Breaking News

Matthew Ehret: How the Unthinkable Became Thinkable

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

On Day 6 of the Grand Jury Proceeding by the Peoples’ Court of Public Opinion, Matthew Ehret gave testimony covering Maurice Strong, Thomas Malthus, Francis Galton, Thomas Huxley, Adolf Hitler, Julian Huxley, UNESCO, Club of Rome, World Health Organisation, John Holdren and more, highlighting their links to eugenic and depopulation agendas.

Matthew Ehret is a Canadian investigative journalist, author and lecturer.  He previously gave testimony, on Day 2, regarding the history, the influence and financial interests of the British Crown, Rhodes Scholars and the Round Table in Canada and the United States.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

Follow The Exposé’s Official Channel on Telegram here
Join the conversation in our Telegram Discussion Group here

During his testimony on Day 6 of proceedings, Ehret began:

“The figure of Maurice Strong amidst this entire thing is, I think, a very interesting introduction for a lot of people. It’s a figure who in many ways was the godfather of the modern Green New Deal – the thing that is behind or integrated with the Agenda 2030 – the Farm to Fork program, to try to bring in a Monsanto GMO program for Europe as part of a decarbonisation strategy. Which is also tied to a variety of other insane policies.

“When you actually look at a lot of what these governments of the transatlantic are being told they have to do in order to decarbonise according to these computer models that say we simply must do this by 2030 or 2050 in order to save nature, you’re like, ‘well, the effect will be massive death and the inability to sustain human life, let alone life in general’. So, either it’s incompetence or there is an intention behind it to get that effect. And I would say when you look at the evidence, the intention is indeed discoverable.”

Below is the video of Ehret’s testimony and the transcript.

(Related: The Genocidal Roots of the Green New Deal: The Limits to Growth and the Unchaining of Prometheus, Matthew Ehret, 16 August 2019)

Click on the image below to watch the video on Bitchute.

Grand Jury Day 6: Matthew Ehret Testimony, 26 February 2022 (44 mins)

Further Resources

Watch the full Grand Jury sessions Days 1-6 on Odysee HERE or on Internet Archive, with chapters and timestamps:

  • Day 1, Opening statements, 05 February 2022
  • Day 2, General historical and geopolitical backdrop, 12 February 2022
  • Day 3, PCR test, 13 February 2022
  • Day 4, Injections, 19 February 2022
  • Day 5, Financial destruction, 20 February 2022

Logistic support is provided to the proceedings by the Berlin Corona Investigative Committee: website (German) or website (English).

More information about the proceedings and contact details can be found on the Grand Jury’s website, HERE.

Transcript Matthew Ehret

(Links contained within the text below are our own)

Thank you for inviting me on to this esteemed panel. And thank you, Patrick, for going through that very important briefing.

Just keying off of some of the elements of what you touched upon. And I know that the time is very much limited. I’ll try my very best to keep it within 20 minutes, as we discussed.

The figure of Maurice Strong amidst this entire thing is, I think, a very interesting introduction for a lot of people. It’s a figure who in many ways was the godfather of the modern Green New Deal – the thing that is behind or integrated with the Agenda 2030. What is it called? – the Farm to Fork program to try to bring in a Monsanto GMO program for Europe as part of a decarbonisation strategy. Which is also tied to a variety of other insane policies. When you actually look at a lot of what these governments of the transatlantic are being told they have to do in order to decarbonise according to these computer models that say we simply must do this by 2030 or 2050 in order to save nature, you’re like, “well, the effect will be massive death and the inability to sustain human life, let alone life in general.” So, either it’s incompetence or there is an intention behind it to get that effect. And I would say when you look at the evidence, the intention is indeed discoverable.

And people who say, “oh, that’s a conspiracy theory.” Conspiracy theories discredit you immediately. All they’re saying is: “I have been brainwashed to think that anybody who says that intentions and ideas are causal are insane, and I must turn off my brain, stop thinking.” There’s been a lot of work to get people to do this.

So indeed, there are intentions. You can know bad intentions, you can know bad ideas, but you have to think on a very different level than that which our system conditions us to think on.

