Trust Crisis: Paths to Renewal

Alex Newman, welcome. Thank you for joining today. Thanks for having me. Good to be here. As we were discussing before we got started, it is a somber day, the day after Charlie Kirk's assassination here in the U.S. and Utah, the 24th anniversary of September 11th, and the Patriot Act and everything that has wrought. And so there's a lot I want to get into. The question, admittedly a very large one that I want to open with, is we find ourselves in a place, as Pew Research and others would tell us, and as we observe day to day, where trust in institutions, in each other, certainly across party lines, is at an all-time low. And so where I'd like to begin is your perspective, Alex, on how did we get here? Well, thanks, Sean. That is a huge question. And I think there's multiple dimensions that should be examined. And maybe I'd start off by just pointing out something obvious. A lot of the institutions no longer deserve our trust. The media has proven over and over again that they don't deserve our trust. In many cases, government agencies have proven over and over again that they don't deserve our trust. And that during COVID, I mean, the medical establishment proved it doesn't deserve our trust.

And so part of the reason people are losing trust is because these institutions have proven themselves to be utterly untrustworthy. But I think there's something else at work here, too, that desperately needs to be addressed, and that is a deliberate effort to atomize the individual. They, the establishment, the deep state, the insiders, whatever you want to call it, a cabal of evildoers who would quite like to remove our liberties from us, quite like to build a one world political and economic system with them at the helm. They have set out to deliberately undermine every institution that might be a rival to their power, that might be a rival to absolute and unconditional loyalty to them and their institutions. That includes family. So we see a horrific effort that's multigenerational. I mean, it's been going on for a long time to try to divide husbands and wives, try to divide men and women, try to divide children from parents, parents from children. We see divorce encouraged and normalized.

We see women told that their husbands are oppressive and that sleeping around is good. We see husbands being taught similar absurdities. We see children being taught that their parents aren't a safe space because they don't understand their pronouns. And I mean, it's just it lies from the pit of hell. And we see a deliberate effort to fracture society along any conceivable line. And I think there are different forces that are working to bring this about. The Marxists have been very deliberate in their efforts to create, foment and exploit division. And so if they can divide Americans by skin color, if they can divide Americans by gender, by political idea, whatever the case may be, and then fan the flames of that division, it serves their purpose as well. Because as Karl Marx understood very clearly, if you're going to have a revolution, you have to have oppressed victims to lead the revolution against the alleged power brokers. And so we've had now for almost 100 years a deliberate effort to foment that kind of sentiment, to inflame that kind of sentiment in the United States.

And it's very dangerous. And we're seeing the fruit of that now. Families falling apart, marriages falling apart, churches falling apart, communities falling apart and the whole nation falling apart. I mean, the response by so many on the left to the horrific and tragic death of a guy who was just trying to have debates, trying to explain his opinion, trying to glorify Jesus. I mean, you see some of these responses and you almost wonder how could people be so, I don't even know what the right word is. How could people have a mindset where they would celebrate the death of a young man who leaves behind a wife and two young children? But that's how extreme this division and polarization has become. So, again, I think there's a lot of different dimensions, a lot of different factors converging here. And I think some of the loss of trust is deserved and necessary. There's no reason to trust an institution that lies to you constantly any more than there's a reason to trust an abusive spouse who commits adultery constantly.

But I think part of this distrust is deliberate. I spent years living in Scandinavia, and I witnessed the disintegration of trust in real time. Sweden is where I stayed, and I love Sweden despite all the problems, despite the socialism, despite the mass migration. But they had this concept of their nation as like just being an extended family, right? We're all just like one big family. And they even had like words that we don't have in English to describe this idea. And that is being shattered right now. A third of the population now is foreign, either born abroad or born from immigrant parents. And you see riots. You see the high trust society that was so great. You could just leave your bike unlocked. That's disintegrating. And what it is leading to is the loss of something very special that took centuries to develop, centuries to build up. And I don't know that it can be recovered, at least not in the short term. Big question, big answers.

My follow-up, and I find myself still in a place where when I have these conversations, I think about me 10 years ago. How would I respond to what you've just said? And I try to put myself in the place of those who may, as is my objective with this podcast, to reach those on the bubble. And by that, I mean people who are, they know something's broken. They know something's wrong. They're looking for ways back. They're looking to rebuild trust or to reclaim trust that is demanded of them in places, as you say, where it is not earned. And much of it is about technology. This conversation is not about that unless you certainly have opinions. But where I'm going is, what do you say, Alex, to those who, as I might have seven, ten years ago, thought that is ridiculous? There is no cabal. There is no concerted effort. There is no threat of Marxism reemergent.

in untold numbers of these conversations that I'm sure you have, what appeal do you make to those who think that that is, you know, simply absurd? It's a good question. And I would say the answer to that question depends a lot on who I'm talking to. If I was talking to a Christian who accepts the Bible as God's word, I would reason with them from the scriptures that the Bible is filled with stories of conspiracy. In fact, if you read Psalm 2, it describes, this is written 3,000 years, ago by King David, I believe it's prophetic in nature, describes a situation where the kings of the earth and the rulers of the world are conspiring together. Some translations say they take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed one. That's interesting. You mean the kings of the earth, the rulers of the world are joining forces together against God? Why would that be in the word of God? So if you're a Christian and you believe the Bible is the word of God, you have some explaining to do. Where does that come from? If you're not a Christian, I would encourage you to just, first of all, read the scriptures.

