Monday, April 22, 2024
HomeCOVID-19The Delingpole file Part III: ‘Evil loses . . . but we...

The Delingpole file Part III: ‘Evil loses . . . but we have to keep fighting’


THIS is the last of three edited extracts from James Delingpole’s recent podcast interview with Mark Crispin Miller, professor of media studies at New York University, which you can hear in full here. 

The first part of their compelling discussion focused on the role of media in bringing our supposedly free society into such unthinking conformity and compliance. The second went into methods used for mass control of the population and the political and economic purse behind the campaign.

Today’s third part turns to the history of the eugenics and population control movement in the context of the Covid vaccination programme, the blatant coercion used to enforce policy, Miller’s own radical change of outlook and finally his misgivings about Donald Trump as the figure to challenge it.

Mark Miller: It is a mistake to think that this is purely driven by greed. I actually think that this is something more evil than that . . . the notion of requiring children to be injected with an experimental serum that is demonstrably lethally dangerous; a recent call by the CDC [the US Centers for Disease Control] to inject, particularly, pregnant mothers with this stuff? I’m sorry, but I am with Michael Yeadon on this. I am with these other real experts in saying that this looks like a depopulation effort, you know? And then if we step back and do a little study of the history of the eugenics movement from the late 19th century, a movement of which Adolf Hitler was an avid student . . . 

James Delingpole: And George Bernard Shaw, all the intellectuals of the day. 

Miller: Shaw, Wells, you know, Woodrow Wilson, W E B Du Bois, one of the greatest black intellectuals, they were eugenicists. You know, they believed in encouraging the fit to reproduce and discouraging the unfit from reproducing. Positive eugenics was simply about persuasion. Negative eugenics was about forced sterilisation and a kind of Malthusian tendency to welcome famine and disease amongst the have-nots. You know, this is a very crude economic . . . 

It was a very, very successful and pervasive pseudoscience that justified extreme racism and what people call anti-Semitism or Judeophobia. When Hitler took power, the eugenics movement was thrilled, they were delighted to see this – a movement subsidised by the Rockefellers and the Carnegies and other interests like that. Interests that never, never gave up. They never stopped, James. They welcomed Hitler’s rise. Then after the war, there is footage of the liberation of the death camps. And it was an oh-oh moment. It made eugenics look somewhat suspect, you know, that maybe, you know, putting a theory to the test so radically is not a good idea – not because it’s morally wrong, but because it’s so ugly. So they pulled back, they pulled back, and then they very quietly rebranded. And they rebranded themselves as a movement for population control. So now it’s about population control. The turning point as far as public visibility was concerned was the formation of the Population Council in 1952, which was a Rockefeller project . . .

And from then on, it was more and more cleverly greened, they greened the movement so that now it was a matter of saving Mother Earth, right – that’s why we have to cut the population. And so eugenics put on hippie drag, you know, and it was successful. Greta Thunberg is basically a eugenicist tool, they use her . . .

I kind of feel for her because what they’ve done is a kind of child abuse. Nevertheless, her . . . great grandfather, Svante Arrhenius, he invented the notion of global warming. And he was an avid eugenicist before the Nazi movement. Eugenics was huge in Sweden, even before the Nazis came along. There was a kind of grandiose racist mythology about the Swede, the perfect Swede. And I don’t think Sweden has ever come to terms with this. But it’s interesting that the man who kind of coined the climate change . . . he created that model. Right, that kind of grounds for discouraging development, he’s also somebody who was a eugenicist. I’ll just finish by closing the circle here. Bill Gates is really an outspoken eugenicist, you know, although he makes it sound palatable . . . But I just want to re-emphasise the importance of Gates, his own personal commitment to eugenics. His father, Bill Gates Snr, was on the board of Planned Parenthood, which Margaret Sanger founded, not purely out of feminism, but out of a kind of a rabid desire to cut the numbers of the world’s unfit. She’s explicit on this subject in her book, The Pivot of Civilisation. She was such an egregious eugenicist that even Planned Parenthood has had to officially disavow her . . . but the fact is she wanted to see Planned Parenthood abortion clinics all over black neighbourhoods. That is not a Right-wing fantasy. That’s a fact. And Bill Gates Snr was not a feminist. You know, Bill Gates senior was a Rockefeller intimate and a member of the elite. Bill Gates’s mother was connected to the Federal Reserve. That’s where this nerd comes from. And his function has been to make the idea of lessening the world’s population through vaccination seem kind of kindly and altruistically intended, because Gates managed to rebrand himself – again, speaking of propaganda – after his antitrust lawsuit, the Federal Government sued Microsoft for monopolistic practices, and rightly so, just as the government sued John D Rockefeller a century earlier for monopolistic practises with Standard Oil. And just as Rockefeller rebranded himself as a kindly altruist by forming a foundation after that litigation, so Gates did with the founding of the . . . the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, but Bill Gates Snr was its director. And there, just as Rockefeller was suddenly this kindly old guy handing out dimes to little girls . . . so has Bill Gates suddenly become. I mean, everybody regarded him as predation personified because his practices atop Microsoft were kind of shocking. This guy doesn’t have an altruistic bone in his body. He is really, you know, an embodiment of greed at its worst. Suddenly he’s got these pastel sweaters and he sounds like Kermit the Frog, you know, and he’s flapping his hands as he talks so earnestly. And there are all these neo-colonialist images of him and Melinda in darkest Africa. I mean, all he needs is a pith helmet on his head, you know, and a train of dark servants carrying his luggage behind. I mean, it’s straight out of the 19th century. It’s like one of Cecil Rhodes’s wet dreams, you know what I’m saying? And people are saying, ‘Oh, isn’t he kind, isn’t he good? Ooh, there he is giving an oral vaccine to a little black baby. Oh, he’s so good. Those Africans really need him.’ Oh, Lord. I mean, it works, James, it works. It works. You know, it works if you just don’t keep your head and, you know, look . . . direct your gaze away from the screen, you know, and stop reading the New York Times and look elsewhere, read some history, you know? We can’t put the blame entirely on the good Germans, right. Because it’s not only the media, no, it’s the universities, it’s schools, too, from kindergarten on up through graduate school. 

