We've heard about, from inside the United States, what's going on, and how we have to
begin to reshape health policy, but as we know, we live in this global world.
And the WHO itself, to back this out one more layer so we get the full context of the picture,
has did some things that maybe we should question a little bit, to be as polite as I can be
about that, so we've got a panel here, we're going to talk
about this at the highest level, what's the WHO, all of that.
First up, I want to welcome up Kat Lindley here.
Yay.
So, welcome, have a seat right here.
Yeah, so Kat is our IMA Program Director
for the International Fellows Program,
also a Senior Fellow, Family Medicine, and owner of Lindley Medical
and a Fellow of the American College
of Osteopathic Family Physicians.
Again, full bios in that top right QR code.
Next up, Dr. Robert Malone.
Come on up.
Thanks, sir.
Have a seat.
IMA Act, he's our action, IMA action, remember two sides, C4, C3, C4.
Senior advisor, internationally recognized scientist, physician,
bestselling author, raconteur, ethicist, farmer, political commentator.
We'll hear more about all of those.
An original inventor of the mRNA vaccination
and DNA vaccination platforms and holds lots
of patents domestically and foreign on that.
Next up, Dr. James Lindsley.
Sorry, Lindsley.
Normally it's not so hard for me to say.
Welcome. He is an author, a mathematician,
and a political commentator.
He's written eight books.
Wow. Spanning a range of subjects including education,
postmodern theory, critical race theory, founder of new discourses
and just freshly back from New Zealand, I believe.
So, we'll be talking about that.
Last but not least, Dr. Byron Bridal.
Hey, thanks for being here.
Senior fellow, Virology and Immunology and Associate Professor
of Viral Immunology, University of Guelph, and expert in immune responses
against viruses and vaccine safety, PhD, Viral Immunology, again,
University of Guelph, bringing us the Canadian perspective.
So, Kat, let's start at the top.
The WHO, what happened during COVID?
What did we learn about them and what do we need to know?
So according to WHO, the pandemics are a new way of life.
And that's why in December of 21, the leaders around the world
and WHO got together and decided that we need
to have a pandemic treaty and amendments
to existing international health regulations.
According to those, if they were enacted at the time,
if there is an emergency anywhere in the world, the WHO could come in,
evaluate it and say, this is of concern, but now that it's a concern,
we're going to close this area.
You're going to have to use this type of therapeutics.
You're going to have to use this type of diagnostic tests,
and vaccines are going to be our way out of this.
Many countries did not like these negotiations, and along the way, last May, they were not
able to pass the pandemic treaty, but it did change the amendments to international health
regulation that gave them opportunities for more surveillance, more involvement in the
health around the world, and more control.
So President Trump, when he came into office on Thursday, signed the executive order for
us to exit the World Health Organization and now, and here we are, right?
Well and so that exiting though, how did he have the air cover to do that?
Well you have to realize that the funding of the World Health Organization changed along
the way.
Initially it was funded by the member countries and then more NGOs got involved and currently
These past several years, the United States was one of their biggest funders.
So President Trump, being a business person, didn't like the response that the War Health
Organization gave us during the pandemic, doesn't like the fact that we've been giving
them a lot of money, and this money is not being spent where it should be spent.
And his first administration wanted to exit the War Health Organization, started the process.
When Biden got in, he stopped that process.
So the first thing that President Trump did is again started exiting the War Health Organization.
And we have experts here like Dr. Malone who can talk more about why the world really didn't
understand and didn't like the way the War Health Organization responded to the pandemic.
They lied about the origins.
they try to cover certain things,
and employing this whole vaccine around the world
has not panned out the way they wanted.
Well, to me, one of the most astonishing things
was watching in February of 2020, the WHO say,
oh, we can't stop flights from China.
That would be racist.
Or think of the impact on trade.
That's the WTO's position.
Those were really, like, hard to understand.
Like, as you look back on it,
like where were those decisions coming from?
They don't make sense from a health standpoint.
They don't, but if you look at the relationship
between the Tedros Gabriels,
who is the director of the World Health Organization
and the CCP, you start understanding.
And also you have to look at the funding again.
