IN this second set of edited extracts from Mike Adams’s interview with Dr David Martin (which you can watch here), attention turns to the ‘paradigm shift’ in Western government (from democracy to oppression), in the minds and consciousness of voting populations, and the agenda behind this change.
They conclude with Martin’s analysis of the unique nature of China’s global economic – and therefore political – power.
Mike Adams: I want to bring your attention to Australia and New Zealand in particular, where the people, the citizens of these many nations, and this includes Canada, the United States, UK, France, Germany, Spain and so on, the citizens who once saw their government as their protectors are now coming to realise that, at least in this context, in this overreach of power right now, that their governments are acting more like, really, terrorists or enemies or oppressors.
Australia, I think, is the best example. In New South Wales state, you’re only allowed one hour of exercise. If you’re going to have a visitor to your home, you have to register with the government to have permission for a visitor.
These were unthinkable even 18 months ago, but they are here now. So what do you think this means for, you know, is a tipping point about to be reached? The governments are no longer seen as protectors by an increasing number of people. What are your thoughts on that?
Dr David Martin: Well, I’ve said many of us failed to take note of these things as they were introduced. Australia is a wonderful example. I’m going to unpack it because as you probably know, Mike, I had the good fortune of living there with my wife Kim and my daughter Sienna for a couple of years.
We lived in New South Wales and we lived in Victoria. What we found was that during the period of time from 2016 to 2018, for reasons that were not entirely transparent, the Australian government was passing laws that were very clearly draconian control and suppression laws about the ability to surveil their citizens, the ability to actually intrude into personal computers, into cell phones and all sorts of things.
All these surveillance tools, all under the name of what we did back after 2001, after 9/11, where we saw things like the Patriot Act and we saw other things get into legislation which in fact marched in on the civil liberties. But in Australia, it was more draconian.
The fact is that in Australia, what effectively were like the sedition-type laws were extended to any time you say something nasty about the government, no matter what it is.
You could just be upset, you could be frustrated, you have a legitimate concern. It wouldn’t matter. And they extended it, Mike, back then to the press. They made it abundantly clear that they were going to chase any media source that actually was even investigating the government.
So this was 2016, ’17 and ’18. I hosted a cyber-security conference in Melbourne in 2017. And you would not believe the number of egregious violations of human rights that were clearly spoken and nobody raised their hand.
So what frustrates me is most of us kind of did nothing when we saw all of these liberties undermined. And now we’re harvesting from a tree that was planted years ago and we’re saying, ‘Oh my gosh, we don’t like the pears, we don’t like the apples.’
Well, guess what? They planted those apples and pears and we did nothing. And so, in the case of Australia, if you look at how many laws allow the government to do warrantless search and seizure, the ability to hack into your personal information, the ability to control your movement, all of those things are not an overreach of the law.
It’s actually where the law went and the public didn’t know it was going there until now it’s being enforced. And that’s a real wake-up call for all of us. We must have greater vigilance over what we think are incrementally irrelevant steps that the government takes, only to find out after the fact that these are ‘architected’ to build a pathway to get to this level of organised crime.
Adams: There are many people who say that Australia has fallen and that the people no longer have any means to take back their country. Of course, they also gave up their Second Amend – well, gun rights – we call it Second Amendment, but gun rights in Australia, many years ago.
In my opinion, it appears that countries like Australia are preparing for mass executions of dissenters or people who don’t go along with the agenda.
And I know to some people that might sound like a pretty crazy statement, but you know what? Things that sounded crazy 18 months ago are not that crazy any more because a lot of them are happening. But where do you think this is ultimately going with Australia or New Zealand?
Martin: Well, bear in mind that Australia lost its sovereignty to China many years ago. And I say that both literally and metaphorically. You can’t go into an airport in Australia and not see – particularly in places like Melbourne – as many signs in Chinese as you see in English. That should tell you something.
When you go to look at the real estate market, you see that the vast majority of real estate in the major investment markets are being acquired by the Chinese. But that’s just the last icing on a cake that started with the dependency that the Australian government allowed to unfold, where somewhere between 70 and 80 per cent of the entire export interaction with the world from Australia happens to be with one counter-party, China.
When the only money you’re making, the only thing that’s supporting your GDP, is a single country, guess whose wills you bend to? You bend to that country.
And I’ve said this, by the way, in Australian audiences, much to the chagrin of the government there – that Australia was taken over a long time ago. It’s only now that we’re seeing the evidence of it.
But let’s go to that second part of your question, which is a much more dark question. And that question is, what’s really the agenda?
