that said we’re going to lose millions of people. And great Britain is going to lose hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people. And we need to take immediate action and lock down all kinds of stuff. They were known for being the primary university behind climate alarmism the week before.

Leslie: Right. It was Neil Ferguson, and they took $79 million from the Gates Foundation in January or February of 2020. 130 million plus in a preceding couple of years, including the 79.

And then also Ferguson was the same guy who had created these alarmist models for swine flu. I think I’m not a hundred percent sure, and other supposedly pandemics. 

Patrick: Yes. And it’s not that we shouldn’t have epidemiologists in the world. I’m sure there’s some value, but it’s so easily twisted for other nefarious means.

And the problem with climate alarmism as well as this was time after time. They were exposed for fraud and their data. Doesn’t matter what kind of computer program model you have, but if your data is junk, nothing is going to work right. Well, that was all. I needed to know that- okay, here we go. The carousel has started up again, and it just had a different location. And what happened after that, of course, is finally, the code for Ferguson’s model was released to the computer community, and they examined it. And I love that when something like that happens. Yeah. And they examined his code, and they said this code was the worst, sloppiest nastiest code they’d ever seen in their life.

He says a piece of junk. And some experts ran the same computer model multiple times with the data and got different outputs. How do you do that? I spent years in the computer programming and software business industry, and it just mystifies me how they can write such a lousy program that would come up with different outcomes using exactly the same inputs, but it did.

Leslie: Yeah. 

Patrick: So his computer model was just junk. His moral structure was absolutely just junk as well because he was later completely discredited and got kicked off of a bunch of boards because of moral failure. And because he didn’t even follow his own policies and stuff that he said everybody else should follow.

 The guy was a moral train wreck, as far as I’m concerned. Completely disingenuous. 

Leslie: Yeah.

Patrick: This is where it started. 

He’s a gun for hire.

 That’s right. This is where it starts. And the whole thing was disingenuous. And, you know, here we are today struggling with this, but this was a technocracy coup d’état 

Leslie: So basically all the technology, all of the capture of the media capture, the health agencies capture of, legislative pieces have all been put into place, and so the time was right essentially to have it happen. So I think we both agree on that, Patrick, and we agree on very much, but one of the things that I have been cautioning people about is that COVID seems to be receding, right? I have a local list where I had hundreds of people on it, and now most people are not interested in reading about it. They think that life is going back to normal, and I keep telling them COVID may be going away maybe, although. Georgetown Johns Hopkins and Rice University just reimplemented mask mandates in the last week or so. And in Britain, the NHS, the national health service, is calling for distancing and masking in indoor spaces and all these things. I think people have a false sense of security. They think COVID is going away. What’s wrong with that, Patrick? I keep telling people, no, the agenda hasn’t been achieved; they’re just onto the next phase of it. So what do you think about that? 

Patrick: That’s right. No war ever lasts with just one battle, never in the history of the world. And this is not going to be an exception. 

Of course. You know, I can say that because I was the one that first declared war on technocracy in the first place. I understand this is a war. It’s a continuing war. They have not achieved their objectives yet. They’re targeting the year 2030. As is the big kind of the big whatever that’s, when the flag is going to wave, I guess. That’s why, for instance, the world economic forum constantly sights 2030 as the target. You have the 2030 agenda that the United Nations had a conference on a few years ago. And they passed kind of an update to agenda 21, 2030 is the target for them to win this war. And Klaus Schwab says by 2030, you’ll own nothing and be happy, which is insane on the surface of it. But we have a long ways to go between now and then because we still have a lot of stuff. We’re not very happy. I have to say, and we still own a few things, but he says, no, in the end of it, you’re going to own nothing, which is the natural outcome of war, by the way.