Maurice Strong was not only one of the key organisers of the Rio summit, the Agenda 2030. He was also a co-founder of the World Economic Forum and a Secretary General of the first United Nations Conference on the Environment and Population in 1972. Very important character who is also President of the Rockefeller Foundation, in this time, and head of the World Bank – like one of these key technocrats who just installed to get things done as a sort of hitman.

He said in a 1990 interview:

“What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it?”

I’m quoting him here.

“The group’s conclusion is ‘no’. The rich countries won’t do it. They won’t change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”

And this is from West Magazine in 1990, where he says in a later interview, I think with Glenn Beck says, “oh, but I was just talking about a fictitious book I was thinking about writing.”

He’s literally, if you read the context of that interview, he’s literally describing a World Economic Forum conference that is taking place. And this is something he’s musing upon. And again, I think when you look at his actions, what he was a part of also as a Vice President of the World Wildlife Fund under Prince Philip for several years and a variety of things, his whole life’s devotion has been to getting institutions and practices in place that actually accomplished exactly what he’s saying right there in that statement.

I put together a few slides with a few quotes that I would like to share right now to get across the nature of eugenics. I might have to blast through this a little faster than I would want to, but whatever.

So how the unthinkable became thinkable. Behind it is an image from a 1930s pro eugenics propaganda poster called ‘Release the Stranglehold of Hereditary Disease and Unfitness’. Who determines what unfitness is? That’s what people don’t like talking about?

This is a big deal. Eugenics was the science of population control and selective breeding to create, as Patrick pointed out, a new race, an ubermencian race, kind of like a [ ] Superman that would take the reins, the helm of the chaotic flow of evolution into a controlled, scientifically managed way – while breeding out the unfit, those who are undesirable. Usually, you’ll find many of these people – like Margaret Sanger (Planned Parenthood), the Eugenic Society of Britain and America – they usually tend to focus on the darker skinned races, but of course, they’re not discriminatory overall when it comes to killing off the unfit.

The context in which eugenics as a science, which I’ll go into, came about is important. At the end of the 19th century, there was a very strong scientific and cultural optimism that was alive and spreading around the idea that the human mind was a natural phenomenon, the thing that causes us to make discoveries and translate those discoveries into new technologies that benefit and improve the quality of life of citizens and also of nature by greening deserts, for example.

This was an idea that was a very strong paradigm, but certain imperialists didn’t agree with it because they viewed the … there’s a fact of overpopulation. Overpopulation always happens. But why are today’s population constraints different from what it was 100 years ago or a thousand years ago? It’s this question of scientific and technological progress.

The two ways, the two approaches to deal with population crises, when people exceed the ability to support those people, is to either one, do what the British Empire had already been doing before the days of eugenics, which is simply impose, induce artificial wars, induce famines, induce disease, whatever the case may be. And there on the left is a picture of some of the terrible effects of British Imperial policy in India. Controlled starvation, again, was a part of the British Imperial game as a one world Empire that was dominant before, throughout the 19th century and even 18th century. What they did to the Irish and the potato famine is another example of that. That was done under an idea of a scientifically managed system using certain mathematical, what they thought were mathematical principles, of population control.

The other way of dealing with excess population is not killing people to satisfy the limit, but rather encourage, as I said, new discoveries. This is an image, an etching from the 1876 Centennial Conference – centennial celebration in the United States in Philadelphia, celebrating the new discoveries that were emerging and spreading from the United States to Germany, Russia and beyond, countries adopting protectionism, long term credit. And the idea again of defining economics not around worshiping money, but rather uplifting people from squalor and giving people, creating new sources of wealth by doing this. New inventions, new discoveries.

So again, Malthusian – the term Malthus or Malthusianism, which is what Maurice Strong helped revive in the early 70s, late 60s – came from the simplistic theories of a British East India Company economist who taught at the British Empire’s Haileybury College training generations of Imperial economists, Thomas Malthus. And he observed that population [ ], people grow geometrically on average, while food production only grows arithmetically. And thus, social engineers can forecast, using mathematical formulas, where you will have a population crisis. And then act pre-emptively – as Malthus even describes, in gut wrenching detail, in his 1799 essays on the Principle of Population to encourage the death of the useless of the poor, even babies who are deemed unfit. He says the parishes should stop supporting to make way for other – anyway it’s gory. And he has prescriptions on doing that and it is done.

