You're listening to
unlimited Hangout. I'm your host
Whitney Webb. On September 12,
Joe Biden announced an executive
order on advancing biotechnology
and bio manufacturing innovation
for a sustainable, safe and
secure American bio economy.
Among other things, this
executive order stated that,
quote, We need to develop
genetic engineering technologies
and techniques to be able to
write circuitry for cells and
predictably program biology. In
the same way in which we write
software and program computers,
unlock the power of biological
data, including through
computing tools and artificial
intelligence, and advanced the
science of scale up production,
while reducing the obstacles for
commercialization so that
innovative technologies and
products can reach markets
faster in quote. In other words,
this policy calls for less
regulation and testing for quote
unquote, innovative healthcare
products based on new unproven
technologies, particularly gene
editing and gene therapy, and
supercharging the effort to make
AI central to the American
healthcare system, but there's
actually a lot more going on in
this executive order. So this
executive order perhaps
unsurprisingly, got little play
in mainstream media and only
slightly more an independent
media where many of those who
did cover it claimed it would
usher in an age of transhumanist
technologies. Is such alarm
warranted and what is this
executive order likely to mean
for the average American? And
what exactly is the bioeconomy?
Who are the major players in it?
And who is it meant to benefit?
Joining me discuss this and more
today is Derek bros. Derek is a
journalist, activist and speaker
who writes for the last American
Vagabond as well as his own
site, the conscious resistance.
His most recent article for tea
laugh covers Biden's executive
order and one of the best and
one of the only articles out
there on the topic and shows how
this edict is just one part of a
much larger and broader agenda.
So thanks for joining me today.
Derek, welcome back to unlimited
hangout. Yeah, thank you for
having me back. When my
pleasure. So let's start by
tackling some of the vocabulary
in this executive order. I don't
think most people know what
bioeconomy or even bio
manufacturing exactly means. So
how do how does the executive
order define these terms? Do you
agree with those definitions?
And what do you think this? This
means in terms of the economic
impact it's likely to have for
Americans?
Sure. So the executive order is
titled advancing biotechnology
and bio manufacturing, to
further sustainable, safe and
secure American bio economy. So
they fit all three of those
words and one phrase there, and
like you said, I don't think
most people have even come
across these terms. According to
the White House's definition,
which I think is generally
correct. I mean, you could get a
little more broad with it, but
they describe it as the economic
activity derived from
biotechnology and bio
manufacturing, is referred to as
the bioeconomy. And of course,
they state that COVID, the COVID
crisis helped accelerate the
push towards biotech and bio
manufacturing. And they talk
about in terms of quote unquote,
life saving therapeutics and
vaccines and all that stuff. But
yeah, that's kind of the general
idea of economic activity from
that. And of course,
biotechnology people are maybe
more familiar with if, if not in
name in the sense of genetic
engineering genetic modified
foods, like that's probably the
most familiar aspect of it,
people obviously, it's bigger
than that too. But that's kind
of like biotech companies. So
you get like Syngenta, Monsanto,
those types of companies. And
then bio manufacturing has like
another component, they they
have their own definition. And I
kind of looked further and found
some other definitions for that.
And that gets into the idea of
using biological systems, which
itself is pretty broad, to
develop products, tools and
processes at a commercial scale
bio manufacturing, utilizes
those biological systems,
whatever they may be, to produce
commercial biomaterials,
biomolecules. So I mean,
obviously, the theme here is
like life biology using that,
and they're talking about it in
medicine, food, industrial
applications, and I'm sure we're
gonna get into it, but it gets
into some other areas where they
start talking about biomass and
like, what exactly is biomass
and how we need to have the
circular bio economy which we've
been hearing that circular
economy phrase for a while,
which you know, at its at its
kind of least nefarious end is
things like reduce, reuse,
recycle. And then, you know, it
goes to a whole other area,
though, that I think is where
some of the concerns come in.
And you know, what we're getting
into in this article, right.
So like he touched on earlier,
so a lot of people have been
focusing sort of on the
healthcare I guess you could say
angle of this executive order,
but as you sort of touched on,
this is a lot bigger than just
Healthcare. So they call for
this to be like a whole of
government approach. What some
of the departments mentioned
specifically in this executive
order aren't just like HHS, for
example. But I think HHS and
like ARPA h, we can talk about
later, have a big role here.
But, you know, they also
mentioned, the Department of
Agriculture, the Department of
Energy, the Department of
Commerce, DHS, the Department of
Defense, I mean, it's pretty
big, the push for all of these
for biotechnology and bio
manufacturing to play a central
role in these departments going
forward. So I think it maybe at
some, at some point, I don't
know if we want you want to do
this now or later, we should
probably talk about the
implications of this for
agriculture, because it talks
about food security and
sustainability. And you
mentioned just a second ago,
right, you know, biotechnology
companies. You mentioned
Syngenta, you know, which is
most people are probably most
familiar with Monsanto, which is
now Bayer, Monsanto. But that's
basically, you know, what this
is calling for? Pretty
concerning stuff. So
yeah, let's I'm down to get into
that. I mean, I think that you,
you bring up some good points
here by calling attention to the
different departments. And for
one, as you said, and as the
executive order says, We need a
whole of government approach,
which, you know, I think we
should take them at their word
that they're going to try to use
every resource available to push
in this direction. Because, you
know, when you not only when you
look at the executive order, but
when you look at some of the
actual other actions that I
wrote about, that the Biden
administration took just this
month, earlier this month, it's
clear that the bioeconomy isn't
just going to be some maybe kind
of like niche topic like I don't
know, like NF T's or something
like that. It's going to be
something that involves every
area of our lives, I think, at
least that's the way they
intended in the coming decades.
And they definitely intend,
based on this IT departments you
mentioned, they also mentioned,
the Department of State, of
course, the Department of
Defense and the Department of
Agriculture, Department of
Commerce. So there's clearly
going to be a lot of different
applications of this so called
Bio economy, bio manufacturing.
And yeah, when they're talking
about agriculture, I would guess
that most of most of our
audience is familiar with, you
know, the revolving door that's
been going on for decades
between Monsanto, Syngenta,
those companies and the US
government, you know, that's
been happening for decades now.
So you already kind of
acknowledged that and are aware
of the close relationship
between the biotech industry as
it relates to genetically
engineered food, genetically
modified foods, and the
government? Well, I think that
doesn't really bode well either
for this push into the bio
economy and the potential for
what it might entail, which I'm
happy to get into later, I have
by some of my speculative ideas
that, you know, I can't prove at
the moment, but I think, you
know, I have some ideas about
and I'm sure you do, as well
about where this is all going,
especially in terms of biomass.
But I do think that in general,
the idea of, we need to go to a
bio economy. And it's not just
coming from the Biden White
House, it's coming from the
United Nations, it's coming from
the World Economic Forum,
there's different US politicians
pushing it, and I'm sure we
could go through different
governments around the world and
find similar, you know, pushes
in this direction. And it also
just, it's just time so
perfectly with the potentially
post COVID world that we're in
now, right? I mean, it just
seemed, and again, we see the
call towards COVID showed us
this COVID showed us how this is
necessary to push the whole of
government into this direction.
And there's also discussed of,
you know, biological sciences,
biotechnology, bio manufacturing
to enhance biosafety,
biosecurity. And they're also
going to be investing billions
of dollars, and they're seeking
more than they got right now. So
I mean, this is, this is not
just a small piece of the
overall agenda that we're kind
of facing.
Right. So there's a couple
different things to talk about,
then I guess, one would be the
UN side of this held that hall,
all of this ties into the the
SDGs, and the alleged response
to climate change and all of
this stuff. And then I guess the
other side of it is what you
just brought up how COVID is
being used to justify this, and
the push into healthcare. So I
guess maybe, before we get to
away from that, maybe let's,
let's go back to the discussion
of, I guess, I would say the
most controversial part of this
executive order that I read in
the intro that a lot of people
have been focusing on
discussing, you know, concern
about transhumanist technologies
being institutionalized, and
things like this, because of
this executive order the claim,
again, about developing genetic
engineering technologies, for
writing circuitry for cells, you
know, and basically comparing,
you know, that to software and,
you know, program development.
