Hello that's loud, okay good So we have Jeff Koffler and Andrew from Microsoft sharing their experiences with their work on Windows may just on Windows as well as a CMake build system. So I'm gonna head off to them and they can get started Thanks, so I was Andrew and this to my left is Jeff and we have some cohorts here Paul Allen, but not the Paul Allen Yes, as he pointed out is the only Paul Allen in our group and Then Lee Lee who's the who's our manager? All right, so as this is really loud this How's that? Okay, so we're here to talk about messes on Windows and our experiences with it so far so Why add Windows support to messes Well as you can see we have customers that are interested in Windows We're not fundamentally modifying messos in any way what we're doing is we are bringing up a messos agent on Windows, so if you have an existing messos cluster, it's the same messos cluster You're you're used to you can use it in the same ways you simply have the ability to add Windows nodes and Windows workloads to that Using Using messos you can Select Windows using the typical messos features You know OS CPU speeds other criteria And again, I wanted to emphasize it's the standard messos, you know, we're simply adding an agent for for Windows Little bit of history you can read the slides basically when we started it was started as a straight port So for example auto tools wouldn't work properly on Windows So they did a complete straight port of Basically what auto tools was doing Into CMake Since then we've come across and we've heavily modified of that modified that and made it much much cleaner and Annie You'll talk about that in a little in a little bit Where are we now As you can see we have the messes containerizer that supports job objects not quite the same level of isolation as You would get with Linux, but the best we can do on Windows. It supports Docker today. We're gonna demo that We have CMake and TFS long paths are working in a much less hacky way. You don't have to modify the registry any longer And we are there's a team of people that are actively working on messos every day I'm pushing changes into the master branch Add to that job object support So what I want to really make clear here is that we're trying to bring the best of both worlds like the expectations You would have using the messes containerizer, but also the expectations you have using Windows in general So the fact that we don't have C groups is not really a problem We're just doing the closest thing next to it which is sticking Processes into job objects so you could run a raw process on your Windows machine what that can give you as resource limitations I have that prototype right now You can set a hard cap on like your CPU and your memory usage But you don't get like the C group namespaces that you might have on Linux simply because that's not a thing on Windows We don't have namespaces in that way on the other hand the Docker containerizer totally works The Windows container support that the rest of Microsoft has managed to get working quite well is supported pretty natively here as well Okay So here's a brief demonstration or an example On the left we have a relatively standard marathon JSON file It's launching. I think you can maybe see okay. It's launching Microsoft IIS on a Windows system the window on the bottom right is IIS running and the window on the top right shows Docker running in An IIS container started by the messos agent Alright So here's a little more sophisticated example here. We have a hybrid DC OS cluster deployment So here when we're to trust when we're deploying services We use constraints like OS like Windows OS like Linux And that serves into specific services that are running The one that says Microsoft is obviously the run running Windows and the one that says Basic zero is a run that's running Linux in this example So here you can see we have nodes one one of the nodes of course is a Linux node one of the nodes is a Windows node and here's a perfect example of we haven't fundamentally changed messos in any way We're simply adding the ability to run a Windows workloads within your existing messos Linux clusters We're expanding that ecosystem Now we kind of had to squash two talks into one So one of this one of the things we've had to do for Windows was of course implement a new build system auto tools On Windows is not really a thing. It wouldn't be a proper build windows You generally use you know visual studio solutions or whatever you're targeting and this actually worked out really well because There's been a movement in the greater open-source community and in maysauce itself to kind of start replacing auto tools It's a great system. I do love auto tools It's gpl, but see make is a lot higher level. It's a meta build generator It lets you define at a really high level your build with not much code And then you generate the build files for the target platform you're on if you're on windows You get MS build solutions that you can open up in visual studio if you're on Linux You can use make files if you're on Linux You can also use the ninja build a system if you want if you're over on Mac This doesn't work quite yet But see make supports generating X code solutions there as well So you could open it up and your preferred IDE kind of just however you want and the nice key part is you don't have to care What your platform is see make has a nice little consistent? Interface to use I actually I really like this. I think it's on my next slide It is on my next slide. I do want to point out while see make is brings a lot of consistency to building There are still I don't want to call them hacks But there are still fundamental differences between some build systems, right? so debug and release configurations are something I recently enabled in see make and Unfortunately, although most things are consistent There is a difference between like single configuration generators and multi configuration generators in a make file build system You configure a folder for your build at configuration time You choose if you're going to have a debug or release build so you can set a variable Other platforms like visual studio you can open that up in a drop-down menu switch between debug and release at build time So while there's a lot of consistency these two commands are different for the debug and release configurations And I'm also going through and documenting this so that people as we switch over to see make Well, if you want to learn how to change your build I'll have the explanation of exactly what you need to do here other recent improvements that I've made We're supporting the Java bindings. So up until maybe a month ago if you built to see make master That may us master on Linux using see make you couldn't use marathon because we didn't have Java support whatsoever So I brought over the Java bindings just so all the projects that are using those are now supported the other things we've done I've really to Been tired even to speed up the build when I started on this December last year or so the windows build would take close to an hour to finish So we have gone through and we added pre-compiled header support because one thing that does happen a lot on Windows is it the compiler chokes on complex headers if you use stout if you use mess us You know about stout our giant header only library So our pre-compiled headers have cut down a lot of the build time just helped me out with that as well The nice thing with it is it uses a CMake module called co-tire. We don't actually change any source files It's just a configuration time header that's generated and included on the command line when it's built nice and automatic After going through and fixing up the CMake dependency graph, which was a mess Our link times are actually on par with Linux I did a fresh build from nothing earlier today on a reasonably fast machine. It was about 18 minutes I still want to get that down, but going from an hour to 18 minutes. I'm really really happy So to dive into some of this before you can move on I wanted to point out a couple things CMake allows you to build using MS build and Very typically projects that use MS build actually check-in VC projects that are tied to a Specifically to a specific version of Visual Studio One of the nice things that CMake gives you is it just builds with the video visual studio already installed on your machine So you don't really have to worry about it now in our particular case with messos We actually need the latest version of Visual Studio because we're using some compiler fixes in the very latest version But in the normal world, you know when we move beyond Visual Studio 2017 You know conceivably if we don't have to take the newest version Because of some dependency you can be a little more relaxed about what version you're running That's actually a great point. We're not doing this just for mess us But also for a lot of our dependencies zookeeper. I ran into a problem of on windows originally We just added a patch to mess us to patch zookeeper on the fly to add a hard-coded visual studio 2015 solution That's not maintainable because as soon as I wanted to go to 2017 What was I gonna do generate a new patch and if somebody wants to use go back to 2015? Do I have to tell them to check out old source? No instead. I deleted the solution entirely I pushed a new CMake build upstream to zookeeper. I worked with the thing It was Michael Hahn of the zookeeper project. It's integrated I got it back to the version of zookeeper we're using and will be Patchless soon as soon as we can just update our zookeeper bundle. So we're doing this from top to bottom We're trying to do it right So to go into some of the more Specifics a lot of people might question. Why why switch to CMake? Why use it at all? I touched on this a little bit earlier. It's consistent. It's easy to use when I go to Linux I don't have to remember make check. I can just run CMake dash build dot dashes target mess us tests that might be a bit longer than make check But that will also work on windows I can go to PowerShell run the exact same command and it will build the exact same target for me So as a developer that higher level abstraction makes working a lot easier Yeah, it's really quite nice. It's built for C and C plus plus And what I mean is it takes care of a lot of the Rote things that you might be used to an auditful is having to specify all of your headers. That's automatic Your compiler can look at your source files and deduce what headers you need to include on when you're building that object, right? Well CMake just runs your compiler and sees what you need to include So you don't have to specify all these dot HPP's all over the place. They're just gone. They're figured out for you It it's it's a beautiful little system I did yeah, I also supported ninja builds. There's a I'm not sure if he's a committer There's an active mess us community member named Benjamin Bannier who really wanted to use ninja It's an amazing little build system for Linux. It's like make but with a lot better dependency checking And it's really good at maximizing utilization of your processor without with automatic parallelization Without a lot of thrashing going on so ninjas supported as well Those are now these patches are all upstream in master branch of my sauce. You can use this today. It's I had a lot of fun with it so The other thing with CMake was if you looked at the code previously We touched on this a little early on the original port over to Windows They looked through the auto tools files and they kind of just wrote copied it when auto tools said include these directories They made a CMake file that said include these directories. Yes, that worked We had a working build, but it's not the way you would normally use CMake. They kind of Skip past all the high-level abstractions. You can use in CMake to generate a nice build system for yourself So I spent the last couple months Rewriting it. It's been completely refactored. We now actually use real CMake targets So but what I mean by that is stout is our header only library Usually with a header only library you need to remember that for every dependency that uses this header only library to specify in its Compilation flags like in your make file. Hey pound include not pound include dash I The stout folder you don't do that in CMake in CMake. There is a CMake list file for stout We say add library stout interface We have one more line that says target include directory the include folder for stout Anything else that needs to depend on stout can link to it like a normal library. You say target link libraries lib process stout It's picked up for you automatically It goes into the dependency graph when lib process needs when lib miss us needs to then link to lib process You don't specify it again.  