Funding is extremely important
because there are Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation,
Gabby Foundation, you have all these NGOs
for influencing their responses.
Good. All right.
Well, Dr. Malone, do we need a World Health Organization
of some sort?
So that's a great question, Chris.
Is there a valid function for the WHO,
and are we just seeing an example
of chronic mission creep, which I think is the case?
There's been a historic need for an entity
to adjudicate public health issues
between sovereign nation states.
This goes back to the days of sailing ships
and transmissible disease that might be brought
into harbors by sailing ships.
And there's a number of kind of gaps when you look
at the relationship of sovereign nation states as it relates
to infectious disease, it can be spread
as you're mentioning correctly, now we have these amazing aluminum tubes
that inject infectious disease into nation states called jet planes.
And so there is a need for an organization to facilitate
and adjudicate these relationships to set up norms for interactions
between sovereign nation states and to serve
as we could call it nonpartisan or nonbiased mediator
of policy on international basis.
The WHO, remember WHO is a branch of UN
and WHO has been transformed
into a activist political organization in many ways,
particularly under Gabriels, but really before that,
I think Margaret was at Chan before Gabriels,
who was also had ties back to the CCP.
We have a longstanding history of kind
of incremental corruption of the WHO.
Now, you mentioned that I should touch on,
I'm just recently back from Rome where I was supporting a initiative,
among other things, to a petition by the people of Italy
to have the fairly recent pediatric vaccine mandates rescinded.
And in that context, I had the opportunity to meet
with two whistleblowers, one representing the union
of police across all of Italy that had been harmed by
or otherwise refused to take the COVID products,
the gene therapy, Klaus vaccines.
And the other one was a senior public health official
with the Brothers of Italy party.
This is Giorgio Malone's party that had recently left the party
and joined another party and so felt unburdened by the past
to speak about what he had observed.
And what he shared was an amazing granular story
that traced the relationships, particularly between Tony Fauci,
GSK, the public health infrastructure in Italy,
which is very much driven by individual cantons
or whatever they call themselves, the equivalent of our states,
and flowed back to the WHO.
So there was a discrete linkage built having to do
with money flowing from WHO into Italian public health.
And then these Italian public health entities basically became a
liaison between the United States,
particularly with Tony Fauci and his relationships back to Italy
where he is right now in Siena working with GSK and BioNTech.
They have major plants for innovation and development
of additional mRNA products.
So that's, he's physically there right now at the camp
in the United States.
And this whole kind of subtle matrix had been built
over decades that tied, they created these informal ties
between industry, public health, particularly in Italy, the WHO,
and the industry and the flow of public policy.
And those are things that are not really understood.
No, there's been nothing in the U.S. press.
There's been no disclosures about this.
So I advocate that when bureaucracies
and organizations grow to exceed their mandate,
which is what has clearly happened with the WHO,
then we only have a couple of options that are tried
and tested and proven.
One is to cut back on the organization
that has exceeded its mandate.
And this is also happening within HHS right now and there's a lot
of tooth gnashing and consternation about this.
But the classic strategy in business reorganization,
because that's really kind of what we're talking about.
It's a massive large scale business organization
or hostile takeover problem.
You cut back beyond the need.
And then immediately start hiring and growing
to redirect the organization in a new orientation.
So that would be one strategy if we were to decide that if the United States or NATO
or a U.S. led allied organization were to provide leadership right now
in this situation where WHO is in crisis
because they have a billion plus dollar deficit right now,
not just the consequence of Trump, but the consequence
of fiscal mismanagement.
There is now a window of opportunity for U.S. leadership
to step in and say, okay, you have
to undergo major restructuring, refocusing on your core mission
for the U.S. to define what that core mission,
that minimal core mission needs to be
so that it's no longer imposing top-down solutions
on sovereign nation states, and the other alternative is
to start to build an alternative structure,
a different thing other than the WHO, which can then be used
to replace the WHO.
Those are the two classic solutions for reorganization
in a time like that, and with that,
I don't want to take any more time, but those are my thoughts
about how we might proceed at this point.
Great. Thank you.
Thank you.
So, one, crush it and rebuild it.
to give it some competition, but you're saying there is a need
because we have these aluminum tubes injecting things
around the world, right?