And, you know, it's weird that
this happens around the same
time that the FDA sort of frames
the latest booster drive for
COVID 19 vaccine sort of in
those same terms. Yeah, I saw
I'm sure a lot of people
probably saw that them, I forget
exactly what they said. But it
was something like time to get
your, you know, software update,
do all this stuff. And that's
not how the immune system
necessarily works, what they're
trying to basically see them a
narrative with people who still
listen to them anyway. Yeah, to
get them to look at the human
body in this particular way. And
I think that's, um, that's
pretty telling. So let's talk
about some of the people that
are going to be behind this
particular aspect of the
implementation of this executive
order. So you have what we just
mentioned the FDA, I'll say
really quickly that the new head
of the FDA hasn't gotten really
any coverage at all. I was
hoping to write about him, but
earlier in the year, but you
know, I had a baby and then had
a book. So you know, I guess two
babies, you could, you could
argue been a little busy. Yeah,
so I was little short on time,
but Robert Kalish is the guy
that's in charge of the FDA now.
And he's one of these revolving
door guys, between the FDA and
you know, big pharma, I guess
you could say, but not really
big pharma because he's going,
he's a big guy, or was a big
guy, you know, Google's Health
Division, and one of the top
advisors at Google for their
health care push. And so you
know, you have people tied up
with that, to some extent,
having been involved in warp
speed. And some of that I know
that you wrote pretty
extensively about Moncef Salafi,
who was I think he had to step
down before it actually finished
because of like harassment
allegations. But he's the guy
from GlaxoSmithKline vaccine
division, and he was on the
board of the Google
GlaxoSmithKline joint venture
Galvani bioelectronics, which
is, you know, focused on
basically creating quote,
unquote, medicines that modulate
your neural activity, like,
change and modify your nervous
system. creepy stuff. So anyway,
that's that's kind of the
wheelhouse that Robert Caleb was
involved with, but also in a
really big way wearables. And I
know that you and I, in our work
over the past couple years have
talked a lot about wearables
and, and what that means. And so
I guess the other side of that
is this group called ARPA h.
That was created relatively
recently, but it's sort of a
long standing agenda, I guess,
you could say, of the national
security state and in big tech,
and some of these actors that
really, you know, are
essentially the same at this
point. So I've sort of see
Robert Califf, being at the FDA
is the guy who's going to rubber
stamp all the stuff that ARPA h,
is going to produce. So when we
see in this part of the
executive order that I'm talking
about, reducing the obstacles
for commercialization, that to
me speaks to Robert Kalos, wrote
the FDA of getting rid of
regulatory barriers for testing,
and all of this stuff, so things
can get on the market faster.
And I see the, you know,
advanced the science of scale up
production of a company I wrote
about recently, let's making the
RNA for modernas. Updated.
booster shot, resilience
definitely falls in that
category. But a lot of these,
the developing of the
technologies talking that
they're talking about here in
the artificial intelligence, and
on all of that is likely to come
from ARPA H. So you've written
about ARPA H, and it's, um, new
head who's I can't pronounce her
last name, because there's like
one vowel in it. Yeah. I could
have figured it out, either.
Yeah. So I was I did a podcast
like yesterday, and I tried to
pronounce that I was like,
wegrzyn or something. I don't
really know how to say it. Maybe
you'd have a better. I'm just
gonna call her Renee. Yeah.
Okay. So we'll just call her
Renee. Yeah. So Renee is in
charge of ARPA H. And her
appointment to being in charge
of ARPA H actually coincided
with this executive order. So
can you tell us a little bit
about ARPA H, what it's designed
to do? Who Renee is, and why her
employer is pretty central to
all the stuff we're talking
about.
Yeah, actually, before that, I
want to just comment on what
you're talking about, about
Robert Kala, if I appreciate it,
bring that in there. Because I
do think that's a really crucial
component. And I'm glad that you
mentioned that. And, you know,
just to kind of cement further
what you were already saying
that like the background that he
comes from, as you know, is is
that you're saying Google
Alphabet Inc. and their
subsidiary verily life sciences,
but I know that I'm pretty sure
you wrote about and I wrote
about briefly when we were doing
the research back in, I think
2020 About the operation warp
speed and everything you were
just talking about there. But
specifically, when they started
to announce these appointments
for Operation warp speed, you
can already see the connection
between the Googles and you
mentioned Galvani
bioelectronics. And I think
that's going to be important to
you. I just want to point that
again, because Galvani bio
electronics like you know, we're
hearing bioeconomy
biotechnology, there's been some
recent, not executive orders,
but statements I can't remember
which city It's escaping me
right now. But a recent a mayor
or governor came out in support
of bioelectronics. I want to say
New York saying like, we're
gonna fund bio electronics, they
didn't mention Galvani
specifically. But again, I think
this is a whole nother area of
research that ties into this
that people are going to be come
familiar with. And I just want
to quote briefly from this
article I wrote at that time,
describing what buy electronics
is, and the reason I wanted to
start to mention this is because
actually, this is the report
when I did a YouTube video about
this that actually got me kicked
off YouTube. Talking about the
fact that by electronic
medicine, what it's taught what
it's focused on, or at least
what they claim it's focused on,
is tackling chronic diseases by
using quote miniaturized
implantable devices that can
modify electric signals that can
pass along nerves in the body,
including regular or altered
impulses that occur in many
illnesses. So that's like what
this guy's background is coming
from, you know, Galvani by
electrics verily life science,
Google house, like, that's at
least one of the fields that his
you know, his companies or the
companies he's been working with
have been involved in. And as
you're saying, now, that guy is
at the head of the FDA, which I
doubt there will be much
resistance to any of these
projects. I just wanted to make,
you know, make that kind of
further clear to everybody.
Great, thanks. Yeah. And then as
far as Rene and Arbor age, um,
well, again, I'm I'm proud to be
in in the same club as you
Whitney when it comes to this,
because as I shared recently,
when I published this article,
because I was originally like,
most people just like, Okay,
there's an executive order, let
me do a write up about this. But
then the more I dug in, it's
like, Wait, hold on, they didn't
just do this executive order.
There was a summit about
biotechnology, IO economy. They
pointed that, you know, the the
first Director of the Advanced
Research Project Agency for
Health, ARPA H, which you were
writing about last year, last
spring, you were writing about,
you know,
I wrote about it in 2019, to
actually, so see, you've been
on that. And then I was
following that up with just
something told me to like pay
attention to ginkgo Bioworks.
Last year, I can't remember what
you know, really triggered
initially, but it was maybe it
was just the fact that they call
themselves a life design company
or a Bioworks company that, you
know, they just all that whole
field of research, it really
caught my eye. So I was already
kind of pay attention to them.
And if people were following
both of our work, well, then
they would have known that ARPA
H had been announced. And that
soon there would be a director
and they'd seen my article, they
might have some indication that,
you know, maybe we didn't know
100% was going to come from
ginkgo Bioworks. But clearly,
you could suspect those going to
come from that industry. Because
those are the people pushing and
driving. And again, this is
another area where you got the
revolving door between industry
and government. So with all that
said, Renee comes from gingko
Bioworks. And that's the company
that I was focusing on because
again, they call themselves
Bioworks company, they call
themselves, life design. And
their CEO is pretty blatant,
Jason Kelly, about discussing
like the, what they do, I'm just
gonna read this quote that I put
in there, when he actually
attended the White House's
Summit. He said today, gingko is
the largest designer of
synthetic DNA in the world. What
does that mean? It means you go
on a computer, you type a TC GG
G, you hit print, and a piece of
DNA gets printed out of our labs
in Boston, or our partner
companies like twist in
California, we then take the
DNA, we put it into the genome
of a cell, and here's that
language, again, like installing
an app on your phone, and it
makes the cell do something new.