That’s what war does to people. It decimates societies. It reduces them to rubble. Just think of Japan when the atomic bomb was dropped and what it looked like a week after. It was just flattened, like a pancake, destroyed. People had to build from the ground up. This is where war is headed. And you know, what’s going on today,

you’re right. The whole masking business. And, the continuing shots that they’re going to continue. There’s no doubt they’re going to continue. They’re not going to let go of this narrative. Until the citizens of the world throw these knuckleheads out of public policy altogether. That’s the only hope that we have in this is to get rid of the policy generators, not the politicians necessarily, but to get rid of the people behind them, be Anthony Fauci’s of the world. And I should probably add here, what happened with the spread of the great panic of 2020, is just Neil Ferguson, Neil Ferguson was one little cognitive wheel, but the World Health Organization had spent years going around from nation to nation to nation signing agreements between them and, individual nations, memorandums of understanding. And in some cases, outright treaties, where they put their name on the line and said, if this happens, we will do this. Or, if this happens, you will do what we tell you to do. That’s the nature of how the United Nations operates. And the World Health Organization was no different. They had laid the groundwork for this for some time.

Leslie: Yeah, and now they’re trying to put forward the pandemic treaty, which would subjugate every nation.

Patrick: Now they’re reworking the whole thing right now, you’re right today with the pandemic treaty, but all of those elements were already there in place. So what happened? the World Health Organization and the UN sent their minions out to all of the nations of the world saying pandemic alert. Here’s what you’re going to do. And if anybody fought back against it, they just put the lever on them and said, look, you signed this, you must do this. Or you’re going to lose all your benefits of being in the United Nations. You’re going to have trade sanctions. You’re going to have this. You’re going to have that.

You might even have UN troops in your country next week if you don’t comply. And we will force you to wear a mask, the world knuckled under immediately. The whole world. 

Leslie: Many leaders did resist, and they are no longer with us. 

Patrick: Your right. They’re gone. 

Leslie: Yeah. 

Patrick: Yeah. So this is how it’s spread. And it was a shock and awe 

Leslie: 100%.

Yeah. I think it’s one of the ways, and it’s the same thing. It was so reminiscent of the language and signaling under Bush when the US and the UK invaded Iraq, right? Shock and awe. It was the same thing. The same tactics, fear, the ticker tape of cases and deaths, and constant fear porn and nothing else. I was like, this is a PSYOP.

Patrick: Yes. 

Leslie: I’m a hundred percent with you. So we’re getting, we’re almost out of time, Patrick, but I want to ask you something, which is, what do you think people can do? You know, this is an incredibly challenging time for all of us and really, really challenging for young people. I mean, growing up in this, if you are even remotely awake, has gotta be incredibly depressing.

And the evidence is that a lot of college students are really struggling. There’s a lot of high school kids struggling, and those aren’t even the kids who are probably the most impacted, which are the younger ones who have been really, truly traumatized by not seeing faces and all this stuff, but I’m trying to focus as much of my attention, and I’m trying to create, packages of information. Templates that people can use to actually try and change things in their own neighborhoods. And my mantra has become globalism is the problem, and localism is the solution, but I would really love to see what you see. What do you suggest to your readers and followers about what they can do on an individual basis? Because most people feel very powerless about what’s going on. 

Patrick: They do, and this is exactly why I started citizens for free speech in 2018 was to be a countermeasure, hopefully. We’ve grown exponentially since the beginning of this whole pandemic, by the way. But we’re up close to 50,000 members nationally now, but free speech is the only antidote we have in this number one, and there’s a huge attack on free speech. In any war that has taken place in the last, say, 150-200 years for sure. The first thing that the enemy combatants do when they come in let’s take over the media. Always we saw it in Russia, and we saw Germany. I’ve seen it personally in Mozambique. I’ve seen it in the other places where stuff was happening in Africa and Cambodia years ago. When a revolution takes place, the media is the first to be captured and turned against the people to put out propaganda. We’ve seen mainstream media captured completely in our country.