There's a proper graph underneath it I also went through and did that for all the rest of our third-party dependencies as you know There's probably what 20? I think we counted different dependencies under a third party that we bundle or find on the system All those are properly imported as real targets that seems like it would add a lot of code But by doing that I was able to delete giant files Over a thousand lines of unnecessary code was deleted in my refactor and to make that number actually seem To give you perspective here. I added 200 lines So I replaced that like a five-to-one ratio of high-level build code It's well I have screenshots to show you what this looked like in the refactor The left the totally unreadable code was the totally unreadable CMake belt it worked It was a really really good first go it got us working on Windows. It started this whole process I couldn't have done what I did without the previous developers writing this But once we had it there, I noticed it was just unmaintainable people wanting to add a new third-party dependency We're giving up. I would go and help them. I try to explain how to do it. I'm like, you know what? No, I can make this easier. I know I can make this easier. This is the new code for the mesos agent That's it. That's the whole file. There's a Apache license header above it But if you go to the agent folder and source slave that is the file You'll find add executable messos agent main dot CBP That's the source file that you use to build the messos agent The only other bit of information you need to tell it is that it depends on the messos library All of the dependencies that lib messos has are picked up through the graph when you build messos agent It's just figured out and generated for you. I don't want to say magically, but it works like magic The add sub directory pieces are just the fact that CMake is kind of like auto tools The right way you do it is a CMake list file per folder per target that you need So that just tells you hey, there's three folders in here with more targets I included it because it was in the original Those are two different files actually both of which were required This middle file is completely deleted. It was the agent configure file It had a bunch of magic variables for the third-party information I just get rm'd it and all that information much of it was redundant the link directories The target link libraries the add dependencies. It just comes from the graph. They include directories That just comes from the graph it turned into those two lines. It was really something The other comparison I want to make is to auto tools, which is a nice little build system But like I said CMake is a really high-level Metabill generator it figures out your headers. So this is the Relevant parts of the make file that I could find for building the messos agent in auto tools Comparing it to the right-hand side over here. This is a lot easier to reason about and maintain those headers are just Figured out the proto libraries are part of the messos proto bus Which is the library that live messos links to why do you need to specify it again? You really don't why do you need to specify the messos CPP flags for the messos agent if those are project-wide flags? They're picked up for you. So CMake is a nice build system. It's far from perfect. There are hacks. There's always hacks in a build system I'm going through and documenting those they're commented in the code But part of my hackathon project on Wednesday here was to actually pull all of that out I'm also gonna have a CMake bag example to show you. Hey, you want to add a third-party library? Here's how to do it I Don't have a slide for third-party libraries, but I wanted to point out that a lot of what I did To fix the third-party libraries was to localize the information So for G log one of our third-party dependencies that takes up quite a bit of setup the setup used to be split among a Few different files in lip process in third-party in the source files Instead when done properly, it's a set of maybe 12 lines of code and third-party CMake lists that say hey We have this project called G log. It's a shared library. We build it in this way The source comes from here. We import it as a CMake target Stout later can just say target link libraries stout G log anything that links to stout again head or only library But in may a sauce that doesn't and CMake it doesn't matter Picks up the dependency for you and just knows how to link it and how to build it. It's fantastic Now CMake is really really cool, but it's obviously cool. I love it the other work that we've done to Improve the mess us build for all of us is to add a review bot for Windows in January I say every three or four days I pulled master sources and somebody committed a patch that didn't build on Windows and I had a drop what I was doing and fix it again And I don't blame anyone nobody was testing it for them and I can't make everybody test their stuff on Windows So instead we added a real review by it's like the Linux review bot you know and love for Linux It just does it on Windows for you as well It's been up and the amount of times I've had to fix a build break and master for Windows has gone down dramatically I think it's like once a month now We've also been working to get nightly builds of the missus binaries available for Windows So if you want to test this project, we'll have binaries available that you can just go and build Part of what I want to work with being noticed. We're getting Apache Software Foundation CI up to right for packages Eventually as this project goes along. We'll have packages you can use to install mess us to I Think that was my next slide continuous integration for Windows working with mess a sphere specifically Joe He also helped us set up CI for Windows as well. So we know when our tests are passing. Oh I think it's in the next slide, but Do you want to talk about the test that for you? I was gonna point out we have not as many tests on Windows as we have on Linux 630 versus 1400 messes that's messes test. Yeah, I think it's like 1400 on Linux So at like a rough glance it might look like 50% test coverage, but we're actually Still in the process of porting mess us to Windows as we port components like as we port over lib processes We port over the fetcher. We're porting all the tests with it So that 630 tests represents a much higher amount of coverage for the components that we have working on Windows Maybe 70 80 percent. I'd have to actually dig into numbers But don't fret if you only see 630 tests. We we're trying to keep our coverage pretty high I'm gonna pass this back over to Jeff to give you a case studying Okay, so one thing I missed mentioning by the way is we're very engaged with the messers community We work closely with them our changes are committed to mainline after a careful review and discussion We are active on the dev lists. We are active in architectural changes that that are being discussed And basically our goal is to work very closely with the open source community to make sure that what we're doing is Something that everybody is comfortable with Here we have a case study C trip international really the point of this slide is just to point out This stuff works. It's there today. We have customers using it under production today So it's there it works if you guys want to play with it and see See it in action. You can do that right now today. We wouldn't necessarily recommend running it in production, but there are people doing it Okay, I'm gonna do a demonstration of a hybrid cluster Alright, so here we have a Couple of different nodes and if we select one of the nodes Go to details. You can see under attributes the OS is Linux and if we select a different node Here you see under attributes the OS is windows so we have some services here and using the the constraint that I mentioned we have Some two services set up one is for is with a constraint that it has to run on windows and one is for engine X with a constraint That it has to run on Linux So basically these are typical DC OS Services you launch it with a JSON file just like you guys are comfortable with and here is a window That shows it running on Linux and to prove it's real I will refresh and they're refreshed It's not cashed in fact here.  Yeah, good demo. So here and then you can see that That windows is still having problems loading if you look at the progress bar. So I'm going to go back and resume IAS Wait for it to deploy this time Okay, and then here it's still having problems loading. I'm going to kill that and refresh There you go And so yeah, this shows IAS running on on Windows So that's the demonstration Did want to point out go back here go back to nodes This this cluster just had you know, it started is with just Linux nodes and the windows Nodes were just added to it without any changes to the master Okay, so what's next? We're actively working on adding authentication support hasn't I don't think that's made it to master yet But it's it's tested and working and I think it's out for review patches are up for it Krammd5 is supported and we're working on additional authentication methods using plugins just like on Linux Some upcoming DC DC OS services we're looking at is metrics Barton and navstar and I'm working on getting the fetcher deployed on Windows patches are almost up for that and I did want to Emphasize what Andy said increase unit test coverage by porting more tests I always start like when I started with the fetcher the very very very first thing I did was ported all the tests see what failed and I'm and and as part of my work I'm fixing those and I have something like 30 tickets in JIRA to look at all the tests that we may have ported and forgot To close the tickets on so yeah, we're getting through it the other thing we're doing of course is Planning the eventual deprecation of auditions in CMake for in favor of CMake so that we don't have to maintain two build systems Simultaneously, so that'll come along as well. Yeah, that's something that we're working with the community for it's going to be a while But but it is something that I think not just Microsoft would appreciate but the developers would appreciate as well Okay, there's some resources that you could look at if you'd like Github.com slash Microsoft slash messos has some interesting pointers for Messos stuff. Here's some DC OS links that you could look at as well There the windows repository is available as well and the ACS engine allows you to very very quickly deploy DC OS clusters Just takes a few commands to do that That's work that Paul's been working to enable. Yes are Paul Allen. Yeah Okay, so where are we going from here Really, we're very very customer driven. We'd like