That's our business, we do that
as a service for customers. So
you know, one thing is, I think
that like we were pointing out a
couple moments ago, I think
we're gonna continue to see the
use of this kind of, or the
normalization of this kind of
language about upgrading your
software and installing an app
and you know, all these kinds of
things they want, you know,
clearly they want people
to, that's the framing I think
they want people to internalize
and understand, but I don't
think it's necessarily accurate.
Here, because people are
basically being an experiment.
Yeah, exactly. unproven, genetic
editing technology, that, you
know, not even talking about
mRNA gene therapies or quote,
unquote, vaccines or whatever.
You know, if you're talking
about things like CRISPR, study
after study, and I'm sure you've
seen this, that has come out
about CRISPR shows that it's not
as precise as people sold it as
being. And it's basically, you
know, very unlikely to give you
cancer basically, by, you know,
cutting your DNA in the wrong
place, and preventing DNA repair
and all sorts of other problems.
And, you know, there's infinite
studies, not infinite, but
numerous studies at this point,
raising alarm bells about
CRISPR. And so the idea that
this executive order is pushing
for technologies like that, to
not have regulatory barriers, so
they can be put on the market
faster. This is really alarming
stuff. But you know, they've
normalized that type of activity
at the federal level so much
with COVID-19 that it's very
possible if they sell it right
to, you know, the people that,
you know, by these types of
narratives still, um, you know,
they'll be able to get away with
it. It seems like what are your
thoughts?
No, I think you're right, I
think you're 100% right, and
you're all So correct that like,
just because they're using that
language doesn't mean you're
turning, you know that it's
accurate in the way they want to
use it. But I do think it is
that we will continue to see it
because they do want people to
and I think this is where the
idea of the transhumanism aspect
comes in, obviously, they were
talking about, like, altering
DNA like that already gets into,
you know, changing, potentially
what it means to be human, but
even in the language they want
people to, and I think it's
because they know how much how
obsessed we are as a species
with digital technology with the
latest phones, the latest
computers and whatnot. And so
maybe not all of us, right? Some
of us more than others. Some of
us, you stay out all night and
camp out in front of businesses
to get the latest phone, right.
Some of us just use the
technology. But I think the
point is they they want to try
to normalize and conditioned
people to look at themselves
like, Oh, you're just a phone to
be upgraded. You're an app to
be, you know, downloaded
software, etc. So, anyways,
getting to back to Renee, our
friend Renee here with the
difficult last name, she's
coming from molecular biology,
bioengineering background at
Georgia Tech, and then a just
host of DARPA programs. So
anybody listening to this
program, probably familiar with
DARPA, but I mean, she worked at
DARPA as biological Technologies
Office, she managed their
genetic engineering and gene
editing projects focused on
biosecurity, she's worked with
at least a half a dozen DARPA
projects that I found, and then
worked also for another DARPA
inspired agency, the
intelligence Advanced Research
Project Agency, and then advised
ARPA E, which is the our
Advanced Research Project Agency
for energy. So the government
has clearly come to this woman
and got her quote unquote,
expertise or knowledge and
several different areas, not
only directly working with DARPA
and other projects, but then
working with two other agencies
that are sort of DARPA
influence. And then now
obviously, being appointed to
the head of this new agency that
is obviously inspired by DARPA.
Yeah. So if I can comment there
really quick. First of all, that
agencies aren't one of those
DARPA inspired agencies. You
mentioned the intelligence.
Yeah, that's like the CIA's ARPA
IARPA for people that don't
know. And they they have a
representative on this national
security commission on AI that
I've written about for T laugh
and in other places, but
specifically at DARPA, you
pointed out that she worked at
the BTO office, which is the
biological Technologies Office.
And the longtime head of that
office is a guy named Jeffrey
Ling. And he was the guy tapped
by this guy named Bob Wright,
who was the guy originally
sharping around the idea for
Harpa, later renamed and created
as ARPA H. Jeffrey link designed
that program originally, and for
people that don't remember Harpa
was originally being marketed as
something very different. So
when the the Biden
administration came out with
ARPA H, they acted like it was
their idea, not, you know, from
the Trump era and framed it as a
way to cure cancer and cure
Alzheimer's and all of this
stuff. Yeah. But when it was
being pitched by the Trump
administration, it was mainly
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner,
and in this Bob Wright guy who
was a, I guess, a former
executive at NBC Universal, and
had some sort of relationship
with Trump from the apprentice,
I think, or something like that
was how they knew each other in
the idea. Then, at the time, the
idea of Harpa, their first
program was going to be called
Safe Home, I think was the
acronym, but basically what it
was about was data mining
American social media activity,
and then using an AI to screen
it to identify early warning
signs of quote, neuro
psychiatric violence, to try and
prevent mass shootings before
that can happen. And this was
coming at a time when there was
like the El Paso Walmart
shooting, and a lot of other
mass shootings sort of happening
in the span of a couple of
weeks. And not that long before
the El Paso shooting, William
Barr, who was an attorney
general, basically said there
was going to be some sort of
event that was going to
galvanize people around pre
crime policy. For those that
remember that I wrote about it
at the time. And then he
actually created a pre crime
program before he left to the
Trump administration that's
still in effect today called
deep. So for why so I wanted to
bring that up for people
because, you know, ARPA H, or
Harpa is a lot more than just,
you know, curing cancer and gene
editing and all of this stuff.
It's definitely, you know, they
have a lot of programs under it.
But anyway, the guy that
designed Harpa, at that time
when they were pitching those
programs, is the same guy that
Rene worked under. And, you
know, oversaw a lot of these
other gene editing projects
because the biological
Technologies Office is one of
these, I guess, you could say
offices at DARPA that's focused
on quote unquote convergence.
Just sort of like the the
bringing together of man and
machine and I'm a former DARPA
director, who I've written about
a lot because she leads the
Wellcome Trust DARPA, called the
Wellcome leap, Regina Dugan. She
describes it as fixing the,
quote, quote unquote, mismatch
between humans and machines. So
that's basically what BTOS
about.
Well, yeah, no doubt, appreciate
that, you know, deeper dive on
that office. And hopefully that
gives some more background for
those who are curious about
where Renee is coming from, and
the type of agencies I mean,
each of the honestly, like if
there was the time and the
energy for each of these
different projects that she is
involved in, and for anybody
else out there who's researcher
wants to help do some legwork
for us. I mean, I would, I would
guess, that each of these
projects he was involved in are
probably worth a dive into to
see, you know, what did they
what were what was she
researching? What are the
projects, you know, conclude?
Who was she working with those
kinds of things? Because they
might give us some more insight
into what she's going to do now
as the director?
Yeah, well, I don't think, you
know, I think we can guess, more
or less you
see where it's headed, though,
right? Yeah. Cuz,
I mean, she's basically, you
know, a point person, I guess
you could say, for the people
sort of deciding the directions
these things go in. And
basically, you know, as my work
on this type of stuff has shown
it's a lot of them as are
basically the top guys at
Silicon Valley. And top guys in
the national security state,
with a major role from from the
intelligence community, like in
Q TEL is all over this stuff. In
the CIA, you know, is all over
Boston connection as well, like
I noticed when I was researching
this, and looking up, you know,
because they really, they
haven't decided officially where
they're going to headquarter
ARPA H. And there's, there's all
these people in Boston, which
obviously, you got Boston
Dynamics, you got gingko
Bioworks is headquartered there.
There's a lot of that nexus
there that are trying to pull
for them to base it there. And
then apparently, there's some
the tech companies that are
fighting to get RPh,
headquartered in Texas. And then
I think there's one other state
that's fighting for it. So I
think that you know, do you want
it? So I feel about it. I think
that should tell people, though,
like, the places that are
calling for the people that are
calling for it. So I mean, I'm
from Texas, originally. And
places like Austin have become
like the new and even Houston,
they're trying to call it what
are they trying to call it the
silicon Bayou of the South or
some, some some icon by you?