The idea is always that the nature and resources are relatively limited. You cannot create new resources. It does not factor in the quality of the human mind to transform and upshift the environment by introducing a new discovery, like electricity. That doesn’t exist in his equations. That’s actually disruptive to his equations.

This is added to by people like John Stuart Mill, who includes the idea of the diminishing rate of returns. That [ ] human economies are just constantly in tension where the strong and the most fit are better able to control the diminishing rates of returns, while the weak are subdued by the strong – the imperialists.

Charles Darwin in his autobiography – you know, people wonder “where does this theory of natural selection come from,” that was then applied by the eugenicists on a social scale, the thing that described the fossil records and the flow of life in evolution. So, the Darwinian interpretation of evolution, his model of natural selection, he got, as he describes in his autobiography, by reading, he says:

“In 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my systematic inquiry, I had happened to read for amusement Malthus on Population, and being prepared to appreciate the struggle for existence which everywhere goes on, from long-continued observation of the habits of animals and plants, it once struck me that under these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result would be the formation of a new species. Here then, I had at last got a theory by which to work.” – Charles Darwin.

So, Darwin is saying that this is the source of his discovery of the mechanism of what causes these creative mutations to introduce new qualities in species – defined around an idea of number one, randomness, that ultimately the mutations are absolutely random and thus unknowable by virtue of their randomness. Number two, gradualism, that there are no creative leaps that are possible. And indeed, that’s a problem because in the fossil records we don’t see gradualism. We see, in fact, a lot of creative leaps. Much as we see with human economies and human societies introducing new ideas. You don’t gradually come to a new discovery. You have it in a Eureka flash. And the effect is, when you apply it, an ability to as a quantum leap, sustain much more people at a higher quality of life. If you have a certain type of society that is not based upon this disgusting view of human beings, as sort of just talking cattle.

Coming out of this, Darwin’s cousin – Francis Galton – is somebody who converts Darwin. Darwin first has a problem with the application socially of his views into the science of eugenics. But Darwin later writes to Galton saying, “you’ve made a disciple out of me.” And Galton is a fellow, basically, says, “OK, using the Mendelian science of genetics, using certain Malthusian concepts of population growth, we can now formulate the Queen of all sciences, the best of all social sciences. And he says, in 1904:

“Eugenics must be introduced into the national conscience, like a new religion. It has, indeed, strong claims to become an orthodox religious, tenet for the future, for eugenics co-operate with the workings of nature by securing that humanity shall be represented by the fittest races … I see no impossibility in Eugenics becoming a religious dogma among mankind.”

And this is so important – that this was always the design and the intention. Even when Thomas Huxley was organizing the X Club, of which Darwin was a fundamental part of his theories. The idea was in 1865, with this X Club, around which Galton later emerged, was to take representatives of all branches of sciences – mathematics, biology, astronomy, sociology – and unify them into trying to create a unified science around mathematics. And imposing a mathematical cage of description upon all branches of science. Giving it sort of an appearance of science but no more discoveries. Because real discoveries happen when you press upon the limits of the unknown, beyond which mathematics, the language of mathematics that is always evolving, cannot venture. Right? Mathematics is useful, but it’s like a language that changes in conformity with our discoveries of the laws of the universe. There’s no end to that process.

So, they wanted to basically take that relationship and put mathematics in the dominant position where people’s minds would say, “oh, if the mathematics that already exist doesn’t describe it, I can’t know it, and you shouldn’t know it either.” And this is something which, again, Thomas Huxley was assigned to do. This is what Galton with his idea of a Queen of all sciences – the new religion – was driving towards. And it did become, in many ways, a dominate science of all sciences.

