people have been conditioned to accept totalitarian policies that they very likely would have never got
along within the past and this is
social conditioning that can make it easier when forcing the public to
comply during the next pandemic
to do whatever the Heck they want at least that's what officials
and the United Kingdom are right now saying Professor David Halpern his the chief
executive of the behavioral insides team
also known as the nudge unit the organization is based on the UK and
works with governments on social engineering
psychology and tactics to get citizens to comply with political policy
now professor halper told the telegraph that the public is now more likely to
comply with a future lockdown because
they know what the rolls and when it comes to policies like
social distancing mandates on mass
and other things while he said people had become so used to it that
some even feel odd without these things
put it this way he said you would feel like my God
I haven't got my mask you feel naked right
he also suggested that people have been conditioned similarly really to pavlov's dog
in the Soviet experiment researchers conditioned a dog to saliva to at
the sound of a bell
and under the bed lockdowns people were similarly conditioned
and Halpern suggested that the posters for example now work as these triggers
similar to the bell that pavlov used he said
when you go into a shop or someone else it reminds you it cues
it acts as a trigger
for the behavior no of course not everyone would agree with this without a doubt
many people did go along with these policies most people in fact
wore the face masks most people got the jabs
and most people locked themselves in their homes and they're told they had to
but for many people this is also a wake up call many are now left wondering
if the lockdowns and the mandates were even about the pandemic in the first place
in fact some people are questioning if all of this
was just a big exercise in tyranny and enforced public compliance
and this is the case even in the UK this is the case elsewhere as well
where halpert and others now claim the public has been properly conditioned for the next
pandemic take for instance a leaked WhatsApp messages between former UK Health secretary Matt Hancock
and department of health media advisor Damon Poole
they claimed in their leaked messages that people were furious about the
prospect of more COVID measures
and they suggested they could they could roll pitch with the new Strain
mat Hancock responded and he said this we frightened the pants off
everyone with the new Strain
pool then said yep that's what will get proper behavior chain
the Hancock then asked when do we deploy the new variant
now in all this the public not just in the UK but around the world
was subject to a massive information campaign members the inphodemic
and while it may be true that people learned to comply which they did
some were so conditioned in fact the they still wear their face masks
many still again keep the masks around just in case they need them again as well
but they've also become more aware of their rights and more aware that complying
with mandates why I guess what
it doesn't necessarily mean there's an end in sight to the mandate
for some it's possible the masks have become a safety blank
for others the masks and other COVID policies
they've come to represent something else talking about pavlov's dog
they've come to represent a type of abuse a dramatic reminder of
the abuse from government policy
as Wall Street Journal reported the impact was particularly bad for children
it's stated in an Op-Ed that the lockdown saw is spike in homicides and
in suicides particularly among youth
in fact suicides hit a twenty year high
but regardless of the impact on the mental wellbeing of the public
it does appear that lockdowns and similar policies well
they're still on the agenda in fact even the former UK Health secretary met Hancock the
one who was outed in his tech
he's pushing for even more totalitarian policies
in fact he went viral in a recent video where he choked back tears
and he said he was profoundly sorry for every death from the
virus and shared his hope
that next time they will lock down much earlier
and that next time the tyrannical policies will be even more stringent what
for the future we learn the right lessons so that we
stop a pandemic in its tracks much earlier
and that we have the systems in place ready to do that
because I'm worried that they're being dismantled as we speak but it is central to what
we must learn as a country
that we've got to be ready to hit a pandemic
hard that we've got to be able to take action lockdown action
if necessary that is wider
earlier more stringent than feels comfortable at the time
now remember when it comes to COVID policies when it comes to lockdowns and mandates
it's not just the UK's not just Australia it's not just the US
the policies are global and it ties to the idea of what they call shared response
when it comes to fighting the virus to saving lives we're all in this together
and as he may suspect this of course goes back to the World Health Organization
as we speak the WHO even has US backing under a pending pandemic treaty
to get powers overall future pandemics in every country that's a member state
remember that WHO declared the official end to COVID 19 in May
at least the pandemic of it
but that same month the same month they declared it was over they set
the stage for the next one
the next way to keep those COVID powers in place
they say we all need to prepare not for COVID
but for a disease that's even deadlier
W-H-O director Tedros told the meeting of the World Health Assembly in Geneva
the world has come out of a long dark tunnel as he put it of COVID
and that we can all carry on with our lives as we used to
but it's not over yet the next pandemic could be right around the corner
a new variant that he said
causes new surges of disease and death what
the threat of another variant emerging that caused new surges of dishes and
death remains and the threat of another pathogen emerging wis even deadlier potential