Wow, because they're inviting
all the tech companies now. But
yeah, I don't know if they'll
get it. But it's just, you know,
to add to the point that if you
see, wherever you see this
company ending up, whether it's
in Texas or Boston, I think, you
know, it'll probably give us
some insight into you know, who
the influences are going to be
around because like I said,
ginkgo Bioworks wants to keep
our page close to home, which
isn't surprising, since you
know, their former, or their
current VP is going to go over
there and work with them. I'm
sure there'll be some, some nice
lunches and dinners for them to
get together and discuss how
they can shove their projects
through. And again, like the CEO
of the company that she's coming
from, is saying they are their
job is to print out DNA in a
lab, partner with other people
put it into Jima genome is of a
cell like installing an app on
your phone like that's, you
know, that's the kind of things
they're promoting. And of
course, I don't think we've
mentioned this yet. But the
Biden announcements also they
they frame, everything like this
is going to help fight
Alzheimer's and cancer. They
talked about the moonshot
program, which I think that's a
whole nother there's some
research to be done there too,
as well. But yeah, they want to
frame it like this is all about
helping fight diseases and all
that. But really, as you were
pointing out a moment ago, it's
part of the overall biosecurity
state that we've seen coming in,
in recent years.
Yeah. Another thing I want to
point out, though, is that the
guy that was supposed to be
really influential in ARPA H. I
think the reason they had to
wait so long to put Renee in
charge is because Eric Lander
had to go. And so Eric Lander
was the top science adviser to
Biden, and he was running I
guess it's called the Office of
Science and Technology within
the White House. And so he was
going to play a major role in
shaping our page, but he was
forced to resign, I think
earlier this year over
harassment allegations again. So
I guess he and Moncef so well,
we are to two peas in a pod in
that sense, but Eric Lander is
I've written about before was
Epstein Jeffrey Epstein funded,
has has is on record praising
you Genesis, played a major role
in the Human Genome Project,
which if you look into the
history of that was itself
created by a guy named Walter
Bodmer. And he dreamt up the
idea at the time he was a member
of the British eugenics society,
because at that time, the
British eugenics society in the
80s was still called that they
waited until 1989, to rename
themselves the Galton Institute
and Galton is named for Francis
Galton, the guy that invented
eugenics. So it's not really
that much of a have changed
there. So you know, it's a
little concerning especially
when you consider some of the
stuff that John Cleese AK and
also myself have written about
the, the guy that coined the
term transhumanism was head of
the brightness eugenics society,
Julian Huxley. So, you know,
there's a lot of overlap there.
So how do you, you mentioned in
your article that people like
Patrick wood, for example, who
was on my podcast relatively
recently described this
executive order, saying it would
institutionalize eugenics and
transhumanism? What are your
thoughts on that?
Um, I do tend to agree. So I
mean, I was starting the article
out, not necessarily that I, you
know, didn't believe what
Patrick was saying, or, and I
also quoted Jason Berman, and
another report. But, you know, I
wanted to kind of play devil's
advocate and say, like, let's
see what this is really about,
right? Because I think sometimes
in the broader community, people
see terms especially when it
comes to science, it see terms
that maybe they don't understand
that sounds scary or weird, or
whatever. And we can maybe rush
to make assumptions and things
like that. So I wanted to take
Okay, let's really look at this
and see if the, the concern or
the fear that people are
expressing when they see the bio
economy, whether they know what
it means or not, is warranted.
And I think that the deeper you
dive into this, and as you were
just pointing out with the
connection to eugenics with a
lot of this studying of DNA,
studying of the human genome, I
mean, all of that stuff, it
goes, it goes back to the
eugenics movement, population
control, you know, and then
trying to even the idea of like
trying to breed out undesirables
and things like that, I mean, so
much of this reminds me of the
movie Gattaca. And if anybody
has, if you've ever seen that
everybody hasn't seen that
encourage you to watch it. If
only for just getting a taste of
what the world that I think
these folks are headed for. It's
the world of. And again, I don't
think the movie shows probably
the worst parts of it. But they
have a world where people can
genetically engineer their
babies for, you know, make sure
you get the right eye color and
the right hair color. But then
also, if you have the money, you
can make sure your babies you
take out the parts of their DNA
that are going to give them a
predisposition to alcoholism or
predisposition to, you know,
immoral behavior, whatever the
heck that means, right? And so
clearly there ends up being a
class society where there's the
people who are normal old school
humans and in the people who are
starting to like genetically
engineered genetically modify
themselves to be faster,
smarter. Those are the people
that go to space. Those are the
people that have like the power
and the rest of us are kind of
like the plebes, you know, doing
janitor jobs or doing menial
work? I really think that that's
kind of an indication of what
these types of companies see.
And again, does that mean that
every single person involved in
this research is a eugenicist? I
mean, I would wager not. I mean,
maybe so it could be. But I
would think maybe that there are
genuine people who think that
their specific niche area of
research and science is
contributing to something good
without recognizing like the
larger push towards this sort of
eugenics mindset of altering,
messing with DNA, synthetic
biology, bio manufacturing, and
not just like, bio
manufacturing, as the executive
order talks about, like writing
ourselves, like certain
circuitry. I think that's, you
know, more about what this is
about is getting people used to
that. And yeah, it could be
like, if you've got the money,
you can go, oh, well, let me
point this out. I forgot this. I
listened to a talk about Rene,
or from Rene, while I was
writing this article, and it was
called engineering, Gene safety.
And in that talk, she actually
discusses transhumanism at some
point. And she says something to
the effect that we're moving
into the age now, where when you
run into somebody on the street,
you're going to be the question
you ask them is going to be what
genes are you on? You know, what
genes have you upgraded or
downloaded today? You know what
to change your eye color or to
make you faster? What you know,
that's, of course, in their
utopian, best case, scenario
version, and if you trust
putting their technology in your
body and all that, but so she
you know, she's even like
outlining and her vision, the
woman who now is the head of
this new agency, that she
believes that's where the world
is headed, that we're going to
be upgrading and downloading and
changing genes, like we do apps,
cell phones, you know, or
clothes or things like that.
Yeah, so I'm talking about how
you sort of see this vision
playing out in how you describe
Gattaca. You know, I haven't
seen it because I don't really
like to watch TV or movies
anymore. I like don't have time.
But I recall this article that
came out, we can put it in the
show notes. It's from the BBC,
but it's from several years ago.
It's from 2006. And the subtitle
is humanity may split into two
sub species, as predicted by HG
Wells and expert has said, and
the first sentence is, this
evolutionary theorist named
Oliver curry of the London
School of Economics expects a
genetic upper class in a dim
witted underclass to emerge. And
he basically says, the
descendants of the genetic upper
class would be tonelson A
healthy, attractive, intelligent
and creative a far cry from the
quote unquote underclass humans
who would have evolved into dim
witted ugly squat goblin like
creatures. So, you know, and
he's citing HG Wells here. So HG
Wells is from the same pool of
British eugenicist. I mean,
people, most people think of him
as a science fiction author.
He's a lot more than that. So
I'd encourage people to
reevaluate that guy, but
basically, um, you know, this is
something that this group sort
of predicted, you know, maybe
100 years ago or so. And, you
know, Will their ideological
descendants use this type of
technology to make that a
reality? It seems really
possible because it seems like
the quote unquote, underclass
sort of you described in the the
whole Gattaca thing, though
people that don't, you know, do
this stuff, we're being
conditioned to eat bugs, and do
all sorts of, you know, other
stuff that sort of blurring the
line between human and
livestock? Yeah, you know, so,
you know, my concern is, you
know, are they going to start,
you know, they're going to
genetically engineer maybe the
elite in one direction, but the
genetic engineering promise that
they're offering, the rest of us
may lead us in a very different
direction?