Delingpole: You were making me think there, I mean, you know, this is not an original thought, but that maybe the real most evil man of the 20th century was Edward Bernays.

Miller: Bear in mind that being a really dedicated and extremely brilliant propagandist, he was also functioning in that way on his own behalf. And therefore cast himself as the sole possessor of the kind of nefarious wisdom we’re talking about. I guess I should recommend his classic Propaganda because, you know, my introduction to that edition is very helpful, putting the whole thing into context. I want to say, full disclosure here, you know, rereading that introduction recently, I was horrified to see that among the examples I adduced to make the point that propaganda need not be malevolent, you know, you wear your seatbelts, I included vaccination. This was 20 years ago or something, you know . . . 

Delingpole: We’re susceptible too. You know, this shit works. That is the whole point. There’s so many things I believed for most of my life that I now realise are wrong and probably evil. 

Miller: I had the same experience and I will continue to have it and you will continue to have it. That’s what it means to be a living, thinking being and not a pod, you know, like in Invasion of the Body Snatchers where you just never change your mind about anything. And this metamorphosis that we’re being forced through now has radically changed my outlook, radically. In a sense, I still regard myself as a member of the campus Left of the 60s. You know, we were against censorship. We were against war. We were against corporate power and sought to restrain it. You know, we believed in saving the planet. We were in favour of civil rights. You know, we were feminists. I don’t really see much wrong with that fundamental code of ethics or politics. I still subscribe to it. But I also realise that the conservatives have long possessed a certain wisdom that I reflexively rejected because of where it was coming from. They talked about freedom. They talked about the dangers of too much government control, they talked about that. And we took freedom for granted – words I never thought I would hear myself uttering, even privately. But we took freedom for granted. We took freedom of speech for granted, and we took freedom of religion for granted. Now we see religious holidays are being termed a terror threat. Now we see that pastor up in Canada who drove the Nazis – he called them the Gestapo – he drove the Canadian police from his church, quite rightly. He did it twice. Then they actually pulled his car over to the side of the highway, handcuffed him and dragged him into custody . . . This is a righteous man, you know? We didn’t think about religious freedom, if anything we thought it was for cranks. And I believe in the Second Amendment, too, ok? I never gave that a thought. And I discovered that George Orwell believed that every peasant, every worker should have a gun. And I think he was right. I believe in that. I think that if you don’t have an armed peasantry, you are very vulnerable. I think that the Port Arthur massacre in Australia was probably a PsyOp because it gave a huge push to the gun control movement in that country and . . . 

Delingpole: [speaking over] Do you mean the one in New Zealand?

Miller: Was that . . . yeah, New Zealand, I’m sorry. 

Delingpole: In the mosque.

Miller: That’s right. Maybe it was authentic, whatever it was used to give tremendous power to the gun control movement in both nations, both Australia and New Zealand. Now look at them. Now look at what’s happening to the people there. It is shocking. They’re going to take 24,000 kids into a sports stadium and inject them all and parents are not to come along, right? 

Delingpole: Yes, there’s a sort of unhappy historical echo, with sports stadiums, isn’t there? You think about the Jews in Paris being rounded up and sent to the velodrome. It chills me to the core. 