Just so.
Yeah, and I mean, infectious disease is real.
It's obviously weaponized to support a variety of agendas.
I kind of popularized the term fear porn or the concept
of psychological bioterrorism,
which is actively being used to advance commercial interests,
including the interests of the WHO.
We have to stop, we have to make it clear
that that's not acceptable behavior.
But I do think that there is a long-standing need
for some non-state adjudicator.
And it would be irresponsible to just say,
we can all handle everything in a series
of bilateral relationships.
Yeah.
May I? I know I'm going to.
Okay. I think there is a third solution,
and I'm not an expert, but I've been thinking about this a lot.
If there is something happening in the world, we do have ways
of communications with those governments
and giving them direct help.
Because my issue is with creating another structure as WHO,
It will be fine, first 10 years is great, maybe even 20.
Give them 30, they're going to come to the same problem.
It's, I agree with you.
Yep. Yep.
So. So. So, well, we're talking about wanting
to do the right things.
I can't think of anybody better to pitch the ball to next
than Dr. Lindsay to talk about why we're not going
to do the right things because it's a mind virus problem.
We have the COVID hunter over here.
We have the mind virus hunter over here.
So and any other reflections you have on at this point,
but how do we begin to actually effectuate change when there's
so much resistance to doing the right things?
So my general hypothesis is that if we're going to effect change,
we have to actually understand the real problem that we face.
If we misunderstand the problem, we're going to do the wrong thing.
I think there's an old Polish proverb in medicine or something
that's don't attempt to cure the disease until you understand it
or something to that effect.
It probably sounds good in Polish and I probably ruined it,
but never attempt to cure what you don't understand,
was actually the statement.
And so why am I here?
I don't have a background in medicine.
I don't have a background in public health.
I don't have the slightest idea about either of those things.
I studied totalitarian ideologies and what we have learned
over the past five years, if not before,
is that public health is a very ready vehicle for totalitarianism.
It's not necessarily totalitarian.
It's not intrinsically totalitarian
as Robert was just explaining.
But it has, as Kat pointed out, it is a really great vehicle.
Of course, we remember from the French Revolution
that it was the Committee for Public Safety
that was the one cutting everybody's head off.
We just went through some public safety here.
And so what I see is whether we use communism or fascism
or technocracy or oligarchy as the model.
Oligarchy is not quite totalitarian
but the others tend to be.
It doesn't really matter.
All of these are programs for concentrating as much money
and as much power in the smallest number of hands possible.
So what we have to do if we're going to move forward looking
at this is we've got to start having some very honest
conversations about the limits of public health and its ability
to curtail individual liberties.
That's individual liberties of doctors
in healthcare practitioners in making their own diagnoses
and prescriptions, that's what can you mandate in terms
of public health policy on individuals?
What are individuals allowed to refuse?
The key question, by the way, to test
for totalitarianism is always what do you do
with people who say no?
And if they can't answer that question well, and I urge you
to apply that test to as much as you can, what are you going
to do with people who say no?
If they don't have a good answer to that question
that preserves their individual rights and dignity,
then they don't have a viable answer for us to go forward.
I think that we're going to have to work to distinguish
between what we might call public health and population health,
and I'm just kind of spinning a term.
But when we look at broad statistics,
like Dr. Merrick was talking about, about vitamin D,
that's a population health question.
That gives broad basis for making recommendations,
but it doesn't give authority for commanding everybody
to take an experimental gene therapy, for example,
if it were a different product.
We've got to be able to start to distinguish
between population health statements
and public health executive mandates.
I think that's going to be very important.
And I think this is what I most want to communicate,
is that we've got to deal with the propaganda environment.
The psychological warfare, as Dr. Malone brought up,
is extraordinarily important.
There are other contenders on the table,
but COVID-19 very well may have been
the largest psychological operation
ever deployed on humanity.
I think that's probably true.
And it was extraordinarily successful.
You all have friends and relatives and so on
that you can't even talk to anymore.
Our countries have been torn apart as a result of this.
And the fact of the matter is that this was done deliberately using the fear porn
or the psychological bioterrorism of the true infectious disease
that was circulating.