But secondly, look at the evidence. The evidence is all around you, and it's overwhelming. At this point, many of these evildoers don't even bother hiding it anymore. One resource that I've found fairly effective is just using quotes by these people in their own words. And there are many examples I could cite. If you go to page 405 of David Rockefeller's memoirs, this was published over a decade ago. So I can actually pull up the exact quote so that I don't end up butchering it. But he admits he actually uses the term conspiring with a secret cabal is how he frames it to build a more integrated one world political and economic structure, a one world order, if you will. And then he says, if that's the charge, I stand guilty and I'm proud of it. So, I mean, if you can't believe the testimony of a guy who was clearly involved in this from the beginning, I don't know what more you can believe. But, you know, at one point I would have said this was conspiratorial in nature.

And I guess just due to the nature of the propaganda that we've been subjected to for so many generations, I need to start even further back. The word conspiracy doesn't mean what a lot of people think it means. The word conspiracy, if you look up in a dictionary, if you look in our criminal statutes in every one of our 50 states and at the federal level, it just means two or more people working in secret for some illegal, immoral or improper purpose. So you could have a local conspiracy where two businessmen get together to fix prices in the community. And nobody questions that those things happen. I mean, we all understand that local business. Yeah, right. But then somehow people are surprised that that might happen at the national level with politicians or big CEOs. And I do think as a word of caution, I think there's a ditch on the other side, too, right? Because there are some people who, yes, reject this. And I wrote a whole book about it, partly to shine light on this question. It's called Deep State, the Invisible Government Behind the Scenes, where I provide what I consider to be mountains of evidence.

But then there's the ditch on the other side of the people who learn about this and come to the conclusion that this is so huge and so massive that nothing can happen in the world without the say so of these conspirators. And I think that ditch is equally dangerous. So on the one hand, you have the people who I think are ignoring the evidence. And at this point, it's not even hidden all that well. And that's why when I talk about the word conspiracy, I'm not even sure it's relevant anymore, because once it's not secret anymore, once you're bragging about it in your memoirs, once you're talking about your plan for a new world order on national television, it's by definition, it's not a conspiracy anymore. It's out in the open. And so I would encourage people to use discernment. There are obviously there are many false conspiracy theories. There's no question about that. There are many theories about conspiracies that are ludicrous. There are some that might sound plausible, but for which there's not enough evidence, but that there are conspiracies and that there are people who want to build a one world system who are seeking control over the various institutions that would make this possible.

I think at this point is now irrefutable. And I would just encourage people to look at the evidence. They're almost not even hiding it anymore. They're telling us what they want to do. They're having meetings. And, you know, for the people who want like details, it's very easy to find them. I go through a large number of groups in my book, and obviously it's not an exhaustive list, but the Council on Foreign Relations. It's an organization with a headquarters, an address, a published membership list of about 5,000 people. You'll find Supreme Court justices, leaders of the Republican Party, leaders of the Democrat Party, media kingpins, including Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News and Wall Street Journal and The New York Post. You'll find big oil CEOs. You'll find political leaders. You'll find presidents. You'll find Clintons and Bushes. And if you listen to the things that they talk about at their little meetings, they're pretty open about what they're doing. Right. They're trying to undermine national sovereignty. They're trying to build a multipolar world order where we go to regional government and then global government.

So I would just encourage people who are surprised by this to just look objectively at the evidence, turn off CNN and start looking at the facts. And I think the facts are really self-explanatory and at this point right in your face. Do your own research, certainly. And I think perhaps one recent anecdote, you paid a visit to a UN group charged or self-appointed to police speech. Could you tell us a bit about that experience Yeah So I been trying to expose the UN efforts to censor the internet almost my entire political career And right now the U has you know they have a secretary general and then they have a bunch of undersecretaries general They're kind of like cabinet secretaries, you might say, if we need an equivalent from the United States. And the undersecretary general of the U.N. for communications, her name is Melissa Fleming. She announced in 2022 at the World Economic Forum that they had a partnership with Google, that they were working to change the algorithm so that information exposing the problems, and she didn't put it this way, but information exposing the problems with their pet hypothesis, the idea that CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change and that paying taxes to the UN is going to make the weather better in 100 years, that those are being suppressed, those are being marginalized, and that the UN and the UN's information is being pushed to the top.

