The Future of Food: “We Are Witnessing a Controlled Demolition of the Food Supply Chain.”

by James Corbett & Broc West, The Corbett Report
June 11, 2024

We all know the problems of the modern factory farming system. But, as bad as things are, they’re about to get even worse. New technologies are coming online that threaten to upend our understanding of food altogether. Technologies that could, ultimately, begin altering the human species itself. This is The Future of Food on The Corbett Report.

Video available at Odysee, Rumble, BitChute

Transcript:

If it is true that “you are what you eat,” as the old adage has it, then what does that make us?

As consumers of heavily processed, chemically treated, GMO-infested gunk, we in the modern, developed world have solved the problem of hunger that plagued our forebears since time immemorial by handing our food sovereignty over to a handful of corporate conglomerates.

The result of this handover has been the creation of a factory farming system in which genetically engineered crops are doused in glyphosate and livestock are herded into tiny pens where they live their entire lives in fetid squalor, pumped up with antibiotics and growth hormones until they are slaughtered and shipped off to the supermarkets and fast food chains.

There are plenty of documentaries and exposés detailing the dangers of this industrial farming system that we find ourselves beholden to. Any number of activists ringing the alarm about these problems. Numerous campaigns and marches organized to raise awareness about these issues.

Yet still, nation after nation gets fatter and sicker as traditional diets based on fresh produce sourced from local farmers are displaced by the fast food pink slime sourced from the industrial farms of the Big Food oligopoly.

But, as bad as things may be, they’re about to get even worse. As crisis after crisis disrupts the food supply, the “solution” to these problems has already been prepared.

New technologies are coming online that threaten to upend our understanding of food altogether. Technologies that could, ultimately, begin altering the human species itself.

This is your guide to The Future of Food. You are watching The Corbett Report.

Food As A Weapon

So what is food, anyway?

To a normal human being whose head is screwed on straight, that sounds like a dumb question. Food is fuel for the body, obviously.

Oh, sure, we could get fancy about it. Scientists might talk about the caloric content of different foods, or measure their macronutrient levels. Sociologists might point to food as the basis of human community, drawing people together into families, tribes and communities to break bread and engage in social relations. Theologians may even discuss the transubstantiation of bread and wine and the communion with God that such sacred acts of consumption make possible. . . .

. . . But then there are the psychopathic would-be world controllers. These Machiavellian schemers would define food in a very different manner. To them, food is a very different thing altogether.

To those seeking to rule over nations, food is a weapon.

For millennia, attacking armies have known that a city can be conquered by blockading it. Eventually, the besieged city’s inhabitants will run out of food and will either starve to death or surrender.

The English knew that food was a powerful tool of control. They created the conditions that led to the Irish Potato Famine and then stood idly by as millions died or were displaced, because—in the memorable words of Charles Trevelyan, who was in charge of the British government’s response—”the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson, that calamity must not be too much mitigated.” But the Irish were neither the first nor the last to feel the brunt of the British Empire’s indifference to their hunger; just ask the Bengals about their own famine.

The 20th-century example of this “food as a weapon” mindset that immediately springs to mind is the Holodomor, a brazen act of genocide perpetrated by Josef Stalin’s Soviets against the Ukrainians in order to force through his campaign to collectivize agriculture in the USSR and to silence the agrarian peasants who were rebelling against that policy. The ensuing famine killed millions of Ukrainians.

But the Holodomor is certainly not the only time that food was weaponized in the previous century. Who can forget arch-globalist Henry Kissinger’s National Security Study Memorandum 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests? This now-infamous document—drafted by Kissinger in December of 1974 and adopted as official policy by President Ford in 1975—argues that since “[g]rowing populations will have a serious impact on the need for food,” food aid to the developing world may need to be tied to mandatory sterilization programs or population reduction quotas. Even the coolly calculating Kissinger was forced to concede that such a scheme would turn food into “an instrument of national power.”

But that was then. This is now! Surely this “food as a weapon” idea has been retired, hasn’t it?

Lest there be any doubt that food is still being weaponized against us in the 21st century, we only have to turn to the latest news headlines to see that this idea is far from a relic of the past.

From the disruptions to the global food supply caused by the COVID lockdowns and restrictions to the decimation of the Ukrainian wheat harvest caused by the Russian invasion in 2022, the shocks to the global food supply chain have contributed to a doubling in the number of people facing acute food insecurity in the last four years.

Given this vivid demonstration of just how fragile the global food supply is and just how much economic and societal chaos can result from any shock to this system, it would be unthinkable that governments would now be deliberately attempting to undermine that supply chain further, wouldn’t it?

Well, think again. From the Netherlands to Ireland to Poland to Italy to Canada to Argentina to Sri Lanka, governments are cracking down on farmers, forcing them to cull herds, lower production, dump milk and comply with onerous new operating restrictions in the name of reducing pollution.

These governments are not stupid. Like the British, the Soviets, the Americans and other repressive regimes throughout history, they know that these measures, if played out to their conclusion, will result in widespread hunger and unrest. In fact, we’ve already seen massive protests against these restrictions in numerous countries, from Germany to Italy to Poland to Spain to Panama to Argentina to Canada. And that’s to say nothing of the mass Dutch farmer protests in recent years and Sri Lankans running their president out of the country when it became obvious that the government’s green policies and farming restrictions had contributed to the collapse of that nation’s economy.

And now, we find that the food supply itself is under attack.

ANCHOR: 40,000 pounds of food meant to feed people in a food desert near Maricopa, south of the valley, is completely gone.
And tonight, investigators are still trying to figure out what caused the fire.

SOURCE: Fire at Maricopa Food Pantry destroys 40,000 pounds of food

ANCHOR: Breaking news out of Pasco County: crews battling a huge fire at a chicken farm. It’s all happening on Cal Main Foods along Simpson Farm Lane in Dade City.

SOURCE: Dade City poultry farm fire likely killed 250,000 chickens

ANCHOR: Firefighters trying to figure out what sparked a fire at a food processing plant on the west side. It happened around 9.30 last night on Merida Street near South Zarzamora.

SOURCE: West Side food processing plant left with smoke damage after fire, SAFD says

ANCHOR: Breaking news in eastern Oregon, where crews are battling a major fire at a potato chip processing plant. Air 12 flew over the scene at Shearer’s foods on highway 207 in Hermiston.

SOURCE: At least two people injured in explosion at Hermiston food plant

ANCHOR: Crews were on the scene of a massive fire at an egg farm earlier this afternoon. The fire broke out at the Hillendale Farms location on Schwarz Road. The Salvation Army says around 100,000 chickens may have died in that fire.

SOURCE: VIDEO: 100,000 chickens die in Bozrah egg farm fire

A series of mysterious fires, explosions, incidents of arson and even cyberattacks on food processing facilities across the United States in recent years has prompted law enforcement agencies to warn of a coordinated attack on the food supply.

In April 2022, the FBI even issued an official notice to private industry warning that “ransomware attacks against the entire farm-to-table spectrum of the FA [Food and Agriculture] sector occur on a regular basis” and noting that such attacks are “disrupting operations, causing financial loss, and negatively impacting the food supply chain.”

This mysterious attack has taken place at the same time as a massive disruption of the global food supply has left the world one crisis away from disaster. With nitrogen fertilizer shortages fueling food inflation even as governments around the world crack down on their farmers’ use of fertilizers and farming inputs, and with war, drought and trade disruptions also playing havoc on food production, the global farm-to-fork system’s ability to feed the world’s population is coming into question.

Organic farmers and local agriculture advocates have been warning about the precarious nature of the global just-in-time supply chain and its lack of resilience for decades. But one group didn’t just warn about the current crisis, they predicted it in surprising detail.

In November of 2015—as you can learn from an official press release on the Cargill website—”65 international policymakers, academics, business and thought leaders gathered at the World Wildlife Fund’s headquarters in Washington DC to game out how the world would respond to a future food crisis.” Over the course of two days, the participants in this “Food Chain Reaction” crisis simulation role-played a response to a number of converging and overlapping catastrophes in the 2020s, including “two major food crises, with prices approaching 400 percent of the long term average; a raft of climate-related extreme weather events; governments toppling in Pakistan and Ukraine; and famine and refugee crises in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Chad and Sudan.” The game—which, we are assured, “was built over the course of months, with maximal realism in mind”—went on to envision some very specific scenarios that bare an eery resemblance to current-day reality, including “a steep price spike with looming global food shortages in 2022” that prompted the EU players to impose a tax on meat.

Lest the meaning of this exercise be lost on the general public, the World Wildlife Fund went on to spell it out in their after-action report on the simulation: “Only by stopping agricultural expansion, augmenting agricultural production, increasing resource-use efficiency, and reducing food waste, can we provide the food and nourishment we need, while ensuring we are conserving nature for future generations.” Accordingly, this “game” ended with the imposition of a global carbon tax.

In February 2024, the European Union ran its own food crisis simulation. The exercise—which brought 60 EU and government officials together for a 2-day conference in Brussels—envisioned a cascading series of food emergencies unfolding over the next two years, from harvest failures and fertilizer shortages to popular uprisings and unrest. The war game ended, predictably enough, with the government bureaucrats calling for more centralization of food reserves and stockpiles in the name of biosecurity and concluding that “diets need to shift toward healthier options and away from meat.”

This EU crisis simulation and the “Food Chain Reaction” exercise, combined with a series of government and NGO-sponsored awareness campaigns related to food security—including the Rockefeller Foundation’s “Reset The Table” report calling for further consolidation of the global food supply and the Chinese government’s “Clean Your Plate Campaign,” which aims to bring technocratic management of the economy into every citizens’ dining room—throw the current round of mysterious and unexplained attacks on food processors and farmers into stark relief. Together, these campaigns and exercises suggest that the current food crisis is not a naturally occurring event, but a deliberately engineered phenomenon.

But if this food crisis is being knowingly engineered, the question is why? What could governments gain by creating food shortages for their own people?

The answer is simple. We are witnessing a controlled demolition of the food supply chain, one that is intended to result in the destruction of the current industrial farming system as we know it. But this changeover is not intended to return us to truly sustainable farming practices, with local, organic farmers producing crops in accordance with age-old agricultural wisdom. Far from it.

As it turns out, the “solution” to this food crisis, the one being proffered by the billionaires of the corporate-pharmaceutical-medical-industrial-philanthrocapital-military complex, is being engineered in laboratories and sold to the public via a bought-and-paid-for mainstream media.

One thing is for certain: the future of food will look very different from anything that we have seen in human history.

The Future of (Weaponized) Food

Now, anyone who has been paying attention in recent years will already know the direction that the food industry is heading.

Yes, by now we all know the “Eat Ze Bugs” agenda being pushed by Klaus Schwaub and his Davos minions. I guarantee that wherever you are, in whatever corner of the world you are reading this editorial, you will have seen (or could easily find) a local news story about high school students “spontaneously requesting” cricket powder dumplings in their school lunch or a puff piece about how valiant scientists are working to save the world with worm burgers.

And we all know about the GMO problem: genetically modified organisms making their way into our food supply. We know about the multiple health studies that have proven time and time again the deleterious health effects of GMO consumption. We know about the insane lengths that the GMO giants have gone to to suppress bad news about their products and the insane lengths that the press has gone to to assist them in this cover-up. And we know about the additional harms that this technology causes, ruining farmer’s lives, contaminating the genome of the planet and causing associated products like glyphosate to further contaminate the food supply and further endanger our health.

But do we know about the next evolution in culinary technology? Now that scientists are playing around with the fundamental building blocks of life, reengineering organisms at the cellular level, an entire field of biotechnology is opening up that is threatening to fundamentally transform what we think of as food itself.

Moving beyond the simple insertion of foreign genes into an organism, scientists are now working on creating foodstuffs from designer microbes, engineering organisms into “bioreactors” that can be used to grow proteins and other materials for food production, growing meat-like products from cells in the laboratory and dozens of other zany ideas.

NARRATOR: The meat of the future will likely be lab-grown. Compared to our conventional methods of putting meat on the table, lab-grown meat—which debuted in 2013—doesn’t involve slaughtering of animals, nor does it require as many environmental resources.

SOURCE: The Meat of the Future: How Lab-Grown Meat Is Made

HOST: I’m about to be one of the first people on Earth to eat real chicken grown entirely in a lab. That’s right, we’re talking the most futuristic nuggets ever.

SOURCE: Lab-Grown Meat is Here… and I Taste-Tested It!

AMNA NAWAZ: Nearly 90 percent of Americans eat meat as a part of their diet. But earlier this year the Agriculture Department approved the production of what’s known as cultivated meat. That is, chicken grown in a lab.

SOURCE: How ‘lab-grown’ meat is made and will people accept it?

NARRATOR: This machine is 3D printing steak. The goal is to create a piece of meat without killing a cow. And this Israeli startup is one of the dozens of companies racing to perfect the process.

SIMON FRIED: It turns out that cows aren’t necessarily the most efficient way of making beef.

SOURCE: Can Lab-Grown Steak be the Future of Meat? | Big Business | Business Insider

After a near-decade-long PR campaign, you’ve probably heard of Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat, companies that employ the latest techniques in chemical engineering to create plant-based meat substitutes. But there are many more technologies around the corner that threaten to transform our food supply in even more bewildering ways.

Scientists are bioengineering spores that can be inserted into crops and livestock, allowing companies to identify and track food products all the way through the food system, from farm to factory to fork.

VISHAAL BUYAN: We use microbes as tracking devices. So what we do is we convert data digital data into strands of DNA. We insert that little bit of DNA into a microorganism. A probiotic microorganism, to be honest. And then we can sort of apply that organism and sort of “hitch a ride” on any food or agricultural product or really anything through the supply chain. And the reason we use a microbe to do it is because we engineer it to go into a spore, so that dormant state allows it to be impervious to high temperatures and UV light sort of protect that DNA barcode through transit.

SOURCE: Eating Bioengineered Spores

DARPA is doling out multi-million-dollar contracts for researchers to find ways “to turn military plastic waste into protein powder” for human consumption.

STEVE TECHTMAN: What we’re trying to do is to use microbes to take plastic and other inedible plant material and turn that into something that’s nutritious.

REPORTER: The idea is to turn components of plastic into protein and other nutrients like fats and sugars. If that sounds kind of gross to you, well . . .

TECHTMAN: I don’t want to eat plastic either. What we’re trying to do is to take that plastic and turn it into something completely different.

SOURCE: Turning Plastic Into Protein?

A company called Amai Proteins is using genetically engineered microbes to create peptides that taste like sugar but are digested like proteins, a process that, the company brags, allow their product to be legally sold as non-GMO even though, as they openly admit, these microbes are technically genetically engineered.

ILAN SAMISH: Then, we grow the protein. We biomanufacture it using yeast, just like you do in a brewery. We harvest the protein to get 100% pure protein. And last, our ProTaste food technology incorporates the protein to replace up to 70% of the sugar without compromising taste.

SOURCE: Sweet Protein | BBC StoryWorks

And then there are companies like Indigo Ag, a Boston-based agricultural technology company, and tech companies like EY Global and Microsoft, who are ushering in The New Normal Of Agriculture by—as their thinly-disguised corporate PR masquerading as “investment news” likes to boast—”utilizing advanced AI and machine learning techniques to create a revolutionary agronomics platform that boosts farmland sustainability and productivity through next-gen microbiome treatments, digital regenerative content, time-series satellite imagery, advanced crop monitoring and data analysis, and grain quality testing.”

NARRATOR: What if you could predict the best crops to grow using the power of data, recognize crop disease or pests faster, connect with vendors seamlessly, doing all this knowing you control your own data? With data captured from each field and connected to predictive analysis, farmers have an unprecedented view of their crops.

SOURCE: Innovating for Agribusiness – EY and Microsoft

Of course, these technologies will be sold to the public as a way to remarkably improve upon the boring old “food” that humanity has relied on for untold millennia. This isn’t food after all, this is Food 2.0!

Molecular gastronomy will allow for the creation of all sorts of zany and unimaginable dishes, from spherified juices to deep-fried hollandaise to lollipopified octopus!

In the nutrigenomical kitchen of the future, the AI systems that plan our meals and assemble our food will be able to precisely tailor our diet to our individual genome, calculating the exact portions of foodstuffs (or lab-grown food substitutes) we need to consume to meet our desired health goals!

And who needs a chef? In the future, we’ll bring the Star Trekkian idea of the replicator into reality by 3D printing all our food right in our own kitchen!

NARRATOR: You’re hungry. But instead of whipping up a meal, all you have to do is enter your menu choices into a computer and your dinner appears before you. So magical!

It may seem like science fiction, but it isn’t. Well, not completely. The future is now, my friends!

Is 3D printed food in your future?

SOURCE: Is 3D Printed Food the Future?

The propaganda that is being rolled out to sell the public on this transformation of our food supply sounds like the sales pitch of a used car salesman. This should not be surprising. For those who know the players who are pushing this “Food 2.0” agenda and their real intentions, it is obvious that the enormous and unbelievably hubristic effort to replace natural food with laboratory-made food substitutes is not about helping the poor and starving to achieve food security, but rather to deprive them of the earth’s natural abundance.