what he mains serious stuff I mean so what is the new variant what's
the new pathogen he's talking about well
actually he doesn't know why is that because it doesn't exist
but what's important is that it might exist at least eventually
a least someday and according to Tedros when the next pandemic does come knocking as he
put it and it will he said
we must be ready to answer decisively
collectively and equitably as are exact is exact words in fact
and what's important in the meantime is that we keep those COVID power structures
in place apparently as Tedros stated
we cannot simply carry on as we did before
and the top priority he said is to remember the less in quote
that we can only meet shared threats with a shared response
watch we will not go back to the old cycle of panic and neglect
that left our world vulnerable but
move forward with a shared commitment to meet shared threats
with a shared response so in other words
we need a global body to manage a shared response to that next and
deadly pandemic which doesn't currently exist
hey maybe a global body like the WHO and maybe powers for a shared
response for example like the pandemic treaty the train is hard to get
now that may all sound concerning but really how often do pandemics happen
for most people it's a once in a lifetime crisis maybe not even that
and even outbreaks in the past while they did not see the kind of global lockdowns
and the global mandates the COVID 19 ushered in
so we could assume they don't declare another pandemic right well
apparently not it appears now the whole narrative is different
it appears now that just about any virus or any disease
is now being declared a public health crisis and just about any outbreak can
now be deemed a pandemic
actually even goes even beyond pandemics now there are new and even
greater threats maybe in fact
three times as serious as the pandemic take for instance the new one
they call it the tripledemic as New York Times reports
the new health crisis is already upon us
and luckily we already have a response to it a way to
stop it in its track
that is a new vaccine
it states to prevent a repeat of last winter's tripoledemic of respiratory illnesses
Americans will be encouraged to roll up their sleeves
not just for flu shots but for two other vaccine
one of them entirely new it notes that US federal health officials
are now encouraging three shots
the flu shot the COVID shot and others shot
part of what we're seeing right now is a new definition of viruses and
a new definition of diseases in general
it's no longer just the seasonal flu now it's the next pandemic the global health crisis
and with all these seemingly an outbreak no matter how small no matter how large
the new system's got a taste of power and authority
and they can kick into high gear anytime they see something new
to satiated that hunger that desire
to get those emergency powers back now unfortunately the concepts of pandemics and global health emergencies
are taking on new meaning they're now loaded terms in fact they're now tied
to the medical industrial complex
with many government powers that come packaged alongside the designation and on a global scale
it's like a Communist dream package the ability to censor people the
ability to change election laws
the ability to restrict movement to shutdown select businesses and so on
and it's illegal avenue to alter the laws of nations
to social engineer the winners and the losers and to manufacture what emerges from their destruction
I'll state in after the break we'll be speaking about the signs of a growing a
growing conflict right now between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party
US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is in China for a four day visit and this takes
place as several major issues are unfolding
the CCP is forming a global block against the United States
it's pushing other nations to drop the US dollar
and it recently put restrictions on key medals needed for US high tech chip
now this takes place as the US is suggesting
that it will begin moving supply chains out of China
here to speak this about this is Andrews core he's an Epoch Times contributor
and a leading expert on China
Andrews core thinks e'v been on crossroads
good to you Josh so Xi Jinping is making new war preparations I mean
you and I following China know that this is kind of not unusual
but I'm curiously because a let's going on do you think it's more serious this time
what do you make of this
well it gets more and more serious everyday I mean Xi Jinping seems to
be something of a war Monger
when it comes to Taiwan the South China Sea the East China Sea India
and he just keeps expanding his military
and increasingly attempting to use trade as
sort of an aggressive lever against any country
that crosses him I well know we're seeing a lot with that right now you know
the CCP just put restrictions on medals
used to create high tech chips I'm curious what your take is
on this what's this really about
well the restrictions on gallium and germanium are essentially export restrictions they
come into play August 1st
other are some other metals as well but they're not as critical
you know he's really trying to maybe it's a shot across the bow because
the more serious metals if they put restrictions on them would be lithium
and graphite you know which are more important
currently to the global supply chains especially automobiles for example
a so it's a question Mark as to whether it's a signal or not it's he's
definitely shooting himself in the foot
because everyone's realizing that you know China's supply is not reliable
yeah well I remember that started back with the whole
the whole conflict they had over the NFL I zone of the data you're linkage Islands
and they put the tariffs on Japan they stop sending rare earth minerals to Japan and
that's when the US started trying to you know look at the
security of our supply chains
have we done anything to secure our supply chains if the CCP
we're to say tomorrow cut off these other supplies