very deliberately. And so I tried to confront her about this at the UN Summit for the Future, where, by the way, they were very openly plotting world government. All you had to do was listen to what they were saying. All you got to do is read the outcome document. It was called the Pact for the Future, agreed to by every government in the world. And I asked her about this partnership with Google. And her response was very telling. She said, well, I don't know who you are, so I can't talk to you. She scurries away and promptly starts talking to a bunch of other journalists who have less offensive questions. That was not rude. And we can go watch the video. No, I watched the video. So, you know, so that for me is very telling. UNESCO put out a report, I believe it was last year, might have been the year before, calling for global Internet censorship, saying that we had to suppress conspiracy theories, hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, which is true information that they think is being used for some sinister purpose. So, you know, why is the UN so determined to silence people on the Internet that they disagree with and who gave them a mandate to do that, right? You won't find any authority in the UN

charter to regulate our free speech. What you will find is back in the 1970s, the Soviet Union, very upset about so many people speaking out against communism, saying we need international action against hate speech, which just so happens to be any speech that the communists hate. And did they use that term at that time? That's where the term came from. Hate speech was not a term until the Soviet Union introduced it. I assume that was a recent phenomenon. Now, the Soviet Union introduced that into the U.N. lexicon back in the 1970s, seeking U.N. action to stop hate speech, which, again, was just speech that they hated. Right. It's incredible. And I'm reflecting on a fellow I'm sure you know, Jeffrey Tucker, who I had the good fortune to speak with as we are last week. And we talked about the managerial class. We talked about the total state, and I think I might have injected that term in from a prior conversation with Nicholas Anthony at Cato Institute.

Point being, in your view, Alex, is it in many cases as simple as the managerial class seeking to lengthen their ride on the train and all the benefits that come within or therein? you know, is my conjecture, as many cases, it is that and the incentives are simply aligned? Or is that a naive take? Well, I actually start my book on the deep state with a large explanation of the bureaucracy and the intelligence agencies. And there's certainly an element to that. The incentives are absolutely in place to try to convince bureaucratic leaders that perpetuating and expanding the power and the funding of their bureaucracies in their best interest. And I believe that's by design. But then you look at the connections of the leaders of the managerial state, the leading bureaucrats, the political appointees, the folks in the senior executive service who

are basically untouchable and who basically run these bureaucracies, even when a political appointee is trying to change direction. What you find is that there is an interlocking network. I mentioned the Council on Foreign Relations. I could continue the Bilderberg group meets once a year. They just met recently in Sweden. You've got the Trilateral Commission started by David Rockefeller, who we spoke about earlier, along with his friend Zibniew Brzezinski, a national security advisor to Jimmy Carter, who very openly was advocating for this kind of global technocratic state. You have more open groups like the World Economic Forum, the World Government Summit that they host on the Arabian Peninsula. And then you have more secretive groups like the Scull and Bones Society and the Bohemian Grove in Northern California, to name just a couple that come to mind. And when you look at the leaders of this managerial class, the bureaucratic elites, if you will, virtually all of them are connected to some or other of these institutions. And that doesn't mean necessarily that we're dealing with like this totally monolithic conspiracy.

As a Christian, I always go back to the biblical understanding of these things. And I believe that there is evil in the world. And there are three things that we're dealing with here that the Bible describes as problematic. We've got the flesh. People are aware in a sinful, fallen world. up. People are interested in pursuing more money, more power, more, you know, and so that's always a factor. You can't always blame everything on the devil. It's just people are, the Bible teaches their hearts are desperately wicked. And they're always looking for, you know, how can I have more pleasure? How can I have more money? How can I have more respect? And that leads them to do bad things. And so when the incentive is, you know, you want more money, you want more pleasure, well, expand your bureaucracy, act tyrannically over these people who you're supposed to be serving. Well, then that's what happens. Then, of course, there is the devil and, you know, Christians and virtually all the other major monotheistic religions have some sort of conception of an evil superhuman intelligence, being, person, whatever, who acts in this world.

In fact, the Bible describes Satan as the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air. In 1 John, the whole world lies in the power of the evil one. And so I think for the overwhelming majority of people in America who describe themselves as Christian, we need to look at that as a critical factor. And then, of course, there's the world itself. The Bible describes the world system, the spirit of Babylon and this evil system that we exist under. And so I don't think you necessarily need to have every evildoer in the world communicating with everybody. But kind of like, you know, I can walk into a church and I do. I go in any country I'm in, I'll go find a church. And, you know, without having ever met any of these people, like we have a bond, we have a common mission. We want to do the Great Commission. We want to tell other people about this. Well, the evildoers have, you know, something similar. They don't all have to meet in a smoky room and coordinate to to be all working toward the same objective, sometimes not even knowingly. So I do think there is a powerful element there with the bureaucratic state, the managerial elite.