the customer in the community to decide if a customer has very very specific Usage scenarios. We would really like to engage with you and hear what they are so we can meet your needs You can join us on the Messos Slack channel The windows is a common one, although we hang out on most of them Right after this This presentation we're going to the booth if you have any particular questions Please join us at the booth and we're happy to discuss stuff with you. Thank you for coming. Does anyone have any questions? Why don't you give him the mic so it's recorded So you said now you could build messos agent on Windows when is the master going to be ready or is it already ready? A lot of the master code I know builds because most of the unit tests require spinning up parts of the master to build The messos master executable right now I mean the CMake file is just if not Windows. I would like to try it. It's something I'd like to experiment with we don't have a huge customer demand to have a master building on Windows because most of these people Most of you lovely people out there really already have mess those clusters with your masters up and on Linux and deployed And just want Windows agents added to it So priority wise it may not be our highest thing But the big troublesome part about bringing the master over to Windows is its dependency on level DB Which we've looked at and I like oh that might need to be ported so Depends on where we get with that Does anyone have any other questions? I'm just wondering if Like I saw it during the demo demonstration that it had I think one CPU 128 makes a RAM Are those actually being honored right now Windows when that's running either through docker or through the kind of native Windows deployments? Yes, they're real numbers that is the actual docker container Docker being ported to Windows. We just kind of shell out to docker So any isolation or resource limitations you set for the docker containerizer work The job objects That's coming. I have a branch up that I've tested I ran a process that is Supposed to use as much RAM as it can and I set with my branch a hard limit of like nope stop at a One gigabyte of RAM totally stopped right there So that's in process and we'll come along Probably in the next month or so, but we're working to make sure all those resource limitations are real live reported correctly and Can be used You showed a client that was already running this in production Are they running down as your container services? Are they running that on-prem? Yeah, the case study that we show there is actually on-prem customer and then currently we're also working on some DCOS customers as well. I think that will come in pretty quickly next I would imagine that the timeline to really let them to use our product DCOS In their production might be some time, you know April or May time frame, but the lower lower layer like missiles Layer has been in the production already Any other questions? I was curious About the GPU support if you guys know how does that work on Windows? No GPU support yet I like that you asked that though because now I can make a ticket to look at it eventually So if you have a particular request or a requirement I will encourage you to follow up with us on either a select channel Or you know send the email to and in the Jeff and then We'll work with you closely to support the scenarios that you want to support We have a lot of things at least there that we want to target next But if you have you know more concrete requirements, and then it can change the power tail flower Since our list as well We are open to listen and then we actually like to work with customers to support those scenarios So I was just curious about what what are the big items for moving or dropping auto tools that are left I don't have Python bindings working yet. So that might be a bigger item to work on Other than that We're getting really close actually. There's obviously a lot of effort to go into making sure the whole community can use C make comfortably As part of why I'm here. I want to ask you all to try it out I want to make sure that it works as well as it can for you. I think it's a great build system I know what's far from perfect, and I know I'm really the As the one who rewrote it. I tested it for my scenarios I try to test as many other scenarios as I could but please try it out in the real world give it a whirl Let me know if something's missing that you need so I can go at it We do have an epic tracking the Technical issues that we found so far, but yeah, there is I wanted to add I mean we do have review about running obviously that uses C make every single day In Microsoft we obviously you see make every single day because that's all that works on Windows So, you know it is working It it's working for what we need it doesn't have everything that auto tools have And I don't know if we're ever gonna completely replace that because auto tools does a lot We just want to replace what's actively used So kind of tying into what you just said when when do you think we can get rid of auto tools completely? Or at the very least switch over all the docs on the on the miso's site to say hey You see make like don't even talk about auto tools The number that I've heard thrown out talking to some maintainers is probably on about a six-month time frame to do that to say Hey by default, please you see make and use it without you know, of course deleting the audit tool stuff Beyond that we kind of need to see once people start adopting it widespread How long it'll take to get rid of all the rest of replace all the rest of audit tools? So six months ish to default any other questions? Thanks very much for joining us


Dyna gorau'r ffordd, dyna gorau'r gwaith yn y ffordd. Dyna gorau'r gwaith yn y ffordd, dyna gorau'r gwaith so wahanol bynnag deall iechyd. Beth dyna ryw hwn yn ddechrau sy'n gynhyrchu cyllid. Dyna gorau'r digwydd i gael ei gwybodaeth i ni iswyddiadau'n gwerthwyd? Mae'r ddefnyddio'r gandjęio will hon yn dweud bod yna gandjęio'r gilydd. As though things just fall into their lap with minimal time and effort, you may then look at yourself and feel as though you are not very lucky. When you do that, when you look at someone else's luck or abundance, and then reflect on the lack of luck or abundance in your life, you are sending out a negative vibration to the universe. Your thoughts and emotions are sending out a message or a quest to the universe. Whatever you focus on or dwell on will soon become your reality. Whatever you think or feel about yourself will soon manifest in physical form.  And not only should you think it, but you should really feel it and believe it, that it can be your reality, that it is something that you are capable of. If you really believe it and dwell on the positive emotions that come from visualising and imagining what it would be like to live a life full of abundance, the physical world has no choice but to reflect what you are visualising or imagining. You may not believe it in the beginning, but if you persist and continue in this course of action in spite of difficulty or opposition, it will become your reality. You will manifest a life of abundance. Whatever you want, whatever you believe that you are capable of, your thoughts become things.  So think positive thoughts. Don't dwell on negative things. If you need to reflect on something negative that has happened, set some time each day to do that. But for the rest of the day, you should be in high vibrations, thinking positive thoughts, feeling high vibrational emotions such as peace, love and joy. When you are in a high vibration, your thoughts have more power. Your thoughts have more power to manifest whatever you intend to manifest.  So have an awareness of your thoughts and emotions at all times. Practice mindfulness and meditation. Use essential oils that have a high vibration like rose, frankincense or lavender. Have a list of things that you are grateful for and read it every day. Have a list of positive affirmations and read them two or three times a day. This will help to keep you in a high vibration where you can manifest the reality that you want. This will make a positive change in your life. This will make a difference. This will improve your way of living and the quality and standard of your life. Thank you for watching. I hope this video resonated with you. Please like, comment, share and subscribe. Click on the bell icon to receive notifications for my future videos. If you would like to donate, my PayPal link is in the video description. Coach and enquiries can be on me at narsforvertcoaching.com. Check out the new merchandise in the Narsforvert store where you can purchase your own Narsforvert t-shirt, tank top or mug. The link is in the video description. Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon.


On this episode of Skepticoke, Politics. Let's start with a clip from one of my favorite political documentaries. American ingenuity and hard work, unlike my friend here, Cam Brady, who believes that everyone should live in rainbow land. Yeah, I'd like to say one thing. I'm an American too. And I have no idea what he's referring to as rainbow land, okay? I'm referring to a 13 page doctrine written by Camden Brady called rainbow land. That's something I wrote in the second grade. I do not want to live in rainbow land and you can make me live. That's a good one from the movie campaigns. Zach Galifianakis and Will Ferrell. I was kidding about it being a political documentary, but again, maybe not. And it's particularly relevant to today's interview with the very excellent Mark Malone. And I have to say, this is one of those interviews that I really, really enjoy because it changed my perspective, which is a nice way of saying it showed me where I was wrong. So Mark, as you'll hear in this interview is all about political activism and political change around this issue of Agenda 21. If you've ever heard of that or Agenda 2030, if you've ever heard of that or the Great Reset, if you've ever heard of that, which I have to say to me always sounded a little bit like rainbow land. Just whipping people up for something that's never really going to happen. And what I mean by that is most of the implementation of Agenda 21 has been happening, but most people haven't really noticed it happening. So when 2030 came out in 2015, they really started moving the train more quickly and started implementing in most major cities across the world. You think, okay, what does that mean? I mean, most things are pretty much still the same. Exactly. More UN, Yadda Yadda, New World Order, Yadda Yadda. This stuff isn't really going to happen, right? That may seem the case on a high level, but when you go to the local cities, when you go to London, when you go to Los Angeles, you go to San Francisco, it's not the case at all. So I can give you an example. I launched this project in Montana. I did the presentation with them and I explained how it is implemented in Missoula, so the county of Montana on the west side. You have what is called a non-governmental organization like United Cities and local governments. They work with two American organizations, branches of the federal government called Councils of Governments and Metropolitan Planning Organizations, right? So basically you have this hierarchy that comes all the way from the UN, all the way down to these local organizations. Councils of Governments will say to your city council, your county council, if you don't adopt climate regulation, we won't be able to give you the federal funds. They get those federal funds from the Highway Commission and in some cases even the Department of Homeland Security. Okay, at this point, I have to tell you I was getting a little bit scared. I try not to let people push my fear