The end result will be a population dependent on the laboratory-produced food substitutes produced by a handful of corporations and a population at the mercy of the scientists these corporations employ. These molecular magicians will, after all, be able to insert all manner of exotic agents into the food supply at any time.

But to really understand where this agenda is heading and how quickly we are likely to get there if it is not opposed, we need look no further than the story of Future Fields. This company and its product has managed to combine the Unholy Trinity of fake food: GMOs, bugs and biotech.

MATT ANDERSON-BARON: So, today I’m here to talk about the humble fruit fly and how one day it could save your life—and perhaps all of humanity! So, science has given us countless medical miracles. You know: pandemic-stopping vaccines, life-saving therapies. But one of the most impactful things that it’s given us and given modern medicine is genetic engineering of biological systems.

SOURCE: How can a fruit fly save your life? Future Fields at Collision 2023

Future Fields, a Canadian biotech company, has notified the Canadian government of its intention to commercialize “EntoEngine,” a type of fruit fly that “has been genetically engineered to express a growth factor isolated from cows.” This growth factor, it turns out, is an important component of the lab-grown meat recipe, which has so far required the use of “fetal bovine serum” (FBS)—a substance extracted from unborn cattle—to grow the meat cells. But now that the “EntoEngine” has been created, Future Fields is excited to use these flying “bioreactors” to produce the growth factor faster and more cheaply than before.

Yes, from cricket powder dumplings and bug  burgers to GMOs and glyphosate to bioreactors and designer microbes to nutrigenomics and 3D printed material, this is the future of food if the mad scientists get their way.

But who is funding these mad scientists? Where do they get their support? And what drives these shadowy billionaires and their non-profit organizations in their quest to reengineer the world’s food supply?

The Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller family and their namesake foundation are in many ways the progenitors and the architects of the Great Food Reset. From the beginning of the so-called “Green Revolution” to the so-called “Gene Revolution,” the Rockefellers have been there, helping to move things along with their “philanthropic” donations.

In the 1940s, they founded the Mexican Agricultural Program in Mexico and the International Basic Economy Corporation in Brazil, both of which have been criticized for hooking farmers on expensive machinery and Rockefeller-supplied petroleum products. This formed the basis of the “agribusiness” concept that emerged, predictably enough, from the Harvard Business School out of research conducted by Wassily Leontief under a Rockefeller Foundation grant.

The Rockefeller’s agribusiness model arguably did more to change the course of human civilization in the 20th century than anything other than war. It transformed farming and traditional agriculture into the business-led, input-intensive industrial enterprise that it is today, and led to the creation of the global food supply chain.

But the Rockefellers’ influence did not end in the 21st century.

In 2006, The Rockefeller Foundation co-founded the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, whose stated goal of “elevat[ing] the single African voice” on the world stage is belied by the fact that over 200 organizations have come together to denounce the alliance and its activities, claiming that the group has not only “unequivocally failed in its mission” but has actuall y “harmed broader efforts to support African farmers.”

And in 2020 the Rockefeller Foundation released a report entitled “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System” calling for a further centralization of control over the food supply, including “a new, integrated nutrition security system.”

Bill Gates

Having explicitly cited The Rockefeller Foundation as one of its main inspirations, it’s no surprise that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has emerged to become one of the most important players in the Great Food Reset in recent years.

Gates was an important early backer of “Impossible Burger” and its lab-grown synthetic biology food substitute. He also provided capital to Impossible rival Beyond Meat . . . until Beyond’s stock began to crumble. Miraculously, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust was able to divest itself of its Beyond Meat stock right before the shares tanked in 2019.

And, as PleaseStopTheRide.com has pointed out, Gates is also investing millions into “hacking your microbiome” to reengineer humans’ gut bacteria.

Ominously, Bill Gates has also recently become the biggest owner of US farmland, a move that allows him unprecedented control over the future of farming in America.

USAID

Created in 1961 by executive order, USAID is a US government agency that has participated in subterfuge and counterinsurgency operations in Venezuela, Cuba, Ukraine and numerous other countries under the guise of providing humanitarian assistance and, of course, food aid.

Last year, USAID, in conjunction with “Feed the Future” (the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative), released a working paper titled “Systemic Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation.” The paper argues that:

. . . a perfect storm of circumstances in which supply chain issues, regional agricultural and nutrition challenges, the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and regional conflict have combined to form a looming food security crisis.

Their proposal for addressing this (generated) crisis includes:

• linking “carbon markets” to “regenerative agriculture” in a move that continues the financialization of nature;
• using ESG scores as a way to pressure companies into acquiescing to the nebulous and ever-changing demands of the Food Reset agenda;
• and, of course, “the promotion of insects as sustainable sources of proteins.”

Throughout the document, USAID’s “leverage” over developing countries is referenced no less than 125 times. Given the Kissingerian food-as-a-weapon mentality that is the very basis of USAID and its mission, the document perfectly represents the kind of Rockefeller-inspired, Gates-funded, USAID-promoted,  agribusiness-based neocolonialism that people in Africa and elsewhere have been warning about for decades.

This list of Great Food Reset culprits is of course incomplete. I haven’t even mentioned the participants in the “Food Chain Reaction Game” or the “nitrogen reduction” schemes being pushed by national governments around the world or the Global Crop Diversity Trust and its ominous Svalbard seed vault or any of a million other relevant players and factors in this grand transformation.

But from this (admittedly incomplete) exploration we can begin to make a list of the types of players that are behind this push to “transform the global food supply” and better understand their methods and motivation. And, armed with that knowledge, we can start formulating our own plans for counteracting this agenda.

THE PUSHBACK

Now, if there is any good news to be had in the sad saga of future (fake) food, it’s that the people are waking up to the Great Food Reset agenda and they are not happy about it.

For a trivial example of the pushback against the fake food agenda and the oligarchs stewarding over it, witness Bill Gates’ recent “AMA” (ask me anything) thread on reddit, where one heavily upvoted question put the issue to America’s largest farmland owner directly:

Why are you buying up so much farmland, do you think this is a problem with billionaire wealth and how much you can disproportionally acquire? [sic]

Gates’ answer—employing the fact checkers’ ACKSHUALLY! by pointing out that he “own[s] less than 1/4000 of the farmland in the US [sic]” and that his only interest in farms is “to make them more productive and create more jobs”—is to be expected from a man who has spent billions on PR and propaganda in recent decades to transform his public image from that a reviled tech monopolist to that of a revered billionaire philanthropist.

The response to that answer, however—observing that 1/4,000th of US farmland is still an incredibly large amount of land and that Gates did not explain how consolidation of farmland in fewer hands will transform the agricultural sector—shows that the public is not buying Gates’ PR wholesale anymore.

A less trivial example of the pushback against Gates and his ilk is to be found in the “Open Letter to Bill Gates on Food, Farming, and Africa” published last November and signed by no less than 50 organizations dedicated to food sovereignty, including the Community Alliance for Global Justice/AGRA Watch and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa. The letter derides Gates’ role in “creating the very problem” of global food shortages that he is ostensibly “fixing,” accusing him of pushing ineffective (but profitable) technocratic solutions instead of simpler, less expensive agricultural solutions:

There are already many tangible, ongoing proposals and projects that work to boost productivity and food security—from biofertilizer and biopesticide manufacturing facilities, to agroecological farmer training programs, to experimentation with new water and soil management techniques, low-input farming systems, and pest-deterring plant species. What you are doing here is gaslighting—presenting practical, ongoing, farmer-led solutions as somehow fanciful or ridiculous, while presenting your own preferred approaches as pragmatic. Yet it is your preferred high-tech solutions, including genetic engineering, new breeding technologies, and now digital agriculture, that have in fact consistently failed to reduce hunger or increase food access as promised.

The pushback against the transformation of the food supply is not limited to Gates and his eponymous foundation’s efforts, however.

Resistance against GMO foods, for instance, is massive. In fact, the more the biotech billionaires try to shove their genetically modified monstrosities on vast swaths of the human population, the more the public is rising up to reject them. In recent months alone we have seen people rebelling against GMOs in Turkey, Kenya, Nigeria, Mexico, Pakistan and Indonesia.

All of these protests against the Great Food Reset are hopeful signs. They show that the public are not simply going to swallow anything that is put on their plate.

But even more important than these examples of protest and pushback are the things that we can do to take the Future of Food away from the agribusiness conspirators and their bought-and-paid-for politicians and put it back in the hands of the people.

It involves getting our hands dirty and getting to work . . . but that’s the way it’s always been. And the alternative to this, this working of the land, is, as we have seen, no alternative at all.

And in the end, the future of food is ours to decide. Happy planting!

Connect with The Corbett Report

James Corbett: Is Opposing Israel Anti-Semitic?

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 11, 2024

The genocide in Gaza continues and world reaction is turning against the state of Israel. But does this mean the world is growing anti-semitic? Join James for an important exploration of the situation in Palestine and why there can be no exceptions made for anyone when it comes to basic morality.

Documentation:

Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: neufal54

The Corbett Report: The 7th Annual Fake News Awards

Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: This year’s Annual Fake News Awards by James Corbett et al. is a mix of fun humor, painful truth and powerful vision. For those who prefer to read, follow the link to The Corbett Report website where James has posted the full transcript along with show notes.

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
February 5, 2024

And now, from a deep underground military base on the other side of the flat Earth, it’s time for the 7th Annual Fake News Awards!

How did the disinformation specialists of the mockingbird media lie to the public this year? What rich, creamery nothingburgers did they use to whip the public into hysteria over matters of no consequence whatsoever? And what real scandals of earthshaking importance did they ignore? And who will walk away with the most coveted Dino of them all: the Fake News Story of the Year? Find out in this face-meltingly, apocalyptically horrifying extravaganza of media mendacity known as the Fake News Awards!



Read transcript and show notes…

Connect with The Corbett Report

How Vanguard Conquered the World 

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
September 25, 2023

So, you’ve watched How BlackRock Conquered the World and you’re now aware of how this financial behemoth with trillions of dollars of assets under management has taken over vast swaths of the economy. You know how BlackRock is one of the top institutional investors in seemingly every major Fortune 500 company, and you understand how Fink and the gang are leveraging this incredible wealth to wield political and social power, directing industry and ultimately steering the course of civilization.

And since you did watch that podcastumentary to the very end, you’ll also remember how I pointed out that the top institutional investor in most of these companies is not BlackRock, but The Vanguard Group.

So what is The Vanguard Group? Where did it come from? What does it do? And how does this financial colossus fit into the overall BlackRock/ESG/Net Zero plan for the future of the (controlled) economy? Good questions! Let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work answering them.

The Rise of Vanguard

Just as the official history of BlackRock starts with the humbling of a rising star of the financial world—with BlackRock founder Larry Fink having supposedly learned a valuable lesson in risk management after he lost $100 million in a single quarter at First Boston investment bank—the Vanguard story, too, begins with the lemons-to-lemonade tale of a financial whiz kid.

In the Vanguard case, the story starts with John Clifton “Jack” Bogle, a titan of the financial industry whose conservative investment ethos was forged, we are told, in the crucible of The Great Depression. Born in New Jersey in May 1929—just months before the great stock market crash that wiped out his family’s fortune, drove his father to alcoholism and, ultimately, led to his parents divorce—Bogle was forced to buckle down and excel at his schoolwork even as he worked an assortment of jobs to help keep the family afloat.

Beating the odds, Bogle ended up getting a scholarship to study economics at Princeton. But, being an average student at a prestigious institution full of bright, ambitious young phenoms, Bogle knew he would have to produce a stellar senior thesis in order to stand out. Vowing to write about something that had never been covered before, he found his thesis topic in the pages of the December 1949 issue of Fortune magazine: the mutual fund industry.

Mutual funds, Investopedia informs us, are financial vehicles that “pool assets from shareholders to invest in securities like stocks, bonds, money market instruments, and other assets.” They had existed in the US in various forms since the late 19th century, but it was a series of acts passed by Congress in the wake of the 1929 stock market crash—including, most notably, the Investment Company Act of 1940—that paved the way for the explosive growth of the mutual fund industry in the mid-20th century. Bogle just happened to read the right article at the right time to catch the very first wave of what would eventually become a financial tsunami.

If Bogle had hoped to turn his flagging academic career around with his thesis, he succeeded. Not only did the thesis lead to a magna cum laude diploma from Princeton, it even caught the eye of Walter Morgan, founder of the prestigious Wellington Fund, the first balanced mutual fund in the United States. Morgan offered the young whiz kid a job at Wellington Management Company, the firm that managed the fund, and Bogle set out on what would become a storied career.

Becoming an assistant manager in 1955, Bogle oversaw a period of explosive growth for the firm and the mutual fund industry as a whole. He persuaded management to capitalize on the public’s growing interest in such investments by creating a new fund composed solely of equities, the Wellington Equities Fund. The new fund’s success and Bogle’s hard work cemented his position as Walter Morgan’s hand-picked successor. He would go on to become president of the company in 1967 and CEO in 1970.

It was a decision Bogle made at the height of the go-go ’60s bull market, however, that would prove to be what he later identified as his greatest mistake. In 1966, facing growing competition from a crop of newer, riskier mutual funds that were promising investors greater returns than the boring, conservative Wellington funds, Bogle forged a merger with with the investment counseling firm of Thorndike, Doran, Paine and Lewis, managers of the the up-and-coming Ivest Fund out of Boston.

But Bogle and his new partners quickly found they had different visions for the merged company. So, when the bull market ended in the 1970s and the stock market cratered, the partners banded together to have him fired as chief executive of Wellington Management Company.

Bogle would later identify the merger as the greatest mistake of his career and his subsequent firing as the lowest point of that career. But being let go would serve as the springboard for the creation of The Vanguard Group.

Bogle came up with a plan to turn the lemon of being fired into the lemonade of a new venture:

Jack’s response to his firing was to appeal to the boards of directors of the Wellington funds. These groups were separate from the board of the Wellington Management Company which had just fired Jack. While separate, the boards of the funds were essentially captives of the management company and the chairman of each fund’s board was traditionally the CEO of the management company. That was the way things were done in the mutual fund industry. Nevertheless, Jack suggested that each of the boards consider taking over the management company’s functions.

The boards of the various Wellington funds went along with this idea and they decided to keep Jack as their president. He then proposed that—in a radical break from industry norms—that the fund boards assume responsibility for their own administrative services, which had been hitherto provided by Wellington Management Company. Wellington Management would stay on as the funds’ investment advisor and principal underwriter, but the fee the funds paid to the management company would be reduced by $1 million to reflect this changeover in administrative services.

The okay from the board of the Wellington Group of Investment Companies enabled Bogle to form a new corporation to take over the administration of the eleven funds of the Wellington Group. He named it The Vanguard Group after the flagship of Lord Nelson’s fleet in the legendary Battle of the Nile.

“Together, the Wellington tie-in, the proud naval tradition embodied in HMS Vanguard, and the leading-edge implication of the name vanguard were more than I could resist,” he later explained.

In one stroke, Bogle had created an entirely new entity that ended up revolutionizing the industry: the “mutual” mutual fund, in which profits did not flow to the management company, but back to the funds themselves, meaning that, “as a practical matter, Vanguard attempted to operate at cost and pass the savings on to the shareholders.”

There was yet another hurdle Bogle had to surmount. The funds’ directors decided that Vanguard was to have the narrowest of mandates: it would only look after the funds’ administration, and would not be permitted to engage in advisory or investment management activities. Bogle overcame this restriction by proposing a completely passive fund, one that would not be actively managed but instead be tied to the performance of the S&P 500 index.

To say that the initial reaction of seasoned investors to this innovation was disparaging would be an understatement. Dubbed “Bogle’s Folly,” the idea of investing not in a single company but in an entire index was alternately derided as a “cop out,” as a “search for mediocrity,” and—given its eschewal of the traditional market ethos of picking winners and dropping losers—as “un-American.”

Unfortunately for Bogle, the criticism was not confined to mere name calling. The $150 million underwriting target for the very first mutual index fund, First Index Investment Fund, proved to be overly ambitious. Indeed, when initial underwriting was finished in August 1976, however, the fund had only collected $11 million. That wasn’t even enough to invest in all 500 of the S&P 500 stocks, as was the fund’s intention. So the fund managers settled for investing in the top 200 stocks, plus 80 others that had been selected as representative of the remaining 300 stocks. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead and by the end of the year the fund’s assets had grown by $3 million, to $14 million.

“Bogle’s Folly” paid off. Literally. The indexing model grew in popularity during the bull run in the early 1980s and Vanguard also launched new funds, including a bond index fund and a total market fund that captured the entire stock market minus the S&P 500.

Today, The Vanguard Group is the largest provider of mutual funds in the world and the second-largest provider of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) after BlackRock’s iShares. It boasts over $7 trillion of assets under management, and, as we have already seen, is the single largest institutional investor in just about every company of importance in the United States.

Who Owns the Shares?

OK, so, there you go. That’s the very condensed nutshell version of how Vanguard rose to prominence. And, as we know, Vanguard is now part of the shadowy financial cabal that owns everything.