Miller: There’s a certain flagrancy to some of what they do. That it’s almost as if they’re deliberately showing their true colours to those of us who can see them.

Delingpole: You know how vampires can only enter your house if you give them permission? That’s the kind of folklore tradition . . . I think there’s a lot of evidence to support this, and you’ve covered this in your study of films – which is  that in the mindset of these people, call them The Cabal, whatever you want to call them, that their evil is legitimised if they tell you what they’re going to do. Because you, in a way, have given them permission for them to destroy you. It’s somehow, by their curious moral code, which is essentially a Luciferian one, they feel that by telling you what they’re going to do, it’s ok. It’s legitimate. 

Miller: Well, I think you’re absolutely right. I had thought of it in a slightly different way. I think they’re complementary. You know, they have two ways to approach this, you know, and I actually take both ways. One is that, simply as a tactical matter, you will be much more successful at attaining your goals if you avoid a too-explicitly coercive an approach. You know, like Bull Connor in whichever town in Alabama or Mississippi it was. He was the notorious police chief who set the dogs on non-violent protesters, you know, over voter registration under the guidance of Martin Luther King. And it shocked the nation . . . And it impelled the police chief, I think, in Albany, Georgia – I’m sure I have the places wrong – but he learnt from that example, that it’s far better to take a non-confrontational approach and sort of manipulate the situation to your ends. This is similar to Edward Bernays’s understanding of propaganda. That, I think, is correct to some extent, but what’s happening now is so glaringly evil and so increasingly and flagrantly coercive, you know, in places like Australia. And look at the way the German police are now behaving. Look at the way the French police have behaved in recent days. That it’s starting to look a little different. It’s starting to look as if they figure we might as well know that they are all in here, you know? Now, that’s to cast them as sort of self-possessed and cool, biding their time, you know, timing the process with exquisite precision. You know, that’s the kind of image of those at the controls that Goebbels sought to project. There is also the strong possibility that there’s a certain desperation in their coerciveness. They know that the crunch is coming and so they are ramping things up in order to force what they haven’t been able to get people to do voluntarily. I don’t know. 

I think that the whole thing will be checked, shortly, by some kind of ultra-traumatic event, you see. And we can only guess at what it is. I’m thinking about how more and more obvious it’s become that Joe Biden is really seriously impaired, cognitively impaired. I thought all along that the plan might be to have him eliminated in one way or another so that Kamala Harris can become our figurehead president. This was the least popular of all the Democratic candidates. Her support, her level of support did not reach 1 per cent. I mean, she’s really unpopular. I have yet to meet a black person who can stand her. Granted, you know, my field of acquaintance is limited. But she is a completely ruthless character, completely ruthless and completely corrupt. But she will be our first black female president and, you know, in that capacity I think they think she will be able to take steps that they would be screaming against if Trump took them, for example, or if anybody else. 

Woke militancy and that whole mythology plays a crucial role in this whole process. Part two of the huge propaganda spectacle of the last 18 months was the George Floyd incident, which gave birth, in a sense, to Black Lives Matter as a very, very powerful brand, which is all that Black Lives Matter is. Any organisation, any progressive organisation that takes a hundred million dollars from the Ford Foundation, which is a longstanding CIA pass through, is not a progressive organisation, is not a grassroots organisation – though members of the grassroots eagerly join and, I think, participate with the best intentions. Black Lives Matter is a fraud whose purpose is to enable, first, the further devastation of independent businesses, including an appallingly high number of black-owned businesses, and then to also further divide people from one another and racialise all discourse, right? Which has happened now. And that’s part of the new redefinition of rural Americans across the board and Republicans generally as domestic terrorists and white racists. So, I mean, this is material, potential material, for a whole other show here. 

Delingpole:  Can we just close off for this session? My followers are divided on the issue of Trump. There are some, I think, who still believe in Hopium – they believe he is the white hat with the plan and that he’s going to come back on a cloud, maybe with some seahorses in front of him and like a character in . . . and he’s going to wave his rainbow wand and it’s all going to be ok. And The Cabal is going to be defeated. There are others, more cynical, who’ve been, you know, who’ve been the conspiracy theorists, so-called, since the era of the Kennedy assassination pretty much. And they say, ‘Look, Trump is another part of the PsyOp. Trump is . . . nobody becomes president without The Cabal’s permission.’ And I think you hinted that you might believe in the second version of events. Just tell me briefly what you think about Trump?