button, but I still have a fear button and Mark's very matter-of-fact way of presenting what he's found happening on the streets of Missoula, Montana did push my fear button. So I decided I'd better do a little bit of research and try and find out what this Agenda 21 Great Reset officially really is all about. What is the UN pushing here and what have so many countries including the United States signed off on? So let me take a look. Okay, YouTube Agenda 21. Okay, here we go. From the World Economic Forum 1.4 million views, Davos Agenda 21. This looks official. The pandemic has radically changed the world as we know it and the actions we take today as we work to recover will define our generation. Okay, of course, obviously. Oh, wait, wait a minute. No, it hasn't changed the world. I mean, at this point in this game, the things we can kind of be most sure of as one is that some very wacky messed up people slash governments created this COVID bio weapon. And the other thing we know is that it didn't really change the world. At the end of the day, it winds up looking more and more like a really bad flu. So why are they so insistent on the fact that this is the major turning point event? We can see rays of hope in the form of a vaccine, but there is no vaccine for the planet. Don't want to go back to the status quo that you had before simply because it was the status quo that got us here. With everything falling apart, we can reshape the world in ways we couldn't before. And that's why so many are calling for a great reset. Wait a minute. Now I'm starting to think I really am in rainbow land. I'm starting to think this is some kind of conspiracy. There's no other word for it. And it's not surprising that people who've been disenfranchised by broken system and pushed even further by the pandemic will suspect global leaders of conspiracy. Alright, so they're saying it does sound like a conspiracy. So that must mean it's not a conspiracy, right? And with climate change set to dwarf the damage caused by the pandemic, the message from 2020 should be... Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow down. Wait a minute. The climate change global warming thing never panned out. It's not true. I mean, all the islands they said were going to disappear, they still are there. They said the ice was going to melt and Antarctica and our satellites show that there's more ice than there was before. So don't we have to recalibrate? That's the sensible thing to do, isn't it? The message from 2020 should be abundantly clear. Capitalism, as we know it, is death. So if you want to be a part of the change, then tune in, turn on and get involved. Follow the Davos Agenda right here, online, on YouTube. Oh my, they really are trying to get away with this. And even though I'm not a political person, this is certainly an issue I can get behind.  Tell me you're going to do everything within your power to stop this craziness and you have my vote. The approach that I'm trying to take via Negativa is look, the incentive is basically very straightforward. Like I have to go back to Montana and I have three county governments sponsoring my plan now, by the way. Which is great because six months ago, I was just a random dude on the internet. And six months later, I have three county governments back in the plan, which is great. And we also had the governor of Montana drop climate membership and band mandatory vaccinations. So you can do a lot in a short time. You can do a lot in a short period of time. I always liked those people in Montana and I like them a whole lot more nowadays. Stick around for my interview with Mark Malone and let's figure out how we gum up this crazy machine a little bit. Welcome to Skeptico where we explore controversial science and spirituality with leading researchers, thinkers and their critics. I'm your host Alex Cares and today we welcome Mark Malone to Skeptico. Mark is a super impressive guy, Oxford trained philosopher as well as entrepreneur, political activist and founder of America 21, which he's here to tell us about. Mark, welcome to Skeptico. We've already had a good little chat. We're going to have a lot to talk about. But welcome. Thanks so much for joining me. Yeah, it's a pleasure to chat again Alex. I think last time was Union of the Unwanted. Yes, yes, which you never get to chat a lot with each other about, but you know, it makes these connections, which is so wonderful. I really love what they're doing. So it's great. So tell folks about America 21. I'm sure you get this question a lot. Number one question. What's this guy with this British accent doing talking about America 21 and saving America from global governance? Hey, you, what are you doing? Dude, I get it every like I did an interview on mainstream radio statewide radio Montana because that's where we launched this project because they asked me to and we can get into that. Yeah. So in the first that's basically what he asked me is like, so why do you even like what do you even do? Why do you even care? And I was like, well, because it's my home now. I mean, I moved here four years ago. My wife's from here. My wife's from Minnesota. That's why I moved here and we have obviously two babies. So, you know, that's the primary reason. But you know, the other thing that I kind of mentioned tongue in cheek is like, don't forget that half your founding fathers were also English born like me. Let's not forget that. Let's not forget that many of the people that founded this country were men like me who are essentially English Republicans, which is what I am. You know, so we can't forget our roots. I'm not saying we should be lost in that because we, you know, they carved out a new identity and I'm all for that. You know, but I am part of that history by default anyway. So here I am. But you know, I see this to people all the time and I really do love America and despite its many faults, I do think it is still the best country in the world. But I would be doing this work in any country if I lived in Thailand, I'd be doing it. You know, if I lived in France, I'd be doing it because it's it's about freedom. It's about good. You know, I'm with you on that the way I always put it sometimes is the ideal is certainly our best chance. I used to love the Navy ads that they used to run before they changed them. But it was show this big, huge aircraft carrier trudging through the water and it said a force for good. And isn't that what we want America to be? Now, the interesting thing, the dark side is they've changed that ad. It's more or less the same. But you know what the new tagline is? A global force for good. Right. Of course. Tell us about America 21 and what that's all about. Yes. So I founded it as a organization to undo UN initiatives. So essentially what we're trying to do at the most high level, 30,000 for overview is to repeal United Nations initiatives, separate ourselves from global governance before it happens. You know, there is obviously gender 21, 20, 30, which we can talk about. I focus on what is quantifiable, what is provable. I do have a lot of books from the global elite. You know, I have David Rockefeller's memoirs. I have Spigna Brzezinski, who's National Security Advisor for Jimmy Carter and big mentor to Barack Obama. I have their books, right? But we do have to be cautious not to equate correlation with causation, right? So we do have to be, we have to be sure, right? Yes. Spigna Brzezinski definitely wanted a global governing structure. Rockefeller did. Klaus Schwab does as well. But we do have to be cautious, right? We can make a lot of assumptions in that process and saying, well, because these guys are in positions of power and they want this, it must be the case. And that's of course not technically true, right? So I focus on 2030 and 21 because they are provable. They are quantifiable. And with the 2030 legislation in particular, it is implemented in law in this country, in every country in the world, pretty much in most major cities. We got to run that down for folks. A ton of folks will know what you're talking about, but some folks won't. So really dig into that. And what you mean when you say that it's law, because what a lot of people will kind of skate and say, well, you know, that's not really going to happen. And this might happen and that might happen. So dig into that, Mark. Sure. So just to kind of do high level of view again from the beginning, Agenda 21 was launched in 1992 by 179 nations, including this one, George H. W. Bush. Many people might remember the famous YouTube clip of him saying, you know, when we're successful with this new old order and we will be, you know, the United Nations can retain its peacekeeping role as a leader of the world. Well, he said that in 92, just prior or just after signing Agenda 21. So the idea was we need to expand resource control for the sake of saving the world from climate change. That was the point. And in the document, it basically talks about three core composites, land, water and air. And the justification, of course, is okay, we're going to save the world from climate change. We need a better regulation and control over land, water and air. And again, I'm actually pro environmentalism. I'm just not pro climate change industry. So at the surface, it sounds pretty good, right? I want to look after land in the water. I don't want to pollute. I totally understand all that. I'm definitely not a major corporate kind of guy who says, Hey, as long as we're making money, we can destroy things. I'm not a guy at all. But we also have to be street smart about it and understand, you know, what that really means. And as you dig through the document, you know, it talks about everything from livestock. So page 350 of the UN's biodiversity treaty assessment report states this, right? That livestock, food, farmland, these things will have to be reduced if not eliminated completely, right? So the idea here is anything that's petrol, fuel, right? So there goes your cars, there goes traveling planes, there goes farmland. Essentially, it's the restriction of any autonomy. And this is all documented in, you know, signed off by 179 nations. 2030 comes in in 2015, which a lot of people think is a replacement. So hold on, let's pause there for a second because the pushback potential white knight saving the day is climate science, global warming science, which has completely crapped on all that nonsense from 1992, right? And there's actually been some progress in that. So climate gate shows that the science is corrupt and they're making it up. Many activists have come forward, scientists have come forward and said, look, just go outside and all those islands that they said are going to disappear, they're still there. Go look at the satellite images of Antarctica. There is more ice than there was before. Go look at the Amazon. There's more greenery.  Again, I'm not all about destroying the world so that we can jam more people in here. But I would have to say that the time capsule of 1992 is gone to and we can't go back and pretend we're back there. They're still pushing the global warming thing and every time you turn around. But I think it has a different a different tone to it now when they play that music, not as many people are dancing and more and more people are going like, wait a minute, that's that's done. I just remember last last winter, man. I was skiing the whole frickin winter. It snowed from, you know, beginning to end. So do we have less to worry about with the failure that was global warming?  