Up until World War II, we had 32 American States, starting with Indiana, 1907, adopt eugenics policies of sterilising the unfit. Two Canadian provinces – BC and Alberta – thousands, thousands of people were sterilised based upon what? A statistical probabilistic science. It was fundamentally statistical – that if your mother, your grandfather, your great grandfather had low IQs or had a criminal record, they would say, “oh, it is statistically likely that your children, or unborn grandchildren, will also have low IQs or criminal tendencies.” And thus, using that statistical probability, we can pre-emptively now sterilise you and justify it scientifically. And that was part of what drove, again, all of these things to happen – before Germany, before Ernst Rüdin, who also received Rockefeller funding and [Macy] Foundation funding to do this eugenic science in Germany.

It just so happened that Germany had a political type of government funded – again, by Wall Street and London financiers – that was very good at bypassing those democratic protocols that would normally be resistant to that type of embrace of something so anti-human as eugenics and the breeding out of the unfit, which didn’t just target Jews, right? I mean, Poles unfit Germans. People know the horrors of a Nazi T4 Program that killed hundreds of thousands of Germans who were deemed just to be “not worthy of life.” They were too expensive to maintain.

So, when the Nazi machine, that Frankenstein monster, blew up and collapsed, there was a need to reorganise. Those who actually brought us fascism and eugenics were never punished in Nuremberg, and that’s very important.

So, among those figures who was assigned the task of reorganising the grand strategy for recapturing nations that had just defeated fascism in the post-World War II era, we have none other than Sir Thomas Huxley’s grandson – Sir Julian Huxley – who becomes the creator of UNESCO, the United Nations Education, Science and Cultural Organisation, where he writes in its manifesto that:

“The moral for UNESCO is clear. The task laid upon it of promoting peace and security can never be wholly realised through the means assigned to it – education, science and culture. It must envisage some form of world political unity, whether through a single world government or otherwise, as the only certain means of avoiding war.”

Of course, they don’t say that it is his Anglo-American oligarchical networks that funded the war to begin with, which never should have happened. They all treated like, “oh no, the war was a natural consequence of having sovereign nation states. They just naturally in a Darwinian fight for survival. They are wired to want more and suppress weaker nations and impose their hegemony. That’s the nature of man. That’s the nature of nation states. And thus, we need a solution.”

Now, of course, again, they always avoid the fact that you have these financiers from JPMorgan, the Brown Brothers Harriman banking houses funding these things and assassinating leaders who are not to their liking. Artificially to bring about these political effects. They don’t talk about that. But then they say like he does: as the only means of avoiding war, we need a single world government …

“… in its educational program it can stress the ultimate need for a world political unity and familiarise all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organisation.”

All for peace, of course.

And keep in mind he’s also the head of the Eugenics Society. He’s not just the head of UNESCO, he is the President of the Eugenic Society of Britain. Which becomes later on the Galton Foundation, by the way, very much today integrated with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI. Whitney Webb goes through this in her impeccable research.

But he says a little bit later on, still in that same founding document, that:

“At the moment, it is probable that the indirect effect of civilization is dysgenic instead of eugenic,”

That is getting worse instead of getting better, genetically.

“and in any case, it seems likely that the dead weight of genetic stupidity, physical weakness, mental instability and disease proneness, which already exist in the human species will prove too great a burden for real progress to be achieved. Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible,”

That is because people got to see the effects of it – once Hitler lost, people got to see globally what the logical consequence of doing this really is. And they were naturally horrified. So, their minds were being [sound dropped] a respectable science. So, it is psychologically impossible for many years.

“it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed on the issues at stake so that much that it is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable.”

And so, the question then becomes what did he do? In what way does he repackage eugenics and call it something else to get similar, or the same effects as were desired by those leading Thule Society Nazis and their London and Wall Street financiers?

So, let’s look at some of the key points of what he does. Keep in mind, all the way up until 1962, he is the President of the British Eugenics Society – 1962.

1947, he founds the International Union for the Conservation of Nature: the world’s biggest, most powerful conservation organization that is designed to shift the values of society.

Also in 1947, he helped set up with G. Brock Chisholm: a Tavistockian Canadian psychiatrist, the World Health Organisation. Chisholm is a devout world governmentalist. He writes about it. He calls the need to cleanse society of the belief in family or nation state and religion. He thinks that that’s the cause of mental unhealth. And he says that, one quote I just picked out from Chisholm, is:

“The reinterpretation and eventual eradication of the concept of right and wrong which has been the basis of child training, the substitution of intelligent and rational thinking [scientific thinking] for faith in the certainties of old people – these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy.”