Well, the fact of the matter is, and I’ve made this statement very, very frequently, you cannot manufacture a bioweapon and not say that you’re trying to kill people. That’s what a bioweapon is for.
And the weaponisation of the coronavirus, which officially started in 1999 when Anthony Fauci came up with this brilliant idea that he could come up with an ‘infectious, replication defective’ – and those are the actual words used – form of coronavirus.
And he paid researchers at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He paid researchers there to invent a pathogen that did not exist. That’s the reason why I’m very careful with the language that I used.
You’ll notice I’m not saying a virus and I’m not saying a vaccine for good reason. We are not talking about a virus, we are talking about an engineered pathogen.
We are not talking about a vaccine. We are talking about the introduction of a computer-simulated code in the form of mRNA, but it’s a computer-simulated code not to stimulate your immune system, but to turn your body into a factory producing S1 spike proteins similar to those found in coronavirus.
Slow that tape down and listen to it again. Exactly what I said. You’re not injecting a piece of a virus. You’re not injecting a viral fragment. You are injecting a code to make your body produce a pathogen. And then you’re hoping – and that’s all you’re doing – you’re hoping that the pathogen your body produces also elicits an immune response.
But this is structurally so important for people to understand: the code that is injected into your body between January 12 and January 20 of 2020, that code was uploaded from a simulated server that was a simulation of the spike protein mRNA.
And it was given to the Vaccine Research Council and Kizzy Corbett said, the doctor who made this stuff at the various CDC, and I’m quoting from her interview with Francis Collins: ‘It’s really cool because you don’t even need much of a lab. You build one of these on your computer at home.’ That’s an admission of biological warfare.
Adams: This is extraordinary what you’re laying out, and yet it’s also extraordinary, the cognitive dissonance that so many mainstream doctors have where you explain that to them, as you just did, and they will say, ‘No, that couldn’t be,’ or all kinds of justifications or excuses for not believing that.
But you ask them, ‘What is the antigen target that’s described by the mRNA instructions?’ And they’ll have to (inaudible), ‘Oh, it’s the spike protein, you know, subunit.’
And then you ask them, ‘What are the vascular effects of the spike protein subunit?’ And if they’ve done any research, ‘Well, it causes widespread vascular damage.’ So how can you not realise that these are instructions to tell the body to build pathogenic particles that will cause harm? How can they . . . how can they not see that?
Martin: Well, it’s wilful ignorance in this case, because what they know is that because of the regulatory capture and the most recent form of this probably can be laid at the feet of Obama, but we cannot put it at Obama’s feet alone because this has been going on during the Bush administration, it was going on preceding that.
So we can’t make this an Obama-only story, but we can certainly say that Obamacare and the union federation and consolidation of healthcare into managed care structures certainly crescendoed with what happened with Obama.
But I want to go back to 2001, because this one lays at the feet of George Bush and in 1986 lays at the feet of Ronald Reagan. We’ve got to remember that there’s equal opportunity for accountability on this thing. And we have to be honest with it, because this is not one party or the other that got it right. This is actually a fundamental failure of our government system.
But let’s go back and do exactly what you said. What has happened is that we have, in fact, turned healthcare, in the main, in America into, essentially, the retail front door of the pharmaceutical industry.
Go to any clinic, go to any doctor, go to any physician anywhere and try to get out the door without being told that you need something for something. And I don’t care what the something is. You know, I’m 54. I cycle a lot, I have an unbelievable passion for vitality, I have a commitment to nutrition, I actually have a commitment to getting, are you ready for this – sun, solar exposure.
I’m actually a guy who, God forbid, researched vitamin D as a part of my clinical research back in the early 90s. The reason why I’m a big fan of getting some sun is because I actually see the good that it does.
I am all about vitality. And the number of times I’ve had to fire my internal medicine doctor, which, by the way, the only reason I even have an internal medicine doctor is because as the CEO of a corporation, I had a board that insisted that they insure me for what was called a key man insurance policy.
I sat down with this physician, and he lost his mind. He lost his mind about where I travelled. Didn’t I know that there’s malaria there? Didn’t I know there’s cholera there? Didn’t I know there’s tuberculosis there?
And my response was always the same. ‘And there are people there, and I work with the people that are there.’ I joke about it, but that’s the problem.
The problem is if you see the world through the lens of, ‘it’s out to get you’, right? And it’s the disease that’s going to get you. It’s the chemical that’s going to get you, it’s this that’s going to get you, it’s that.