But I think you have to go a step further and recognize that that's not the end of the story. Yes, it's there. Yes, it should be talked about. Yes, it should be reigned in. You know, America's founding fathers were adamant about some of these very things. Right. They talked about that. So many of them were Calvinistic. They believed in the total depravity of man. And so they believed in checks and balances. We'll have the state and the federal. We'll have the three branches. And unfortunately, we've broken free of some of those constraints. And that has allowed the worst impulses of sinful human beings to be manifested in, say, bureaucratic tyranny. I'm reminded it is in a different vein and I think perhaps is lightening what shouldn't be lightened, but the George Carlin quote, it's one big club and you ain't in it. Right. I love that quote. Well, if we then zoom in a bit, Alex, and there are these pillars, these areas in which, as you noted, we could dig in. So health care, certainly, over the last four or five years, as I discussed with Jeffrey last week, your recent discussion with Dr. Robert Malone, you got into Big Pharma's vaccine mandate practices.

You have addressed Dr. Kirk Moore, whistleblower. I believe you've spoken on Trump's recent comments regarding Operation Warp Speed, to name a few. And so what is your perspective, Alex, on where we are within the United States with respect to health care as an institution and where we should be headed? Great question, Sean. And, you know, we could easily spend the rest of the show talking just about this one thing. So I'll try to limit the length and depth of my remarks. But I'd start by saying I kind of joke with people and I've been saying this for years now. Once you understand that they're trying to kill you, it all makes sense. And I'm only half joking. One of the things about this network of forces that is seeking to erode our freedom, erode our sovereignty and build this one world system, they say very openly that they believe there are too many people in the world.

They're not shy about saying that. You can find endless clips of Bill Gates talking about the population crisis. You can find the U.N. has a whole agency dedicated to reducing the population. It's called the U.N. Population Fund. It's filled with bureaucrats and lots of money. Yuval Harari. That's right. The list goes on. And they go around the world promoting these ideas. We need more contraception. We need more abortion. We need more education to teach people to stop having babies. I mean, it's just it's never ending with these people. And I've confronted a lot of them at U.N. summits. I've had them tell me to my face that there are too many people, that we need to reduce the population of the planet by 80, 90 percent. And I think a lot of these people genuinely believe that. I think they genuinely believe that there's too many of us and we're destroying the planet. But the fact that there are very powerful and influential people who publicly proclaim their belief that there are too many of us should be a big hint to us. The fact that some of these very same people are intimately intertwined with our so-called health care system should be a major red flag to all of us. When Bill Gates stands up at a TED talk and says, you know, we have a climate crisis, we've got to find a way to reduce the carbon dioxide output to zero.

And here's the formula. And, you know, population is one of the variables. And if we use reproductive health care and vaccines, maybe we can reduce that number by 10 or 15 percent. that should be a big red flag to people. Even when they come back and say, oh, we didn't mean sterilize or kill people. We just meant that people will have less babies if they have more vaccines and things like this. That should be a major cause for concern for us. So I think to go back to some of the things we just spoke about, there is a profit motive, right? The pharmaceutical companies are interested in making money and there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. I am a capitalist at heart. I will defend to the death your right to make money by providing goods and services that people voluntarily want to purchase. I'm a true libertarian in that sense. And so when people look at this and they say, it's all about the profit motive, I say, no, it's not, right? This cannot all possibly be explained by the profit motive. And the Bible does tell us that the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil. And so I believe that's true.

But I think there's an ulterior motive here. And actually, I should say there, I think there are multiple ulterior motives here. There are people who want to use so-called health care to reduce the population of the world. And I think that has become very clear. And some of these people are enormously influential CEOs of major companies, major political leaders, major financiers of so much of this. I do believe that there is an agenda to sterilize large numbers of people. I've spoken with people who, using funding from grants provided by the Rockefeller Foundations, have actually worked on vaccines that will sterilize people. One of the things that was really interesting to me was the UN Population Fund. I did a big article about this about 10 years ago in the New American Magazine. The UN Population Fund put out a report saying that Kenyan women were having way too many babies. I believe it was four children per woman on average. And they said, we got to come up with ways to reduce that number. And they proposed the usual, you know, we got to brainwash the little girls in school to not want babies We got to you know make sure they get jobs instead of getting married and having a family when they young And you know lots of contraception We got to legalize and promote abortion all the usual The litany of interventionalist attacks

Exactly. Right. And then the next year, the World Health Organization, which I like to call the World Homicide Organization, UNESCO, or excuse me, UNICEF and several other UN agencies come in there with a bunch of money from Bill Gates, and they launch what they describe as a neonatal tetanus campaign, where they're running around injecting so-called tetanus vaccines into the arm of any child-bearing age female that they can get their hands on. And so a network of doctors gets pretty concerned about this. The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association gets pretty concerned about this. They grab samples of these injections. I think they took seven different ones from around the country. They sent them to laboratories around the world for examination. What they found was astounding. Every single one of those samples was laced with something called beta-HCG, beta-human chorionic gonadotropin. And that was interesting because one of the people I talked to who was doing this research on how to sterilize people with vaccines funded by the Rockefeller Foundation said that was one of the mechanisms they came up with to sterilize women.