I hope so I don't see a Tong I mean I think it should
be much more strenuous in terms of
decoupling and risking from China
the Pentagon did announce today that it has a strategic stockpile of germanium
you know so that's a good sign at least I would hope that we have a
lot of other strategic stockpiles in case China
wants to cut off for example our antibiotics or any other number
of things that we depend on
them for well you know that brings us to another thing that which is the US
there was an interesting kind of play on words that came out and I know a
lot of it was more the conservative media in my opinion that kind of misconstrued it
but they said that we're not going to be pulling out of trade with
China they said we're going to be diversifying our supply chains and
that seemed like a kind of a fancy way of saying that we're going
to start pooling out from China but we're doing it slowly
what was your take on that whole thing I mean are we pulling out
of China to what extent are we doing it how do you see that
yeah I the whole in a language of decoupling really came from conservatives
and it was adopted by another name risking
by the liberals who came along you know finally
am so I mean I think you're absolutely right de risking is kind of a
continuum whereas decoupling is more
full and final but risking gets us to the same place so in effect
it's kind of the same thing as far as what we see today
well you know another thing happening right now is the Chinese Communist Party is
forming a new international block
and is part of that they're also pushing for de dollarization but
I've seen some mixed reports recently that it looked like the CCP was pushing really hard
to get other countries to drop the dollar
but now this reports that they're buying up US dollars again
what do you what do you make of this I mean on the surface it's hard
to know what they're doing when it seems like they are hypocritical of their own policies
what's going on with this I mean like any other capitalist or
they're trying to make money
and it's funny to call the Chinese Communist Party about your capitalists but really
there they're they are actually
out there making money in a very aggressive way kind of a Rockefeller
Rockefeller style capitalism
but so they probably think dollars if they're buying dollars they probably think dollars are on
the up and up and maybe they
if they're selling you on they think it's on the way down but they
are still trying to push
de dollarization of their at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting most recently they are stressing
that countries should stop doing deals with each other in dollars and it's a very serious
long term a risk to the diary two dollar dominant
and you know I would I would I would say that the US should
the more assertive encountering that de dollarization strategy by
essentially sanctioning or de prioritizing countries
that joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation that joined bricks
into countries that show that they're anti American by joining Russia and China
in their internet and their little international organizations
should be deemphasized in terms of American and European and Japanese Indian park
well and that's another big issue we're seeing though the CCP is trying to create international
blocks that are separate from the United States
they're doing it with the rich countries they're doing a new one for the trying to
get Asian countries to join together
they're doing it all throughout Latin America what is the risk to the US
if the CCP is able to form these blocks that
try to break US influence well one interesting thing is that Gallman and germanium
are actually produced largely by bricks countries Brazil Russia India
that's kind of you know you could imagine that bricks would
turned into some kind of an OPEC for
rare earth elements for example or something along those lines when it
could be any product or service
you know if they have a lock on it and they can
get a group of countries
you know together to impose basically be a cartel
we need to worry about them well you know that there brings us something else which
is you know the ability of the United States in addition to all this stuff
one of the ways the United States is able to let's say exert international
influence is through the threat of sanctions
and the US dollar being the world reserve currency
I is the main tool for that if we lose that
then what influence does the US have outside of actually going to war with countries
would a move away from the US dollar really represent like an
end to the pack's Americana
it would definitely be a blow to the apex Americana
you know I mean there are a lot of things short of war that
we can do so for example a naval blockade doesn't necessarily turn into a
war it could turn it
we could tax any Chinese shipping globally
armed that was moving goods from any two countries whether it's yeah ran
to China or are un to Germany even
I mean at some point we need to start paying for our
the provision of global security which we provide and we spend
you know we spent trillions of dollars overtime providing global security
and American taxpayers ultimately can't
you know can't keep doing that for free
so we need to think about alternative sources of revenue
I think that's one of the big ways the CCP plays the game different
from us when it comes to the international trade choke points
they have what they call of courses you know this the string of pearls
which as all these naval bases they've established in
you know other basis they've established at all the major maritime trade choke points
and the CCP actulydt actually does seem willing to
charge people money to charge tolls already even setup naval blockades
and I think that brings up another kind of a bigger issue with this the CCP
is more willing to exert influence
than the US is and I wonder sometimes if we're almost too night
do you think that is a detriment to the US or do you think that benefits
us over the CCP when it comes to the way we interact with other countries