Basically, he’s saying that real psychotherapy, the purpose of the science of mind going forward and mental health should be to liberate us from the belief in right and wrong and the traditions of old people that are obsolete in favour of logical thinking. So, this is part of an atomisation program of the Baby Boomer generation – especially who are targeted, those growing up after World War II – who are going to be subjected to a new type of condition, a new type of educational and cultural experience that will detach them, their identities, from these broader problems of nation state, religion and cultural heritage. That makes them more easy to predict and you know that they will tend to do things that are predictable, like herd themselves into groupthink more easily instead of stand on their own.

Later on, Julian Huxley co-terms the science of transhumanism, gives it that label. And around that there’s an idea of a cybernetic scientific management of society around certain ideas that emerged after World War II. He then goes on and co-founds the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. Remember that organisation that I mentioned Maurice Strong was also Vice President of, alongside Prince Philip and Prince Bernhard, to devout Malthusians.

Now the new ethical paradigm, as I write here, moves from the fringe increasingly into the mainstream, designed around the shifting of saving nature. Basically, saying that instead of having an ethic of saving humanity from Empire and slavery and scarcity. No, no, no. That’s the old wisdom. The new wisdom will be saving nature from humanity.

The way that they do this, utilising the development of digital binary computer systems and modelling, is to try to say, “okay, we’re going to assume that all of ecology, all of humanity and even all of the universe, cosmology even, is going to be something you could chart using linear systems in computer models, using very simplified variables that will then allow us to predict everything that will ever happen and everything that could ever happen with presumed assumptions like the natural state being equilibrium, stasis, no change.” That is what they said is now natural. So, this is an example on the left.

And on the right, we already saw the Malthusian population model. This is the limits to growth Club of Rome neo-Malthusian model that emerged out of the MIT studies of Forrester and Meadows, funded by the Club of Rome and Canadian funding under Pierre Trudeau, actually, that basically just added a few more variables, but still justify the same thing – that every time you have more people, you have more pollution and thus more problems, more destroyed environment. And thus, the enlightened social engineers should always, to scientifically manage society, ensure that populations are as natural as the unchanging environment. So that we have to, if we’re overpopulated, we have to constrict that population to something of what became called “carrying capacity.” The mathematical carrying capacity of what exists now is all that could exist, is all that we should permit.

And thus, new discoveries also became problematic: discoveries in the atom, discoveries in space technology, discoveries that actually solve and cure problems. Those became things that would cause disequilibrium. Because those who have monopolised those fixed resources and fixed sets of formulas and discoveries, they haven’t monopolised that which has not yet existed. So, every time you introduce a new discovery or a new resource, it changes everything. It upsets this perfect supposed balance that their mathematical models demand exists. So, this is where you get a lot of scientists being killed, a lot of scientific research being subverted, the defunding of nuclear fusion, the defunding of space of Apollo, it’s cancelling and beyond.

But just to get across, these people don’t really care about the environment, they don’t really care about pollution. And when you look at one of the co-founders of the Club of Rome – Sir Alexander King, who also brought in cybernetics and our information systems theory into the OECD while he was managing that. This was also brought into NATO earlier as a new system of control, a science of control, which I don’t have time to go into. But he basically admits it. In 1991, he says:

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, [describing the origins of the Club of Rome and the models we just saw above there] we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill … All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. [Then he lets the cat out of the bag.] The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

So, the real issue was that these things – they don’t really care about pollution or preserving the environment, they don’t – it’s really that whenever human beings apply scientific and technological progress to improve our conditions and overcome the limits to our growth, in a lawful way, by building, let’s say, a hydroelectric dam or some other piece of vital infrastructure, it changes ecosystems. Yes, it changed it. But does that mean that it is intrinsically unnatural? Not intrinsically. Of course, human beings can do destruction to nature. I’m not saying they can’t. But what they’re saying is that it is intrinsically unnatural. The human mind is not natural because the human mind causes these nonlinear changes. So, these are people worshiping at the altar of a mathematical religion. As Galton said, it’s really that.