So you have a disease, it could be any disease, it doesn't matter what,
but it was way beyond the mandates of our governments,
our media apparatuses to work in lockstep to convey this messaging
that was not just designed to scare the crap out of people,
but was designed in an explicitly Maoist way
to polarize the population and to catch stragglers.
If the psychology here is really brilliant is
that you demonize the so-called resistors
so that you can get the people
who are hesitating to get on board.
This is where you had President Biden saying it was going
to be a pandemic of the unvaccinated.
The idea with totalitarian Maoist policy is
that you set some utopian vision.
When everybody has done the thing, get the vaccine,
wears a mask, stays at home for 10 months, whatever it is.
When everybody does the thing,
something really great will happen
or the awful thing will go away.
And then, well, it's not happening.
And it's because this group is so bad.
So if you're hesitating, you need to get on board
and everybody needs to punish the group that's not
getting involved.
That's the dynamic.
I called that speaking at the International Crisis Summit
with Robert a couple of years ago in DC, I guess one year ago in DC,
I called it the politics of compliance.
And we have to set a strong statement
that public health does not have within its purview,
whether it's international or local or federal,
does not have within its purview the capacity to engage in the politics
of compliance on a population scale like that ever again.
And that's going to require us to deal with things
like the modernization of the Smith-Munt Act that was done
in 2012 here in the United States that allows propaganda
to be delivered to the American people.
We're going to have to deal with this propaganda environment,
I think, to prevent it.
So to go forward, we need to understand it was deliberate.
We need to understand that it was totalitarian in nature.
In other words, aiming to concentrate as much money
and as much power in the smallest number of hands possible.
And it was using absolutely abhorrent psychological
and sociological methods that we cannot tolerate going forward
if we're going to prevent this kind of manipulation
or this kind of control to be executed on us again.
Excellent.
Thank you.
That's really good.
Yeah, Robert.
One small point I wish I'd made before
in James' comments, bring it forward.
I think one major policy position has to be
that public health should not be in a position
of setting public policy.
Public policy should be made by elected officials.
And that is one of the major transgressions that's occurred here.
And it's at the core of what you were talking about in terms
of the international health regulations
and the pandemic policy treaty that was attempted,
is that Gabrielsos was trying to put himself in a position
of being globally in charge of setting policy.
And he's unelected and unaccountable.
And somehow we've got to make it clear that the establishment
of policy, whether it's domestically
in the United States or internationally,
is the purview of individuals that are representative
of their people.
And it should not be vested, these rights should not be vested
in public health officers.
Over.
with the Chevron deference here in the US.
You're saying equivalently.
Chevron deference is a great example of this kind of policy
in action where.
Explain that quickly for people who might not.
Okay. I'm sorry.
Well, I want to give time for my room, but so the concept
of Chevron deference comes out of a court case
in the United States, went to the Supreme Court.
It had some kind of hazy background
as to how it even happened.
that basically the agencies of the executive branch were assumed
by the courts, verified by the Supreme Court
to be the ultimate experts in whatever their domain was.
And so you had to defer to the, the courts would defer to the expertise
of the agencies in establishing policy decisions.
And this was rescinded last year by the current court with the,
the derivative of that position was that a very large body
of administrative law that was created by Fiat
by these administrative agencies without explicit endorsement
by Congress, who's the only one empowered to make law,
now needs to be rolled back and rescinded.
And that's that you're making an analogy
that likewise is the case globally,
that there has been a policy of allowance of this kind
of mission creep throughout UN and WHO
and all the other related agencies
that they are considered to be the experts.
We saw this in the press where the policy was
that if you were, if Cat was saying something that differed
from the official statements of the WHO at that point in time
because the WHO flip-flopped all over the place,
but if Cat made a statement that varied from the official statements
of the WHO or the CDC at that point in time,
then she was determined to be this special category of evil
of a spreader of misinformation.
That's how that was reinforced.
That loops back to James' propaganda.
Over.
Yep, thank you.
So, Dr. Bridal, we just heard
that there was maybe some propaganda and some isms
that sort of sprang up.
You're from Canada.