Miller:  I appreciate and respect the desire of his supporters to believe that he’s going to be their means of deliverance from the nightmare. And I think he genuinely won the last election. And on that basis, I believe he should have been re-elected. My view is complicated by my strong suspicion, James, that he did not actually win in 2016, because there is substantial evidence that the votes in the three swing states were rigged, which explains why he really seemed to go out of his way to alienate as many large voting blocs as possible. And I believe he expected to be able to run a TV network. I don’t think he’s a witting participant in the spectacle. I’m willing to argue about that. The fact that they did not have an acceptance speech written – and I learned this privately – tells me a lot. Ok, we could quibble about whether even that was staged or not. I tend to think that it was and I tend to think it was a last-minute decision up there that Hillary had become too thickly caked with excrement by election day that even though she was going to win . . . it would be four years of hearings by Congress, and the emails. 

I don’t even dismiss Pizzagate, you know, I know that makes me a thought criminal. I think they thought, ‘Right, let’s go to plan B’ . . . because, as you say, you don’t get to the point where you can run for president without having been approved. And if people would just bother to read some books about Trump and his history, his story, they’ll see that he does not have an altruistic bone in his body. He’s a kind of, you know, pathological narcissist, you know, and, you know, a liar – although, you know, I think his lying has been overblown by the media. I think he did some good things, actually, even in a negative sense, he didn’t start any new wars or anything. So I don’t regard him as the epitome of evil and I certainly laugh off any comparisons with Hitler. I think that whole comparison was part of a PsyOp. 

But I do believe that placing any hopes in him is only going to result in heartache for you . . . then he rises to the point where he’s a huge TV star. And I believe his presidency was like nothing so much as a pro wrestling match. His function was to swagger around in his tights with his cape and, you know, with the pompadour and everybody on the liberal side of the aisle, ‘Boo, boo, boo, bad orange man,’ so everything he says is horrible, he’s Hitler and all that stuff, you know? I think that was his function. There’s two things he’s done that strike me as unforgivable and unjustifiable. The first . . . he not only started Operation Warp Speed boasted of it, but even after touting hydroxychloroquine, when he got sick, he didn’t take it. That’s not the major sin. The major sin is that since January, he has explicitly joined the vaccinnian extremists by saying that anyone who won’t get the shots has been taken in by what ‘deranged pseudoscience’. He said that. That’s unforgiveable. 

Delingpole: That is, I agree, because . . . sorry. 

Miller: I just want to say this last thing. They’ve got scores of people in solitary confinement in federal prison on no charges. These people were swept up after the ‘attempted coup’ on January 6 without a peep from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is all about trans rights and stuff like that. It’s completely woke now. It is not doing its job. I don’t care what politics these people subscribe to, what they believe in. It is completely unconstitutional and illegal and just plain wrong to drag people into prison and throw them . . . I mean, what happened to the Magna Carta, for God’s sake? Where’s Trump? These are people who, in one way or another, showed up to protest an election that they believe was stolen from him. If he’s such a champion of the real people, if he’s such a vox populi, why has he said nothing on their behalf? The fact is, he doesn’t care. He doesn’t care about them or anybody else any more than Joe Biden, when in his right mind, cared about anything else, any more than Kamala Harris cares about anybody else, any more than Dr Fauci cares about anybody else, any more than Bill Gates cares about anybody else. They don’t care. They don’t care. 

At this moment anyone who doesn’t speak up for these people – and I don’t just mean them. I mean everybody getting injected with this stuff, anybody who says, ‘I don’t take a position on this’, anybody who’s lukewarm on it. I spew them out of my mouth, to quote scripture. It is a time where you’re either going to do the right thing or you’re not. And if you do the wrong thing, trust me, some day, some day people will recognise where you were when this happened, just as kids asked their parents in Germany, ‘What were you doing? You know, what were you doing then?’ It’s going to happen again, because I think they’re going to lose. I believe that. I believe that if they cannot win they can’t build the Tower of Babel. I don’t care how much artificial intelligence they have. They can’t do it. They can’t do it because humankind is against them. They can’t do it because nature cannot be contained and circumscribed and monetised the way these freaks want to do it. You can’t do it. You can’t stop the river of life. You can’t do it. And you can’t do it because it’s evil. It’s wrong, you know. And evil loses, you know, evil has lost. But we have to keep fighting. We have to keep fighting.

If you appreciated this article, perhaps you might consider making a donation to The Conservative Woman. Unlike most other websites, we receive no independent funding. Our editors are unpaid and work entirely voluntarily as do the majority of our contributors but there are inevitable costs associated with running a website. We depend on our readers to help us, either with regular or one-off payments. You can donate here. Thank you.
If you have not already signed up to a daily email alert of new articles please do so. It is here and free! Thank you.

Kathy Gyngell
Kathy Gyngell
Kathy is Editor of The Conservative Woman. She is @kathygyngelltcw on GETTR and is back on Twitter.

Sign up for TCW Daily

Each morning we send The ConWom Daily with links to our latest news. This is a free service and we will never share your details.