You inject their bodies with beta-HCG along with some sort of antigen so that their immune system starts perceiving it as a threat. then when they beta hcg is a hormone that women's bodies create to and it's essential to be able to carry a pregnancy to term so when these women were getting pregnant their immune system was attacking this hormone thereby ending the pregnancy and so what ended up happening became a huge scandal in kenya uh the the kenya catholic bishops association all the all the catholic bishops of kenya signed a joint letter saying this was not a vaccination campaign it was a covert sterilization campaign and they've been caught doing the same thing in the philippines they've been caught doing the same thing in Nicaragua. There's just too many coincidences to ignore. So I think they're using health care partly to reduce the population, which sounds counterintuitive because people normally think of health care as like the way to extend your life and make your life better. Baloney, right? Baloney. And we could talk about this for forever, but the drugs that are marketed in the United States as these wonder drugs that are going to help improve your quality of life and extend your life, so many of them are worse than garbage. And if you even read their own

studies, their own data, right? The pharmaceutical companies come up with what's called NNT and NNH, number needed to treat, number needed to harm. And in a lot of these blockbuster drugs, you'll actually find you're more likely to be harmed by the drug than to be helped by the drug. And yet they're marketed as like some sort of life-saving cure or whatever. It's unbelievable. And it's not just about making money because you could make money providing legitimate healthcare, Right. So part of it is the incentive structure. The federal government has gotten involved here and has made it profitable to pump out dangerous vaccines with no liability. Part of it is, I think, a sinister agenda. And then part of it gets into stuff that's so weird. I think a lot of people who aren't familiar with this stuff would think that we're stark raving mad. You look at the transhuman agenda. You look at the gene editing technologies that they've got now. CRISPR, Cas9, these technologies that enable the editing of a genetic code, not just of animals and plants, but also of human beings.

They're very open that this is the direction they're going. Bill Gates wrote an article in the magazine of the Council on Foreign Relations back in 2016 or 2018, I believe, where he openly said that we need to stop, not stop with the genetic engineering just of our plants and our animals, but also of our babies. You listen to Klaus Schwab. He's got a book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution, where he describes how in the future people will be genetically engineering themselves. Yuval Noah Harari talks about this. So a lot of these technologies, they sound like bad science fiction, and yet they're here now. You look at Neuralink, which is being packaged primarily as a health care resource. You lost an arm, you lost a leg. Exactly. And certainly there are good therapeutic applications to these technologies, and I'm not denying that. Maybe not the genetic engineering. I'll leave that outside of this discussion for a moment. But some of these other things, yes, certainly there could be positive applications that would make some people's lives.

much better. But we need to understand that the potential for mischief here is enormous. And if you listen to the people who are helping to drive these things, maybe not Elon Musk so much, but a lot of the others, they are, in my opinion, clearly malevolent. They have ideas that are clearly contrary to morality and civilization and liberty. So I think healthcare is being used as a tool, just to put it bluntly, to enslave humanity. And we saw that so clearly with COVID. You won't take your mRNA injection, well, you can't move around. You can't go to the grocery store. You can't see your family. You can't get on an airplane. You can't cross a border. You can't even go to work, right? You can't even go to church. So it's being used as one of the primary tools to remove our liberty and control our lives. And it's very, very dangerous, this movement. And I don't think you can explain it just with a profit motive. And so, yes, the distrust has been hard-earned. And as you say, we could spend a lot of time, and I know, Alex, you have a hard stop, top of the hour.