One of the last, big quote, and then I’ll stop. It’s important.

But John Holdren, who became the science czar under Obama – that’s a picture of John Holdren, right there in the background, with Biden and Obama – he was the science czar of the United States for several years. He co-wrote a book with Paul Ehrlich, the fellow who popularised the population bomb utilising the Club of Rome models in the 60s and 70s, he was his student. So, in Ecoscience, Population Resources, Environment, John Holdren writes the big behemoth of a book over 1000 pages, and it’s hard to read but there are some disgusting things like this that pop out. But he describes [ ] now, 1977:

“Perhaps these agencies combined with the United Nations Environmental Protection Agency [created by Maurice Strong, by the way] and the United Nations Population Agency [created by Maurice Strong, by the way] might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime, sort of an international superagency for population, resources and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or non-renewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus, the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere, oceans, but also in such fresh water bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs [developed countries] to LDCs [lesser developed countries] and including all food on the international market. [So, controlling the food, too. Why not?] The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries shares within their regional limits. Control of population size must remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed upon limits.”

Of course, you can’t just have the top 26 agreements there as a nice thing that people sign onto. You need to have some enforcement procedures, don’t you? – is what we’re told by those who are managing things like the Green New Deal or COP26 or the Paris Accords. So, you definitely have, right now, a very misanthropic grouping, an ideology, which has a religious nature to it, committed to, as Patrick pointed out, a fear, I think ultimately of their own mortality. There’s, I think, a certain inability – human beings that become mature, grapple and deal with the fact that we all die, we’re all finite, right? We have certain qualities where within our soul, within our mind, we can tap into and discover universal laws and universal principles of nature that are beyond the world of limitations, justice, freedom, gravity. I mean, things that are equality as an idea is not something you can cut in half, right? I can’t cut justice in half and put in my pocket. It has no beginning or end. So, this is something that the human mind, when it’s functioning with reason and conscience together as a matured sovereign being, we can tap into these eternal qualities. But our bodies and our brains physically still have weight, they still perish. There is a before and after. And so, you come to terms with that reality of our finiteness but are also our infiniteness, that we leave something behind. We get something from the past generations, from thousands of years ago, and we can leave something behind, in various degrees, to those who are to come after us. And that’s the best way to satisfy our happiness and our purpose for being. And the founding fathers who initiated, who risked their lives for this idea of the United States of a Republic founded upon the consent of the governed and the inalienable rights of all people.

This is very anti-Darwinian. It is against the idea of their personal survival. It was something that scared the hell out of this oligarchy and always has and still does, as it represents a proof that the oligarchy is very fundamental system itself is wrong. That humans can do that. And we can make these quantum leaps that are not gradualistic. It’s not random. It is tied to a certain belief and faith in a design. But it’s not one that is pre-deterministic. It allows free will. It allows beauty. This is something again, that is the at the center, I believe, of the fight then and still is today. They are afraid of that. They all do want to ultimately upload their soul, or whatever – their being into some digital cloud to overcome their own fear of death, I think, ultimately. They’ve built an entire religion around that masquerading as science. And a political structure around that as well masquerading as democracy. But it’s obviously not.

So, we’re now a situation where the consequences of World War II were not ended in 1945 at Nuremberg. We have still the same type of institutions with a new repackaged ideology. Again, it takes on different forms. It’s still just as evil and it’s still just as wrong scientifically, morally so. And I think humanity right now is going to face a test on whether or not we can overcome this using those God given powers of creativity and morality. And do it in a coherent way, along with other countries that don’t want to be sacrificed on the altar of Gaia today, which is the current plan.

And I think everything going on around Ukraine, around the attempt to militarily encircle Russia and China and erect a new iron curtain separating east and West, I think has a lot to do with the fear of civilisational powers that don’t want to sacrifice their ancient traditions on this religious altar today.

So that’s where I would, I guess, just end it. And I know I might have gone a few minutes longer than I wanted to, and I’m sorry.

Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much, Matthew. That was very instructive, and it builds perfectly on what Patrick ended with. Esteemed colleagues, any questions?

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you, Matthew. You have given us some very good insight. I think for me, what definitely stands out when it comes to your evidence that you have given today, is that you have made that connection with the World Economic Forum and you’ve made a connection, as well, with the World Health Organisation as well. When it comes to the World Health Organisation, that is where we need to focus specifically on Julian Huxley. Your evidence is, and you can just say I’ve actually captured it correctly, that Julian Huxley – so Julian Huxley was one of the co-founders of the World Health Organisation. That’s what you’ve said, is that correct?

Matthew Ehret: He helped set it up and together he, through UNESCO as well as the World Health Organisation, co-set up, as well, the World Federation of Mental Health in 1948 with another Tavestockian psychopath, called “the psychiatrist,” called John Rawlings Rees, who is again a fanatic world government depopulationist, who called for psychiatric shock troops to be installed in different government bureaucracies to redefine global society and rewire its values. And he’s very gut wrenchingly clear.

But yes, Julian Huxley did play a very important role organizing the creation of the World Health Organisation.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. So, will you then say that when it comes to the World Health Organisation, and specifically the role that he played with a set up or the influence regarding the set-up of the World Organisation, will you say then that his ideologies he basically transplanted it into the World Health Organisation, specifically when it comes to his eugenic dogmas?

Matthew Ehret: I think based upon the writings of the work of G. Brock Chisholm, who has extensive comments about what his view of mental health and real health should be and also political structures to enforce that, I think you can very much make it clear, also based on the policies and actions of the World Health Organisation and what approaches to funding health science were engaged upon it over the 1960s, 70s. Yes, it does still seem to be more work. There are not as many smoking guns as I would like, so far, in my research, tying Julian Huxley directly to the helm of each of these policy actions. So, you have to sort of take a step back and look at it a bit more dynamically. There are some, but not as many as one would like to take it to court in that sense. So, I think you have to …

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. This is exactly as to where I wanted us to go to, is that, yes, he was instrumental in the set-up of the World Health Organisation, but now it is a matter based on your research, where one issue needs to go into quite some depth when it comes to his influence and see as to whether that golden thread has been kept as a vision or a mission statement and is currently still that vision and mission statement. For if it is, then obviously we can then come to the conclusion that the World Health Organisation, the fundamental is eugenics, is basically a genocide, in the sense.

Matthew Ehret: Well, what I would say and I think this is valuable to look at it this way, is that the science of information systems theory – which was what was applied, sometimes it’s called cybernetics – was applied to every single domain possible of human knowledge: biology, health science, ecology, everything, and also human economy. The idea was to over bureaucratise every possible system and compartmentalise it into small, tiny, specialised and subspecialised domains with only a small grouping called “the helmsman” – a small executive that were permitted to see what the whole was doing – so that most people would be not able to see what it was that they were a part of. This was done intensely in the creation of the big pharmaceutical complexes in the early 70s, the policy papers, the scientific justification for this rewiring, was the World Health Organisation playing a very big role in this. And things like the Whitehead Institute, the Broad Institute, all of these different organisations that became leaders in a genetic manipulation of food, of everything, and especially in terms of the genetic coding, were all coming out of these complexes. So that when you look at people like Eric Lander, who was the Rhodes Scholar czar of science under Biden up until just a few weeks ago, he’s been a close friend of John Holdren and he was the father of the Human Genome Project – which always had at its heart the intention to sequence the human genome in order to modify the human species in terms of things like CRISPR. So, there are people coming out of the big conference in 2015 that announced CRISPR who said – people like David Baltimore, who is his friend and President of the Whitehead Institute – that “we have now made the unthinkable become thinkable, we now can control the programming of DNA of the species and direct it towards an organised direction.”