. . . Or do we know that? This is where the fact checkers will come in to make their nasally point about how the conspiracy theorists are wrong. And, you know what? For once, they may not be entirely incorrect.

You see, the fact checkers at AAP and Reuters have tackled the question of Vanguard and BlackRock’s growing financial oligopoly in the way fact checkers do: by taking the most ridiculous framing of the argument they can possibly find and contrasting it with the opinions of their credentialed “experts.”

In AAP’s case, “Global corporate monopoly claim dances on edge of reality,” tackles the very serious issue of the Vanguard/BlackRock leviathan by refuting a Facebook video featuring someone discussing the problem while performing an interpretive dance.

After conceding that the companies are indeed the largest shareholders in a number of important companies, AAP then explains that this is for a good reason: they are “strategically investing their client’s [sic] money in order get a good return.”

Oh, OK, then.

More to the point, AAP then brings in Rob Nicholls—an associate professor of regulation and governance at the UNSW Business School—to lend gravitas to its main point: Vanguard and BlackRock don’t “own” Pepsi and Coke and Amazon and Apple and all the other companies cited by the conspiracy theorists. Instead, their holdings in these companies are largely passive investments—either ETFs, in which shares are purchased in proportion to market capitalizations, or index funds, in which shares are purchased in proportion to the index on which they are traded. Thus the purchase and selling of shares in these companies is largely automatic: when a company’s market cap falls or when its stock gains in relation to the overall index, the associated ETF or index fund would be obligated to offload or purchase shares in order to maintain the fund’s mandate.

Thus, to the extent that Vanguard and BlackRock holdings represent passive investment, these holdings do not have any sway over the companies or their actions. The argument here is that Vanguard can’t threaten to sell Apple shares if Apple doesn’t conform to the woke agenda because Vanguard can’t really sell those shares on a whim. Instead, Vanguard is obligated to hold Apple shares in proportion to Apple’s position in the S&P 500 index (at least when it comes to their S&P 500 index fund). And, where there is no credible carrot to reward “good behaviour” (buying shares when Apple does what Vanguard wants) or stick to reward “bad behaviour” (selling shares when Apple doesn’t do what Vanguard wants), then there is no way for Vanguard to directly influence Apple’s behaviour.

Besides, as Lorenzo Casavecchia, a “senior lecturer at UTS Business School,” told AAP FactCheck, “an investor can only control a company if they have more than half of the votes cast at a general meeting.” But even when you combine the shares of the so-called Big Three investors (BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street), their holdings in these major companies do not even approach a majority. Often, they each hold a single-digit percentage point of overall shares.

What’s more, as Reuters point out in their fact check on the topic (citing a BlackRock spokesperson, of course): “BlackRock itself is not a shareholder” in these companies. Instead, “the owners of these securities are our clients, through their investments made on their behalf via the funds managed by Blackrock.”

The same goes for Vanguard, which likes to brag in its corporate PR that Vanguard “is owned by its funds, which in turn are owned by their shareholders—including you, if you’re a Vanguard investor.” So, the way Vanguard frames it, when you inevitably end up at the question of “who owns Vanguard?” (or “who owns BlackRock?” for that matter), the answer will be: “The investors do!”

So, you see? Vanguard and BlackRock (and let’s not forget State Street) don’t “own” the major corporations. They don’t manage those companies or have any influence over them. And, besides, their shares are held on behalf of their investors, so it’s the investors who are really the biggest holders of Apple and Exxon and Walmart and all the rest.

Well, I guess that sums it up, folks. Nothing more to see here, right?

Vanguard, BlackRock and the Shadows of Power

Oh, wait. Of course there is more to this story.

True, Vanguard and BlackRock and State Street don’t “own” these companies in the straightforward sense, but to say that the trillions of dollars of assets under their management doesn’t bring with it the clout needed to sway the direction of corporate America as a whole or even of select companies individually is beyond naive.

Indeed, as many serious, credentialed researchers—as opposed to the interpretive dancing TikTokers “refuted” by the fact checkers—have pointed out, there are ways that these investment companies can flex the muscles that come with trillions of dollars in investable capital.

As even AAP concedes in its fact check (citing Adam Triggs, research director at ANU’s Asian Bureau of Economic Research), there is evidence that common ownership of competing firms (like Coke and Pepsi) reduces competition, helping to cement the corporatocracy into place.

This common sensical and obvious point is backed up by researchers like John Coates at Harvard Law School, whose paper, “The Future of Corporate Governance Part I: The Problem of Twelve,” outlines how “in the near future roughly twelve individuals will have practical power over the majority of U.S. public companies.”

It shouldn’t take an economist or a university professor to imagine how such intense concentration of ownership could lead to a raft of problems, from higher prices on consumer products to reduced wages and employment. But while you hold your breath and wait for the fact checkers to tell you why this is a totally wonderful turn of events that won’t have any bad consequences whatsoever, you should take the time to digest Coates’ own summarization of the inherent threat that such an intense concentration of ownership poses for the market and even for the rule of law itself:

Indexation, private equity, and globalization threaten to permanently entangle business with the state and create organizations—advisors to index funds and private equity funds—controlled by a small number of individuals with unsurpassed power. That concentration of control underscores the gap between ordinary citizens’ experience of disengagement and distance from their government made visible in 2016, and the increasing wealth gap between the ultra-rich and the bulk of the population. Politics is shaped by perceptions. Law—itself a function (in part) of politics—will almost certainly change in response to these trends. The only question is how.

Then there’s the question of votes. Of course, shareholders get to vote in corporate elections, including electing directors and voting on shareholder resolutions. So who gets to vote when the shares are actually held by an asset manager on behalf of its clients? Traditionally, it’s Vanguard and BlackRock who actually do the voting. Vanguard calls it “stewardship” and likes to brag on its website how its managers “vote in accordance with the funds’ proxy voting policies.”

The funds, of course, tell the finger-pointers to just relax. After all, they don’t coordinate their votes as a bloc, so their small percentage of votes won’t be a decisively sway anything, anyway. But research published in 2017 found that the Big Three do in fact “utilize coordinated voting strategies and hence follow a centralized corporate governance strategy.” Heck, even Bloomberg can see through the propaganda suggesting that their voting power is small and insignificant:

And yet voting power is voting power. The fund companies’ combined votes and back-channel jawboning, in which they make their views known to directors and chief executive officers, could swing the outcome of important matters such as mergers, major investment decisions, CEO succession, and director elections—even if no fund house has the ability to decide the outcome of such matters alone. They’re potentially the most powerful force over a huge swath of America Inc. Alarm bells have begun to go off with some regulators, as well as with an ideologically diverse array of academics and activists.

To find out how these votes actually work, you can search Vanguard’s public record of proxy votes. For what it’s worth, a random search of the most recent Vanguard proxy votes for Exxon shows that Vanguard voted against every single resolution, including the ones pushing the woke green technocratic agenda.

But the issue remains: if the managers get to vote (even if its “on behalf of” their investor-owned funds) in accordance with ill-defined and ever-changing “principles,” who really gets to wield the power of the shares?

This is not a trivial issue. BlackRock, at least, recognizing that its claim to be simply a neutral asset manager rather than a civilization-shaping force is undermined by its ability to wield shareholder votes, has made a big PR campaign about introducing and then expanding a scheme to allow investors to opt for voting their own shares.

But when considering the <sarc>incredibly difficult</sarc> question of whether the people running the firms that collectively manage tens of trillions of dollars of assets have any sway whatsoever over the firms they are investing in, there is a simple answer: yes. Yes, they do.

As I explained in How BlackRock Conquered the World, even the boffins and eggheads at the prestigious universities have been forced to concede (after years of careful study, no doubt) that Larry Fink doesn’t pen his annual “Letter to CEOs” just for the fun of it. The word of Fink does carry weight in corporate boardrooms.

Sometimes referred to as a “call to action” to corporate leaders, these letters from the man stewarding over a significant chunk of the world’s investable assets actually do change corporate behaviour. That this is so should be self-evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together, which is precisely why it took a team of researchers months of painstaking study to publish a peer-reviewed paper concluding this blindingly obvious fact: “portfolio firms are responsive to BlackRock’s public engagement efforts.”

So here’s the $20 trillion question: how much power does a Larry Fink or a Jack Bogle really wield over the world through their companies?

Well, on the most basic level, the latter question is easy to answer. Jack Bogle was forced out of the CEO position at Vanguard in 1996, retired as chairman in 2000, and died in 2019, so he isn’t wielding much influence these days.

But here’s the more serious point: Larry Fink at BlackRock and Mortimer “Tim” Buckley (the current chairman of The Vanguard Group) do exert power over the economy and, ultimately, over society. As long as their company’s remain the top institutional investors in the majority of the stock market, the only question is: how much havoc they will wreak by imposing their will on the world?

You have already seen Larry Fink and his woke ESG agenda-pushing. So, how about Buckley? Well, to his credit, Buckley did pull The Vanguard Group out of the Net Zero Asset Managers initiative, claiming that Vanguard is “not in the game of politics” and that “our research indicates that ESG investing does not have any advantage over broad-based investing.” And while Vanguard does offer so-called “sustainable” funds and ESG index funds, they amount to a miniscule percentage of the group’s offerings, with Buckley saying he wants to “allow investors to express their values and preferences” but the decision whether or not to pursue ESG investment “has to be an individual investor’s choice.”

Regardless of how much of this is just corporate blather designed to protect Vanguard from the growing ESG backlash (and subsequent withdrawal of investment funds) that has afflicted BlackRock in recent years, the underlying problem persists. Even if Buckley were an angel descended from heaven to protect us from the green woke mobs, who is to say his successor would be an angel, too? The very fact that people like Fink and Buckley are in a position to sway corporate decisions is itself the problem—not the particular ways they wield (or refrain from wielding) that power.

Ironically, this point was not lost on Jack Bogle. You’ll note that Bogle is not a name synonymous with nefarious corporate scheming in the same way that Fink currently is. In fact, in recent decades the now-deceased Bogle has become something of a saint in the investment world.

His idea of “mutualizing” the mutual funds by cutting out the management company middlemen and thus greatly reducing fees has put upwards of a trillion dollars back in the pockets of ordinary investors (and thereby kept it out of the pockets of Wall Street managers). And his common sense, down-to-earth investment strategies that eschewed get-rich-quick schemes and fancy quant-driven investment trends gave rise to an entire movement of investors who call themselves “Bogleheads” (yes, really), and continue to organize conferences in his name.

So what was Bogle’s take on the astonishing growth of Vanguard and BlackRock in the years before his death?

Most observers expect that the share of corporate ownership by index funds will continue to grow over the next decade. It seems only a matter of time until index mutual funds cross the 50% mark. If that were to happen, the “Big Three” might own 30% or more of the U.S. stock market—effective control. I do not believe that such concentration would serve the national interest.

He’s not wrong there, at least.

As always, I will note that the incredible power that the Finks and the Buckleys of the world wield is in fact our power, derived from our money through our investments of our time, our energy, our labour and our productive power in the service of their corporate agenda. Thus, the fundamental solution to the problem of Vanguard and BlackRock will not come from some outside force. It will come when we withdraw our wealth from their system.

For those who are interested in the solution to the Vanguards and the BlackRocks of the world, they are directed to my recent #SolutionsWatch episode on the subject.

Connect with The Corbett Report

Cover image credit: geralt

How BlackRock Conquered the World

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
September 18, 2023

What is BlackRock? Where did this financial behemoth come from? How did it gain such incredible power over the world’s wealth? And how is it seeking to leverage that power in shaping the course of human civilization?

Find out in this in-depth Corbett Report documentary on How BlackRock Conquered the World.



Watch on BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble

Transcript

Hey! Let’s play a little game.

Let’s imagine you’re Joe Q. Normie and you need to run out for some groceries. You hop in the car and head to the store. What store do you go to? Why, Walmart, of course!

And, being an unwitting victim of the sugar conspiracy, what do you buy when you’re there? Coke, naturally!

And you can get jabbed at Walmart these days, right? Well then, you might as well make sure you get your sixth Moderna booster while you’re there!

And don’t forget to fill up with gas on your way home!

Is this creeping you out? Then why don’t you shut yourself in your house and never go out shopping again? That’ll show ’em! After all, you can always order whatever you need from Amazon, can’t you?

Are you noticing a pattern here? Yes, in case you haven’t heard, BlackRock, Inc. is now officially everywhere. It owns everything.

Sadly for us, however, the creepy corporate claws of the BlackRock beast aren’t content simply to clutch onto a near plurality of the shares of every major corporation in the world. No, BlackRock is now digging its talons in even further and flexing its muscles, putting that inconceivable wealth and influence to use by completely reordering the economy, creating scamdemics and shaping the course of civilization in the process.

Let’s face it: if you’re not concerned about the power BlackRock wields over the world by this point, then you’re not paying attention.

But don’t worry if all of this is news to you. Most people have no idea where this investment giant came from, how it clawed its way to the top of the Wall Street dogpile, or what it has planned for your future.

Let’s fill in that gap in public understanding.

I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report and today you’re going to learn the story of How BlackRock Conquered The World.

Chapter 1: A Brief History of BlackRock

“Hold on a second,” I hear you interject. “I’ve got this! BlackRock was founded as a mergers and acquisitions firm in 1985 by a couple of ex-Lehmanites and has since gone on to become the world’s largest alternative investment firm, right?”

Wrong. That’s Blackstone Inc., currently headed by Stephen Schwarzman. But don’t feel bad if you confuse the two. The Blackstone/BlackRock confusion was done on purpose.

In fact, BlackRock began in 1988 as a business proposal by investment banker Larry Fink and a gaggle of business partners. The appropriately named Fink had managed to lose $100 million in a single quarter in 1986 as a manager at First Boston investment bank by betting the wrong way on interest rates. Humbled by this humiliating setback (or so the story goes), Fink turned lemons into lemonade by crafting a vision for an investment firm with an emphasis on risk management. Never again would Larry Fink be caught off guard by a market downturn!

Fink assembled some partners and brought his proposal to Blackstone co-founders Pete Peterson and Stephen Schwarzman, who liked the idea so much that they agreed to extend Fink a $5 million line of credit in exchange for a 50% share in the business. Originally named Blackstone Financial Management, Fink’s operation was turning a nice profit within months, had quadrupled the value of its assets in one year, and had grown the value of its portfolio under management to $17 billion by 1992.

Now firmly established as a viable business in its own right, Schwarzman and Fink began musing about spinning the firm off from Blackstone and taking it public. Schwarzman suggested giving the newly independent company a name with “black” in it as a nod to its Blackstone origins and Fink—taking roguish delight in the inevitable confusion and annoyance such a move would cause—proposed the name BlackRock.

STEPHEN SCHWARZMAN: So Larry and I were sitting down and he said, “what do you think about sort of having a family name? You know, with “black” in it. And I said that I think that’s a good idea. And I think he put on the table either BlackPebble or BlackRock. And so he said, “you know, if we do something like this, all of our people will kill us.”

Source: Squawk Box CNBC June 22, 2017 6:00am-9:01am EDT

The two evidently share the same sense of humour. “There is a little confusion [between the companies],” Schwarzman now concedes. “And every time that happens I get a real chuckle.”

But a shared taste for causing unnecessary confusion was not enough to keep the partners together. By 1994, the two had fallen out over compensation for new hires (or perhaps due to distress over Schwarzman’s ongoing divorce, depending who’s telling the story), and Schwarzman sold Blackstone’s holdings in BlackRock for a mere $240 million. (“That was certainly a heroic mistake,” Schwarzman admits.)

Having made the split with Blackstone and established BlackRock as its own entity, Fink was firmly on the path that would lead to his company becoming the globe-bestriding financial colossus that it is today.

In 1999, with its assets under management standing at $165 billion, BlackRock went public on the New York Stock Exchange at $14 per share. Expanding its services into analytics and risk management with its proprietary Aladdin enterprise investment system (more on which later), the firm acquired mutual fund company State Street Research & Management in 2004, merged with Merrill Lynch Investment Managers (MLIM) in 2006, and bought Seattle-based Quellos Group’s fund-of-hedge-funds business in 2007, bringing the total value of assets under BlackRock management to over $1 trillion.

But it was the Global Financial Crisis of 2007—2008 that catapulted BlackRock to its current position of financial dominance. Just ask Heike Buchter, the German correspondent who literally wrote the book on BlackRock. “Prior to the financial crisis I was not even familiar with the name. But in the years after the Lehman [Brothers] collapse [in 2008], BlackRock appeared everywhere. Everywhere!” Buchter told German news outlet DW in 2015.

Even before the Bear Sterns fiasco materialized into the Lehman Brothers collapse and the full-on financial bloodbath of September 2008, Wall Street was collectively turning to BlackRock for help. AIG, Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac had all hired the firm to comb through their spiraling mess of credit obligations in the months before the meltdown. BlackRock was perceived to be the only firm that could sort through the dizzying math behind the complicated debt swaps and exotic financial instruments underlying the tottering financial system and many Wall Street kingpins had Fink on speed dial as panic began to grip the markets.