So I'll wrap us up on the what can we do. But before we get there, I'd like to talk about two more areas in particular. One, you have touched, you have exposed, I think, a lot of what's going on, as others have, with regard to the United Kingdom's digital ID. proposals and them tying their calls to action, presumably to immigration policies. And as well, certainly, I want to talk about your work at length about federal education, state funding tied to particular government agendas, and homeschooling. And so I'll set that stage again so we can get the most out of our time that we could use in a lot of ways, given your background. But let's talk about digital IDs first. I think digital IDs are actually one of the critical components of the global digital gulag that they're building for us. And I don't think that because I've like connected dots like

some kind of genius investigator. I think that because I've read their documents and I see where they're going with this. The global economic and financial system that is under construction right now is now clearly visible to anybody who wants to look. It's being led in large part by the Bank for International Settlements, the International Monetary Fund and the central banks of the world. And if you just go to their website, if you just listen to their speeches, if you just read their white papers and their policy papers, they'll tell you what they're doing. They want to move us to a central bank digital currency, eventually a global central bank digital currency. For now, I think they'll settle for regional or national CBDCs. They want to build what they call digital public infrastructure. And again, the UN is very open about this. You can go to their website. You can read all about it. They got the 50 and 5 plan. So CBDC is a critical component of it. Then they're building a global blockchain ledger. So they want to tokenize, in other words, create a token that represents an asset for every asset in the known universe, every farm, every piece of land, every house, every car,

everything. And to be able to buy or sell these assets once they're on this tokenized on this international blockchain ledger, you'd have to use your CVDCs. But you can only use your CVDCs once you have a digital ID. So all of this works together. It's like the most, to use some analogies and terms that would hopefully be familiar to people, it's the most Orwellian panopticon ever devised by man. There would be no economic transaction that could be hidden, concealed. All of that data, of course, would be tracked, stored, mined, processed through artificial intelligence. And, of course, that wouldn't just erode your privacy completely. And they brag about this. It's going to be called transparency. In other words, you will be totally transparent. You have no right to any privacy anymore. But it will also be used as a control mechanism. And they're telling you this. The Federal Reserve published a paper last year where they bragged about how CBDC technology could be used to prevent people from buying certain things, to force people to buy certain things.

Stimulate the economy to introduce negative interest rates again. And none of this can happen, Sean, without the digital ID. And so I actually predicted before Donald Trump even went back into the White House, they're going to try to get it done under his presidency. And they're going to package it as a solution to a real problem that they caused. And my top candidates were illegal immigration and voter fraud. And literally just and I'm not one of those. I told you so people, but that's what's happening right now in the United Kingdom. The home, the new home affairs secretary, an Islamic lady by the name of Shabina Mahmoud, I think, just announced that, oh, we flooded your country with illegal immigrants. Well, don't worry, we're going to get digital IDs and that's how we're going to solve this problem. And they're going to try to do that here in the United States. So we need to be very, very aware of this. I think the digital ID is one of those things. It's like it's crossing the Rubicon. Once you go past that, there's no going back. So I think we must regard this as an existential threat to our liberty and we must resist it at all costs, like many of us did with the vaccine passports.

It truly is the linchpin. And I feel compelled again to say, and many in my circle, many who perhaps are listening or watching, are Bitcoiners, as it were. And, you know, certainly liberty-minded, libertarian-leaning, they understand this deeply and in many ways experientially. For those who are not, as you say, it is all out there. And as I might have thought, this is just beyond the pale, too absurd, too coordinated. It is there. And it's there for everyone to research and read. So as you note, Alex, I mean, that is the substrate that would underlie so many of these other mechanisms. Let's talk about education. So health care, huge. finance, commerce, our transactional lives, enormous. And you've laid that out as tied integrally to digital ID. Where does education fit in this sphere in terms of, again, to bring it back,

why we are here where we are in such a low-trust society? Yeah, I think education is probably the single most critical component of this entire process. And that sounds like a tall order. I know you just what you just explained about digital IDs and health care. How can you think education is more important? And I should start by pointing out that what's happening today in the government schools is not anything remotely resembling education. It is indoctrination. It is behavioral conditioning. It is sexualization. It is the deliberate dumbing down, the deliberate handicapping of millions of children. It is not education. education. Our ancestors would not have recognized this at all associated with the term education because it's not education. And let me ask, I'm sorry, Alex, to interject here. To that point, and I want you to pick this back up, when did it go off the rails? And maybe you're going there anyway. I'd love to go there. In fact, that is the critical subject of my latest book on education.

I've done two books on education so far. I've got one more coming out next year. My newest one is called Indoctrinating Our Children to Death. I released that last year. And it actually starts in chapter one with the history of how it happened that the government took over education or education in air quotes. And, you know, the Prussian dictator had created the first kind of like government involvement in public schools or in education in the late 1700s. But it really, the root of what we call today the public education system was really born. The seed was planted with a utopian socialist named Robert Owen in the early 1800s He started a communist commune in Indiana called New Harmony And his life mission he described as combating this great trinity of evil And this great trinity of evil he identified as being marriage, family, private property, and religion, and in particular irrational systems of religion such as Christianity,

which was, of course, the dominant worldview at that time by far. So his life mission was to destroy private property, family, and religion, in particular Christianity. And when his communist commune failed, he concluded that the reason it had failed was because these people had been educated and brought up by parents, by systems, by extended family, who were still clinging to this great trinity of evil, the religion, the family, and the private property. And so the solution then was to have the government take over all education. Obviously, that was not a popular idea in America at that time. Virtually all education was the responsibility of parents, and when they needed help, they would turn to the church. They would turn to a private tutor. They would turn to a private academy. Government had no role in education. And so Robert Owens set up a secret society is how a whistleblower later described it. The whistleblower was named Oristus Brownson. He ended up becoming a Catholic and repenting of his involvement in the secret society, and so he blew the whistle. But he set up a secret society, Orsis Brownson says, based on the Carbonari, a vile secret society based in Italy around that time.

