THE GREATEST threat to your freedom is not Communism, Socialism, or Fascism. It is Technocracy.
Patrick M. Wood, co-author with the late Antony C. Sutton of the groundbreaking books Trilaterals Over Washington, Volumes I and II, has written a book that should be in your personal reference library. Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation documents the development of this movement from the 1930s to today, its goals, and why Christians should be especially interested in rejecting its globalist agenda.
Click here to go to the 2010 interview with Patrick about “carbon currency”.
Please join Derek and Sharon Gilbert Sunday mornings at 10:30 AM Central Time (UTC -6) for the Gilbert House Fellowship, our live online Bible study webcast. Log on to www.GilbertHouse.org for more details.
Discuss these topics at the PID Radio Cafe, visit the VFTB Facebook page, and check out the great Christian podcasters at the Revelations Radio Network.
Download a smaller, lower-fidelity version of the mp3 of this show by clicking here.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Email | RSS
Derek,
Great interview, your questions and points really brought out the meat of the topic. Good work. You mentioned in the interview that you were attaching a link to an earlier presentation by Mr. Wood about carbon currency I believe.
Thanks,
Mike Ratliff
Thank you, Mike. And you’re right, I did. Here is the link to the interview with Patrick on carbon currency.
Hello,
I was initially attracted to this interview because of the Anthony C Sutton connection.
However, I was put off by Mr Wood’s attitude on a number of issues – to take but one, M King Hubbert and “peak oil,” supposedly a fraud.
Peak oil can only be a fraud if the planet earth is infinite in extent, but it is only finite. Therefore, at some point oil production will peak, unless it is the case that by some mechanism it is continually being created. I know some people posit the existence of abiotic oil but there’s no proof that any hitherto depleted oilfields have ever filled back up. I know that there will be counter arguments that this is not so, but when an oilfield is depleted, that generally means not that is is totally empty but that about 30% of the oil is gone, and the rest can’t be recovered.
Getting back to M King Hubbert, it seems to me that what he basically did was point out that before you can produce/extract oil you have first to discover it and, further, to argue that there was a time lag of forty years between discovery and production/extraction.
Again, this seems perfectly logical. Peak discovery was back in 1964 or thereabouts, so you are eventually going to run out of places to drill – and, indeed, global oil production has been on something of a plateau since 2005.
You can point to Mr Hubbert’s dodgy connections all you want, but in the end if you dismiss his argument purely on the basis of the people with whom he consorted, you are falling into the logical error known as the genetic fallacy.
OK,, Derek, I admit this is a rant and I’m sorry – keep up the good work, because despite moaners like me, it is appreciated.
No worries! The point of the program is to encourage thought. We’re not all made the same, so the idea of us all agreeing is laughable.
I am skeptical about peak oil because I can see its value to Big Oil. If people began to believe that oil was essentially limitless, petrodollars would cease to be the coin of the realm. But I don’t pretend to have enough data or geological expertise to know.
Thanks for your response, Derek.
Permit me to make a further point. I don’t doubt that Big Oil uses propaganda to increase its profits, but in the ultimate analysis I think oil would sell in huge quantities at almost any price because there is no energy source like it. I link to a speech by that notoriously liberal critic of capitalism, Admiral Hyman Rickover in 1957.
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-02/energy-resources-and-our-future-remarks-admiral-hyman-rickover-delivered-1957
Just consider how many slaves you and Sharon would need to move the Bunker to another state at the end of February!
Finally, just imagine that you have the misfortune to get locked in a cellar in an abandoned house many miles from anywhere, and your only companion is a neoclassical economist.
Two hours into your ordeal you are starting to feel hungry and thirsty, and you are beginning to panic. Your companion says “Don’t worry, Derek – I am sure we’ll soon have some sandwiches and something to drink. Our demand will create its own supply.”
Perhaps someone here can explain to me the foundations of this constant ranting among this side of Christians against technocracy, global warming, and the greener revolution.
I come from a permaculture background. Thus, I think scientific knowledge is a valuable resource; humans have to stop living as though their bodies (if not their souls) are part of the earthly eco-system; most foundational, biologically-based counter-measures to “global warming (if you will) would only benefit us even if “global warming” is false; and a government that actually understands science and acts on well-evaluated consensus has got to be better than rule by charismatic sociopaths.