“I think of it like Ghostbusters: When you have a problem, who you gonna call? BlackRock!” UBS managing director Terrence Keely told CNN at the time.

And why wouldn’t they trust Fink to pick through the mess of the subprime mortgage meltdown? After all, he was the one who helped launch the whole toxic subprime mortgage industry in the first place.

Oh, did I forget to mention that? Remember the whole “losing his job because he lost $100 million for First Boston in 1986” thing? That came just three years after Fink had made billions for the bank’s customers by constructing his first Collateralized Mortgage Obligation (CMO) and almost single-handedly creating the subprime mortgage market that would fail so spectacularly in 2008.

LARRY FINK: I started at First Boston in 1976. [. . .] I was the first Freddie Mac Bond Trader [. . .] and so the mortgage Market was just in its infancy. [. . .] And then in 1982 we had the ability to put a PC on our trading desk. Before that you had no ability to put a computer on that trading desk. And it was very clear to me that if we could have computing power on the trading desk, we were going to have the ability to dissect cash flows of mortgages.

That led in 1983 to the first carving up of a mortgage into different tranches. And so we created the first CMO.

Source: Laurence Fink Talks investing and Blackrock Culture 2020

So, depending how you look at it, Fink was either the perfect guy to have in charge of sorting out the mess that his CMO monstrosity had created or the first fink who should have gone to jail for it. Guess which way the US government chose to see it?

Yes, you guessed right. They saw Fink as their saviour, of course.

Specifically, the US government turned to BlackRock for help, with beleaguered US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner personally consulting Larry Fink no less than 49 times over the course of the 18-month crisis. Lest there be any doubt who was calling the shots in that relationship, when Geithner was on the ropes and his position as Secretary of the Treasury was in jeopardy at the end of Obama’s first term, Fink’s name was on the short list of those who were being considered to replace him.

The Federal Reserve, too, put its faith in BlackRock, turning to the company for assistance in administering the 2008 bailouts. Ultimately, BlackRock ended up playing a role in the $30 billion financing of the sale of Bear Stearns to J.P. Morgan, the $180 billion bailout of AIG, and the $45 billion rescue of Citigroup.

When the dust finally settled on Wall Street after the Lehman Brothers collapse, there was little doubt who was sitting on top of the dust pile: BlackRock. The only question was how they would parley their growing wealth and financial clout into real-world political power.

For Fink, the answer was obvious: move from the petty crime of high finance into the criminal big leagues of government. Accordingly, throughout the last decade, he has spent his time building up BlackRock’s political influence until it has become (as even Bloomberg admits) the de facto “fourth branch of government.”

When BlackRock executives managed to get their hands on a confidential Federal Reserve PowerPoint presentation threatening to subject BlackRock to the same regulatory regime as the big banks, the Wall Street behemoth spent millions successfully lobbying the government to drop the proposal.

But lobbying the government is a roundabout way to get what you want. As any good financial guru will tell you, it’s far more cost-efficient to make sure that no troublesome regulations are imposed in the first place. Perhaps that’s why Fink has been collecting powerful politicians for years now, scooping them up as consultants, advisors and board members so that he can ensure BlackRock has a key agent at the heart of any important political event.

As William Engdahl details in his own exposé of BlackRock:

BlackRock founder and CEO Larry Fink is clearly interested in buying influence globally. He made former German CDU MP Fridrich Merz head of BlackRock Germany when it looked as if he might succeed Chancellor Merkel, and former British Chancellor of Exchequer George Osborne as “political consultant.” Fink named former Hillary Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills to the BlackRock board when it seemed certain Hillary would soon be in the White House.

He has named former central bankers to his board and gone on to secure lucrative contracts with their former institutions. Stanley Fischer, former head of the Bank of Israel and also later Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, is now Senior Adviser at BlackRock. Philipp Hildebrand, former Swiss National Bank president, is vice chairman at BlackRock, where he oversees the BlackRock Investment Institute. Jean Boivin, the former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, is the global head of research at BlackRock’s investment institute.

And it doesn’t end there. When it came time for Biden’s handlers to appoint the director of the National Economic Council—responsible for the coordination of policymaking on both domestic and international economic issues—naturally they turned to Brian Deese, the former global head of sustainable investing at BlackRock Inc.

And the rest, as they say, is history.

. . . or, more accurately, is the present. Because when we peel back the layers of propaganda from the past three years, we find that the remarkable events of the scamdemic have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a virus. We are instead witnessing a changeover in the monetary and economic system that was conceived, proposed and then implemented by (you guessed it!) BlackRock.

Chapter 2: Going Direct

Historians of the future will no doubt note 2019 as the year that BlackRock began its takeover of the planet in earnest.

It was in January of that fateful year that Joe Biden crawled cap-in-hand to Larry Fink’s Wall Street office to seek the financial titan’s blessing for his presidential (s)election. (“I’m here to help,” Fink reportedly replied.)

Then, on August 22nd of 2019, Larry Fink joined such illustrious figures as Al “Climate Conman” Gore, Chrystia “Account Freezing” Freeland, Mark “GFANZ” Carney, and the man himself, Klaus “Bond Villain” Schwab, on the World Economic Forum’s Board of Trustees, an organization which, the WEF informs us, “serves as the guardian of the World Economic Forum’s mission and values.” (“But which values are those, precisely?” you might ask. “And what does Yo-Yo Ma have to do with it?”)

It was another event that took place on August 22, 2019, however, that captures our attention today. As it turns out, August 22nd was not only the date that Fink achieved his globalist knighthood on the WEF board, it was also the date that the financial coup d’état (later erroneously referred to as a “pandemic”) actually began.

In order to understand what happened that day, however, we need to take a moment to understand the structure of the US monetary system. You see (GREATLY oversimplifying things for ease of understanding), there are actually two types of money in the banking system: there is “bank money”—the money that you and I use to transact in the real economy—and there is “reserve money”—the money that banks keep on deposit at the Federal Reserve. These two types of money circulate in two separate monetary circuits, sometimes referred to as the retail circuit (bank money) and the wholesale circuit (reserve money).

In order to get a handle on what this actually means, I highly suggest you check out John Titus’ indispensable videos on the subject, notably “Mommy, Where Does Money Come From?” and “Wherefore Art Thou Reserves?” and “Larry and Carstens’ Excellent Pandemic,” where he explains the split circuit monetary system:

CLIP 11m06s – 11m28s HARD CUT TO 21m38s – 22m47s

But the point of the two-circuit system is that, historically speaking, the Federal Reserve was never able to “print money” in the sense that people usually understand that term. It is able to create reserve money, which banks can keep on deposit with the Fed to meet their capital requirements. The more reserves they have parked at the Fed, the more bank money they are allowed to conjure into existence and lend out into the real economy. The gap between Fed-created reserve money and bank-created bank money acts as a type of circuit breaker, and this is why the flood of reserve money that the Fed created in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008 did not result in a spike in commercial bank deposits.

But all that changed three years ago. As Titus observes, by the time of the scamdemic bailouts of 2020, the amount of bank money sitting in deposit in commercial banks in the US—a figure which had never shown any correlation with the total amount of reserves held on deposit at the Fed—suddenly spiked in lockstep with the Fed’s climbing balance sheet.

Clearly, something had happened between the 2008 bailout and the 2020 bailout. Whereas the tidal wave of reserve money unleashed to capitalize the banks in the earlier bailout hadn’t found its way into the “real” economy, the 2020 bailout money had.

So, what happened? BlackRock happened, that’s what.

Specifically, on August 15, 2019, BlackRock published a report under the typically eye-wateringly boring title, “Dealing with the next downturn: From unconventional monetary policy to unprecedented policy coordination.” Although the paper did not catch the attention of the general public, it did generate some press in the financial media, and, much more to the point, generated interest from the gaggle of central bankers who descended on Jackson Hole, Wyoming, for the annual Jackson Hole Economic Symposium taking place on August 22, 2019—the exact same day that Fink was being appointed to the WEF’s board.

The theme of the 2019 symposium—which brings together central bankers, policymakers, economists and academics to discuss economic issues and policy options—was “Challenges for Monetary Policy,” and BlackRock’s paper, published a week in advance of the event, was carefully crafted to set the parameters of that discussion.

It’s no surprise that the report caught the attention of the central bankers. After all, BlackRock’s proposal came with a pedigree. Of the four co-authors of the report, three of them were former central bankers themselves: Philipp Hildebrand, the former president of the Swiss National Bank; Stanley Fischer, the former Federal Reserve vice chairman and former governor of the Bank of Israel; and Jean Boivin, the former deputy governor of the Bank of Canada.

But beyond the paper’s authorship, it was what “Dealing with the next downturn” actually proposed that was to have such earthshaking effects on the global monetary order.

The report starts by noting the dilemma that the central banksters found themselves in by 2019. After years of quantitative easing (QE) and ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and even the once-unthinkable NIRP (negative interest rate policy), the banksters were running out of room to operate. As BlackRock notes:

The current policy space for global central banks is limited and will not be enough to respond to a significant, let alone a dramatic, downturn. Conventional and unconventional monetary policy works primarily through the stimulative impact of lower short-term and long-term interest rates. This channel is almost tapped out: One-third of the developed market government bond and investment grade universe now has negative yields, and global bond yields are closing in on their potential floor. Further support cannot rely on interest rates falling.

So, what was BlackRock’s answer to this conundrum? Why, a great reset, of course!

No, not Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset. A different type of “great reset.” The “Going Direct” reset.

An unprecedented response is needed when monetary policy is exhausted and fiscal policy alone is not enough. That response will likely involve “going direct”: Going direct means the central bank finding ways to get central bank money directly in the hands of public and private sector spenders. Going direct, which can be organised in a variety of different ways, works by: 1) bypassing the interest rate channel when this traditional central bank toolkit is exhausted, and; 2) enforcing policy coordination so that the fiscal expansion does not lead to an offsetting increase in interest rates.

The authors of BlackRock’s proposal go on to stress that they are not talking about simply dumping money into people’s bank accounts willy-nilly. As report co-author Phillip Hildebrand made sure to stress in his appearance on Bloomberg on the day of the paper’s release, this was not Bernanke’s “helicopter money” idea.

PHILIPP HILDEBRAND: Something that goes into the direction of essentially what we call go and direct which would be ways of putting money into pockets of consumers or corporates directly in order to spend so to go around the interest rate channel as opposed to traditional central banking where you really only uh always work through the interest rate channel so kind of like helicopter money do you have to be coordinated yeah i think what it means helicopter money is a sort of catchphrase from the famous paper that ben bernanke gave in in the early 2000s but the point is yes you have to go in a different way than working through the interest rate channel because interest rates are already so low

Source: Risk of a Recession in 2020 Is More Elevated, Says BlackRock’s Hildebrand

Nor was it—as report co-author Jean Boivin was keen to stress in his January 2020 appearance on BlackRock’s own podcast discussing the idea—a version of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), with the government simply printing up bank money to spend directly into the economy.

No, this was to be a process where special purpose facilities—which they called “standing emergency fiscal facilities” (SEFFs)—would be created to inject bank money directly into the commercial accounts of various public or private sector entities. These SEFFs would be overseen by the central bankers themselves, thus crossing the streams of the two monetary circuits in a way that had never been done before.

Any additional measures to stimulate economic growth will have to go beyond the interest rate channel and “go direct” – when [sic] a central bank crediting private or public sector accounts directly with money. One way or another, this will mean subsidising spending – and such a measure would be fiscal rather than monetary by design. This can be done directly through fiscal policy or by expanding the monetary policy toolkit with an instrument that will be fiscal in nature, such as credit easing by way of buying equities. This implies that an effective stimulus would require coordination between monetary and fiscal policy – be it implicitly or explicitly. [Emphases added.]

Alright, let’s recap. On August 15, 2019, BlackRock came out with a proposal calling for central banks to adopt a completely unprecedented procedure for injecting money directly into the economy in the event of the next downturn. Then, on August 22, 2019, the central bankers of the world convened in Wyoming for their annual shindig to discuss these very ideas.

So? Did the central bankers listen to BlackRock? You bet they did!

Remember when we saw how commercial bank deposits began moving in sync with the Fed’s balance sheet for the first time ever? Well, let’s take another look at that, shall we?

It wasn’t the March 2020 bailouts where the correlation between the Fed balance sheet and commercial bank deposits—the tell-tale sign of a BlackRock-style “going direct” bailout—began. It was actually in September 2019—months before the scamdemic was a gleam in Bill Gates’ eye—when we started to see Federal Reserve monetary creation finding its way directly into the retail monetary circuit.

In other words, it was less than one month after BlackRock proposed this revolutionary new type of fiscal intervention that the central banks began implementing that very idea. The Going Direct Reset—better understood as a financial coup d’état—had begun.

To be sure, this going direct intervention was later offset by the Fed’s next scam for forcing more government debt on depositors, but that’s another story. The point is that the seal had been broken on the going direct bottle, and it wasn’t long before the central bankers had a perfect excuse for forcing that entire bottle down the public’s throat.  What we were told was a “pandemic” was in fact, on the financial level, just an excuse for an absolutely unprecedented pumping of trillions of dollars from the Fed directly into the economy.

The story of precisely how the going direct reset was implemented during the 2020 bailouts is a fascinating one, and I would encourage you to dive down that rabbit hole, if you’re interested. But for today’s purposes, it’s sufficient to understand what the central bankers got out of the Going Direct Reset: the ability to take over fiscal policy and to begin engineering the economy of Main Street in a more . . . well, direct way.

But what did BlackRock get out of this, you ask? Well, when it came time to decide who to call in to manage the scamdemic bailout scam, guess who the Fed turned to? If you guessed BlackRock, then (sadly) you’re exactly right!

Yes, in March 2020 the Federal Reserve hired BlackRock to manage three separate bailout programs: its commercial mortgage-backed securities program, its purchases of newly issued corporate bonds and its purchases of existing investment-grade bonds and credit ETFs.

To be sure, this bailout bonanza wasn’t just another excuse for BlackRock to gain access to the government purse and distribute funds to businesses in its own portfolio, though it certainly was that.

And it wasn’t just another emergency where the chairman of the Federal Reserve had to put Larry Fink on speed dial—not simply to shower BlackRock with no-bid contracts but to manage his own portfolio—although it certainly was that, too.

It was also a convenient excuse for BlackRock to bail out one of its own most valuable assets: iShares, the collection of exchange traded funds (ETFs) that it acquired from Barclays for $13.5 billion in 2009 and that had ballooned to a $1.9 trillion juggernaut by 2020.

As Pam and Russ Martens—who have been on the BlackRock beat at their Wall Street On Parade blog for years now—detailed in their article on the subject, “BlackRock Is Bailing Out Its ETFs with Fed Money and Taxpayers Eating Losses“:

BlackRock is being allowed by the Fed to buy its own corporate bond ETFs as part of the Fed program to prop up the corporate bond market. According to a report in Institutional Investor on Monday, BlackRock, on behalf of the Fed, “bought $1.58 billion in investment-grade and high-yield ETFs from May 12 to May 19, with BlackRock’s iShares funds representing 48 percent of the $1.307 billion market value at the end of that period, ETFGI said in a May 30 report.”

No bid contracts and buying up your own products? What could possibly be wrong with that?

The numbers speak for themselves. After BlackRock was allowed to bail out its own ETF funds with the Fed’s newly minted going direct funny money, iShares surged yet again, surpassing $3 trillion in assets under management last year.

But it wasn’t just the Fed that was rolling out the red carpet for BlackRock to implement the very bailout plan that BlackRock created. Banksters from around the world were positively falling over themselves to get BlackRock to manage their market interventions.

In April 2020, the Bank of Canada announced that it was hiring (who else?) BlackRock’s Financial Markets Advisory (FMA) to help manage its own $10 billion corporate bond buying program. Then in May 2020, the Swedish central bank, the Riksbank, also hired BlackRock as an external consultant to conduct “an analysis of the Swedish corporate bonds market and an assessment of possible design options for a potential corporate bonds asset purchase programme.”

As we saw earlier, the Global Financial Crisis had put BlackRock on the map, establishing the firm’s dominance on the world stage and catapulting Larry Fink to the status of Wall Street royalty. With the 2020 Going Direct Reset, however, BlackRock had truly conquered the world. It was now dictating central bank interventions and then acting in every conceivable role and in direct violation of conflict-of-interest rules, acting as consultant and advisor, as manager, as buyer, as seller and as investor with both the Fed and the very banks, corporations, pension funds and other entities it was bailing out.

Yes, with the advent of the scamdemic, BlackRock had cemented its position as The Company That Owns The World.

But yet again we are left with the same nagging questions: what is BlackRock seeking to do with this power? What is it capable of doing? And what are the aims of Fink and his fellow travelers?

Let’s find out.

Chapter 3: Aladdin’s Genie and the Future of the World

As you now know, BlackRock started out life as “Blackstone Financial Management” in the offices of The Blackstone Group in 1988. By 1992, it was already so successful that founder Larry Fink and Blackstone CEO Stephen Schwarzman spun the company off as its own entity, christening it BlackRock in a deliberate attempt to sow confusion.