Absolutely. No, I get where
you're going. And this is sort
of what I was like, talking to
hinting at earlier with, like, I
have some speculation about
where this is headed. Because
they also talk about biomass,
right. And biomass by defined by
them, or just, you know, these
bio bio products can be anything
from human blood to soil, you
know, grass, animals, like
biology, right. So living
products, and they discussed in
some of the papers, I was
reading some of the discussion
of the circular bioeconomy,
getting to a point where we
could, and again, in the best
case scenario, it what it is, is
things like humanure, for
anybody familiar with
permaculture and things like
that you've heard of humanure,
taking human waste, and then you
let it sit for a certain amount
of time, and you can repurpose
it and use it in the garden,
it's really good for plants and
for the soil and things like
that, right? That's a form of,
you could say, as part of the
bio economy taking a biological
product waste, and then
repurposing it in a circular way
and doing something good with
it. Right. That's what they want
people to believe that the whole
thing is about, but obviously,
there's a lot more going on
there. And I think that we
really could get to a obviously
there's the concern about the
bugs, you know, you're gonna
people are gonna eat bugs and
things like that, that whole
agenda being pushed, well,
that's part of the that would be
considered biomass, right. It's
a living entity. So that could
be part of it. But I also think,
with the combination of two
things, one more states and
places, recognizing the right to
compost yourself when you die,
which again, I think that hey,
if you own yourself, you should
be able to do what you want when
you die. But just that becoming
more trendy, that idea, combined
with this pushing of biomass
could lead to a point where
maybe the lower classes are
taught like for the good of
plant the planet or to reduce
waste, we need you to repurpose
your body, your biomass, not
only for soil or something like
that, but potentially to
something like Soylent Green to
something like that being a food
product, you know, it's not
that far, you know, the
justification for the
composting, the human body is
climate change. And there's that
scientist and Sweden that got a
lot of mainstream media play
being like cannibalism is the
solution to climate change,
because he's not insane. or
anything, so.
Yeah, exactly. So let me put
those two things together, like
a sort of normalization and
talking of, you know, popping up
in articles of cannibalism and
then yeah, repurposing yourself
while this discussion about
biomass and and when you look at
what,
Eman, circular economy? Exactly,
yikes. So, um, so another thing
I think is going on here in
terms of the broader agenda, and
I think you see this not just
with the push into healthcare,
but also the push into
agriculture. I think what we're
seeing is part of the long
standing agenda that I know that
Ryan of T lab has talked a lot
about over the years, which is
patenting all life. Because if
you own the genetic sequence of
something, and this has happened
with Monsanto, right, and some
of these other companies that
make genetically modified
organism, you know, GMOs that
are plants. You know, they I
think a lot of people are
familiar with the tactic. Well,
maybe not everyone, so I'll
explain it I guess. But Monsanto
and I guess Syngenta to a lesser
extent had, you know, this
practice basically, of, they
would buy like one field in an
area and they would quote
unquote, test their products
there or plant them there. And
then, you know, this was mostly
for wind pollinated plants.
Yeah. So the wind would carry
the pollen and it would cross
pollinate with plants of the
same type in a neighboring
property and then Monsanto comes
to that neighbor and says, Okay,
so your plant now has a patented
genes which we own, and so we're
going to sue you, because you're
using our proprietary genetic,
whatever, without licensing it.
And so in the past, this has
turned into major legal cases
where farmers have lost their
land. And, you know, it all goes
to Monsanto at the end of the
day, you know, and this is, you
know, a model that I think is
going to be replicated far
beyond agriculture at this
point, but I think, you know,
the green revolution of the past
not about climate change about
putting Monsanto everywhere, who
were the people behind that
people like Bill Gates, as an
example. Now, Bill Gates, has a,
who I think is actually an
investor in gingko Bioworks, if
I'm not mistaken, that we talked
about earlier, is also, you
know, has bought up a lot of the
farmland in the US what is he
going to use it for small scale
organic farming? Doesn't seem
likely because in the US, so
small scale, organic farmers are
being punished, and by the
federal government that Jeremy
Loffredo has done some good work
on that recently about how
they're targeting the Amish
community. So what are they
gonna, what kind of stuff are
they going to use it for? Well,
given you know, Bill Gates
passed, it seems pretty clear
what they're doing. And you're
seeing this push for certain
types of plant based proteins or
lab made meat, all of which is
going to be patented. So that's
control of the food supply,
people won't be allowed to
produce their own food unless
they have a license for it.
They're taking people off the
land, they're limiting limit,
trying to eliminate basically,
traditional agriculture, as it's
existed for 1000s of years. And
that doesn't make any sense. In
terms of you know, if your
excuses climate change, it makes
no sense whatsoever that you
would do that. Um, but
obviously, I think their game
here is, is something else
entirely. And climate change is
just the selling point. And what
concern Yeah. And so what
concerns me is that, you know,
we're going to see the rollout
of AI in agriculture, we're
going to see GMOs galore,
because a lot of the stuff they
say specifically really talks
about the Department of
Agriculture in this executive
order. They say, let's see, they
say that the Secretary of
Agriculture, agriculture has to
assess how to use biotechnology
and bio manufacturing, for food
and agriculture, innovation,
including by improving
sustainability and land
conservation. So that means
genetically modifying a plant to
use less resources, I would
assume, increasing food quality
and nutrition, genetically
modifying a vegetable or
something to have more of one
nutrient than another, something
like that. Increasing and
protecting agricultural yields.
That's always been the selling
point of Monsanto, even though
it's true in practice, and lots
of studies have shown that as
well. And that protecting
against plant and animal pests
and diseases again, that is, you
know, part of the Monsanto's
selling point as well. Yeah,
well, as I mentioned earlier,
they're bigger now. And then it
says, again, cultivating
alternative food sources at the
end, that's this lab made meat
stuff. So this is patenting the
food supply. And I worry that
the gene editing of people
stuff, what if they're going to
apply that model to people and
be like, oh, you know, like, the
gingko Bioworks. CEO said, like
you quoted him, you know, when
stole, it's like installing an
app on your phone. So if he
would install an app into your
cells, right, who owns Yeah,
yeah. So
those are good questions,
whereas men socks are gonna show
up and say, hey, well, the wind
blew our apps into your body,
and now we own you. Yeah, on
those lines, you brought up a
couple of points that I want to
just comment on. For one, as you
said, Yes, Bill Gates is
invested in gingko, Bioworks,
where Rene is coming from. And
specifically, and this is
interesting, because you brought
up like his land ownership as
well. It's his company, cascade
investment, which is investment
company, and he controls so you
know, he tries to hide his name
a little bit. So cascade is the
investment firm that invested in
ginkgo Bioworks. And cascade is
actually the same company that
also owns all his farmland. So
you know, there's a direct
connection between those, those
different, you know, they're
investing in biotechnology
bioeconomy, buying up farmland.
So yeah, do you think that
that's something that you can
see the connection there? And
overall, I mean, I think people
should take heed of the, as you
were pointing out a few moments
ago that the same power players
that told us about the Green
Revolution and promises of GMOs
are the same people now trying
to tell us that we're about to
use CRISPR and all these great
technologies to create a whole
new economy that's going to save
the planet and sustainable and
diverse and blah, blah and all
that good stuff. And I think
that by this point, most people
can see through these agendas
that they have. And the other
point I wanted to mention is
that because you brought up the
Bill Gates investment in the
meat is what the alternative
meat as well, at the summit that
the White House held, they had a
number of days. Are companies
including gingko Bioworks there,
and that were pretty much just
like a showcasing the type of
projects, they're things they're
involved in. And at first, I was
going to list them all, because
some of it was interesting, but
I decided not to put that in the
article, but one of them was
this company that is working on
what they call the carbon
neutral meat product. And it's a
company called err, protein. So
I mean, there's definitely
that's part of the agenda as
well. And they had those
companies there at the White
House just earlier this month
discussing, you know, they're,
they're pushed in that
direction,
well, that's gonna be fun when
they control all the food one,
and you won't be able to buy
natural seeds or anything you
can you can produce on your own,
which will have air protein.