but that's a sixty million dollar question right there it's very hard to answer the that
I mean I think there's argument I really think there's arguments on both sides I tend
to think we are too nice
AI think we should be sanctioning and taxing and doing tariff in
you know all the bad guys dictators around the world who are
doing bad things to their people and each other and
and democracies like Taiwan and Ukraine you know I think we should
be much tougher on all these
otherwise they just they just think we're weak and they
form cartels and they form alliance systems like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and bricks
and they'll do away with us eventually if we don't take stand
at what they say it openly that they plan on doing that
you know but there was one other thing wen to asked you about something really
interesting at least to me happened recently which is the US issued
a travel warning on China
saying there's a risk of wrongful detainment and for me that was something a little deeper
than just the surface you know
again travel warning on China what does that mean in terms of US China diplomacy
what does that say to the CCP I remember maybe Yellen won't becoming back I no
doubt they would go that far but
you know I would never travelled to China
I just don't think it's a safe place I wouldn't travel to Hong Kong
you know because China controls haunt Kong now so
you know businesses and CEOs that travel to China are in my view they're
taking their liberty in their hands
there are you know they could easily get and it's been going
on for years I mean
in a Rio Tinto while years ago had some of their employees
essentially kidnapped by the CCP and
they hired Kissinger to try to help them get him out and he couldn't
you know millions of dollars later didn't happen so
I just it's just getting worse now so
they're there again they're shooting themselves and their foot communists don't like
free markets so how do you think you know what's your long term exit
strategy in China it's not good
and they're making it very hard to repatriate profits out of China
so increasingly doing business in China is
what's known as hostage capitalism you have you do your business in China and then you
realize you can't get out and you just got to keep going you know
pretending like it's ok but really it's not you're a hostile
hum hay Andrews core it's always a pleasure having you on thank you so much
thank you George statement after the break we talk about the military's new transgender soldiers
welcome back the US Armed Forces have been releasing stories about the
New American soldier the transgenders
they're no longer about fighting wars they're about stopping stereotypes
but is this actually a good policy for the US military to get behind
what's the cost of taxpayers
and given that some of them have openly stated their Suicidal Tendencies
are they actually medically fit to serve we'll hear to speak with us about this is
Epoch Times reporter Darleen McCormick Sanchez
a Darleen thinks at being on crossroads
Josh thank you for having me so you did a story there the military recently pushed
out their own story about a transgender soldier
and they claim this individual was saved from suicidal thoughts through a gender change
and you know I was under the impression that Suicidal Tendencies
were considered a risk in the military so I mean what's going on here
yes exactly well the story I did Josh was
you know kind of addressing that there is a neuropsychologist in Fort Worth Texas
by the name of Alan Hopewell and he served in the military
and he's also treated transgender
people I people suffering from gender dysphoria back in the seventies actually
as when we started doing that
and I you know for him it's a concern he says that there is
that possibility when you're on Herman's
that you be you could become more aggressive I and that on top of
the stress of being you know deployed
you know could really be a problem and he thinks that there is going
to be a retention problem
and a military readiness problem for some of these trains gender soldiers
well you know that was a big question I've seen a lot of people have with
transgender surgeries and the types of hormones they give people
when it comes to the school shootings for example we've seen several
individuals who were on this medication
and there were some public concerns being raised over
did the medications have a part to play in that is it
like road rage they're getting essentially
what do we know about the science of how these things affect people's temperament
well I'm what I'm Mr Hopewell told me was that you know
even when you start taking the a
before the cross sex hormones before that and you go on a
puberty blockers that actually starts affecting your brain the way your brain is wired
in the way it functions
so I mean you have that combined with people that could have other
mental illnesses there such as anxiety depression even by polaris
I'm so you know for him I think he was very you know dubious
about this whole thing you know you've got people that have a tendency to
to be high on the suicide rate anyway you know transgender people
regardless whether're soldiers or not
there was a recent study that just came out a Danish study
that was in the story
you know on June 27th I believe it came out or at least it hit the
you know the medical journals talking about this very thing what a
high rate of mortality they had
you know all the way around so it is very concerning I think
and that doesn't of course that questions around the warfighting capabilities of our troops because
in addition to this there were also some reports recently that the
military the US Armed Forces
they were getting rid of some of the things that would disqualify you for service
such as various mental health issues and I'm curious if it came up on the
I think nature of the readiness of our military and the stability more importantly
of our military as of course they're going to ear really as
you mention high stress environments oftentimes
yes I mean you know it really if you think about it common sense would tell