Well, you know, so often people will cite the 97% of scientists all agree that climate changes is human cost. And this is based on 11,944 papers from John Cook University in Australian Queensland. So they've taken basically close to 12,000 scientific papers and said, hey, 97% of scientists agree. That's not true because when you actually dig into those papers, 33% only 33% agree. And of that 33%, only 0.5% say it's totally caused by humans. Of the 33%, they say it's partially caused by humans. And two thirds of the 97% don't actually have an opinion either way. They don't know. So that 97% figure is thrown around a lot as if that's what they all agree on. Well, no, that's actually just what the papers are stating an opinion on. There's a study from Yale University that basically stated we're at about 400 parts per million right now of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So at 400 ppm, if we were to go down to as low as 150 parts per million, plant life would start to become extinct. So if we were to basically drop just over half where we are now, they say plant life would struggle to even exist. They said that we could go up to 2,000 parts per million so we could 5x what we are now and be comfortable. And in parts of history, I'm assuming they didn't say when, but I'm assuming the Industrial Revolution launch, we were at as high as 4,000 parts per million, so 1,000% higher than the carbon dioxide levels right now. So there's all sorts of science that you can take either direction. But there's plenty of very, very esteemed scientists and universities that have put out literature on this and said, no, the carbon dioxide levels are nowhere near dangerous. So we have to take that as well. But even if you were to take the premise that it is real to some degree, which I find hard by the things you've said, there have been so many predictions that have never happened, never even close to happened and in some cases have reversed, why would your solution be Agenda 21 Global Governance? Why would that have to be the solution? Why would the solution have to be regionalization of nations? And why not just use nuclear energy? There's all sorts of holes in the narrative when you start to look at it even if it is true. Well, absolutely. So where I'm kind of was trying to take you and I know you have a lot of ideas on this, so I want to hear it is we're in this kind of wrestling match, judo match.   Anyone who looks into it even a little bit like goes to the science you're talking about. Judith Curry, a Georgetown University climatologist. I love what she did on the cook thing, you know, the 97% just destroys it just completely utterly destroys it and not only destroys the stat 97%, but more importantly, shows how rigged the methodology was how fundamentally rigged the science was because if we are going to stand on science, we need good science. I'm digressing a little bit.  I kind of so that's what I want you to play with a little bit is. Yeah, agenda 21, total, total rigging accelerated technocracy, but it didn't work. It was a sigh up that kind of didn't work. And that doesn't mean we let our guard down because this next one might work. But I want you to play with that space that we're in and maybe you totally disagree with that. But yeah, so I think it works a lot better than we think. The issue is that because most of it goes on undetected. And what I mean by that is most of the implementation of agenda 21 has been happening, but most people haven't really noticed it happening. So when 2030 came out in 2015, they really started moving the train more quickly and started implementing in most major cities across the world, 2030 legislation. So essentially, you could look at that as a milestone of the 21st century goals, right? Gender 21 is the 21st century. So it's what they want to achieve over this whole century, really by 2050. So 2030 comes in and they say, look, we want to have most of this in place by 2030. You think, OK, what does that mean? I mean, most things are pretty much still the same. That may seem the case on the high level, but when you go to the local cities, when you go to London, when you go to Los Angeles, you go to San Francisco, it's not the case at all. So I can give you an example. I launched this project in Montana. I did a presentation for the Republican Party at their convention. I was asked to, so I was like, OK, great. I'll work with anyone who wants to do the work, right? I would work with the Democrats if they were up for it to. Don't expect that to happen though. So in this case, I did the presentation with them and I explained how it is implemented in Missoula, so the county of Montana on the west side. Now, you can apply this to any county in pretty much any state and pretty much anywhere in the world. You have what is called a non-governmental organization like United Cities and local governments. They work with two American organizations, branches of the federal government called Councils of Governments and Metropolitan Planning Organizations, right? So basically you have this hierarchy that comes all the way from the UN all the way down to these local organizations. Councils of Governments will say to your city council, your county council, if you don't adopt climate regulation, we won't be able to give you the federal funds. They get those federal funds from the Highway Commission and some cases even the Department of Homeland Security. So they hold the money. They go, hey, you want this federal money? You need to have the climate regulation. Metropolitan Planning Organizations do it in the business sense. So they say, look, if you want to operate in our city, you have to adopt these stringent rules. They also break up the zones to try to make cities in a sense more circular, more isolated. The whole idea of this is to create city-like states like the Roman Empire. I can go into that more if you'd like, but long story short is you're looking at a city-state structure, basically controlled by the United Nations as opposed to Westminster as opposed to DC. That's generally the idea. And they do it by implementing it locally. So they bypass the nation. They're going to be wrong. There are national directives, but the vast majority of this goes straight from top to bottom. So straight from the United Nations through the NGOs right down to the county level. And it's implemented. I use the example in Montana because I was there, but as I say, it's everywhere. They have implemented 2030 into county law. It's in the law now. So by 2030, no fuel, no cars, most independent businesses would be ruined, no travel, et cetera, farmland restricted, everything. It's in law. You're bringing so much to the table that I'm sure people haven't heard about and need to dig into your excellent website. Your blog posts are terrific, well-written, and then you do some great media appearances. So people can find all that. That's not my job here. My job here is to be kind of skeptical. Let me play you a clip. This is from an interview I did. Actually, the years are piling up, but it's with Dr. Alexander Wint from Ohio State University and James Corbett. Everybody knows James Corbett. And even though he hasn't tuned into the spiritual connection and the consciousness connection and staying kind of grounded, he still has provided an unbelievable eye-opening service to all of us. But here's the thing. Alexander Wint is really a pretty fantastic guy, even though he's an academic. And he's super highly respected in his field. So he comes out and he says, one world state. Yeah, well, that's probably an inevitable end game. Just looking at it on a kind of global basis. You start with all these tribes. You start with all these villages and hollering over the holler to talk to your neighbors. And then it becomes bigger and bigger and you consolidate control and power in particular. Now your army and stuff like that. And he goes, yeah, one world state that is where kind of the game ends. He says, so let's kind of flip the script a little bit. And instead of pushing back and denying, you know, that these guys are going to be successful. Let's say, okay, what this is really about is maintaining our rights, our freedoms in a one world state. How do we make sure that a one world state democracy works? So with that, I'm not asking anyone to agree with that. But I'll play the clip now between Dr. Alexander Wint and James Corbett, where they kind of, I had him both on. James didn't like that too much. Here goes. On this episode of Skeptico. There is the, you know, the deep state idea that behind all this, there would be some more almost criminal elements that would be, you know, dealing with dissenters and that kind of thing. And I guess that is a worry, but it seems to me there's much in what you were just saying is exactly how I would put it actually, which is that there's a much better chance of dealing with that element, that problem in a single global structure where you have sort of a global democracy than there is in a world of 190 separate sorenties where nobody's in charge. There is no pretense of democracy. There's no pretense of global law. And where the strong can basically do whatever they want. 500,000 Iraqi children had died as a result of the sanctions on Iraq when asked, is it worth it? Is it worth it? And Madeleine Albright said, well, yes, I think it is worth it to kill 500,000 Iraqi children. I think that's the mentality of these people that human life really does not mean anything to them. And to hand them the power and control over the entirety of the globe is something that should strike fear into the hearts of anyone who understands what is really at stake here, especially given the technocratic control grid that we're moving into. Okay, Mark, what thank you. Yeah, so I've heard this one before. I actually addressed this in my thesis on site, so people should read that or listen to the audio book version, which is on the site too, because I addressed this issue, which is that how do we protect individual sovereignty as the, let's say that's the primary function, right? So the problem that we see with a one world state outcome is there's no who is the guarantor of the protection of that individual sovereignty. Let me give you an example. So in America, we have somewhat a similar premise of ideas, right, like in this country, unlike pretty much anyone else, we think guns are one of those important things, right, like you should have a right to protect yourself and if necessary protect yourself from the tyrannizing of the state. Most people don't share that ideal. So how exactly who's going to be the guarantor of my individual rights in this one world state outcome when most of the world don't agree with that, that very fundamental ideal that we have. We could also apply that to other things, right, we could apply that to freedom of religion, we could apply that freedom of speech but but the gun one is really obvious because pretty much no other country does have that constitutional law right in Switzerland. They're the only other country in the Western world that have guns and even then you have to go through like mandatory militaries, mandatory military training, etc, etc. So what I would say is that who's going to be the guarantor because the burden of proof is on you, right, this is your proposition. I don't think that's why I'm fighting against it, not you Alex, I mean the person making it right. So you have to tell me who's going to be the guarantor of my rights when most of the people in the world don't agree with my rights. Well, I think what went is pointing out quite beautifully is you're just kind of kicking the can down the road. And we're living that right so ISIS is an op Al Qaeda is an op. You're not really securing freedom by having all these different kind of things. So he's saying, ultimately, what you want is what you're talking about, Mark. We want a kind of moralistic agreed upon set of constitutional rights, freedoms, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. And we want that to be