But it was in 1993 (or so the story goes) that arguably the most important of BlackRock’s market-controlling tools was forged. It was that year that Jody Kochansky, a fixed-income portfolio manager hired the year before, began to tire of his daily 6:30 AM task of comparing his entire portfolio to yesterday’s numbers.

The task, done by hand from paper printouts, was long and arduous. Kochansky had a better idea: “We said, let’s take this data, and rather than print it out, let’s sort it into a database, and have the computer compare the report today versus the report yesterday, across every position.”

It may seem obvious to us today, but in 1993 the idea of automating a task like this was a radical one. Nonetheless, it paid off. After seeing the utility of having an automated, daily, computer-generated report calculating the risk on every asset in a portfolio, Kochansky and his team hunkered down for a 72-hour code-writing exercise that resulted in Aladdin (short for “asset, liability, and debt and derivative investment network”), a proprietary investment analysis technology touted as “the operating system for BlackRock.”

Sold as a “central processing system for investment management,” the software is now the core of BlackRock Solutions, a BlackRock subsidiary that licenses Aladdin to corporate clients and institutional investors. Aladdin combines portfolio management and trading, compliance, operations and risk oversight in a single platform and is now used by over 200 institutions, including fund manager rivals Vanguard and State Street; half of the top ten insurers in the world; Big Tech giants like Microsoft, Apple and Alphabet; and numerous pension funds, including the world’s largest, the $1.5 trillion Japanese Government Pension Insurance Fund.

The numbers themselves tell the story of Aladdin.

It is used by 13,000 BlackRock employees and thousands of BlackRock customers.

It occupies three datacentres in the US, with BlackRock planning to open two more in Europe.

It runs thousands of Monte Carlo simulations—computational algorithms that model the probability of various outcomes in chaotic systems—every day on each one of the tens of millions of securities under its purview.

And, by February 2017, Aladdin was managing risk for $20 trillion worth of assets. That’s when BlackRock stopped reporting this figure, since—as the company told The Financial Times—”total assets do not reflect how clients use the system.” An anonymous source in the company had a different take: “[T]he figure is no longer disclosed because of the negative attention the enormous sums attracted.”

In this case, the phrase “enormous sums” almost fails to do justice to the truly mind-boggling wealth under the watchful eye of this computer system. As The Financial Times went on to report, the combination of the scores of new clients using Aladdin in recent years and the growth in the stock and bond markets in that time has meant that the total value of assets under the system’s management is much larger than the $20 trillion reported in 2017: “Today, $21.6tn sits on the platform from just a third of its 240 clients, according to public documents verified with the companies and first-hand accounts.”

For context, that figure—representing the assets of just one-third of BlackRock’s clientele—itself accounts for 10% of the value of all the stocks and bonds in the world.

But if the idea of this amount of the world’s assets being under the management of a single company’s proprietary computer software concerns you, BlackRock has a message for you: Relax! The official line is that Aladdin only calculates risk, it doesn’t tell asset managers what to buy or sell. Thus, even if there were a stray line of code or a wonky algorithm somewhere deep inside Aladdin’s programming getting its investment analysis catastrophically wrong, the final decision on any given investment would still come down to human judgment.

. . . Needless to say, that’s a lie. In 2017, BlackRock unveiled a project to replace underperforming human stockpickers with computer algorithms. Dubbed “Monarch,” the scheme saw billions of dollars of assets snatched from human control and given to an obscure arm of the BlackRock empire called Systematic Active Equities (SAE). BlackRock acquired SAE in the same 2009 deal that saw it snag iShares from Barclays Global Investor (BGI).

As we’ve already seen, the BGI deal was unbelievably lucrative for BlackRock, with iShares being purchased for $13.5 billion in 2009 and rising to a $1.9 trillion valuation in 2020. Testifying to BlackRock’s commitment to the machine-over-man Monarch project, Mark Wiseman, global head of active equities at BlackRock, told The Financial Times in 2018, “I firmly believe that, if we look back in five to 10 years from now, the thing that we most benefited from in the BGI acquisition is actually SAE.”

Even The New York Times was reporting at the time of the launch of the Monarch operation that Larry Fink had “cast his lot with the machines” and that BlackRock had “laid out an ambitious plan to consolidate a large number of actively managed mutual funds with peers that rely more on algorithms and models to pick stocks.”

“The democratization of information has made it much harder for active management,” Fink told The NY Times. “We have to change the ecosystem — that means relying more on big data, artificial intelligence, factors and models within quant and traditional investment strategies.”

Lest there be any doubt about BlackRock’s commitment to this anti-human agenda, the company doubled down in 2018 with the creation of AI Labs, which is “composed of researchers, data scientists, and engineers” and works to “develop methods to solve their hardest technical problems and advance the fields of finance and AI.”

Conclusion

As bleak as the exploration of this world-conquering juggernaut is, there is a ray of hope on the horizon: the public is at least finally becoming aware of the existence of BlackRock and its relative importance on the global financial stage. This is reflected in an increasing number of protests targeting BlackRock and its activities. For example:

NOW – BlackRock HQ in NYC stormed with pitchforks

Climate Activists March to BlackRock HQ for Occupy Park Ave Protests – NYC

Keen-eyed observers may note, however, that these protests are not against the BlackRock agenda I have laid out in this series. On the contrary. They are for that agenda. These protesters’ main gripe seems to be that Fink and BlackRock are engaged in greenwashing and that the mega-corporation is actually more interested in its bottom line than in saving Mother Earth.

Well, duh. Even BlackRock’s former Chief Investment Officer for Sustainable Investing wrote, after leaving the firm, an extensive, four-part whistleblowing exposé documenting how the “sustainable investing” push being touted by Fink is a scam from top to bottom.

My only gripe with this limited hangout critique of BlackRock is that it implies that Fink and his cohorts are merely interested in accumulating dollars. They’re not. They’re interested in turning their financial wealth into real-world power. Power they will wield in service of their own agenda and will cloak with a phoney green mantle because they believe—and not without reason—that that’s what the public wants.

Slightly closer to the point, you get nonprofit groups like Consumers’ Research “slamming” BlackRock for impoverishing the real economy for the benefit of itself and its clients. “You’d think a company that has made it their mission to enforce ESG (environmental, social and governance) standards on American businesses would apply those same standards to foreign investments, but BlackRock isn’t pushing its woke agenda on China or Russia,” Consumers’ Research Executive Director Will Hild explained earlier this year after the launch of an ad campaign targeting the investment giant.

But that critique, too, seems to miss the underlying point. Is Hild trying to say that if only Fink applied his economy-destroying standards equally across the board then he would be beyond reproach?

More hopefully, there are signs that the political class—always willing to jump out in front of a parade and pretend they’re leading it—are picking up on the growing public discontent with BlackRock and are beginning to cut ties with the firm.

In recent months, multiple US state governments have announced their intention to divest state funds from BlackRock, with 19 states’ attorneys general even signing a letter to Larry Fink in August calling him out on his agenda of social control:

BlackRock’s actions on a variety of governance objectives may violate multiple state laws. Mr. McCombe’s letter asserts compliance with our fiduciary laws because BlackRock has a private motivation that differs from its public commitments and statements. This is likely insufficient to satisfy state laws requiring a sole focus on financial return. Our states will not idly stand for our pensioners’ retirements to be sacrificed for BlackRock’s climate agenda. The time has come for BlackRock to come clean on whether it actually values our states’ most valuable stakeholders, our current and future retirees.

As part of this divestment push, the Louisiana state treasurer announced in October that the state was withdrawing $794 million in state funds from BlackRock, South Carolina’s state treasurer announced plans to divest $200 million from the company’s control by the end of the year, and Arkansas has already taken $125 million out of money market accounts under BlackRock’s management.

As I noted in my appearance on The Hrvoje Morić Show, regardless of the real motivations of these state governments, the fact that they feel compelled to take action against BlackRock is itself a hopeful sign. It means that the political class understands that an increasing portion of the public is aware of the BlackRock/ESG/corporate governance agenda and is opposed to it.

Once again, we arrive at the bottom line: the only thing that truly matters is public awareness of the issues involved in the rise of a financial (and political and technological) giant like BlackRock, and it is only general public opinion that can move the needle when it comes to removing the wealth (and thus the power) from a behemoth like the one that Fink has created.

But before we wrap up here, there’s one last point to be made.

You might remember that we opened this exploration by highlighting BlackRock’s position as one of the top institutional shareholders in Walmart:

And in Coca-Cola:

And in Moderna:

And in Exxon:

And in Amazon:

. . . and in seemingly every other company of significance on the global stage. Now, the fact checkers will tell you that this doesn’t actually matter because it’s the shareholders who actually own the stock, not BlackRock itself. But that raises a further question: who owns BlackRock?

Oh, of course.

Now, I realize this is a lot of information to take in at once. Go ahead and re-read this series once or twice. Follow some of the many links contained herein to better familiarize yourself with the material. Share these reports with others.

But if, after reading all of this you find yourself looking back over these “Top Institutional Holders” lists and saying: “Hey wait! Who’s The Vanguard Group?” . . .

. . . Well then, I’d say you’re starting to get it! Good job!

So who is the Vanguard Group? It’s an excellent question, and one that I’ll be answering in the next edition of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter! I hope you’re there for the answer!

***

NOTE: This documentary originally ran as a three-part series in The Corbett Report Subscriber Newsletter in November 2022. To stay up to date on the latest info, please become a Corbett Report member. 

Connect with James Corbett — website — substack

Cover image based on creative commons work of davevs & LN_Photoart

How Big Business Uses Big Government to Rape You (And Why You Love It)

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
September 2, 2023



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble

FROM 2016: You’ve probably heard all about Upton Sinclair’s 1906 expose of the turn-of-the-century American meatpacking industry and the Chicago stockyards…but everything you’ve heard about it is wrong. The book wasn’t an expose of the meatpackers, the legislation it inspired served to help the industry it sought to punish, and Sinclair himself hated the end result of his book, which aimed for the heart and hit the stomach by accident.

Join us for this month’s edition of the Film, Literature and the New World Order as we learn not to trust what’s on the label of mainline history.

FLASHBACK SHOW NOTES:

Big Government Has Come for This Small-Town Amish Farmer. Here’s How He’s Fighting Back.

Episode 227 – The Regulation Trap

Interview 1382 – The Social Media Regulation Psyop

Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle” – FLNWO #35

EPISODE SHOW NOTES:

The Jungle (Free Audiobook)

Upton Sinclair – Spartacus Schoolnet

History Brief: Teddy’s Food and Drug Regulation

Horse Meat, Hanford Leak, Obama’s Oscar

Genetic Fallacy: How Monsanto Silences Scientific Dissent

Why Government Regulation is a Lie (and what you can do about it)

Excuse Me, Professor: Challenging the Myths of Progressivism

Meat Packers Rape You – And You Love It

Meat Packing – Mises Wiki

How the Wholesome Meat Act Gives Us Less Wholesome Meat

Connect with The Corbett Report

Cover image credit: Angela_Yuriko_Smith

Ramiro Romani With James Corbett: Take Back Our Tech

“So there’s so many things coming at once. There’s essentially four freedoms that technology has allowed. But then also there are powers — we all know these organizations that are also very scared of us having these freedoms.

“So those are the freedom to travel, the freedom to exchange (which has been bolstered by things like cryptocurrency), the freedom of speech and the freedom of privacy.

“And these four things make it really easy to interact in a way that is in alignment, right, that is voluntary with what you would like.

“And now you see pretty much a law in most Western countries that are coming after these exact freedoms…

…

“It’s almost like the simulation itself is making it so — it’s forcing us to leave these bigger platforms and into smaller, decentralized community-based groups.

“So throughout things we’ve seen over the past few years — we’ve seen technology being used to try and track and trace every single one of our movements.

“COVID-19 was a perfect example of this. And an article I’m working on talks specifically about contact tracing, which, if people didn’t know, most phones have the ability through Google and Apple for them to install an app on their phone and actually activate it. And they did that en masse to millions of people at once…

…

“We see technology and we are throwing it out. We’re not going to use it…

“You’re cutting yourself off. You’re doing your own thing, which I completely support your right to live a life free of technology. That’s absolutely your right…

…

“Ignoring it is not going to make it go away. It’s not going to make these people stop their plans. Understanding it, working with it, changing it — which you absolutely have the possibility to change it. That is the way you can make it better for everyone.”

~ Ramiro Romani

Take Back Our Tech

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
August 23, 2023

Ramiro Romani of TakeBackOurTech.org and AbovePhone.com joins us today to discuss technology: what it is, how it works, and how we can make it work for us.

We discuss how governments and big tech corporations are collaborating to undermine our rights to privacy, free expression and even freedom of travel and how we can remove the Big Brother surveillance and controls from our devices.



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack

Show Notes:

TakeBackOurTech.org

Building a digital army: UN peacekeepers fight deadly disinformation

AbovePhone.com

Who Can We Call On? How Our Phones Are Tracked By Big Tech, Telecom, and Government

Electromagnetic Radiation – Shield & Educate Yourself, Save a Life

Connect with The Corbett Report

The Global Uprising Against CBDCs Has Begun!

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
August 20, 2023

Stop the presses! Here’s my hot take for the day: CBDCs are a bad thing.

OK, maybe that take is not so hot. After all, I don’t even need to spell out “Central Bank Digital Currencies” for my well-informed, switched-on readers to know what I’m talking about when I refer to CBDCs. And the idea that a digital form of programmable money with a central banker’s on/off switch is a bad thing? Come on! Even the normiest of the normies can sense that.

But here’s the hot part of my hot take: CBDCs are deeply unpopular with the general public and we have a chance of stopping them in their tracks.

At first glance, you might not think this is such a controversial statement, but really think about it for a minute.

If you listen to the stenographers and presstitutes of the establishment dinosaur media, you’ll believe that CBDCs not only represent an exciting opportunity to bring our outdated paper money system into the digital age, but that they’ll be bestowed on us by the benevolent central banker technocrats in the next year or two (if we’re lucky!).

If you listen to the pundits in the alternative media, however, you’ll believe that CBDCs not only represent the greatest threat to human freedom in our lifetime, but that they’ll be forced upon us by the evil central bankster overlords in the next year or two (no matter what we do to fend them off).

Do you see the similarities in these two “competing” narratives? In both cases, you and your opinion about CBDCs are utterly irrelevant. It’s a fait accompli. You can love ’em or hate ’em, embrace them or recoil from them, but whatever your position, you will be forced to use them.

But this just isn’t true. In fact, we’re already seeing a massive global pushback against the CBDC agenda. And this pushback is already causing the banksters to panic and to pull back on their grand plan for world domination.

Of course you’re not hearing about this CBDC pushback in the establishment media. Why would they tout their masters’ failures, after all?

But, weirdly enough, you’re not hearing much about this pushback in the alt media either.

Let’s correct that today, shall we?

Global Pushback

As we all know, when globalists are looking for a population to test out their latest technology of enslavement, they turn to Africa. From genetic manipulation to vaccine experiments to agricultural “revolution,” there is no shortage of examples of pathocrats disguising their experiments in technocratic tyranny as philanthropic concern for the poor, beleaguered people of that continent. It’s hardly surprising, then, that Africa is once again serving as a laboratory for the latest globalist technocrat pet project: digital money.

Accordingly, Nigeria became one of the first nation’s in the world to adopt an official, national central bank digital currency when the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) launched the eNaira amid much fanfare in October 2021. Promoted with the slogan “Same Naira, more possibilities!” the bankster class collectively held its breath as it watched this trial run of digital money unfold before their eyes.

The early results of this experiment, however, were not promising for the money manipulators. Despite a massive push of the eNaira by the government and breathless coverage of its rollout in the establishment media, it was revealed one year after the digital currency’s launch that a mere 0.5% of the population—one in every 200 people—had actually used it.

Not to be dissuaded, the CBN imposed new banking regulations last December, limiting cash withdrawals from ATMs to just ₦20,000 ($45) per day in a bid to increase adoption of the nation’s CBDC.

The result? Again, utter failure. In fact, worse than utter failure. An actual uprising!

Nigerians took to the streets in February of this year to protest the cash restrictions and even attempted to storm the central bank.

CBN officials are now rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, upgrading the eNaira app to allow contactless payments, as if that was what was keeping people from using the banksters’ new digital enslavement tokens. But, try as they might to cover it up, the results of this experiment in monetary manipulation are now clearly visible for all to see. The eNaira is a failure of such gargantuan proportions that it now serves as a cautionary tale to central bankers around the world about how pear-shaped things can get when a digital currency is shoved down an unwilling public’s throat.

But it isn’t just Nigeria where people are saying “no, thanks” to the banksters’ digital money agenda.

In the European Union, protesters are already marching against the European Central Bank’s (ECB) proposed “digital euro.” In Croatia, for example, activists are warning that their government’s adoption of the euro “will be followed by the introduction of a digital euro, and then you will have to kiss all the freedoms you know goodbye.” In the Netherlands, meanwhile, demonstrators have staged rallies warning about the coming European CBDC and the ECB’s plan “to control the spending habits of the population.”