There they’re a joke now, as far as I’m concerned. But the attacks on free speech is what I call a full spectrum attack. It’s everything. Look at the first amendment; it’s an attack on churches, an attack on free speech attack on the assembly’s freedom of the press. Redressing government for grievances. Now give me a break. You can’t do that anymore. You express any concerns. Oh, you’re a domestic terrorist or a domestic extremist. I get it, and now you’re on a no-fly list or something. So what happens when free speech is snuffed, and the alternative media, like what you and I are doing right now, and others that we know around the country are doing this when alternative media is ultimately silenced. If they are, there will be absolutely no impediment to these people running over the world and throwing the entire planet into the most despotic episode of human history. This was brought out by professor Mattias Desmet. The clinical professor of clinical psychology and Belgium. And he talked about mass formation and how that breaks down a society. We think the world is nuts. They really are, but mass formation. He says about 30% of the people get bought into this Kool-Aid thing where they can’t think straight anymore. He says they’re crazy. Well, it is, as they cause a mass formation psychosis, and he says another 30 to 40% of the people are probably just fence setters.

They don’t know what they’re doing. They, they got, you know, they don’t want to go over here, but they don’t really agree with it. And they just said, I’m going to shut up and sit on the fence and hopefully get through this. And then you have maybe the 20% that that are still not bought into it at all.

And just say, I’m not going to have anything to do with this. You know, I’m not wearing a mask, but whatever, forget it. The chilling thing that he said at the end of his lectures- remember, Europe has culturally sensitive to genocidal events. They’ve had several; we’ve really had none.

 But he says mass formation psychosis always creates a scapegoat. It has to cover for its own inability to get anything done. So you have the intelligence, you had the Bolshevik revolution, you had the Jews and the gypsies and the blacks. And so on, during Hitler’s experience, you’ve had other scapegoats. It’s pretty easy to identify and understand what I’m saying. When I was talking about scapegoats today, we have the scapegoat of the unvaccinated, right? We have a pandemic of unvaccinated, they say. It’s your fault the world is dying, the unvaccinated. Because you won’t do what we tell you to do. Well, Desmond says when the scapegoat is silenced, you’ve got to think about this when the scapegoat is silenced, the killing begins. It’s what he said exactly like that. 

Leslie: Yeah, he does. 

When the scapegoat is silenced, the killing begins. And when we see the killing is going on today in the world, we’re talking kind of talking about here with all this is crazy messenger, RNA and DNA vaccines and stuff where athletes are dropping dead, all over fields, all over the world, in competition and stuff.

And who knows how many hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people have died directly from taking these shots? 

Leslie: millions 

Patrick: People are dying right now. Yeah. But imagine what would happen if that whole scapegoat sector of humanity was silenced from speaking out and crying out about that? There would be nothing stopping them from just creating the biggest genocidal event the world has ever, ever seen before.

That’s why free speech is important. And when I say what we do at Citizens for Free Speech, we promote free speech, but we tell people free speech has always been a locally exercised right, where you use your ability to communicate and stuff to make policy changes or policy corrections in your own community.

 At this point, since we’ve lost Washington, obviously, most states are lost too, the only possible line of defense we have at this point is we fall back and retreat, right? The only possible defense we have now is going to be a firewall. We put around our own communities where we live that’s the last line of defense after that, it’s the front door of your house, and that could get ugly, really ugly.

So we’re focusing on helping people get into the local communities and create policy changes now and drive this ideology out of their communities. All these policies have to do with sustainable development, technocracy-related things, health madness, and so on. Drive it out. And people can do that. They don’t realize this because of decades of brainwashing, but they can create binding resolutions in their city that will make an incredible difference in their quality of life and where they live, and they can do it. All they need to do is just get out and mix it up. Somebody known to you, our national director of training, Mary Baker, says she heard this from somebody else, but she says, if you don’t have a seat at the table, you are what s for dinner end of training. Okay. Yeah. Okay. I get it. So people think today that you can just kind of hide out at home and, you know, I don’t want to get involved. I don’t want to, you know, want to make waves, you know, don’t want to rock the boat. I have this, this warning for you. You cannot hide. They are coming for you.