global. And what he's pointing out, which is the trick here is we need that to be global. Otherwise, we're always going to be being played as we have throughout history by these shenanigans of, you know, oh, the terrorists are coming. Oh, the whoever are the Huns are marching over the hills guys. It's us against them, you know, this is just this is a just war. I would say, yeah, so I guess this is an interesting thing because when I think of this type of conversation, I'm thinking that more in the immediate. I think if we were to transport ourselves into the future that would be a good thing to see right the less the less friction we could create between the human family, the better the more freedom we can create the whole human population the better. But I kind of look at this project of say let's call it sovereign I just call it sovereignty right so this idea of retaining sovereignty and or reattaining our sovereignty. It's a little bit like look I'm on I'm on my way to Vegas, but I have to stop for fuel. And people like well if you stop for fuel you're no longer on your way to Vegas anymore. I'm like no I'm still on my way for Vegas but if we don't stop for fuel we're not going to make it a Vegas. Right so I look at sovereignty in this fashion right so it let's say we rescue America from from this impending technocratic dystopia. Well then we can hopefully expand that and do that for everybody else right but until we do it for ourselves we can't do it for anybody else. We cannot let these psychopaths have the control of the gavel of of global governance if it would have happened at all, I guess would be the problem. Let me throw this because political activism. It just it just doesn't it doesn't sit well with me. It seems like a giant. How do we get there from here kind of problem. And let me pull up something on the screen and I'll read it. This is the problem I have with political activism. It's not that the last election was rigged.  But the problem with that is we still have all these Trumpsters out there who believe that you know the Messiah is going to save it. This is like recent this is like the last couple days CNN politics forgive the source but here's here's Donald Trump today. Here's the quote. Joe Biden keeps talking about how good a job he's doing on the distribution the vaccine. That was developed by Operation Warp Speed or put quite simply the Trump administration. And then they point out that this is a statement he's just released from his Save America pack. So he's obviously gearing up everyone thinks they're going to you know select him as the next president again. So here's returning to Trump's quote. He's not doing well at all. He's way behind schedule and people are refusing to take the vaccine because they don't trust his administration. And then he goes on to add they don't trust the election results and they certainly don't trust fake news which is refusing to tell the truth. So you got to process that in a lot of different ways but one of the ways that you have to process it. This guy wants to put us back on schedule. If that isn't code speak for 2030. I don't know what is right. I've you know I've always been very suspicious of Trump because of the company he keeps the people that supported him in the beginning. Don't be wrong. I agree with a lot of the sovereignty ideas. Of course I just never trusted him to implement them. You know and if we look at this Wilbur Ross Rothschild financial banker who we add as the secretary of commerce I mean Alex Asar you know pharmaceutical it just goes on. But I would say we have to look at politics a little bit more like finding of the country at this point you know and this is kind of why I in the thesis on the site. I try to tap into that a lot more and I don't look at this anymore. And I never really did as a left or right or Trump or Biden Republican Democrat issue it's there's a sovereignty versus globalism issue that we're in. And I think that we have to really start to think more like what the founders of the country thought like and I'm not saying in everything I'm not saying we're trying to reenact what they do. I'm just talking about the premise of what the idea is right it's not about a person. Right it's not about an idea it's not about it's not about a person it's about an idea right it's not about whether Donald Trump says the truth it's about truth itself. Right and we have to kind of move it from this culture personality even with people in this movement we're talking about like I love David I know his family and his crew. But he's just a guy like we can't have culture personality things it's about the subject about the matter itself right it's about. It's about us creating freedom for our children primarily and if something is taking us off that path, whether it's Trump or anybody else and Trump obviously is you know then we have to discard that we can't be cult like when we approach this thing right so. And we should we should apply that to any kind of belief system we have or any kind of thing that we care about. Yeah, I think that's really good stuff and I think it in a way it might relate back to the kind of pre interview discussion we had which I will paste. Right in here. And then that will allow me to kind of transition to this next question that I have about following truth about not following the cult not following the social engineering, which you are kind of an expert at deconstructing both in your. Academic training but also in your, your work and maybe you want to talk about that. But one of the problems we have here is wherever we go when we try to organize, we wind up with the strange bedfellows kind of situation and advocating some kind of process of sorting through that you know the I run into the flat earthers, and I run into them and I'm like, you are killing us here.  This is clearly a sigh up to divide and rule because if you put somebody in the category of flat earth or all the normies that I talked to all the scientists that I talked to, it can immediately just out of hand dismissing because it's so silly. The same with the Holoholksers, you know, just interviewed a guy the other day brilliant guy love his books. But they're buried in the book is the Nazi 6 million, you know, Holoholkser thing.  There's all these strange bedfellows that have been drawn to this truth movement. And I look to science a lot of times as a way to kind of cleanse that system a little bit. How do we help bring people towards truth? How do we shepherd the rest of the group into out of the abattoir out of the slaughterhouse? Well, you know, there's a couple of different things when it comes to science, you know, we have to look at that there's varying methods like induction, reduction, deduction. For example, we have to approach things like certain things have to be approached in certain ways. Some things are best approached with induction. Some are best approached with deduction, some with reduction. So what that basically means is induction is like small to big and deduction is like big to small. So you have like observation to theory theory to observation, for example, and both of those kinds of methods are really important.  Really, I mean, maybe a little bit more recently because we we have the tools right. So you kind of have to take you we're we need training. Firstly, we need people in this movement who we it's not like we have so many geniuses. We don't know what to do with them. Right. So what I'm trying to do is like, I'm trying to do what I can. And no one is great at everything. We all have our skills. So I'm trying to do is kind of rank it in in rank it and anchor it in logic in philosophy of science principles. Right. So just go look there. A lot of the things you guys are saying make perfect sense. But because they're not properly anchored, a lot of people are kind of running away with the wind. But there's an I was writing a piece which is going to be my next thesis, which I'll be putting out next year on this very point this hodgepodge of people we have in our group. Right. I just to give you one example, the two most unvaccinated groups in the country are white evangelical Christians rural and blacks in the inner city of like New York and places like that. So you have what would seem like two very opposing groups who are now really the same group as far as the oligarchs are concerned. So then what I've been thinking about is how is it that we can get these various groups to work together. Because generally what we have in this kind of Pareto distribution situation like an 80 2070 30 rule. Let's say we're 30% of the population people like us who are not pro technocracy not pro tiered et cetera. We have so much infighting and so many different justifications which is an important philosophical epistemic claims so epistemology being knowledge. Justification is an important part of knowledge how we justify behavior like should I really be drinking should I be eating this kind of food all the way up to God and all the way up to consciousness and all these things as well. Justifications important but we're letting that one epistemic source destroy everything in our groups because basically what's happening is this. You I let's grab a I don't know a Muslim let's grab an atheist and we'll go together. And because we have different justifications for why we want freedom. You may justify it by consciousness I may justify it by God although I believe in consciousness to from all the research I've done but let's just say keep it simple that we have different versions and then you bring in all these other people and some of you have 10 people all fighting about the justification they're all saying yeah but you want freedom because of because of Yahweh you want freedom because of George Washington. I think he was a slave on it right about and then suddenly what happens is that you've forgotten about the freedom because people are fighting over the justification for what they want. So what I wanted to do in the next piece that I write is to try to break that down why we should not be fighting over justification. Look you may justify sovereignty for because of P let's call P Americanism and let's call Q Christianity and let's call X consciousness doesn't matter. The important thing is we want the same result here we want free from tyranny we want to work together to be free of that. So it's the justifications that are that are killing us out there that we're fighting over. Love it but is that really how the game is fought and is that how the battle is won. If we look at the force that we are against and we look at the plays in their playbook which they reveal to us all the time. One of them is to take advantage of exactly what you just said right and this is the co-opting and we've seen this historically in every community that rises up. If you get any traction at all you will be co-opted you will be turned against yourself you will be divided. How do you counter that. I think it's all about you know if it depends which layer we want to look at this but there's so there's like there's via negative but there's via positive. Right so that so there's we approach it from the negative which is basically the negative incentive because everything really works upon incentives. You know whether that's incentives for spiritual growth that's incentives for financial growth or social status like it doesn't really matter we generally follow incentives. So the approach that I'm trying to take via negative is look the incentive is basically very straightforward like I have to go back to Montana and I have three county governments sponsoring my plan now by the way. Which is great because six months ago I was just a random dude on the internet and six months later I have three county governments back in the plan which is great. And we also had the governor of Montana drop climate membership and ban mandatory vaccinations so you can do a lot in a short time. Full stop right there tell us the whole story mark awesome. So yeah so basically it's about incentives and the method I've been using in Montana which is what I want to replicate in other states like it's obviously not just Montana I'm starting there because. Chairman of Yellowstone County Republicans so the chairman of the county reached out to me and actually asked me to help so that was what gave birth to this whole project. I had no idea I was going to do this like I got a funny enough I had a conversation with my with God with my higher self depending on which language you want to use on December 30 of last year and I was like. Can you just tell me what I need to do like and then the voice told me just begin and the rest will come to you and so okay so what I did is I started writing some notes of what I think could work this is January 2nd this year. And then the day after this guy reaches out to me from Montana is like hey can you help me politically I was like isn't that funny I started and there we are almost like I was called to it but. Incentives are basically how we get people moving. And in Montana the tactic I've used is look by 2030 your pickup trucks are gone.  