In Russia, too—where Putin has just signed the Central Bank of Russia’s “digital Ruble” into law as an official national currency—people are already threatening to go Nigerian on their government. Recent polls show that a mere 6% of Russians are actually excited about their opportunity to use the new CBDC. This widespread distrust of the digital Ruble is reflected in the coverage of the currency in the nation’s alternative news websites, which are filled with articles decrying the technocratic tyranny. One such article sums up the situation by noting that “we can only say that if citizens actively use non-cash transactions, then they themselves will enter the electronic banking concentration camp, seemingly completely voluntarily.”

And how about in the bastion of liberty, the beacon on the hill, the good ol’ US of A? Well, the grandstanding politicians—always eager to get in front of a parade and pretend they’re leading it—are already introducing (and even passing) legislation to ensure CBDCs never sees the light of day in America.

Of course, readers of this column will know that these political promises aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. Nevertheless, the proposed legislation is important because it reflects two underlying realities. Firstly, it demonstrates that the American public is not on board with the CBDC agenda. And secondly, it signals to the Fed and other central banksters that they risk upsetting their whole rigged monetary system if they push this agenda too far and too fast.

Banksters Running Scared

Yes, it’s safe to say that, on the CBDC issue at least, the momentum is not in the banksters’ favour. In fact, things are so bad that the establishment is now beginning to contemplate whether the mad dash toward CBDCs might just wake up the public to the whole monetary scam.

In a revealing op-ed in The Financial Times last month, Brookings Senior Fellow Eswar Prasad warned, “Central banks must not be blind to the threats posed by CBDCs.” After dutifully detailing all of the nifty features of programmable money that would-be world controllers can take advantage of (“imposing negative nominal interest rates to disincentivise saving,” for example), he then cautions the central banksters that their pretense of “political neutrality” might be exposed for the self-evident sham that it is if central banks start meddling in people’s everyday transactions.

Central banks could be viewed as political agents if their visibility into payment transactions is used for law enforcement or surveillance purposes. [. . .] Central banks already face threats to their independence, credibility and legitimacy. The more extensive the functionality of the money they issue, the greater the political pressures they will be exposed to. At a minimum, such innovations pose risks to the integrity of central bank money.

Oh, won’t somebody think of the central banksters’ credibility!?

And—wouldn’t ya know it?!—just as Prasad and others are beginning to warn that the banksters might be pushing too far and too fast with this whole “programmable money” idea, it looks like the monetary mafia are now stepping back from the CBDC brink . . . at least publicly.

Just this past week, the Central Bank of Colombia issued a white paper on the “Expected Macroeconomic Effects of Issuing a Retail CBDC,” which admits that if central banks push the cashless agenda too far and the situation “reaches a point where the use of cash is about to disappear, central bank money could lose its role as a monetary anchor for deposits and other forms of private money.” Also this past week, the Bank of Canada issued a report on “Unmet Payment Needs and a Central Bank Digital Currency,” which acknowledges that “consumers face few payment gaps or frictions and therefore might have relatively weak incentives to adopt and — especially — to use CBDC at scale.”

In other words, central bankers are quietly admitting there are no real advantages to retail CBDCs and there are even potential downsides to their introduction.

Of course, as my astute readers will already know, this does not mean that the issue is settled, that the bankers have given up, and that the CBDC dream is officially done. No, it just means that they have to change tack and try to find other ways to cajole the public into the digital gulag. Perhaps this is why the central banking minions are now openly strategizing about how best to sell their digital money agenda to an unwilling public.

Take the Bank of Israel, for example. It just released a new white paper purporting to identify “Principles for creating ‘Acceptance’ and ‘Network Effect’ for the Digital Shekel,” or, in plain English: “Ways to convince the rubes to use our virtual slave coins.” The document considers ideas for leveraging the “Network Effect” to artificially stimulate adoption of the digital shekel. Naturally, the plan does not focus on ways to incentivize the use of CBDCs but rather on ways to enforce their acceptance, including obligating banks, payment providers and merchants to participate in the scheme or forcing the government to officially declare the digital shekel to be legal tender.

On its face, the fact that the banksters are now openly plotting how best to stuff digital money down the public’s throat may be a worrying development.

But, upon further reflection, the fact that the banksters are now turning from the carrots of incentives and bonuses and discounts to the stick of government regulation and enforced adoption does not mean that the anti-CBDC movement is doomed to failure.

On the contrary. That the banksters are now actively engaged in a struggle against the general public is a sign that we are winning and that CBDCs are not inevitable.

Resistance is Fertile

I’ve made the point before, but it bears repeating: the constant stream of propaganda, conditioning and censorship that we are subjected to from governments, establishment institutions and their lapdog media is not a sign of their strength. It is a sign of their weakness.

The fact that they have to spend billions of dollars a year pumping lies and misinformation into the heads of the citizenry in order to keep people from seeing the truth is a tacit admission that our thoughts and opinions actually do matter. After all, why would they bother propagandizing to us at all if they didn’t require our approval (or at least our docile apathy) to continue pursuing their agenda?

Similarly, the fact that the banksters are ramping up the next stage of their CBDC indoctrination operation—attempting to convince an increasingly skeptical public that a complete overhaul of the fabric of our monetary reality is somehow beneficial to Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom—is a tacit admission that we are the ones who decide whether CBDCs are implemented or not. They can tout the benefits of their digital slave tokens all they want, but if we refuse to use them, then the CBDC world order will not come to fruition.

The banksters, for one, are well aware of this fact. But are we aware of it?

I understand why this message—that pushback and protest do matter and that the globalist agenda is not inevitable—is such an unpopular one in the “alternative” media. If the message is simply: “Relax, everyone! The battle is over and CBDCs have been defeated! Now go back to sleep!” then it is indeed no different from enemy propaganda.

But that is not the message here. Instead, the message is that the public is—for the time being and until the propaganda machine kicks into high gear—overwhelmingly on our side. People DO NOT WANT programmable money and the vast majority see it for what it is: another trick on the part of the establishment to take more power and control away from every day people and put it in the hands of the banksters and their cronies.

That’s why this is the time to seize the momentum of public opinion and steer it into actual productive activity. We can encourage Cash Friday awareness. We can build up local trading communities based on alternative and complementary currencies. We can introduce those around us to Agorist.Market. We can promote community currencies and precious metals and decentralized cryptos and barter circles and the million other forms of survival currency that clued-in Corbetteers have been researching for years.

The time has come to harvest those seeds you’ve been planting! The public is on our side!

Yes, your resistance and pushback do matter. It does make a difference. We do have a part to play in this. Now, let’s go out there and put the final nail in the CBDC coffin.

What are we waiting for?

This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter. To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.

Connect with James Corbett

James Corbett on the Weaponization of Psychology

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
as interviewed by ANTIJANTEPODDEN
July 26, 2023 (interview July 23, 2023)



VIDEO COURTESY ANTIJANTEPODDEN: WEBSITE / ODYSEE

via ANTIJANTEPODDEN: Investigative journalist James Corbett has investigated how psychology is being weaponized to target dissidents.

In this episode he explains the absurdity of the old diagnoses of anarchia, which was too much love for freedom, and drapetomania, which was the mental illness of slaves running away from their masters.

Over the last three years, we have seen a medical doctor being diagnosed and force medicated for corona insanity. This was because of his resistance to the government narrative in Switzerland. We have also seen an increased willingness to pathologize conspiracy theorists, and to label people as domestic terrorists for using their right to share their opinions.

Even though the methods used against us are ugly, and the majority just go along uncritically, James Corbett shows examples of how modeling disobedience can dramatically turn the situation around.

Show Notes:

Antijantepodden: Website / Substack

Dissent Into Madness:
• 1. The Weaponization of Psychology
• 2. Crazy Conspiracy Theorists
• 3. Projections of the Psychopaths
• 4. Escaping the Madhouse

Bill Goats and the Forest:
• billgoats.com

Related AJP episode:
• AJP 47 | James Corbett – COVID-19 is a step towards a prison state

Other related sources:
› huffpost.com: My Gentle, Intelligent Brother Is Now A Conspiracy Theorist And His Beliefs Are Shocking
› nytimes.com: How to Talk to Friends and Family Who Share Conspiracy Theories
› thetimes.co.uk: Help! My mother is a conspiracy theorist
› vogue.com: I’m Worried About Losing Touch With My Conspiracy Theorist Parents
› apa.org: Speaking of Psychology: Why people believe in conspiracy theories, with Karen Douglas, PhD
› sciencefocus.com: A psychologist explains why people believe in conspiracy theories
› faculty.lsu.edu: Why We Fall for Conspiracies
› technologyreview.com: How to talk to conspiracy theorists—and still be kind
› psychcentral.com: Why Do Some People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?
› businessinsider.com: A psychologist reveals why people cling to conspiracy theories during uncertain times
› aftenposten.no: Når mamma blir konspirasjonsteoretiker
› vl.no: Ingen vaksine mot overtro
› forskning.no: Fire forsker-råd: Slik snakker du med en konspirasjons­teoretiker
› ndla.no: Hvorfor er konspirasjonsteorier farlige?

› Kakistocracy (search)
› George Brock Chisholm (search)
› World Federation For Mental Health (search)
› Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress – Chisholm and Sullivan – 1946
› John Rawlings Rees (search)
› The Tavistock Institute (search)
› The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations
› Tavistock Institute: Social Engineering the Masses
› Strategic Planning for Mental Health – J R Rees

› March 1930 – Street Interviews on Women’s Fashion, NYC (real sound)
› 1929 Interviews With Elderly People Throughout The US
› 1966: Children imagine life in the year 2000
› Zombie Kid Likes Turtles
› Her danser Erna til «Rompa mi»
› Folk på gata i Kristiansand om munnbind – NRK
› Interviewed the Worst Street in Downtown LA

› The deliberate dumbing down of America : a chronological paper trail
› Dumbing us down – The hidden agenda of compulsory education
› Weapons of mass instruction
› H-1B Immigration: America’s Secret Weapon – Michio Kaku
› MASS PSYCHOSIS – How an Entire Population Becomes MENTALLY ILL

› Dr. Robert Hare – The Psychopathic Corporation
› Hare Psychopathy Checklist (Original) (PCL-22)
› The Sociopath Next Door – Martha Stout
› American Psycho – Axe scene
› The Corporation – Full Documentary – 2003
› The Corporation (trailer)

› Jonas Gahr Støre – Prime Minister of Norway lying on TV #flashback
› De gode bombene – NRK
› Royal Norwegian Air Force F-16 Fighter Jets
› NATO bombing mistake kills Libyan civilians
› NATO Secretary General with the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre, 30 MAY 2023

› Dr. Benjamin Rush American Psychiatry (search)
› Anarchia excess of the passion for liberty (search)
› Samuel A Cartwright (search)
› Drapetomania (search)
› Oppsitional Defiance Disorder (search)
› DSM psychatry (search)
› It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. (search)

› Dr. Thomas Binder Interview – How Psychology Was Weaponized To Suppress Truth In The Age Of COVID
› Dr. Thomas Binder FORCED Into Hospital After Speaking Against COVID Narrative – Ask Dr. Drew
› Dr. Thomas Binder, MD

› WTC7 Collapse (HD)
› Josie Harris Reads Letter from Guantanamo Bay
› Capitol Police OPEN GATE for Trump Protesters REVIEW
› c1939_deber1118 40
› c1939_de1024 1
› c1939_uknoconsent 1
› c1939_uklonspeakc 1
› c1939_eswostreet 1
› c1939_deber1118 27
› c1939_deber1118 25
› c1939_uklonoct 3
› c1939_frpametro 1

› Narita Airport leads the way in Japan with biometrics
› World Health Organization Flag Animation
› The World of Soviet Psychiatry
› Sluggish schizophrenia
› “Medicine Standing on its Head”

› The Justin Trudeau effect: famous faces who’ve fallen for the Canadian PM’s charm
› head up your own ass (search)
› CIA Mind Control – CIA Secret Experiments
› MK-Ultra: The shocking Cold War experiments hidden by the CIA – BBC REEL

› corbettreport.com: Acceptance of and Commitment To Freedom – #SolutionsWatch
› Acceptance and commitment therapy (search)
› Steven C. Hayes, PhD
› corbettreport.com: Davi Barker on Authoritarian Sociopathy
› Authoritarian Sociopathy: Toward a Renegade Psychological Experiment

› Asch Conformity Experiment (search)
› Asch Conformity Experiment
› The Milgram Experiment (search)
› The Milgram Experiment (1962)
› Obedience Theory
› Last speech of Nicolae Ceaușescu, 21. December 1989
› National Opt-Out Day Called Against Invasive Body Scanners
› ‘National Opt-Out Day’: Will a protest against body scanners work?
› Leadership From A Dancing Guy

› LIVE: Press Conference on Surrender of US Sovereignty to the World Health Organization
› Making Medicare: The History of Health Care in Canada
› Freeland says some protesters’ bank accounts frozen

› c1939_itrebibbia 2
› c1939_ozfacepav 1
› c1939_rsbelgrade78 3
› c1939_rsmanstreet 1
› c1939_oznightout 1

Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: CDD20

The Revolt of the Pawns

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
July 23, 2023

In early 1980, as the diplomatic fallout from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan began to play itself out on the grand chessboard, then-US President Jimmy Carter sent his National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, to Pakistan to rally the mujahideen fighters waging jihad against the Russian invaders.

In the footage of that incident, Brzezinski can be seen helicoptering to a spot in the Khyber Pass on the Afghanistan border to address the Islamic fighters taking up arms against the Soviets. Assuring the assembled “freedom fighters” that their struggle will succeed, he raises a finger in the air in the direction of Afghanistan, proclaiming: “That land over there is yours. You’ll go back to it one day because your fight will prevail. And you’ll have your homes and your mosques back again because your cause is right and God is on your side.”

This was, as we now know, pure manipulative hogwash. Uncle Sam couldn’t have cared less about the fate of these fighters. The US government didn’t believe in their God and it didn’t care if they had their homes and their mosques back again. In fact, as Brzezinski himself has since admitted, the Soviet invasion had, in a sense, been a Western operation, the successful culmination of a covert US plan to lure the USSR into Afghanistan and slowly bleed the Red Army in a years-long proxy war.

In the infamous 1998 interview where Brzezinski confirmed this hidden truth, he was asked whether he regretted his role in fostering the rise of the Taliban and Al CIAda.

Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially: “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war that was unsustainable for the regime, a conflict that bought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

These are not the words of a pious believer in the righteous struggle of Islamic freedom fighters. They are not even the words of an earnest Cold Warrior, blindly supporting anyone who could strike at his Soviet enemy. They are the words of the man who literally wrote the book on The Grand Chessboard—the words of a self-proclaimed geopolitical grandmaster who cooly calculates several moves ahead as he manipulates his pawns on the grand chessboard as part of a grand strategy to checkmate his opponent.

Last week I revealed how the would-be rulers of the world see the grand struggle for geopolitical dominance as a type of chess game and how people around the globe (including the mujahideen in Afghanistan) are treated as mere pawns in that game, to be used, abused and sacrificed in pursuit of the grandmasters’ aims.

This week I will examine the growing political awareness of the pawns in the grand chess game and show what it looks like when they strike back against their masters.

Global Political Awakening

In December of 2008, The International Herald Tribune published an op-ed on an important new sociopolitical phenomenon: “The Global Political Awakening.”

For the first time in history almost all of humanity is politically activated, politically conscious and politically interactive. Global activism is generating a surge in the quest for cultural respect and economic opportunity in a world scarred by memories of colonial or imperial domination.

Now, if this were an op-ed by your average, run-of-the-mill political commentator, the prospect of a “global political awakening” would no doubt be celebrated as a hopeful development. Said commentator would then deftly transition into a pitch for how such an awakening could afford an exciting opportunity for the West to help human rights activists in Countries X, Y and/or Z overthrow their oppressive governments . . . with Countries X, Y and Z being prime targets on the US State Department’s regime change wishlist, naturally.

But this op-ed was not penned by your average political hack. No, it was authored by Zbigniew Brzezinski, the same arch-globalist insider (and arch-conspiracy theorist) who helped fund the mujahideen in the 1980s. For this grand chessboard grandmaster, the global political awakening is no cause for celebration. Rather, as he explained in a subsequent interview on the subject, it poses a threat to America’s global dominance and a challenge to all the kings on the global chessboard.

On the subjective level, this global political awakening is creating massive intolerance, impatience with inequality, with differentials in standards of living. It’s creating jealousies, resentments, more rapid immigration [. . .] Connected with that is a craving for respect for differentiated cultures and for individual dignity. Much of humanity feels that respect is lacking from the well-to-do.

Now, here’s the surprising thing: he’s not wrong. There is a global political awakening taking place. Fueled by the online revolution, impatience with inequalities and differentials in standards of living is rising. And, if the last several years of political history has taught us anything, it is that much of humanity is feeling a lack of respect from the well-to-do. This feeling has manifested in a worldwide populist movement that threatens to derail the globalist New World Order agenda, a point conceded by elitist institutions like the Bilderberg Group and the World Economic Forum, which have openly fretted about this rising populist movement in recent years.