Thank God. Well, you know, like
I said earlier, I think this is
part of a long standing agenda
to prevent people from being
able to sustain themselves
prevent the ability of people to
be independent of the state, or,
you know, these companies that
have, you know, or basically
fusing with the state. You know,
it's it's pretty concerning. And
you know, what's crazy, too, you
know, I think about the mRNA
stuff, you know, people that
were criticizing, or asking
questions about the mRNA, quote,
unquote, vaccines over the past
couple years got censored off,
right. And so a lot of the big
tech companies that control the
online platforms also have like
Google reign, also have big
investments in this space, are
they going to start censoring
people that are critical of the
bio economy, or CRISPR, and
stuff like that down the line? I
don't know. I pointed
out earlier that my the my final
strike that got me removed from
from YouTube, and I mean, it was
obviously a strike and a
succession of other things that
I said wrong and I thought
wrong, and I'm so sorry for the
for. The final strike was
talking about that the
injectables, the bioelectronic.
Medicine, I think the video was
titled, I mean, it wasn't even
contrary it just was titled The
future of healthcare is
injectables, which is a fact
based on everything that these
people are pointing at. And that
was coming from studying Moncef
slouchy and Galvani,
bioelectronics, et cetera, et
cetera, and kind of looking at
ginkgo and these other
companies, it's clear that in
addition to them wanting to mess
with your DNA and your genes
that they want you to wear
things and then put things in
your body. I hope that most
people listening to this are not
interested in any of that at
all.
Yeah, well, I think the wearable
thing if people don't realize
it's about surveilling you but
in a way that they've never been
able to surveil you before
they're trying to surveil what's
going on inside your body. So if
you listen to people in I mean,
you know, we've talked about
this in the past and other
people talked about in the past,
but you all know, a Harare,
basically saying that once
there's mass adoption of
wearables, it's crossing the red
line into what he calls digital
dictatorship. And this is the
guy that's helping them build
all this stuff, and like
advising them how to build it.
You know, after he says that he
speaks, he said that in a speech
to the World Economic Forum. And
then he goes, maybe the people
in this room can take hold of
this technology. So it's used
well, and all of this stuff, and
they're all like, yeah, you
know, I mean, come on, not not
cool. So, you know, they, they,
you know, the people pushing
this agenda, know what it means
to have mass adoption of
wearables. They've come out and
said it. So do we really want to
walk into that future? I think
it should be pretty clear that
the answer is now the other
thing you've all know a Harare
says in that speech is that it's
about like surveilling your
neural activity. So he, he gives
an example of a dictatorship.
And you know, someone is at a
speech of the great leader. And
they're outwardly looking happy
and clapping like everyone else.
But inside, they're angry, and
they will know and you'll be in
the Gulag the next morning,
because of your wearable
snitching on you. That's,
that's, that's the future if
this kind of stuff goes ahead,
or at least that's what they're
trying to do. And so they've
already advanced this to a
significant degree. So, as I
mentioned earlier, Regina Dugan,
the former DARPA director, she
set up a DARPA thing for
Facebook, that still sort of
going and they developed a
wristband that is able to read
from your brain what you want to
type before you type it and
types for you. Based on your
thoughts and stuff.
That's just weapon meeting.
Exactly what I've been looking
for. Now, I can't but I mean, I
think this stuff is really it.
You know, when it comes down to
me, Whitney is like, the more I
think about this is that this is
something I wrote about in my
book, How to opt out of the
technocratic state that this is
all going to come down to every
individual who's hearing this.
And as we rush right into the
future, whether we like it or
not, is you we have to make
choices of how we're going to
interact with technology. And
then some of us are doing that
already. You know, we're saying
I don't want to use any Google
products, right? Well, that's
one layer. But then when
everybody around us starts
wearing the wearables is which
is already starting to happen
for exercise and things like
that and monitor your heart
rate. But then when it becomes
implantables, and injectables
and literally modifying your
DNA, I mean, we are going to
face the reality that there is
going to be people around us who
choose to do that and who opt
in. It's our already happening?
Yeah, it'll be weird things like
your friends show up and they
got a new eye color. And you're
like, what? What's going on with
you? And they're like, Oh, I did
this, I went to Walmart and they
have this quick, you know,
change your eye color. I imagine
that like, people want it to be
that that simple that like easy
for people to just go up just
like a cell phone, right? Go up
and up, upgrade yourself.
Well, that's what they're
envisioning. I don't think like
we talked about earlier, like
CRISPR, and all that stuff, it's
going to come with major
consequences. I mean, the mRNA
stuff that they're claiming this
executive order was a great
success. And the justification
for this executive order,
basically, obviously, were not
the great success that they were
touted out. So I mean, this
other stuff, I don't think it's
necessarily I wonder,
though, because I wonder if they
could cover up as much as they
you know, so because like,
obviously, we're seeing adverse
reactions and injuries from the
shots and you know, things are
happening, and they're covering
that up, and they're denying
that there's still rushing
forward and claiming it's the
best thing ever, right. And I'm
sure somebody's gonna get a
Nobel Prize for his crowning
achievement. But I wonder when
it comes to people, as you
pointed out with CRISPR, and
things of that sort getting DNA
breaks, and and you know, how
that affects them? Like, can you
really hide that if people who
are trying to upgrade their
human, you know, operating
system, and then next time you
see them, they can't even
operate? Or who knows what
happens? Or, I mean, it really
could get into some scary, I
mean, not that we're not already
but it just really scary sci fi
dystopian stuff, like, will you
be able to 100% know, that if
your friend or family member
chooses to opt into the system,
that they're still going to be
that same person that they're
still going to be? Yeah, what we
consider to be human? You know,
what I mean? Like, what happens
when people start doing these
things and their behavior
changes? Or, you know, there's
no way for us to really know
what you know, where that's
coming from, ya know,
and well, once it gets, you
know, the neural link stuff like
the brain chip and stuff. I
mean, I don't I don't even know
how I'm going to react to people
doing doing that crap. But the
crazy thing is to, you know, we
were sort of talking about the
risk of this technology a bit
right, and how CRISPR has
unintended consequences, but you
look at something like neuro
link, I think most of the
monkeys and the animal trials
they've done once neuro Link was
installed, like died really
quickly. And they're still going
ahead with it. It's like,
I don't understand that. I just,
I don't get it. I don't get how
that can be. That's not even a
conspiracy, you know, based on
some document, we're not sure
it's true. No, it's like, that's
a fact. That's real. That's been
reported in mainstream. And yet,
there's no like public outcry to
like, stop this program we need,
you know,
yeah, what freaks me out is, I
think that these people are so
hell bent on creating this
feature, because for a lot of
them, it's like a religious
thing. Like the transhumanist
stuff. That, you know, they're
not really they don't really
care how many people die,
they want to bring about their,
their vision, and
they're gonna bring it about
whether they, whether we like it
or not, that's how they feel, I
think. I don't think they're
gonna succeed, to be honest. No,
I don't, because you know, a
bunch of people get brain chips,
and then they die, like people
are gonna be like, I don't want
the chip. And so they'd have to,
like, forcibly Chip, I don't
think it's gonna happen. But I
mean, it seems like why else
would you not cancel neural link
if it's killing all the animals?
You know? And that's just animal
testing? What happens when you
get the human trials? And it's
like, oh, yeah, like, seven of
11 of the people in the trial
died? No big deal. Full STEAM
Ahead, because you'll be able to
play video games with your mind.
Like, that's a hard selling
point, you know?