It's an easy incentive via negative right do you want to get rid of this negative thing that's going to destroy what you enjoy on a daily basis provably look here's the legislation I have it right here in Montana County. No conspiracy theory here this is all proven this is all true right so that was what got things moving. So I did the presentation at the GOP convention on June 18th this year. There were a bunch of different people that I honestly don't know. You know there were congressmen the governor the senator chairman all these sorts of people but I didn't know who any of them were. But there are a lot that listened to my talk and the governor wasn't at the talk the senator wasn't talking a lot of the other guys were so I'm imagining some congressman some chairman etc directors. They then took this to the governor and three weeks later he dropped Montana's climate membership which was great so that was just three weeks after. How many states are in the climate membership how many have dropped. That's the only one that I know of so far but it's over half the states in the country that are in it. And this in particular this in particular one was on the you know how you have the ninth court circuit which is the basic all the west of America so West Coast in the mountain region it's basically that region. But the good news is is you know we know this if success works it's scalable right so we know if we can make this work in one state we can make it work in 10 or 20. I'm not under any illusions that we can make it work everywhere but we don't really need to make it work everywhere we just need to make it work enough to gain enough ground. So that was cool and then I'm in conversation with these guys and the governor actually banned mandatory vaccination so even private businesses can't mandate vaccines in Montana that was a few weeks after again. So now by this point so December 2021 I had a conference call with them about three weeks ago and I have three county governments now backing my plan for repealing agenda 2030. Which is great because I said six months ago was not even born yet. So what can we do with three years five years I think we can do a lot. And if we can just achieve this at a sort of state level which is what I'm aiming for because it's about efficiency you know I want to be effective. As much as I you know people often cite to me like Rosa Corey who used to do a lot of agenda 21 stuff and Rosa was amazing. You know she she shined a light on a lot but it was a you can't really go to San Francisco and fight illegal battle for something that they really want. So what ended up happening is that she and her organization did like a three year legal battle with with the implementation of this in San Francisco and all that happened was that they just changed the name. So it went from went from one bay area to planned bay area and then the court case was dropped because they would have had to have started all over again. That's how these people work. So what I'm doing is taking what I think is a much more effective and efficient approach. Go straight to the politicians that are incentivized locally because the ones locally and regionally a far more trustworthy generally than the ones of course at a national level. So look they're incentivized not just for that to keep their job but for their own community to even keep business and keep a job with what is going to come with this legislation. So I just follow the incentives go to the people that most need this to be gone. Well I love the idea of disrupting the system because I think that is ultimately how this thing happens. You know it's not like you change the system. You just throw enough gum in the gears and it kind of grinds down and then something happens. What are some of the other targets other Montana sounds perfect. Idaho would seem to be a good target. God can we get Texas in there. Where else can we go. Well I think the hope for us is obviously to go to all of the middle of the country. And you know if New York or California I used to live in California to my son was born in California. If they invite me to go I'd happily go right.  So what I'm trying to do is build a stronger network. I look at this like building a name for a band. You can see the Liz Paul in the background here used to be a touring musician. And when I was building up a band what I would do is I would like tour like out in a circle like this. So you would kind of go you would hit the major city you're in and then you'd go a little bit out of it and then a little bit further out again. And eventually what you do is you're going nationally but you built out. And by doing that what you're doing is retaining a core every time you're building out rather than picking up a few people here and a few people here and a few people here. So I approaching this the same way we try to grow out from the middle get a really strong core. If we can get say 10 middle states which I would say would see as Montana and North Dakota all the way down to Texas and Arizona. If we could kind of get this Arizona where I live now by the way. So if we could get this kind of middle region then we even if the coasts didn't come with us which I hope they do. And that would be the next step. But even if they didn't we would have a free country still we would still have a free land in the middle and to go back to the chapter you were mentioning earlier about the one world state outcome. Even if that truly were to come to pass and it was inevitable we would still be free from it because over the course of this decade we've already repealed it before it begun. So that's my hope and I think that it's achievable. It certainly is a ray of hope that the part that I think is really kind of intriguing is the absurdity that is being perpetrated here when it is exposed to people and they are given an option. It's not a difficult choice to make. I mean I think that's really what's if the battle is being tilted on the a pandemic thing. It's tilted because of the epidemiological data if you will if just the the data data that you're talking about. Hey, I saw these people at the football game 70,000 people. Not where we're wearing masks. Look at look at the county data and see if there's a big spike in cake. Well there isn't. Let's look at the state that has masks that doesn't have masks that is vaccinated isn't wait. I don't see any difference. So I think the same thing can happen in Montana or North Dakota or South Dakota where people go. Wait a minute there is another way that Mark is showing us and they're okay. They don't seem to be crawling back into the into the caves. It's working and I think that's a really important part of what you're doing. Do you want to speak to that at all? Yeah, I think that there's a few parts of the country that almost don't need my help like South Dakota. South Dakota never even had a lockdown never had at any point any COVID mandates. It really is like the land of the free. I mean South Dakota is really the only place on the earth because I mean Sweden even had some restrictions. South Dakota didn't it was all really up to the people and of course Sweden's halfway to a technocracy anyway. So I mean the EU is talking about globalization. I mean as part of the United Kingdom I lived under the EU and I can tell you that centralization of power does definitely not lead to more individual freedom. At least not in any experience that I had living under a 28 state controlled bureaucratic system. But I would say South Dakota is a great example. Texas is a great example. Montana is now a great example. So we have these examples where they have really scaled back this stuff. And of course we know that the results are not particularly bad. But we also know we have treatments treatments that are 99.9% effective that are cheap and easy to get. Yeah, but hold on. I'm because I don't want to get too far into the COVID thing because I'm taking it out of the COVID thing. I'm taking it back to, you know, Agenda 21 2030 kind of stuff. Which you're laying the groundwork for where I sense that that's we're going to have a similar situation where people are going to point to your states and what people have done politically and said, Hey, wait a minute, they were able to back out of this craziness because otherwise you don't have the contrast. You can't say, Well, everyone does that. You go, No, there's some pretty sharp people in Montana who actually looked at it and said, Fuck, no, we're not doing that. And that got slipped in while we weren't while we were asleep at the switch. Well, we're awake now. It's odd. Right. Somebody has to show that that is possible. I think that's awesome that that that you're doing that. I can't believe it. Well, yeah, sorry. When you were talking about the Texas stadiums, I didn't realize that we were using that as a like a symmetry. Yeah. So I think the one thing that we can really look forward to is when we're successful with this in Montana, and then we can go to the next few neighboring states and then say we can continue to grow out. What people will notice is that we don't have to be worried anymore that five years from now, our businesses are going to be shut down because we don't meet climate regulations and our cars are going to be taken from us. And our ability to fly on a plane is maybe taken from us. And our ability to even travel outside of the city state could be taken from us if it were to go to its conclusion. So I think that's the exciting thing for us is knowing that we still hold our own future in our own hands and that we get to decide what we do with it. And I think if if what we're going through right now has taught us anything, it's that the doomsday scenario that you're talking about. I think is easily dismissed by a lot of people. They go, come on, Mark, they're not going to take my property away. They're not going to take my pickup truck away. Come on, that isn't really going to happen. And then you say, well, it's right here in the law. It's already in the law. I go, yeah, but they can reverse that law at any time. What I think you're doing, which is really powerful is you're kind of taking that to the natural conclusion of saying, OK, great, we're in agreement.  