In fact, Brzezinski’s “global political awakening” is not only as accurate a description of the global geopolitical situation today as it was when he first made it a decade and a half ago, it is—if anything—even truer today than it was in the bygone era of Hope and Change Obama.

Naturally, this awakening is informed by different issues in different countries and takes different forms in different corners of the globe, but there’s no doubt that the global political awakening is accelerating and people are reaching a breaking point.

Just take a look at France. The country has been on fire (literally) for months now as nationwide protests against proposed changes to the country’s pension system have spilled over into fiery protests against police violence that even targeted government officials.

Or take Israel, where Prime Minister Netanyahu is under the greatest pressure of his political career for trying to shove through a deeply unpopular judicial reform that would weaken the power of the country’s Supreme Court. Protesters have been in the streets, blocking roads and setting fires in opposition to Netanyahu’s efforts and, in the latest development, over a thousand reservists in the Israeli Air Force are threatening to stop serving if the reform goes ahead.

Or witness the turmoil in Africa, where weeks of antigovernment rallies in Kenya have culminated in deadly riots that show no signs of abating and where a crackdown on political opposition in Senegal has sparked similarly violent protests.

Then there’s the wave of farmer protests that, as I documented in a series of articles last summer, have swept around the world as the globalist net zero agenda starts to clamp down on the act of farming. The demonstrations have brought unrest and disruption not only to Sri Lanka—where protesters stormed the prime minister’s office and literally chased the president out of the country—but also to usually quiet countries like the Netherlands and Ireland.

Heck, you know there’s a global political awakening underway when Canada, of all places, becomes the site of a dramatic freedom convoy and an equally dramatic declaration of emergency powers by Trudeau’s increasingly embattled government.

Yes, Brzezinski was quite right when he pointed out that a global political awakening was underway. The real question, of course, is what such an awakening means for our future.

It is easy to see how the prospect of an increasingly politically engaged public (let alone an increasingly agitated one) is detrimental to the aims of geopolitical strategists like Brzezinski. After all, to the Brzezinskis of the world, the people are just pawns to be used, manipulated and, ultimately, sacrificed in service of a greater geopolitical agenda. (Or, in Kissinger’s infamous formulation, military men are “dumb, stupid animals to be used” as pawns for foreign policy.)

When the pawns begin to fight back, however, the chess game comes to a screeching halt. How can the self-declared grandmasters go about conquering squares on the chessboard, after all, when their own pieces are fighting against them?

One can just picture the war hawks observing this mass awakening and fretting over their carefully crafted grand chessboard strategems. “Why won’t these pawns simply shut up and do what they’re told?! It would make everything so much easier!”

Unfortunately for us, Brzezinski and his ilk not only saw the development of this global political awakening, they also envisioned a way to contain it.

And, even more unfortunately for us, the elitists’ plan for putting a lid on this populist awakening does not end well for us “pawns.”

Counter-Revolution

If the sight of these protest movements sweeping the globe seems familiar to you, that’s because it is.

As you’ll recall, I wrote an article in November 2019 about the political turmoil then engulfing nations around the world, from Bolivia to Chile to France to Hong Kong to Iraq. “Your Guide to a World on Fire” documented how the global political awakening seemed to be coming to a head and mused on whether the fiery uprisings signaled that “the Old World Order of neoliberal globalism under Pax Americana is finally coming apart at the seams.”

Of course, as we now know, that optimism was premature. The globalists always have tricks up their sleeve to fend off their demise. In this case, they chose to pull the scamdemic card and we all saw the immediate result: the fiery protests of 2019 came to a grinding halt at the beginning of 2020, when social distancing and locking ourselves in our own home were suddenly instituted as the prime civic virtues.

That the grandmasters of the global chessboard would unleash one of the largest psyops ever perpetrated on humanity for the purpose of containing the global political awakening should not be surprising. Actually, it should be comforting. It shows us that they’re still attempting to control the masses.

When and if that strategy begins to fail, however, there is a much darker option at their disposal.

You see, Brzezinski’s op-ed about the global political awakening was not written for the global press. It was a summary of a speech that he delivered at Chatham House. For those not in the know, Chatham House is the headquarters of the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA), the Council on Foreign Relations’ sister organization in London.

The speech from which Brzezinski’s global awakening observation derives—titled “Major Foreign Policy Challenges for The New US Presidency” and delivered on November 17, 2008—was, like most of the RIIA’s proceedings, not intended for the general public. However, a recording of the speech was later leaked online. What it reveals about the globalists’ thinking on the matter of a people’s uprising is downright bone-chilling.

The lecture began innocuously enough, with Brzezinski mouthing the usual, trite foreign policy clichés about how American leadership “has been essential to global stability and to global development” and warning that Obama’s incoming administration faces challenges from a number of global crises. So far, so boring.

But then he transitions into the main theme of his talk: the global political awakening and what is to be done about it.

While the lethality the lethality of their power is greater than ever, their [the major powers’] capacity to impose control over the politically awakened masses of the world is at an historical low. I once put it rather pungently (and I was flattered that the British foreign secretary repeated this) as follows: namely, in earlier times it was easier to control a million people—literally, it was easier to control a million people than, physically, to kill a million people. Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people. [Emphasis added]

And then, just in case his audience missed it, he reiterated the point: “It is easier to kill than to control.”

This blood-curdling pronouncement is delivered, as with most of Brzezinski’s pronouncements, in a detached way, as if he were reporting on the weather in New Delhi or the results of last night’s baseball game. And why should he become emotional when discussing the possibility of a global leadership losing its control of the people and deciding to unleash megadeath on the population? After all, he’s simply pointing out a self-evident truth about the way power operates in our society and the lengths to which the psychopaths leading the kakistocracy must be willing to go in order to maintain their power.

As the global political awakening starts to take shape and the masses can no longer be placated with QAnonsense or kept in their homes by scamdemic psyops, then the rulers of the grand chessboard always have the final option: mass murder. Whether that mass murder takes the form of a WWIII or the release of an actual bioweapon or some other method entirely is of little consequence. What matters is that if and when there is a true threat to the rule of the powers-that-shouldn’t-be, they will take Brzezinski’s dictum to heart.

Today it is infinitely easier to kill a million people than to control a million people.

Ending the Game

It is easy to see why geopolitical strategists find the grand chessboard analogy so appealing. It accurately embodies their vision of the globe as a space to be dominated by one team or another and it provides them with useful strategems for achieving their geopolitical goals. They can employ gambits, sacrifice pawns, formulate plans that involve anticipating their opponents’ next moves, etc.Perhaps most important of all, the chessboard metaphor flatters these narcissists’ intellect. Only these gifted grandmasters understand this intricate game of geopolitics in all its multivariate complexity, after all, and only they are capable of crafting strategies for winning that game.

But in examining the war hawks moves on the global chessboard, we run the risk of forgetting that this is only a metaphor. People are not pawns. This is not a game. We are talking about real people living real lives, not plastic pieces on a chessboard.

In fact, when we adopt the chess analogy, we are unwittingly playing into the globalists’ hands. If the globe really is a grand chessboard and we really are engaged in a struggle for dominance over it, then we’re compelled to adopt that mindset ourselves and come up with a strategy for winning the game game.

“If only us pawns could form our own team! Then we could take over the chessboard, sacrifice the kings and queens and subject the rooks and the bishops and the knights to our will! Then we could run the global chessboard the way we want!”

But to begin thinking in those terms is to fall into a trap. We find ourselves playing the geopolitical game on the grandmasters’ own terms. Whether we adopt the “vote harder” strategy of the statists or the violent revolution strategy of the rioters or we start volunteering to become pawns for the “other” team—as those who promote the false BRICS-as-saviours narrative would have us do—we lose.

The political game is rigged. It is a contest for power where it is not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the votes. Even more to the point, it is a distracting puppet theater, a shadow play on the cave wall that is put in front of us to divert our attention from the ways that power really operates in society.

The violent revolution strategy is similarly doomed to fail. Brzezinski merely stated what many authoritarians already realize: it is easier to kill than to control. It follows that these autocrats will not hesitate to unleash the apocalypse if they ever feel genuinely threatened by a mass uprising. Given that the very forces we oppose are the ones sitting on the nuclear stockpiles and the bioweapons labs and the increasingly automated armed forces, and given that they have spent decades building up the machinery of technological tyranny under the “homeland security” paradigm in case of just such an uprising, is there any doubt who would win such a contest?

And the idea of “switching sides” and joining the “other” team on the grand chessboard? Even if the BRICS team were fundamentally different from the NATO team (it isn’t), we’d still be no more than pawns on the board.

No, none of these strategies suffice. The only winning move in this game is the least popular one of all: to reject the game entirely.

The planet is not a chessboard. It does not consist of squares to be divvied up and occupied by competing teams. It is not populated by chess pieces to be manipulated by this or that player in service of some grand geopolitical agenda.

It is a world filled with people who can choose at any time to start interacting with each other directly, free of controlling middle men, to transact in a currency of their own choice, for goods and services of their own making, without the need for any globalist power structure.

Life is not a win/lose struggle for domination of a fixed chessboard. Life is a win/win quest for cooperation on an ever-expanding pie.

Society does not require a top-down order imposed by an authoritarian elitist class who, by virtue of some magical political ritual, is able to impose its will on others without their consent. Rather, a thriving society requires the spontaneous order that develops when everyone is free to form voluntary relations based on mutual consent.

We are not pawns on a chessboard to be used in a struggle for political dominance and we do not need to win any grand chess game in order to take control of our lives. We are human beings finding ways to live with other human beings on a fertile, living planet. It is not until we completely reject the mindset of the Brzezinskis and the Kissingers and the other self-styled grandmasters of the so-called grand chessboard that we can truly begin to take our power back.

We do not need to take over the chessboard. Instead, we need to withdraw our participation from this “game” entirely. The would-be grandmasters can’t play their game if we won’t be their pawns.

The grand game of global geopolitical chess, it turns out, is a funny game. The only winning move is not to play.

Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: Positive_images

James Corbett: Thwarting Facial Recognition

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
May 16, 2023

We all know about the danger of a future society where we’re all tracked everywhere we go every single day in real time by our phones or devices . . . but actually, it’s worse than that!

You’re already being tracked everywhere you go, every day, and it doesn’t matter whether you leave your phone at home just as long as you bring your face.

Today on #SolutionsWatch, James explores some of the options that are on the table for heading off the facial recognition dystopia.

 Watch on BitChute / Odysee / Substack  / Download the mp4

Show Notes

US police forces using controversial facial recognition technology

Why the Military Use of Clearview AI is Dangerous

Clearview AI used by US police for almost 1M searches

Clearview AI Copied 30B Images Without Users’ Permission from Social Media Sites; Customers Include “more than 3,100 US agencies”

Are you who you say you are? TSA tests facial recognition technology to boost airport security

Facewatch Gets UK Code of Practice Certification for Live Retail Facial Recognition

Iran uses new surveillance network to crack down on women not wearing a hijab

Nullification – #SolutionsWatch

Michael Maharrey on Facial Recognition Pushback

Second California Assembly Committee Passes Bill to Extend Temporary Ban on Facial Recognition with Police Body Cameras

To the Governor: Montana Passes Bill to Limit Warrantless Use of Facial Recognition Technology

Hong Kong lasers

Cap_able

4409 — Interview with ABC15 News: Easter Bunny eggs photo radar!

Simple Sabotage – #SolutionsWatch

Connect with James Corbett

James Corbett on Technocratic Control and the Dangers of AI

by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 14, 2023

Story-at-a-Glance

• Rather than squabbling about controlled opposition, we would be better served by spending our time productively engaged in research, verifying and triangulating information to discern what is true and what is false
• “Divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt
• As AI-equipped chatbots are getting more sophisticated and start to monopolize online searches and virtual assistants, state-endorsed propaganda may become the only information available
• Narrative is the ultimate weapon; with a convincing-enough narrative, you can motivate entire populations to go to war or anything else that you want them to do
• One of the most important strategies you can implement to prepare yourself for the likelihood of what they plan on throwing at us next lies with community, meeting like-minded people that share your views and complement your skills. It will also be wise to relocate from high density urban areas

In this video, I interview investigative journalist James Corbett about false narratives, the global takeover by technocracy, controlled opposition and the dangers of artificial intelligence, as well as the solutions to these and other challenges.

Corbett’s journalism career began in the aftermath of 9/11, when he became “overwhelmed to discover that we are constantly lied to through the mainstream media.” 9/11 was his “red pill” moment, and he hasn’t stopped digging for the truth since.

“The discrepancy between the things that I was finding online versus what was being reported on the evening news just started getting wider and wider,” he says, “to the point where I felt that … I had to insert myself in that conversation. So that’s the reason we’re talking today.”

In 2007, Corbett launched his website, CorbettReport.com. One of his hallmarks, both in his documentaries and regular reports, is impeccable citations of sources.

“I always put up the transcript with the hyperlinks to the source documents for every single quotation, every video clip, everything that I’m playing,” he says. “I want to direct people back to the source material so that they can research it for themselves.

I know, as a researcher myself who does this for a living, that’s incredibly valuable. I very much appreciate it when other people do it, so I’m trying to set that example in the alternative media.”

Can the Global Takeover Be Derailed?

Corbett is also featured on “Good Morning CHD” with Dr. Meryl Nass once a month, an online news show by Children’s Health Defense.

“It’s a valuable way, for both of us, to continue keeping our eye on the ball of the World Health Organization and its latest machinations … of the global pandemic treaty and the international health regulations (IHR) amendments that they’re working on right now, which really could be the hardwiring of the biosurveillance infrastructure,” Corbett says.

When asked whether he believes the pandemic treaty and/or the IHR amendments can be stopped, Corbett replies:

“Well, they are planning on unleashing the global pandemic treaty on the world at the World Health Assembly (WHA) next year, May of 2024. And preparatory to that, they’re going to be holding a World Health Assembly this month, at which they’ll be talking about the draft of the treaty and the draft of the IHR amendments and other such developments.

So, we’re looking at about a one-year timeline before whatever it is they’re cooking up will be foisted upon the world, unless there is some dramatic movement to stop that.

In the short run, it seems unlikely that the incredible institutional momentum is going to be derailed, but having said that, we could look at things that have happened in the past that have completely derailed agendas that seemed inevitable, including the 2009 edition of the UNFCCC, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

In 2009, the UNFCCC was being promoted and hyped — even by the then-president of the EU — as the potential for world government through a new climate accord that would completely rewrite the international rule books.

That was completely derailed by a couple of interesting incidents, one of which was Climategate … Squabbles between some of the developing nations versus the developed world … [also] helped to derail that 2009 conference.

There’s potentially a similar thing happening [now] with the WHO trying to foist regulations and restrictions on developing countries that can’t afford them. As we saw over the course of the past few years, it was the African countries that held out against the biosecurity state agenda, to a large degree.

And I think people who are interested in invoking a global biosecurity surveillance net probably are most concerned about how developing countries will or will not participate in this. So, there may be a similar sort of geo-economic squabbling or something else that might derail this, so I don’t think we should simply consign ourselves to the inevitability of it before it happens.”

Is Elon Musk Controlled Opposition?

Determining the trustworthiness of people within the alternative news space is a challenge everyone is faced with these days. Accusations of people being controlled opposition are common. The same goes for high-profile individuals in general. For example, some people, including Corbett and investigative journalist Whitney Webb, believe Elon Musk is likely controlled opposition. What led them to that conclusion?

“It’s a question that a lot of people have, so let’s dig into it,” Corbett says. On the one side you have people who believe Musk is exposing and undermining the military industrial intelligence complex. On the other are those who think he’s just playing a “good guy” role while surreptitiously furthering Deep State goals. As noted by Corbett, it’s hard to overlook the massive support Musk has received from the military industrial intelligence complex over the course of his career.

“We don’t have to speculate about that,” Corbett says. “That is a matter of public record. We can point to the half a billion dollars or so that the Department of Defense has awarded SpaceX in a series of contracts over the past few years to send satellites up into orbit of classified nature on unregistered, unreported missions that presumably have something to do with the DOD’s declared intention to make space into a war-fighting domain.

There’s the $3 billion in NASA contracts that SpaceX was awarded in 2021 to develop the human lander for the Artemis Mission, and the never-going-to-happen constantly delayed moon trip that the public is being promised. There’s the $750 million that was awarded to Solar City in 2016 by the state of New York to build a solar cell production facility.

This, again, is another aspect of the business opportunities that Musk is involved in that I think shrieks of grift — a boondoggle at the very least, constantly promising a technology that not only doesn’t deliver but actually is actively harmful to the environment. I think that’s something that needs to be stressed.

Then, there’s the $1.3 billion that Tesla got from the State of Nevada in 2014 to build the Gigafactory, etc., etc., etc. We could go through the list of such help, but perhaps more to the point was the fact that before Elon Musk got to launch SpaceX, he was part of a trip to Russia … to purchase old Soviet ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles]. That trip ultimately resulted in the starting of SpaceX.