And the twin objectives were to shift public opinion so that people would be open to the idea of government educating their children and also to get men elected to the legislature who would agree to advance the cause of government education. And Orsis Brownson says something very profound. He said the great object was to get rid of Christianity. So I think the whole point of having the government take over education was to get rid of Christianity. And so from there, these writings of this lunatic were taken over to Prussia, the Prussian dictator at that time. And Robert Owen actually describes the whole process in his autobiography. I documented extensively in the book, quoting his own words. Baron Jacobi, who was the ambassador of the Prussian dictator in London, took these essays back to the Prussian dictator who ordered his interior. Robert Owen said the dictator so much approved of these ideas that he ordered the interior minister to implement them and create what really became the first ever system of education of the state, by the state and for the state. Now, that took root in Prussia. And Robert Owen describes how the Prussian dictator was so fond with this.

He tried to convince other European rulers to do the same thing. But that was reimported into the United States via Massachusetts through a guy called Horace Mann. And Horace Mann was super open about where he was getting his ideas from. He said, this is the Prussian system. Yes, the Prussian system is dictatorial and it's designed to create obedient slaves, but we're going to use it for good things. OK, so we're going to do the same thing, but we're going to use it for good purposes. The power of the Industrial Revolution. Precisely. Yeah. And to make he said this was going to get rid of he said it would make nine tenths of the crimes in the statute books obsolete and other absurd things. Of course, just the opposite happened. And then John Dewey comes along. So Horace Mann plants this into Massachusetts. Then he goes around the country basically preaching the good news of salvation by government schools. And then this whole system is taken over by a guy called John Dewey, who's being bankrolled by the Rockefellers, of course. $3.1 million to this guy through the General Education Board. It was a Rockefeller philanthropy.

And it sounds like a bad joke, right? A communist and a super capitalist walk into a bar, decide to take over education and dumb down all your kids. What could go wrong? So that's the story right there. Now, John Dewey was very open about his ideas. I've got tons of his books in my library. He wrote very extensively. He visited the Soviet Union and couldn't stop talking about what a wonderful system it was and how great the education was. They're undermining the family. They're undermining the church. They're instilling a collectivistic mentality in the children. And so he viewed John Dewey viewed education as the means to the end, which he didn't believe in violent revolution. That was his big difference with the Bolsheviks. He believed that a gradual process of getting people ready for this through education would be the way to achieve the communist utopia. But the end goal was the same. No private property, no family, et cetera. And that's basically where the system got started. And I think a lot of Americans misunderstand that because there's been so little written or said about this. They think that like maybe it was in the 60s. Maybe it was when the Supreme Court banned prayer and Bibles. Maybe it was when the teachers union.

No, no, no. It goes back to the very, very beginning. Now, it has gotten progressively worse. John Dewey, in an essay he wrote back in 1898, the primary education fetish said that these changes must come gradually because to force them unduly, he said, would compromise its final success by favoring a violent reaction. So he understood that if moms, dads, taxpayers, school administrators, teachers understood what these people were up to, they'd probably be tarred and feathered. So it was a gradual process. And then that brings us to today where we have, you know, people think we have a national education system that we're fighting in the U.S. Department of Education. No way. That ship sailed a long time ago. We're now dealing with a global education system where instructions are coming down from the United Nations, from the U.N.'s education agency called UNESCO. And again, you don't have to believe me. You can go read their own documents. They brag about this. When they unleashed Common Core on us, they bought advertisements to tell us that these national standards were aligned with the international standards that were being implemented around the world.

They bought ads to tell us that. So they're telling us clearly what's going on. And what they're using, this is the most powerful weapon, I think, in the history of mankind. It's more powerful than bombs and tanks and planes. They're shaping the minds of the next generation. They're shaping the hearts of the next generation and convincing them not just to accept this new system they're imposing, not just to submit to it, but to beg for it. And that's exactly what the U.N. tells you that they're doing. If you look, for example, at the U.N.'s Sustainable Development Goals, this is what they call the Master Plan for Humanity. They adopted it back in 2015, 17 goals. Goal number four deals with education. And I encourage people, go read it. It says that by 2030, all learners, there's no exception for homeschoolers, private schools, kids in Saudi Arabia, all learners, it says, must promote the sustainable development goals and sustainable development. So they've got to be so brainwashed. They're not just going to accept this. They're going to beg for it. They're going to promote it. And that's the key to their success.