If there's no reason for it to be on the books, then certainly you don't object to us reversing it right now. And I don't know if there is any legitimacy to political activism. I don't know if there is, but that's a ray of hope, man, ray of hope. I'm not a big activist myself. My work is obviously I'm trying to hit it at a higher level than the usual activism. But I think the activism is important. And I laid out an activism PDF on the website, just a few steps that people can follow. And I think the reason that's important is because in a lot of areas across the country and really across the world, they want to keep their jobs. These local representatives, you know, they want to keep a job. So if you have a thousand people sending in letters, putting the pressure on them, well, then they may really feel that pressure because I had a guy reach out to me from the south coast of England. And he said he had already done this. So he took the template in England and started to apply it. And he said he has doctors and lawyers on his side now already. So they're sending letters to the, you know, city county council and trying to get this repealed. And I think that there is a, again, it's all about those incentives, the incentive, the person at the seat is to keep their job. And initially, the power was obviously the person giving them the funding in America's case, councils, governments, metropolitan planning organizations. But that power shifts once people in the town know what the hell is going on, because they are really the ones that are accountable in this constitutional system. And we still have a constitutional system. Despite the fact that the county council is right at the bottom of that long hierarchy I outlined, there's still the ones that hold the constitutional power, not any of the organizations that are above. So it is really all in your hands. It's about what you do, where you live. But I would say you have nothing better to do. So often people say, why should I do it? I'm like, because you have nothing better to do. That's why. What do you mean by that you have nothing better to do? Well, you know, often people will say, like, I don't really want to do that because, you know, it might not work.  And I'm like, yeah, but you have to try it and people will say why I'm like, because you have nothing better to do. Because this is the most important thing that you should be doing outside of, you know, looking after your family, of course, and the basics in life. You don't have anything better to do than to try. Okay, I won't even touch that one. So, you know, as we wrap things up here, and this is a fantastic discussion and any, there isn't anyone who can do anything other than just applaud what you're doing. And it's fantastic. The moral imperative part of this is interwoven throughout. And we haven't talked about it much. We haven't talked about narcissism and evil and all that other stuff that I care about a lot. And I particularly care about it being brought into these kinds of conversations, not that it can be wrestled to the ground one way or another. You know, the guys in charge don't have any problem with partnering with Michael Aquino. The guys who is the convicted Satanist pedophile way back in the day. But I mean, Colonel in the Army and had all the connections kind of thing. Or Alistair Crowley, if you really want to go way back in the day, you know, MI6 had no problem partnering. On some level of if government's ultimate job is to protect us collectively from the Huns marching over the hills, which is a real concern. It's been that way throughout history. And maybe we want them to do whatever, maybe we want them to not have the same kind of moral compass that we have. Maybe we want them to have the directive of whatever it takes to win kind of thing. Anything there you want to pull out and talk about? Well, when implies that there's a presupposition of knowing what winning really means, right? So because often, and I did this too, before I really dug into philosophy and science, I made of all sorts of assumptions about life that I'd never really thought through. And we always say these words like when good, but we don't really clarify what our assumptions mean, like what does winning mean? Because winning implies that you're one destination going to another destination, right? So I'm here and I'm going to go here. Well, where is it that you're trying to go? What are you trying to win? So I want to know what the destination is that you're aiming for to know what winning really means. Like is it militarization of the world? Is that what winning is? And if that's the case, then why? I'm definitely not an imperialist, but I 100% understand that nature abores a vacuum, right? So if America isn't in that vacuum, someone else will be. And it will be China, it will be Russia, and it was Britain before and it was Rome before. And there'll always be a vacuum. So I totally understand that. So I understand there's a need for pragmatism. But I think that we just have to clarify what we really mean by winning and good. As far as evil, the way that I would determine evil is solipsism. This is kind of what Luciferianism is as I have learned and been able to understand it. Luciferianism is essentially the philosophy that I am God, right? That I can be God, that I am my own. Do what thou wilt. Yeah, right. That I am my own universe, that I am my own world. And it's solipsism philosophically, the idea that your reality is your own. And so evil to me begins at that point. That's really when you believe that your reality is the reality and no one else is really as real. But Mark, Mark, free choice, free will, all the things that we value most also begin at that point. And that's the tricky thing about the Gnosticism and create better than the Creator Gods and create your own myth is, you know, Christianity is a cult that was imposed on us as a social engineering project. And the direct connection we have with spirit, with the divine, which is very real, doesn't need an intermediary.  You have a direct connection to the divine.  So it's not, it's, it's tricky, right? Or no? Yes, yes, but we also have to be very practical about the fact that we live in a real world that has, you know, that requires bridges to be built, that requires hospitals to be run, that requires food to be created. And if you look at, so, I mean, and we, I'd love to have another conversation about the spiritual stuff, because I think we could get into some really interesting stuff, but we don't have the time to dive deep on it. But I would just look at the New Testament as it's a guidebook, right? For managing these sorts of expectations socially, culturally, right? And it's a guidebook that a lot of our civilization was built on. Now it was also built on a lot of Aristotle. It was also built on a lot of Plato. It wasn't just built on that. But we have these guidebooks that have been aiming us towards a certain direction throughout our society, throughout our history. And we have to be cautious because while there are, I agree with you totally that you don't need a middleman to be connected to your spirit and God, right? Totally agree. And I don't agree that there's any one full answer either. The way that I look at it is that you have to think of it more like a coherence spectrum. So you have, let's say, very coherent and then very incoherent, and it's a spectrum, right? There's a gradient. And some, like, for example, Christ could be really high on the coherent to, like, that's very coherent to God. But Yahweh could be really incoherent to God, right? So you, what I'm saying is I'm not totalitarian. I look at these things as a coherent spectrum. And I actually, after Christ would look at Aristotle is more coherent than Moses, which most Christians would like to burn me at the stake for. But that's how I do it, because I look at it is how does it match up to the reality that I see? And if I look at, say, some of the teachings from Jesus, they match up very much to the reality that I see, right? But so do they from Aristotle too? So do they from Plato too? So what I'm saying is that we do need these guides. We have a society. We have a structure that we need to keep working that we need to keep in order. And if we're going to replace one, we have to be damn sure that it can work. And we have to really understand how it's going to work for everybody as a society. But as far as institutions, as far as people playing God, as far as people thinking they're the voice of God, I completely agree. Yeah. And I think with evil though, it really begins at that place that you are where you really don't see the other people as a reality like yours, right? You know, that's kind of the idea that I'm God, right? This is my reality. I can do whatever I want with it. I think evil kind of has to start there, right? Because it's almost like if you don't believe that, you're not really capable of doing evil. Otherwise, you'd have too much compassion or empathy. Much to talk about in round two. So that's that's great stuff. And we'll get into what we'll do this again, because it was so terrific and blown away blown away by Montana. I didn't know it was as far along as it is. You know, that's my fault because I need to do a better job of like screaming the winds on the website. So I'm going to start doing that. I think I have to put them somewhere front and center because I am really shouting like they're probably buried somewhere at the bottom of some article. So I'll have to update that. My fault, not yours. Check out America 21st century dot com. Mark's done a number of other media appearances that are more straightforward probably than this one in terms of what he's done. But we actually did a great summation of what you have there too. And we will come back for the spiritual discussion because that's one of the things that's really cool about this guy. As you can tell, he's an extremely deep thinker, but he also has a broad number of interests that do come together if we're going to try and tackle this. Mark, what what is coming up for you? You've hinted at a couple of papers, major blog posts that are coming out. Is there a book in your future here? It sure sounds like there ought to be. Yeah, I want to do a book next year. I'm going to try to compile all these separate pieces and make it into one coherent body of work. I just honestly haven't had the time to do that, but that will be a 20. Hopefully this time next year we'll have a book. I also have a I'm doing a conference in Montana again, which is the three county government sponsoring it on February 18th, which will be a live event. There'll be 250 people there. So if you're in that area, feel free to come along. Will it be a broadcast or anything like that? Or is that possibility? I'm going to try to get it broadcast. Yeah, because I'm going to be doing essentially a two hour presentation. So I will try to get it if not broadcast, at least recorded, you know, so we can look back on it. So that's going to be my priority for the next like two months. We need to kind of get that thing through the door and get that done so we can move on to to reclaiming more of our territory. I've come back as the reincarnated spirit of the English Republicans. I'm coming to take territory by territory back one by one.  Mark Ballone, America 21st century. Thank you so much for joining me, Mark. I appreciate it, Alex. You're doing great work, man. Thanks again to Mark Ballone for joining me today on skeptical. So one question I tee up from this interview and it's kind of the hidden level three question. How can anyone who thinks that the pandemic was something other than a pandemic reconcile the fact that they already have an agenda in place legislation in place laws down at the Missoula Montana level in place that dovetails perfectly with said pandemic? How would that be if it was not, in fact, a pandemic rhetorical question? Take a stab at it. Love to know what you think. Like the show. Share it around till next time. Take care. Bye for now.