What are your thoughts here?
I have to say, as a representative of Canada, I stood in our federal parliament building
four years ago, and when I was there, I was talking about the bio-distribution data that
I'd seen from a study that I found on the Japanese health regulatory website.
And I was asked to speak in our federal parliament about that science, but specifically about
the censorship of experts that was occurring, any experts
that dissented against the narrative.
And I remember looking at that time and at the flag
and a Canadian flag and saying
that I didn't recognize the country that I lived in anymore.
And it just got worse.
As bad as it was then, it just got worse.
I know you guys had it very bad, everybody did around the world.
There's no question you had it bad in the United States,
but I'll tell you Canada, New Zealand,
and Australia competed hard to try
and implement the most draconian policies you can ever imagine.
And it just continues to get worse
and the narrative just keeps expanding
to all their aspects of life.
I mean, we had, we didn't even have a working government
for several months until very recently.
And for those of you who may not know,
we now have a new Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister was not elected by Canadians.
But the former one that we had, I mean, it just got so bad
that he saw his party had no chance of survival
if he didn't step down.
Justin Trudeau promoted hatred, and he promoted division,
like you would not believe, and it was horrible.
But as bad as he was for Canada, just so you understand,
Mark Carney, who is currently running Canada, is worse.
All right, worse.
You need to understand that, and you need to understand,
it's very important because usually we look
to the United States, especially when it comes to health,
and we often follow suit with what the United States is doing.
But I'm quite concerned right now because in Canada, I mean,
we are on the verge of becoming a full-blown state run
by global organizations, right?
We're married to the World Economic Forum.
We're married to the World Health Organization.
We're very closely married to these organizations.
And they're dictating what Canada does.
They're dictating all of our policies.
And we have an election coming up in a few weeks.
and it's very frightening because for three and a half years,
for almost four years, 100%, I guarantee
that if we had an election during that timeframe,
we would have gone in the same direction as you did here
in the United States towards a conservative government.
Now it's up in the air and it's scary.
I don't understand.
Canadians are at risk of embracing everything that was
done to them for the past five years.
Just embracing it and continuing and giving a stamp
of approval on all that.
I, you know, we don't know exactly where it's going to go.
We're going to find out.
But if we do, I can guarantee we will be well on our way
down the road towards being a puppet state,
a true puppet state.
And what concerns me is even
if we do have a governmental change in Canada,
we have nobody on the horizon, nobody anywhere close
to an RFK junior.
So I don't see us being able to make that kind of change.
And the thing that is of concern to me is I also see signs
that we're starting to look away from the United States.
Our government has become very oppositional
with the United States, and we're starting
to look towards Europe for further guidance
on things, including for health.
So I hope that changes, and I want you to understand
as Americans here, as oppositional,
our government has become at least half
of Canadians are in 100% agreement
with what you're doing here, and especially when it comes
to health and where you're taking public health here
in the United States, and we support you, and we're desperate
for that kind of change in Canada.
So my takeaway, thank you for that, Canada, Australia, New Zealand,
so all I take from that is that if you have the queen or the king
on your money, you're in trouble.
Is there something to that though?
Is there something in that original colony
like the UK influence?
Like where does this come from?
Oh yeah, I mean you've seen
that in the United Kingdom very clearly, right?
That's where it comes from as well, absolutely.
Yeah, I think there's some real issues with how you've nailed it.
Yeah, because the UK, just to pine on it for a second,
really seems to be sliding into some sort of cultural despair
and dismemberment at this point.
Yeah, that's very important.
So I'm going to give you one example of this accident,
because that hits on something that's extremely important.
And right now, I can tell you, some of the division that's
happening between Canada and the United States
actually revolves around that.
This whole idea of being a melting pot
versus multiculturalism.
And in Canada right now, we're really
promoting that your approach is wrong, right, and that our approach and the
approach is common to the UK and these other places is correct. Let me just give
you an example of the kind of stuff that this leads to. So we have had these
horrific protests happening, right, where people have been smashing windows,
burning vehicles, I mean causing all kinds of damage in protest, right, while
promoting genocide of Israel. And at the same time in these protests promoting
slurs against Canada, right, and these are occurring in Canada. And then just
yesterday, just yesterday, the two organizers for the trucker convoy in
Canada, right, and that was a movement that was felt and observed and made a
lot of positive movement around the world. The two organizers for that, that
is, I was there, that was one of the most peaceful, family-friendly protests you
could ever be at, and the organizers just got charged and court yesterday found
guilty of multiple, multiple charges.