So, it is very eugenics based and there’s so many ways you could look at it. But I think that for me, that’s the approach I would take, and also the environmental dynamic that Julian Huxley spearheaded to with Maurice Strong, I think that that has a lot of value. If you want to really bring something to a court and prove its invalidity on a variety of levels, that’s another fruitful approach to take.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Okay. My last question to you is that the evidence that you have given, when it comes to the nature of eugenics, starvation is one of the methods. So, I am now thinking and I’m reflecting on Bill Gates, specifically, where in a sense, it is common cause [ ] It is all over, in the alternative media, where Bill Gates is one of the major or the biggest farmland owners in the United States, which means farmland comes down to food production. So, will you say that when it comes to a statement like that, one of the largest or the biggest owners of farmland and then eugenics is the nature – one of the methods is starvation – can you actually draw any positive correlation between the two? I mean, he owns the farmland, a majority stake of the family in the United States.

Matthew Ehret: Yeah. Well, yeah, this is part and parcel of this Green New Deal, build back better for the world insane agenda of trying to have like 30% of the world surface area off limits to all human development by 2030. That’s part of the 3030 2030 agenda, including both the United States, which it’s embedded in – Biden signed an executive order calling for that. It requires the co-operation of private organisations like Bill Gates to buy up the farmland and then bring big chunks of it off limits to actual food production or just simply enforce artificial modes of genetically modified produce that is beneficial to the elites, so-called the want to be elites. They have the same thing for Africa and beyond.

Part of it as well is to take farmland out of farm use and put it into windmills and solar panels, which require extensive amounts of land area. That is also what they’re doing already across Europe and across North America. They’re paying farmers to kill their cattle and to not till their soil so that they could get money by putting up windows and solar panels, which themselves are very inefficient forms of energy sources that will cause new constraints onto our ability to support our people on the Earth. And that is part of the design as well. And that’s scientifically proven, that the energy return on investment of these things is so low that you will not be able to support life in an industrially, advanced civilization where you would expect to live 80 years of age on average. You cannot do that, and that’s the effect.

Dexter L-J. Ryneveldt: Thank you very much, Matthew.

Reiner Fuellmich: Matthew, in concluding. If we look at the totality of the evidence, as you described it to us and as Patrick gave it to us, we see that the influence of Julian Huxley even, not just on UNESCO, but also on the World Health Organisation, is still there. We see that someone like Bill Gates, whose family has a eugenics background, has a very strong influence in the World Health Organisation today. If you look at everything that we’ve discussed, would you say that eugenics plays a big role in today’s World Health Organisation?

Matthew Ehret: Oh, yes, most certainly. And I mean, I know Whitney did not get a chance to speak today she had an emergency. But I know that in her research, she’s gone through that very well on a variety of levels. Things like the Engender Health which was formerly the Sterilisation League for Human Betterment – it changed its name, but it’s a deep embedded part of USAID and the Gates Foundation as is the Galton Institute which had just changed its name from the Eugenics Society, which are again embedded into GAVI. Gates’ own father, Bill Gates senior was the head of Planned Parenthood that Margaret Sanger – who was a devout eugenicist and racist – had pushed, that’s where it came out with the American eugenic societies.

There’s no evidence that I’ve seen that their MO [modus operandi] has changed based upon the effects of creating crises in population, war, starvation artificially over the past 60 years, especially. Even though we’ve been told a globalisation will feed the world and give everybody a home, and all this great stuff, and we’ll have free trade together and everybody will be happy. No, the effect was debt slavery, massive war, depopulation and yeah, I think that is truly the case.

Reiner Fuellmich: Thank you very much, Matthew.

Matthew Ehret: How the Unthinkable Became Thinkable
Share this page to Telegram
5 1 vote
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
3 months ago

[…] Matthew Ehret: How the Unthinkable Became Thinkable […]

3 months ago

[…] Fuellmich: Ilana, did you hear what Matthew said and did you have a chance to hear what Patrick […]

3 months ago

[…] TheExpose | Odysee | MenteAlternativa […]

3 months ago

[…] Fuellmich: Ilana, did you hear what Matthew said and did you have a chance to hear what Patrick […]

3 months ago

[…] Fuellmich: Ilana, did you hear what Matthew said and did you have a chance to hear what Patrick […]

3 months ago

[…] for the motives for their crimes, there are plenty of them, from eugenics, depopulation, ideology, greed to imposing their ‘new world order’ using self-made crisis to do […]