you that this could definitely be a problem
and what you know Mr Hopewell said was that they have not really studied this they
haven't studied the effects of this medication
and how they would even be able to administer it
and what type of specific need somebody who underwent genders changing surgery for example
might need out in the field
he said it is bare bones out there you know there's nothing
fancy out in the field
so it in order to be deployed he said you have to be able to be
treated by basically a general practitioner
or you know someone working under a general practitioner no specialized care whatever out there
well it would explain that do you mean that transgender individuals who go to
the battle field would need some kind of ongoing care that they probably could
not get at that time
he seems to think so yes and if you if you think about it
if it's just a situation where he's ad not everybody you know
may have a problem it could be possible for some to serve
but he said you know if you think about it if you
go through in you're having a
you're on Herman's that could affect your mental stability
especially if you are under stress and you already have mental issues
you know going with your transgenderism and on top of that if you have had surgeries
you may need medication to help you deal with some of those surgeries
and so if you had to have specialized care which
there have been people who testified here in Texas for example when they were
going over laws to ban transgender
transit end of surgeries and hormones for children you know he was
talking bought he was there
an he testified himself and there was somebody there who said I can't get
the care I need here
you know whenever I go to the regular doctor they keeps sending me to specialists
so he's like how is that going to work in you know
a combat situation it won't
well I in what does that mean in terms of you know it used to be
that this would make you unfit to serve and that was the phrase they
would use you're unfit to serve
you can't enlist I understand they'd change some of those rules but you know
would that would these things normally make our troops unfit to serve
I would say based on what Mr hope I'll told me I would say yes
because any top of AI shouldn't say any top of mental illness the way he described
it to me was for example if you were stable let's say that you have
you can't disqualify everybody who had anxiety for example and our population from serving
or who had some sort of depression
for example of serving in the military you know you'd wipe out a whole
bunch of people it has to be somebody though that doesn't have a severe
issue and that is stable that's been on medication you know tried
to intrude medications for years
and are stable when they go in there but you know you're dealing with something that
really doesn't have that long of a track record you know you're giving people massive doses
of hormones and putting them out in a theatre
where you know other troops rely upon them for their own safety and for
defense you know you're a titenit unit
you have to rely upon your fellow soldier
and so if that person becomes mentally unstable
you know you can imagine what kind of disaster that might create
another question is are we are we as taxpayers paying for their surgeries I mean where
does the money come from for these things
it is taxpayer money yes I
the va is another issue they have the head of the VA now under
the Biden administration has said that
he wants the b a to provide these surgeries
am he's looking at that the final ruling on that he has
not you know signed off on
apparently there's been some pushback in Congress you know from the Republicans
I'm saying they don't want to fund this they don't want to send taxpayer money
you know down that line that should be going towards you know regular services
in the b at least that you know that's their stance on
so yes it does cost and there's been millions already spent on psychological
care for people who are gender dis for it dis fork I think about
11 11 point six million
from 2000 and 16 to 2021 just on you know
psychological care alone and then another three
about three and a half million on hormones and
surgeries in that same time period but this was only for maybe about 600 sold
as we know it seems to be almost like a social contagion as we
look at out spreading through the schools
and we can assume that once it's promoted even more people get onboard with it
does that actually come out of the defense budget like where does that money
come from is it a separate budget or is that a defense budget
my understanding is it is a well the VA budget would be
different but yes there is medical
my understanding is that the medical part of this you know treating soldiers would
be under the department of defense
well cheese why you know I guess that just big picture now I mean
why should people care about this if
you know of course you did a lot of research on it you talked
to a lot of people to you what is the biggest public concern
with this issue of again transgender soldiers and the military opening the doors to this
I think that to me the main issue is
one of safety and military readiness
I mean you can imagine being out in the field
you know I've not served in the military myself you know I've had you know
family members who've served but you could imagine being in that high stressed situation
and wanting to or needing to rely upon somebody else for your very life at times
and then if that person becomes unstable a mute because of medication
mix or because of mental instability
I mean to me that is the major thing it puts a seed of doubt
in your mind when you have to serve with someone like that I believe
I think it would be very difficult because you'd always be thinking
yourself is this guy going a
our girl woman I'm going to you know withstand this pressure and be there for the
unit when that person is needed
him Darlene McCormick Sanches thank you so much for being on crossroads
thank you so much for having me
that's all for tonight thank yeah for joining us and as always stay informed