Is this antipathy simply based on a fuzzy, constantly re-adjusting, and often wrong interpretation of biblical prophecy? Is it based on something more substantial?
Hi, Dr. Barton,
I would suggest reading Patrick’s book. We’re not anti-science, just opposed to the idea that science is an appropriate discipline for guiding all aspects of our lives.
“Science” is morally neutral. It can be a useful tool for enhancing the quality of life. If I felt otherwise, I’d be Amish.
It can also be lead to some morally reprehensible conclusions. Eighty years ago, eugenics was the pinnacle of cutting-edge science. And frankly, it still is, because transhumanism is just eugenics with a sci-fi veneer.
However, technocrats are less interested in the quality of our lives than they are in control. Again I say, read Patrick’s book. He does a far better job building the case than I can, especially in the limited space of this reply.
Frankly, I’m dubious about Mr. Wood’s book. Your interview with him didn’t much impress me but that might just be how he performs verbally. The historical background he presented was interesting but most of his conclusions sounded more like fear-mongering than analysis. I’ll have to think some more about buying this book.
Of course, I still think that a greener revolution is the way to go. Transitioning to a solar economy, imposing severe restrictions on the use of fossil fuels (i.e., real conservation), and mob-grazing and forest farming to combat atmospheric CO2 increases are fantastic ideas that, while hurting the economy in the short-term, at least help feed and energize the masses during a transition to a far more sustainable economy. Yes, an economic downturn is inevitable but a relatively controlled downturn is far better than crash. And, honestly, when have any of us gone through a major life transition without a temporary downturn (your recent move being an excellent specific example)?
Actually, I have no problem with living a greener lifestyle. It would make me happy to know my grandchildren have a world they can live in and enjoy.
But do not confuse the stated goals of the technocrats with their true aims. It’s about control, not compassion.
You suggest Patrick is fear-mongering; I contend the climate alarmists are doing the same, and they have a much bigger megaphone. I’m old enough to remember a scientific consensus that we were all about to freeze to death due to global cooling.
Okay! Your last paragraph is really what I was asking about. Yes, there are climate alarmists. Maybe it’s because I’m on the other side of the fence but I don’t see the bigger megaphones. I see huge amounts of data from all around the world showing that the climate is changing and I see fairly good chemical reasons to accept the correlation with increased CO2 (and other industrial gasses) in the atmosphere as a strong indicator of causation. As such, I see local, national, and global efforts to significantly reduce CO2 emmissions into the atmosphere while re-greening the environment to lock carbon into the soil as prudent and constructive at the worst. I also see very little social movement in this direction and even less money being made off of it.
On the other side of the fence, I see corporate, financial, and political forces (forces with 90+% or the world’s resources under their control) exerting their control over governments to ignore climate change because any effective measure against it absolutely require a change in the global economy that would hurt their finances. I also see a general populace uninterested in changes because their leaders are telling them to ignore it and, anyway, they don’t want to change their SUV / pickup truck lifestyles.
Then there are the religious leaders who oppose it. That is the motivation that I don’t understand. I realize that many of them are closely allied with and socially programmed by the same corporate / financial / political forces that deny climate change. Maybe that’s most of the answer but why do the rest oppose the still small voice in the wilderness that is climate change? Is it because many understand climate change as global flooding and that was something that God promised he would never do again? Is it something else? I’ve always been a little confused on this point and remain curious.
I too remember the “mini-ice age” scare. I will counter with – more climate data, better climate data, more data from ice and sediment cores, bigger computers with better climate modelling capabilities, and several times more CO2 in the atmosphere than 40 years ago. That argument is much like denying the usefulness of cars because you can remember when people broke their arms starting them with hand cranks or denying the usefulness of DNA to the study of inheritance because you remember genetics from before Watson and Crick. Data gets better and accumulates so theories and equipment change and get better. To deny that the world or our understanding of the world changes is a dangerous practice. You certainly have the right to argue that the interpretation of the data is wrong but such arguments are only valid when backed by viable alternate theories and / or valid discrediting of the base data. As far as I know, nearly all still-active climate scientists (even former opponents) agree that climate change is real and serious. With the money being used to oppose climate change, such a consensus would only be possible if the evidence was very, very strong. Ask your wife – scientists are like cats, hard to coordinate and always willing to put their theories at the front of any science.