And meanwhile, we have these kind of protest-proning genocide
and anti-Canada sentiment, and those go unpunished.
Yeah, so, I mean, I want to get to the Psy-op in Psy Wars,
Robert in a second, but first, Kat, on this idea
of rule-making bodies making laws, right?
That's what the last pandemic, the who treaty was,
that's what they were trying to push through,
that they would have real power, enforcement power.
What was at stake there, and what did they almost get away with?
Well, as James said, they tried to use public health
to control the health around the world,
but really to control all of us.
You have to look at this from geopolitical point of view.
You have to look at the European Union.
You have to look at United Nations back for the future.
You have to look at WHO.
All of this is intertwined.
What's happening in Canada, we just saw Marine Le Pen
in France being charged.
Giogescu in Romania, popular vote won, cannot be in elections.
You have the German populist party that won their elections,
but they're being persecuted.
It's happening, especially in Europe and UK with Keir Starmer,
all their censorship policies that are happening,
people getting arrested if they're talking in WhatsApp group
about the health of their children or concerns they have.
So now you have United States.
Many of you kind of know my story.
I come from a communist country and I speak about this beacon
of hope around the world.
And that's what we're becoming again.
Whether you like where we're going, where Trump 2.0 is going,
but it's become a light again
because you're seeing this totalitarianism overtake
of the world, and you see it everywhere.
I was in Europe just past week, met with several people from Europe.
This is the first time I actually, and I go all the time to Europe.
The first time I felt despair, and there was someone from Germany
who was talking about what's happening to her in Germany,
and she said, all of a sudden you're seeing east and west,
and east wants to become east again.
They don't want to be part of the West Germany anymore.
So I think what's happening around the world really has
to concern us and what did World Health Organization try
to do with pandemic treaty and amendments is actually try
to become the vehicle for United Nations and other globalists
to control our way of life.
So we must remain this beacon of hope.
That's really the only light in the world right now
and I'm being a little bit, you know, emotional.
But it is true for people like me who come
from these totalitarian backgrounds.
You have to realize this freedom is the most important thing
for survival of humanity.
And we're going to lose it if we don't fight back.
So this is a really important framing and I want to just settle
on it for just a second in our time remaining.
So Robert, because the, James made a really good point,
which is that health is the vehicle for totalitarianism
because right now in America the only power,
the only authority I know that has the power to take me,
declare me unfit to be out in public
and hold me against my will without charge
or representation would be a psychiatrist, right?
And yeah, and we saw that in hospitals in COVID,
you did not have the right to attend to your dying relative
or even have an input into how they were treated.
That's tyranny.
So is all of COVID and the WHO, can we just sort of subsume this
under an idea that this was a convenient way
for the totalitarians to get their way?
Is that what we're talking about here?
So I'm trying to put together a concise way to respond
to your comment that is easy to understand.
The underlying the observation that public health is a convenient vehicle
under which to advance totalitarianism is the question,
why is it a convenient vehicle?
And what are its characteristics?
And I think the key characteristic is fear.
It's, and it's truly, this term is often overused, existential fear.
What does that mean?
Fear, basically the fear of death.
And it is one of the most powerful fears that we as human beings have.
And it's been learned experience that that fear can be readily exploited using a
a variety of ancient, you know, going back to Sun Tzu
and modern technologies and plus the advantages of the internet,
that fear of death can be conveniently weaponized
to advance almost any initiative or agenda that you seek to advance.
And so you can rationalize all these policies like, for instance,
the prohibition against attending one's relatives
in the hospital as necessary and sufficient in order
to mitigate the risk of death and your fear of death.
And it is so powerful because it speaks to this fundamental kind
of lizard brain reaction that we all have
that we don't want to die.
And in a way, the only way to circumvent that is
to recognize there are worse things than death.