If you haven’t figured this out yet, don’t think that you’re hiding behind a bale of hay or wherever is going to protect you from them coming for you, ultimately grabbing you by the arm and doing what they want to do with you. That’s a fact. So there is no there’s no possibility mentally or in real realistically for avoiding this war. 

You are going to fight in it, or you’re going to be destroyed by it. 

Leslie: To me, we’re already at war. I gave a speech seven years ago called we’re at war with our government. It was seven years ago because which of us voted for GMOs or Roundup or mercury amalgams or fluoride in our drinking water or chemtrails or these jabs or any of these things?

None of us voted for them. None of us want them. None of us are begging for GMO salmon or pigs or anything else, right? We don’t want them, but they’re being pushed on us. They’re being pushed on us as part of this entire technocratic, transhumanist, sustainable agenda. Right? 

Patrick: That’s right. 

Leslie: Yeah. I think it’s incumbent upon each and every one of us to actually re-engage because Americans in my view have been asleep at the wheel for a long time, which is why this has happened. And it’s, it’s imperative that we start building our own communities, our own parallel systems. So we’re trying to, create a template to build independent healthcare systems, true healthcare, not sick care. Schools, foodsheds, all sorts of things because it’s so important that they, that people understand that they need resilience in their own community.

They need independence that is resilient, even more than resilience. Resilience is part of the sustainability jargon. But I think what it really is, is independence. Right? So I think if we build our parallel systems when the old one falls because I think we are, it is falling that’s, what’s really happening is it’s the system is imploding, by some measures, deliberately that, you know, then we’ll survive. 

Patrick: yep. I want to promote our crimes against humanity tour. That’s going to be starting very soon, a couple of weeks, nine cities and nine weeks around America. And this is essentially the result that we had from the Grand Jury of Public Opinion that Dr.

Reiner Fuellmich put on are orchestrated, over the last, I don’t know what few months. We’re starting this tour in Fort Myers, then Los Angeles, Chicago, Phoenix, Houston, Minneapolis, Atlantic City, Dallas, and Tampa, Florida. So it’s going to be a grueling trip for us, but I’m part of the speaking team.

There are just four of us that are going out for one day conference to discuss crimes against humanity. And the big question is, have crimes against humanity been committed in this war? We say yes, and I believe we have clear-cut evidence that this has happened. Now, people in America need to hear this now.

So this is kind of the summation of everything we got out of the crimes against humanity, international inquiry. Myself, Dr. Judy, Dr. Richard Fleming, and Fuellmich himself are going to travel the country, telling the American people directly the story of crimes against humanity and what’s happening.

And I hope, personally, that this is a wake-up call to many Americans that still don’t get it that we’re in a war because crimes against humanity do not ever occur outside of war. No, by definition, and Patrick, 

Leslie: where can people find out about this? Is there a website?

Patrick: There is, and oddly enough is called crimes against humanity

That’s pretty easy crimes against humanity, and tickets are not expensive, but we got these nine cities covered. We’re starting on the 23rd of April. We’ll be going into June. Personally, I would just love to see every venue standing room only to hear what we have to say. We’ve got the goods, Leslie; that’s all I can say.

We’ve got the goods. We don’t, and there’s no conspiracy theory here. These are facts. 

Leslie: There’s a conspiracy. It’s just not a theory.

Patrick: That’s right. It’s not a theory, and it’s not us. It’s them that had done it to us. 

Leslie: Patrick, I just want to say thank you so much for taking so much time out of your busy schedule to talk with me and share your incredible knowledge and experience with us. I’m sure our viewers will gobble it up. Thank you very, very much. I’m honored to have been with you.with you. 

Patrick: My pleasure, and anytime. Keep it up. 

Leslie: Sounds great. Thanks so much, Patrick.