If you see the world as organised in a framework that’s out to get you, then it’s not surprising that you can then sell the public on this illusion that somehow or another everything’s out to get you and you need to take 10,000 different things to protect you from the thing that’s going to get you.
My view is simple. I think we are, in fact, a mysteriously, wondrously complex, beautiful organism. And I think we have been, once again using metaphors that I grew up with, created in an image, in a likeness of God.
You know what? I don’t have a vaccine port somewhere on my body. I didn’t come with a catheter to inject or pull out. I don’t have this colostomy bag option just in case, I actually have a sphincter that works. That’s what I have.
Adams: I had one more follow-up question for you about Australia and the current communist Chinese takeover of that entire region.
I lived for one summer in Manly, Australia, in 1988. I was still not out of high school at the time, but I spent a summer there with my father, who was doing work for Qantas Airlines, a computer analyst guy.
And in talking with the locals there, I learned that there was a Japanese invasion that was happening at that time. And then later on, I learned that that was because the real estate bubble in Tokyo in particular allowed the counterfeit creation of real estate assets that provided liquidity to Japanese citizens who then took that, quote, money.
They leveraged it, and they were mass purchasing real estate throughout Australia and the Philippines and other areas. Now, then, the Tokyo market, the Nikkei collapsed in 1989. I don’t remember which day exactly. And then this entire invasion collapsed also. Suddenly they had to sell everything. And by the way, even, in that time, the Japanese were purchasing Hollywood studios.
So my question to you, sir, is there’s been a lot of talk that the Chinese communist regime is actually also propped up on a financial bubble. A lot of it’s just bluster and that there could be even, perhaps, a political revolution or an economic collapse in China that would collapse this expansionary colonisation effort. What are your thoughts on that?
Martin: When China was entering into the World Trade Organisation, I was asked by the Chinese government to be an accession adviser. All that means is you’re a foreign individual who can provide insight into what’s going on.
And the great news is that it put me in a lot of inside meetings of the Chinese Communist Party. I had the good fortune of meeting some really remarkable and amazing people.
I’ve always found that wherever I am in the world, I’ve always encountered good people and I’ve sometimes encountered really bad people. So I’m not good at throwing countries, by classification, under the bus.
But what I’ll tell you is this: China has a difference than Japan, for a very notable exception. And that’s why I tried to warn people. I did a speech that you can actually find on the Web in text form, called Ten Years Hence (that) I gave at the University of Notre Dame’s Mendoza College of Business.
It was my assertion that the Silk Road was going to re-emerge. What I said then was really important. And it addresses this point. The reason why what happened in Australia with Japan versus what’s happening in China with the Chinese interactions in Australia is that inside of the Australian economy is an internal countervailing force, which is very dangerous, and that is that China has come to rely on coal and steel.
And a lot of coal and steel. And an enormous amount of the economy of Australia is based on the exports that they make. If and when there’s any perturbation in the supply chain of either energy or steel into China, Australia will literally go bankrupt in the instant that happens.
That’s where the acquisition of land and the acquisition of real estate in Australia is quite dangerous, because if what happens is you have a supply agreement with a counter-party who has both political and economic gain from collapsing you, this time, you don’t just create a real estate problem in Australia, you create an existential problem where literally the economy of Australia can collapse entirely.
The reason why that is immune from the health of the Chinese economy is for the following reason. China, through its Belt and Road initiative has built so much of its own effective World Bank control.
What do I mean by that? What I mean is that if you go to the Maldives right now for holiday, the bridge that links the man-made island on which the airport operates to the capital, that bridge is built by, and owned by, and controlled by, China.
If you go to the ports in Pakistan, in Afghanistan, in parts of India, those ports are owned by and controlled by – you guessed it – China. If you go to Congo-Brazzaville in southern Africa, you’ll see that 60 per cent of the fields in the agriculture sector are owned by China.
What China has done is it’s actually created its own version of the World Bank. And if you go back and think about John Perkins Confessions of an Economic Hitman, where he talks about how the World Bank grew its footprint so that it effectively took over the world, which gave rise to organisations like the World Economic Forum and others, what you find is China’s done that on its own.
And now they have somewhere in the order of 86 or 87 bilateral agreements which say that even if they fail, they’re kind of still propped up with their alliances in all these trading partners.
So I’m more concerned about China over the long haul, even though it may experience these boom-bust cycles, because there is a lot of funny money, that’s very true. The downside of it is they’ve plugged that funny money into assets that they own around the world and that gives them an edge that Japan never had.