Yeah, I hope that as we approach
that, which I mean, it's right
here on the cusp, right. And we
were getting new updates about
the Starlink and the neuro link
and all the musk programs and
other people working on this
similar things as well, that
people are skeptical, but I
mean, as I was kind of joking
earlier, but it's a truth that
there are a lot of people who do
literally wait outside of the
grocery or the electronics store
for the latest upgrade of this
and that and I you know, and
that's also when we, we know, in
the same vein of we know,
problems with neuro link already
exists, you know, already had
been shown in animals. Well,
we've got decade's worth of
studies showing that cell phones
can cause damage to your body
can there's a there's a case
that's finally about to go to
court. Now, after 20 years,
people dealing with tumors from
cell phones back in the 90s. And
here we are 30 years later, and
there's the biggest thing ever,
everybody's got them in their
pockets in their chest, wearing
them in their
journey. They have like cause
more radiation than they
probably did in the 90s. And now
we're in you know, 5g land at
least some of us and where I
live in Chile, there's no 5g for
now that you know, they're
trying to put it everywhere. So
So I mean, I'm with you that I
hope and I believe that they
will ultimately fail i but I'm
also I think they will probably
succeed in getting a chunk of
the population. What don't want
to wager. Oh, yeah, sure.
There's gonna chunk the braces
and hopefully, as with the
shots, there will be some people
who may are a little more
hesitant and if people do start
getting harmed, which,
unfortunately, it seems like you
know, that is probably not a
thing. Yeah, yeah. that people
will push back and say, hey,
well hold on, what are we doing
here? And at that point that
maybe that's the sort of fork in
the road, right? If you got the,
the technocrats, these, these
want to be transmitters trying
to push closer to the
singularity, and they're
eugenics vision using
technology, and they've got some
of the population, but then some
people start waking up and
questioning it, you know, that
would force their hand or
they're literally going to try
to force people into that
digital world, or those of us
who opt out of it, will we be
allowed to continue to opt out
peacefully? I think that's going
to kind of be something the
future will answer for us, I
guess.
Yeah. So like, you know, like
you said, I don't think they're
gonna get a succeed and getting
everyone to do it. But I think,
you know, the question is, how
much damage do they cause in the
meantime? And when you think
about things, like genetically
modified mosquitoes that are
already out there, I mean, how,
you know, what sort of damage is
being done to the environment
and all that stuff? I mean,
there's a whole lot of cannon
words here. I mean, we're really
in unprecedented times now that
they're doing all this stuff.
And, you know, I'm one thing I
wanted to touch on, before we
wrap up wrap up here, Derek, is
that you mentioned in, in your
article that some other places
like the European Union, have
implemented bio economy
policies. And over there,
they're, you know, expressly
related to the implementation of
the Sustainable Development
Goals, or SDGs, also known as
agenda 2030, and so on, since
I'm limited Hangout right now is
doing a series on the SDGs
called Sustainable slavery. And
I was wondering if you could
talk about some of those
justifications a little bit?
Because, you know, they're
basically using SDGs, as one of
the reason or, you know, climate
goals. And all of the stuff is
as justification for, you know,
biotechnology in the bio economy
and all of the stuff that's
discussed in this executive
order.
No, absolutely. I'm, by the way,
you guys are doing great work.
I'm glad somebody's doing a,
like a real specific dive on the
SDGs. Because I think it's
important because, you know,
some people, I think, still
don't grasp how, how crucial
that is to their agenda. I
mentioned earlier that the
United Nations, their Food and
Agriculture Organization,
they've talked about the
bioeconomy. I also found that
the European Union and something
called the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and
Development, that they OECD,
they're also promoting the bio
coffee, they say that this is
going to be a framework for
promoting the bio for promoting
biotech to develop new products.
And they put out this bioeconomy
strategy document, which again,
is kind of like, I guess, a
whole government in the sense of
trying to get all the EU
governing bodies involved, to
focus on biological sources,
creating new systems that depend
on biological resources. And
this what I was talking about
earlier, including animals,
plants, micro organisms, and
their biomass and so biomass
that could be your blood, your
bones, your waist, you know, you
and they're saying that this is
about quarter protecting the
environment, biodiversity all,
it was just this summer, in
June, the EU, they published
this progress report discussing
how they're, you know, making
some progress on their
bioeconomy strategy. And that
they're now finally to get it
getting it developed in EU
member states in different
regions. So it's making it clear
that like, this is not just
happening in the United States,
this is happening across the
European Union, sure, we can
look at other nations and see it
as well. And yeah, it all comes
back down to when you look at
the EU's bioeconomy strategy, it
makes it perfectly clear that
they see the role of the
bioeconomy serving the UN
Sustainable Development Goals
and agenda 2030. And it
specifically says that its aim
is to, quote accelerate the
deployment of a sustainable
European bio economy to
contribute towards the SDGs and
help fulfill the goals of the
Paris Agreement. So I mean,
they're making it clear, it's
about right there.
Yes. So now that the European
economy is about to be totally
totaled, I wonder if they're
just going to build up a bio
economy in its place. And that's
going to be the focus of
everything. And I sort of wonder
the same for the US, which, you
know, seems like it's not going
to economically collapse. At the
same time Europe does maybe a
bit after. But, you know, this
sort of seems like to be the,
one of the, the things going
forward, one of the focus,
economic focuses, you know, when
they quote, unquote, build back
better, and all of that is going
to be this type of stuff,
especially if they're linking it
to the SDGs. And one thing that
that Ian and I have pointed out
in the SDG series is that they
basically use the urgency
excuse, as a means to like,
force the implementation of this
agenda and not look deeper into
what the SDGs are, like, really
about or who's running it, which
is like central bankers and Wall
Street bankers, and stuff like
that. But they basically say,
you know, the cost if we don't
implement the SDGs is going to
be so much worse. And so we have
to do it. Otherwise, this thing
down the line, we promise will
be so bad. And this is coming
from the people who were like
the predictive modelers about
COVID Or you know, who were
totally wrong. And if you look
at those predictive modelers in
their past like in the UK with
like Foot and Mouth Disease and
all this stuff, I mean, they're
always wrong. And the Limits to
Growth guys and the Club of Rome
and all that, like always wrong,
and their models, obviously He
like suck and don't work. So you
know, are we going to trust them
again, and destroying
everything. I mean, it's just
mental. So basically, you know,
they're, they're using people's
love for the environment and
nature to sell them into this
system. And if you're just gene
editing everything, you're gonna
destroy nature, plain and
simple. And that's not even
talking about the land grabs,
and all of the stuff that are
going on that, you know, has
been some of the focus of the
series lately. But I worry, you
know, what happens when some of
these entities under the guise
of the UN, like the Nature
Conservancy, and some of these
other groups are doing these
debt for conservation swamps, as
they're calling them now, which
are just land grabs. And then
they're tasked with conserving
this land or natural asset
corporations that they've
created now, tasked with
conserving a piece of land, and
they just gene edit everything
on it, because they say it's it
will make it more sustainable.
You know, this is this is the
kind of stuff going forward. And
so that's why, you know, I think
the Sustainable Development
Goals, people need to start
paying more attention to it,
obviously, I think that
otherwise, I wanted to start
into series about it. Yeah, you
know, but there's, there's a lot
about just a couple of points.
You said there just for anybody
who hasn't come across,
obviously, read the sustainable
development goals and get to
understand that, but another
term and kind of just lingo that
we're seeing more and more that
you were just touching on is the
idea of the nature based
economy, the WEF is pushing
for based solutions. They call
it Yeah,
yeah. Nature based economy,
nature based solutions I can so
again, anybody who doesn't know
anything about it just hears
that like, okay, like, yeah,
conservation, something to do
with the planet, helping the
environment. But that's not what
this is about at all. In fact,
in the worst case scenario, it's
about pretending like you care
about the environment and
putting that in front of on top
of human concerns and basically
enslaving the people to the
alleged concerns about the
environment, and building up all
around this idea of the green. I
mean, this is like this, these
are all just elements of the
greenwashing that I think more
and more people are becoming
aware of, I do think it's
important for us to have this
conversation and for you to be
dissecting the SDGs because a
lot of people woke up the last
couple of years to COVID-19. And
they started to realize like,
wow, the whole world can be
fooled by faulty models and by
hysteria and listen that and
exactly, not so many people have
gone back and kind of applied
that same rigor of thought to
the other side of change
conversation.