But the sphere of death is actively exploited, is weaponized,
and it is what underpins the utility of public health
as a tool in order to advance these top-down authoritarian measures.
Over.
And in closing, so, James, let's connect that there's physical death,
but these people, whoever these totalitarians are,
reputational deaths, career deaths, they hit us on all sorts
of fronts, didn't they?
Yeah, I mean, been there, done that, and I think a lot of other people
in the room probably have as well.
So those are, the fear of death is probably one
of the very highest that humans have, but I think it's actually,
I don't know the data on this, it may actually be higher
that people have the fear of what amounts to excommunication
or being cast out to be rendered alone.
And so that's easily exploited
by what they called cancel culture.
Cancel culture is what the communists called a purge.
It's all the undesirable elements are going to be thrown
out of respectable society,
sections of influence or whatever.
And this is actually what we experienced.
This was a large part of the vehicle.
This was a large part of why they constructed the politics
of compliance the way that they did.
There was going to be professional consequences.
There was going to be social ostracization
if you didn't go along with the mandated policies.
And I just urge us to remember that this is the tool of tyrants.
This is what Mao Zedong did probably with the highest level
of sophistication of any tyrant in history.
And the consequence wasn't so much, in fact,
he did murder a lot of people, but it wasn't
that he murdered a lot of people.
It was that he ended up creating a society
that couldn't function, and he ended up starving,
maybe as many as 100 million or more people because
of his dysfunctional society that he created.
Because when you start to get to this situation,
people in their self-preservation refuse
to ask questions, they refuse to say unpopular things
or uncomfortable things.
The self-censorship extends from the censorship
and the punishment for violation.
And this is the kind of thing Byram's talking
about in Canada now.
I've seen this a lot with my Canadian friends.
People are afraid to speak up.
I'm getting asked, is it time to leave Canada?
I told people it's time to leave Canada four years ago.
Nobody listened to me.
There's a James Lindsay is right jar waiting for you outside
if you need it.
drop a little money in it but but you're just back from New Zealand I am saw the
worm turn this is true so yeah thank you for reminding me I did go to New Zealand
so just like I'm not a public health expert or a doctor or a scientist I'm
also not a Kiwi and so I will speak about their experience for you I will
bring you their experience secondhand when I was there I was shocked to find
out that we all know as Byron said that that there was a competition between the
Commonwealth countries to be the worst possible.
And Jacinda Ardern, their former prime minister,
was very useful for Americans as an example to point
out of how bad it could get.
She was really terrible.
She probably was the worst.
She probably exceeded Canada,
despite the competition Trudeau gave her.
The fact is, though, that she is, this is what I discovered,
extraordinarily unpopular,
despite having been a very nice lady, as she's described,
very personable, a lot of friends.
She's no longer in New Zealand.
And what I was told, point blank,
is she's not welcome back in our country.
A recent popularity poll has raised a bit
of a mystery in New Zealand.
I guess it's within error margins,
whoever the statisticians are.
Byron or something can go figure this out,
and they can double check the data.
But this is what I was told.
This is very secondhand information.
But they said there was recently an opinion poll.
What is the approval rating of Jacinda Ardern?
In retrospect, and her approval rating came back mysteriously.
This is a number between zero and 100, right?
It came back as negative two.
And so this is an enormously hopeful moment to see that even in New Zealand where the
people are not particularly known for their backbone, they are known for their Kiwi ingenuity,
or eight wire, they call it.
They're not known for their backbone.
Even there, with the kiwi bird, as they said,
that's the worst bird.
There's no natural defenses, nothing.
Even that is their national emblem.
No eagle, no screeching, you know, badger or something.
No, a kiwi bird.
Even there, they have utterly rejected the totalitarian policy
and it has caused a national shift
to where I'm quite convinced that of the English-speaking nations,
and I'm sorry, Byron, that it will be New Zealand who is first
to join the United States in making a real pushback.
All right, and thank you for that.
And I thought that was too important.
We ran just a little bit long.
But thank you very much to this panel.
That was fantastic.
Hunt them down, ask them questions if you have them.
I'm sure you do, but thank you.
We're the same