They could have never gotten this far had they not dumbed down and indoctrinated going on now five generations of Americans going on four, three, two in a lot of other places. But that's the secret sauce right there. That's how they're going to make this happen. And here we are. I mean, I. We homeschool. I know you have a large family and your experience must be deep and wide with regard to making that choice. I find myself wishing I had balanced this in a way where we had more time to talk about hope and progress and change. But I will take the time we have, Alex, if you have a few more minutes. Where do you find hope? Where should those reeling from this conversation look to reclaim agency in their lives for themselves, their families, their kids, their communities? Excellent question. And I think we can address this quickly, but in a profound way.

And I start by saying, if your hope is in this world, you're going to be disappointed majorly. The Bible says your hope needs to be in the Lord, not in kings, not in princes, not in politics, not even in things that are really good. So I think we need to keep our ultimate hope in the Lord. Now, in terms of what does that mean, how do we practically implement that? I think really step one is start removing yourself from these corrupt systems as quickly as you possibly can, prioritizing the most dangerous down to less dangerous ones. And I would argue that there's almost no institution as dangerous to your children than the government school system masquerading as an education system. And big pharma, the so-called health care system, is probably a close second because, you know, some of these things that we're seeing it now in the Senate testimony. Right. I mean, some of these things that they're doing to your kids are catastrophic, just horrific what's happening. And I praise God that, you know, we learned about some of this stuff before our first child arrived 15 years ago because, you know, we've got a lot of friends who made bad decisions, not really through any fault of their own.

They're just listening to the experts, listening to the doctor, whatever. And it has had catastrophic consequences. But so parents, you know, you don't have to elect a new president or replace your congressman or pass a new law to start doing some of these things right now. You can. And in fact, that that is false hope, I would argue. But please. Absolutely. Absolutely. I agree with you as well. you know, like vote harder. We can start doing some of these things right now in our own homes with our own families. And the first and most important thing I would say to parents and even to grandparents is get your children out of the government school system. My wife and I, we, we homeschool our six. Maybe God will send us more. I hope he does. We use a program called classical conversations is our primary one. So all across this country, they meet once a week in communities. We have paid tutors and I wouldn't trade it for the world. We've got 135,000 students across the United States and beyond doing the same amazing program. It's just, it's great. I love it so much. I'm now a senior fellow there. And, you know, if that's not for you, there's a billion other awesome programs. And you don't need even necessarily a program.

You can just mix and match it. You can do so many different things. So I would encourage people, start with that. Get your kids out of danger. You know, I tell people, it's like, the building is on fire. Your children are trapped inside. You know, don't even think about writing a letter to the school board or lobbying your state legislator. Your child's in a burning building. And frankly, it's worse than a burning building, Sean. A burning building is just going to hurt your children physically. This is going to destroy them mentally, physically, academically, morally, spiritually, I mean, in every possible way. So that is the first and most important thing. Get them out. And then, you know, we got to educate ourselves. And I do think we have a responsibility to get active in some way. And that'll look different for everybody, right? You know, I get to do journalism and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to do that. Not everybody's called into journalism. You know, maybe you're a successful businessman. Maybe you can pour resources into liberty minded organizations or your church or some other organization that's going to make the world a better place. Maybe you're a doctor. Well, maybe you can stand up against the crazy and start protecting people's health for real.

So everybody's got their own little role to play. But I do think it begins, Sean, like you said, like with reclaiming agency. Stop outsourcing basic responsibilities that should be ours as individuals, ours as families to the government, a government that clearly cannot be trusted, a government that kills babies with tax money. I mean, you know, we've got to reclaim responsibility. We've got to reclaim agency. And I do think, you know, if we don't start dealing with this quickly, I think it's going to get worse before it gets better. So I don't want to sugarcoat things and say, you know, if you homeschool and opt out of the mandates, everything's going to be great. I don't know. It'll go better for sure. It's no fast fix. No. But necessary. Yeah. I mean, it's been generations to get into this mess. And as much as I would love for there to be a silver bullet, then, you know, a simple solution, there's not going to be one. It took generations to get in this mess. It's going to take generations to get out if we do everything right. Right. Which is a big if at this point. But it just it begins with taking responsibility and, you know, for ourselves, for educating ourselves, for our families and then for our churches, our communities, our state.

And we just work our way up from there. That is a very positive note to end on. Alex, thank you very much for your time, for your insights. And I will look forward to following your work and we'll get all the relevant links out in the show notes so people can do that as well. Thank you so much, Sean. It's really been a blessing. I appreciate it. I know it's been, like you said at the beginning, a somber day, but these conversations are important. Very grateful for you having me on, and thank you very much.