Yeah, well, I hope they do.
Because, you know, like we
mentioned earlier about the
Green Revolution, and all of
that the Monsanto evangelists of
yesteryear are the same people
saying, we have to implement the
SDGs immediately to save the
planet. Do you think someone
like Bill Gates, who went around
selling Monsanto all over the
world and creating a Indian
farmer suicide crisis and
environmental crisis cares about
the planet? I mean, come on
people. I mean, the software
before
that he was buying up all that
land for the good of the people
originally, but
Oh, you mean, the farmland in
the US? I'm talking about when
he, you know, basically forced
the Monsanto DEBT SLAVERY model
on the developing world,
claiming it would increase
yields and all this stuff, and
then it didn't, and it destroyed
their soil and their environment
and their livelihoods. You know,
that's the guy we're supposed to
trust.
Are you telling me that Golden?
Golden Rice didn't save Africa?
No, apparently not. It was just
a flute. Well, actually, there
has been some pushback locally
in Africa against this stuff. I
don't know if you saw but there
was some conference. And the
Gates Foundation was like,
forced to admit that things. All
their previous plants failed
miserably. And in terms of how
they'd been selling it, like
increased yields, and all of the
stuff and better food insecurity
did the opposite. And so they
just blame climate change for
not working. Of course, that's
easy enough. Yeah, no, I mean,
what else would they do, but
there's a lot of pushback
locally there. So I hope you
know, that continues to grow,
because the future is local
dude. So and you know, that
better than anybody. So I guess
now that we're wrapping up here,
it's a good opportunity to give
you, you know, time to promote
some of the stuff you do in
terms of solutions, getting
local, some of the work you're
doing, you know, not just, um,
you know, in that sense, but
also in terms of media and what
you have coming up.
Sure, I appreciate the
opportunity. And thanks for
having me on, again, to talk
about this topic. Everybody to
read your series on SDGs and
check out the work I did on
gingko Bioworks. You know, in
terms of connecting people
locally, I agree with you 100%,
that the future is local. And
again, you're gonna see the
World Economic Forum of the UN
try to co op that language like
they do everything else. But in
reality, it is important for us
to be connected to our local
community and that I mean,
whatever that means for you,
that could be like, Do you have
a family support system? Do you
got a couple of close friends?
Do you have an activist group
you work with or meet with
whatever it may be? But having
that support system is going to
be really important because as
we've just outlined here, there
They're clearly coming after the
food. You know, when I think
about the different myriad of
attacks we're facing, there's a
few things that come to mind.
It's the children. So in my
mind, that's like, thinking
about getting them out of the
state school systems for those
who can afford it, or have an
opportunity to do so. Or at the
very least, becoming extremely
involved in your child's life.
So you know, what kind of crap
they're trying to put in their
head. So the kids the food, of
course, the food supply, beat,
the ability to grow food
privately individually, you
know, that's, that's under
attack, right? So you got kids
the food, and then of course,
our health, mental health,
physical health. These are areas
I think, that are important for
each of us to focus on. And
maybe, you know, the idea could
be finding people in your local
area who have similar concerns
and saying, Okay, well, what can
we do about protecting the kids?
What can we do about ensuring we
have, you know, food for the
future, or that we know that we
have some basic skills, or we've
got food stored or whatever
things you feel are necessary,
and I can't necessarily tell
anybody, what's right for them.
But if that's the situation
you're in, and someone's hearing
this and looking for more people
doesn't have much connection to
their community or family, I
encourage them to visit freedom
cells.org, that's freedom ca
ELLs, like the cells in your
body. The idea being that each
group, cell pod, hub, Hive,
whatever you want to call it, is
individual and powerful and
unique on its own building in,
you know, Chile, or Mexico, or
India, or Africa or whatever.
But then at the same time, that
individual cell is kind of part
of this larger network that has
been forming in the last couple
of years, all around the world.
And ultimately, you know, for
myself, and many of us involved
in this, like, we're truly
trying to build a parallel
economy parallel system, because
I don't see any way to stay
human. Honestly, by just
thinking we can continue going
about our lives and just kind of
watching things get crazy. At
some point, I think there will
be to be made, you know, are you
going this way? Are you going
that way? Right. So I think that
finding people who are thinking
in those terms and trying to see
like, you know, how can we
support each other, protect each
other, etc, whatever you can do
is going to be vital. So that's
one thing that I'm always
working on, is we just recently
relaunched the website for the
Freedom Sales website. So we've
got some new features, making it
easier for people to find
people, you pretty much just go
on there, create a profile, put
your details, you don't got to
put anything real if people are
paranoid about it. But if you
want to put you know, hey, what
are you interested in learning?
What skills do you have to
offer, you can put your not your
home address, but just pick a
park or something nearby,
something close and an add you
to our map so that when other
people come and they search for
their area, they can search,
look, show me everybody in 20
miles, and then you might pop up
for them, you might get a
message from someone saying,
Hey, you seem like you have
similar goals and interests, do
you want to meet up for coffee,
or, Hey, we have an activist
group that gets together we have
a cell that meets come connect
with us. And from there, you
know, it's up to you to take it
offline and see where it can go.
And thankfully, people who are
taking this serious are having
some success. And we've heard
from people who've met
individuals through the website,
and now they're homeschooling
their kids together, they pulled
their money out of the bank,
they bought land, you know,
different things. So the
opportunities are there for
people who are really serious
about trying to avoid all this
insanity coming. So I encourage
people to check that out. And
the other thing I'll mention is,
the Pyramid of Power is just one
of my journalistic projects that
I've been working on now for
almost two years. And it's a 17
part documentary series that,
that you're featured in Whitney
and a few different episodes.
And James Corbett G, Edward
Griffin, Patrick wood, a lot of
really intelligent people, Peter
Dale, Scott. And my idea with it
is was to just try to take on
this whole whole, you know, the
whole big picture, from
education, to media, to
medicine, and all these
different areas that we could
focus on, and try to report on
it, and 30 minutes or less for
the Netflix vegetable generation
basically. And you know, which
is quite a bit of a challenge to
these huge topics and condense
them down to we've been
successful for most of them,
keeping it under 30 minutes. And
so we bring you the best
information, my own original
research plus information from
other documents or books that
have already been put out there.
And then we present solutions at
the end of every episode, and
then present, you know, for
further reading, check out this
book, check out this
documentary, etc, etc. And we're
Yeah, when it's all said and
done, we're at, we're at chapter
12. And we'll be coming out
hopefully tomorrow. But when
it's all said and done next
year, it'll be 17 episodes. And
the final as we progress, we're
getting like a little deeper,
where the remaining episodes are
going to be getting into like
the the pedo class, the you
know, idea of secret societies
and roundtable groups and
getting deeper into some of the
stuff that maybe might be new to
some people. So that's that can
be found at the Pyramid of Power
dotnet. If anybody wants to
check that out, all the episodes
are available for free. We've
got some of them translated into
Spanish, I've just got them all
translated into Dutch and
somebody's working on German as
well right now. So yeah, that's,
you know, some some of the
things going on. And of course,
all my work can always be found
at the conscious resistance.com.
So I appreciate you having me on
Whitney and let me share my
projects.
Absolutely. Derek, thanks for
your great work and thanks for
coming back on always, always a
good time. So thanks ever
listening as well, hopefully
you'll share this. People
listening will share this around
so we can have, you know, a
better understanding among, you
know the people that listen to
this podcast and others about
what this executive order is
really about what it means for
the future and all of that. So
with that being said, thanks
everyone for listening and I'll
catch you all next time.