Who was accompanying Elon Musk on that trip? Someone named Mike Griffin, who just happened to be the chief operating officer of In-Q-Tel, which is the CIA’s investment capital arm …

Griffin went on to become the administrator of NASA, who then chose SpaceX as the one company out of the 20 that was applying for it at the time, for this $400 million contract to start development of the new ISS resupply rocket in 2005, which basically launched SpaceX … and again awarded SpaceX $3.5 Billion in 2008 with a contract that Musk himself credits with saving the company.

So, there you go, the literal deep state connections couldn’t get much clearer. At every stage of Musk’s business career, he has been saved as need be with the deus ex machina of deep state agents like Mike Griffin swooping in with billions of dollars of contracts at just the right time.”

That’s why Elon Musk’s Twitter takeover and the release of the Twitter Files may seem to be a move against the military-industrial complex, but given Musk’s documentable ties to that very same military-industrial complex, we must be wary of placing faith in these developments.

After all, Twitter is a centralized platform that lends itself to censorship, algorithmic manipulation and information suppression, and Musk has openly stated that he wants to create a “WeChat”-like app capable of handling every aspect of its users’ digital life.

Why Did Musk Release the Twitter Files?

Corbett suggests that the best way to evaluate Musk’s ideas and contributions is to assess their outcomes.

“Is what Elon Musk advocating good or bad? Do we agree with it or do we disagree with it? Is it right or wrong? And why do we think so? That has to be the heart that we keep coming back to. So, we have to evaluate Musk’s ideas on that basis,” he says.

“For example, there are ideas that Musk promotes that I am 100% onboard with. He has talked about the overpopulation myth and the under-population crisis that humanity is facing. I very much agree with him on that assessment. When he talks about the ill effects of lockdowns … absolutely, I think he’s right about that.

However, when he talks about the imposition of a carbon tax in line with Bill Gates and Mark Carney and the like, I think he’s pushing a bad idea that is part of a plan for centralization of control in globalist hands.

When he gets on the stage of the World Government Summit and argues for universal basic income, again in line with any number of globalist operatives, I think he is promoting an idea that will be used for centralization of economic control in fewer hands.

When he talks about the … Neuralink brain chip … [he’s] exactly in line with what [World Economic Forum founder] Klaus Schwab has been arguing … I think that is a bad idea that is going to be used for control of the masses by a technocratic elite.”

As for Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and subsequent release of the Twitter Files, Corbett doesn’t think it’s a great surprise to find that the military industrial intelligence complex has been using it to monitor and manipulate people. He believes Musk’s job may well be to make the platform trustworthy again so that government agencies can continue using it for surveillance and control.

There’s other evidence pointing in this direction as well. Musk has said he wants Twitter to become the WeChat app of America. And what is WeChat? It’s a Chinese government-controlled app that monitors every aspect citizens’ lives, including their financial transactions, social transactions, communications, whereabouts and more.

It’s basically the foundation for the communist social credit system. So, while Musk claims to be a defender of free speech, he’s also talking about turning Twitter into THE central hub for the technocratic surveillance and control network.

Stop Looking for a Savior

As noted by Corbett, what we need to do is “take responsibility for our own lives rather than looking for saviors like Elon Musk to swoop in and save the day.” We can’t lay that burden on any given individual or group of individuals. We must all do our part.

“I think the conversation can get stuck on stupid because even though I tend to believe that Musk is some form of collaborator with the deep state that he pretends to oppose, I don’t have proof of that and I do not know that for a fact, in the same way that his defenders do not know for a fact that he is not part of that controlled opposition,” Corbett says.

“We can spend all our time and energy talking about this person and what we think their part is in all of this, or we could spend that time productively engaged in research, actually verifying, triangulating information, discerning what is true and what is not true.

When we take information down to that level, then it does not matter who is the person out there conveying that information to us. The important part is the information.”

It’s also important to understand that “divide and conquer” is the primary way the control network maintains control, and all that’s needed to divide a previously unified front is insinuation and the seeding of doubt. In the short-term, the globalist takeover seems to have an unstoppable momentum behind it, but seemingly inevitable moves toward tyranny have been derailed at the last minute in the past and we must not give up hope or stop resisting. As explained by Corbett:

“The term cognitive infiltration goes back to Cass Sunstein, the person who became Obama’s information czar … He co-wrote a paper about cognitive infiltration in which he openly stated:

‘The government maybe should send people into conspiracy spaces, conspiracy groups, with cognitive infiltrators who will go in there and conceal their identity as being affiliated with the government, but will try to insert facts that will break the narrative of the conspiracy theorists.’

And what was the result of that paper? Rather than anyone having been exposed as being that cognitive infiltrator on the payroll of the U.S. government, what it effectively did was give people ammunition to speculate endlessly.

‘This person is a cognitive infiltrator, that person is a cognitive infiltrator,’ to the point where, ultimately, I think Sunstein wins without even necessarily having to implement that system at all, because … the group fractures once the idea of pointing fingers at everyone becomes the norm …

That is, in fact, precisely how the FBI’s COINTELPRO program worked back in the 1950s and ’60s … One of the tactics they used was to put people into meetings in various spaces, the Black Panthers and others, in order to start spreading rumors and calling other people government agents.

The government agents were generally the ones that we’re calling other people government agents in order to disrupt the groups, so I think we have to keep that in mind and keep our eye on the real prize here, which is discerning fact from fiction, truth from falsity, productive ways forward from unproductive ways forward.”

ChatGPT and the Future of Propaganda



I’ve often marveled at the effectiveness of modern propaganda. Part of what makes it so effective is the availability of technology, from social media and search engines to large language model artificial intelligence. OpenAI’s ChatGPT has taken the world by storm and companies across a range of industries are already talking about replacing large numbers of white collar workers with AI.

This, even though there are serious problems with this technology. For example, we’re finding chatbots have a tendency to lie and fantasize. Researchers are calling these instances “hallucinations.” Basically, the AI is concocting a fantasy based on the information available and reciting it as fact. And that’s in addition to the bias that can be built in by programmers. So, while it’s an incredibly exciting technology, we cannot be naïve about its risks.

One obvious risk is that state-endorsed propaganda can become the only information available to people, as this technology starts monopolizing online searches and virtual assistants.

There won’t be a multitude of answers anymore. There will only be one, and he who controls the AI will have the power to control the beliefs of the entire world. Of course, yet another risk is that no one will be able to control it and the AI will control itself. I don’t know which might be worse. Corbett comments:

“You introduced this topic with the concept of propaganda and potential uses of large language models for propagandistic purposes. We should go back to the man who wrote the book on propaganda called ‘Propaganda,’ Edward Bernays, who [said]:

‘The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government, which is the true ruling power of our country.’

That was Edward Bernays in 1928. His words are as true today as they were then, perhaps even more so. And the true ruling power of the country, of the world at this point perhaps, are those who can most effectively, consciously and intelligently manipulate the organized habits and opinions of the masses.

And I don’t think enough people have really stopped to cogitate on the fact that these large language models already starting to produce material that really cannot be distinguished from human-written material …

You don’t have to be a crystal ball prognosticator to see how this will extend out in the foreseeable future … [to] the point where you can have entire conversations, entire fields of interest and study that will be completely populated by artificial-created conversation …

A large language model that is able to accurately and without much prompting be able to populate botnets to flood social media and other places will essentially be able to dominate that conversation, [and] will consciously and intelligently manipulate the habits and opinions of the masses. At that point, you are talking about the ultimate weapon.

The ultimate weapon is narrative, because with a convincing-enough narrative, you can get entire populations motivated to war or to anything else that you seek to get them to do, like say lock down the entire productive global economy on the back of a scare that was absolutely not warranted.

So, I think once we start getting these completely synthetically-generated narratives, that will start creating these entire events that are not happening in the real world. [These events] will be deep-faked through video and audio and everything else, to convince you of an entire reality that doesn’t exist.

We are really moving into some truly world historical changing times and I don’t know if enough people are really cognizant of … how this technology could be used for good or for ill …

I think there is a real threat, and it is probably underappreciated by a large section of the public that are not keeping abreast of the daily torrent of information on this subject … Some of the testing notes for ChatGPT-4 that were released showed there was a team that was tasking the chatbot with a certain task that would require it to do things that it was not programmed to do, or even authorized to do, including solving a CAPTCHA …

[The chatbot] actually went on Fiverr or one of those types of platforms and recruited a human being to do it for it, to the point where the human said, ‘Why are you recruiting me to do a CAPTCHA? How do I know you’re not a bot? Ha-ha-ha.’ To which it responded, ‘I’m blind, I’m visually impaired, I can’t do it myself.’ Ultimately, it ended up getting that CAPTCHA solved.

It does not take a great degree of imagination to see where that can go. I don’t know what kind of safeguards you can program into a technology like that, other than to completely keep it firewalled off from the internet and from any other computer system that it may be able to commandeer.”

Solutions Watch

On his website, Corbett has a section called The Solutions Watch, where he proposes action steps that you can take to address a given problem, both big and small. For example, on the smaller scale, he’s discussed the importance of filtering your water, and testing your water to ensure it’s being filtered properly.

“One thing that I think is sort of the foundation upon which we will have to build any thoroughgoing answer to the problems we’re facing is creating conscious community with others,” Corbett says.

“Of course, that can take the form of online and virtual community. I’m not going to pooh-pooh or disdain that. I think it is important to know like-minded people online. But increasingly, how can we trust what we are reading, seeing or interacting with online?

I think the real point is to try to build real community with real people in the real world. That could take the form of intentional communities that are created from the ground up as a physical location that people will relocate to … but I think it is extremely difficult to do that.

But at the very least, people can and should be finding like-minded people within their geographical proximity that they can meet up with, who will be there in emergencies, hopefully. But also that they can start forming small groups, that they can start teaching each other about various things that they may know and bringing solutions to the table.

I think that can be the core basis upon which we start erecting other things, because one thing that I’ve looked at over the years are some of these big, huge issues that seem utterly overwhelming and completely impenetrable to the average person, like the fundamental fraud that underlies the economy itself is the monetary system, which for people who haven’t looked into it, the money supply itself is very much controlled, and the creation of money is a tool that is used for enslavement.

It could be used for human flourishing, but is not in our current economy. How do we possibly combat a problem as thoroughgoing as that? [Many people] I encounter online have ideas about the perfect alternative currency … but [they] haven’t convinced anyone to use it. To me, that speaks to the fundamental problem.”

Build Community and Get Out of Metropolitan Areas

At the top of Corbett’s solutions list is building parallel communities. That’s really a foundational strategy because without it, many other solutions can’t work. To that, I would add the recommendation to move out of crime-ridden urban and metropolitan areas and into areas where this kind of community-building is more likely to succeed. As noted by Corbett:

“Until you have a community of people who are going to be working together on projects like an alternative or supplemental currency system, how are you going to launch something like that in a thoroughgoing manner?

I think the core of the solutions that we’re looking for lies with community, meeting like-minded people … I’m not into this Pollyanna thinking that it’s all going to be easy. It’s an incredibly, incredibly difficult task to start creating an alternate currency, an alternate power grid and the alternate society that we need to protect ourselves, to buffer ourselves from this encroaching biosecurity, technocratic enslavement grid.

That’s a pretty tall order, and I can’t offer any assurances that it’s going to turn out all right. But I do know that if we just lay down and continue on the course that we’re on, we are hurtling towards a brick wall of extinction, essentially. I really see this as a fundamental existential question that we are facing not just on the artificial intelligence front, but also on the genomic manipulation front, on the manipulation of the food supply.

If you are what you eat, then what does it mean that they’re going to start feeding us insects and other such unpalatable items?

It is absolutely a war that is taking place on every front, all at once, and we’re not going to get through this by ourselves. Unless you are the type of person that can go out in the woods and live by yourself for decades … I don’t think you’re going to escape this all by yourself, so I think creating community is sort of the core of all solutions.”

More Information

Corbett’s reports, Solution Watch and documentaries can all be found on his website, CorbettReport.com. He also does a weekly news update series with James Evan Pilato of mediamonarchy.com, in which they examine three news stories that are either trending or have slipped beneath the radar. “We try to draw attention to them and put them in the right context,” Corbett says.

Connect with James Corbett

Connect with Dr. Joseph Mercola

Cover image credit: geralt

Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
May 5, 2023

While most of the the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack

Transcript

[Royal fanfare.]

GARTER KING OF ARMS DAVID VINES WHITE: Whereas it has pleased almighty God to call to his mercy our late Sovereign lady Queen Elizabeth II of blessed and glorious memory, by whose decease the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is solely and rightfully come to the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George.

We, therefore, the lords spiritual and temporal of this realm, and members of the House of Commons, together with other members of Her late Majesty’s Privy Council, and representatives of the realms and territories, aldermen, and citizens of London and others, do now hereby, with one voice and consent of tongue and heart, publish and proclaim that the Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful liege lord, Charles III.

SOURCE: Charles III proclaimed king in historic ceremony @BBCNews – BBC

It’s hard to be a human being living on planet Earth in May of 2023 and not be hearing about, reading about or listening to discussions about the pending coronation of King Charles.

Yes, Charles’ big day is dominating news headlines at the moment, and it seems that the glitz and glamour of the upcoming coronation are infecting people around the globe with a case of royal fever.

. . . Well, maybe not everyone.

TC NEWMAN: Republic states on their website: “As we approach Charles’ coronation the country needs an honest, grown-up debate about the monarchy. We need to stop and ask ourselves: Can’t we just choose our next head of state?”

SOURCE: King Charles Heckled by Anti-Monarchy Protestors

PROTESTER: Charles, while we struggle to heat our homes we have to pay for your parade.

CHARLES: Oh.

PROTESTER: The taxpayer pays £100 million for you, and what for? Nid fy brenin! Not my King!

SOURCE: Taxpayers ‘pay for your parade’: Charles heckled in Wales on cost of monarchy

[Protester throws eggs at Charles, gets arrested.]

SOURCE: Watch: Protester throws eggs at King Charles III

No, not everyone is happy about King Charles stepping into his mother’s shoes . . . or diamond-encrusted loafers, or gold-plated clodhoppers, or whatever it is that monarchs wear to prevent their poor, delicate royal feet from touching the earth.

But while most of the public’s attention is falling on the obvious issues—the monarchy’s increasing irrelevance to the 21st century, the colossal waste of taxpayer resources that go towards the upkeep of the world’s richest family and their multiple palaces, the dark history of slavery and other colonial abuses for which royals of the far-distant past are responsible—few are aware of just how dark the history of the royal family is, or just how twisted Charles’ vision for the future of the United Kingdom—and, indeed the world—really is.

I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report, and today we’re going to look beyond the headlines and talking points so that we can Meet King Charles, The Great Resetter.

Chapter 1 — King Charles

For those who do not consider themselves “royal watchers” and only know the new King of England as that buffoon who spent his entire life waiting for his mother to die, the first sign of what Charles is really like came in a viral video moment captured during the typically pompous ceremony in which he was proclaimed king.

There, in the manic, sausage-fingered, tooth-gritted flailing of the new king, is the perfect encapsulation of Charles Philip Arthur George Windsor, aka “Charles III.”

His life has been an endless series of carefully arranged photo opportunities and ribbon-cutting ceremonies that serve no actual function other than to punctuate the dreary luxury of his royal existence. But it is in moments such as these where we see through the veil of PR and propaganda to the real Charles: a man who treats his retinue of servants like mere objects, only good for slaking his royal desires and fulfilling his regal demands.

And demands there are.

His royal highness’s daily demands begin with the pressing of his royal shoelaces and the requirement that his royal bath plug be placed in precisely the right position and the royal bathtub be exactly half full of precisely tepid water. Charles’ valet must then squeeze precisely one inch of toothpaste onto his royal toothbrush while the royal chefs prepare a series of boiled eggs, which are numbered according to how long they were boiled so that: “If the prince felt that number five was too runny, he could knock the top off number six or seven.”

In fact, wherever Charles travels, he not only takes along a large contingent of his 124 member staff—including his butler, two valets, a private secretary, a typist, a chef, and a handful of bodyguards—he also makes sure to take his own personal food supply, consisting solely of fresh, organic ingredients grown on his own organic farm.

Yes, King Charles is more than happy to put his John Hancock on The Genetic Technology Precision Breeding Act 2023, which (as its supporters will be happy to explain) “remov[es] barriers to research into new gene editing technology” by (as its supporters will never explain) “remov[ing] regulatory safeguards from whole subclasses of genetically modified organisms” at the behest of (surprise, surprise!) the GMO industry.

But don’t expect him to put those gene-edited frankenfoods anywhere near his lips! They are not fit for the royal gullet, don’t you know!

Chapter 2 — The Royal Sickness

In a sense, the royals aren’t wrong when they assert that the blood that flows through their veins is different from the blood that flows through us commoners’ veins. As many know, the royal families of Europe do indeed suffer from a genetic blood disorder, hemophilia, one of the many defects that has resulted from centuries of inbreeding.

But, strangely, they do not see their so-called “blue blood” as a problem. Instead, they hue to a twisted belief system; one that holds that as a result of their special blood, the royals actually deserve to rule over their subjects.

In order to understand this royal worldview, we have to go back to the beginning. No, not the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign in 1952. Not to the beginning of the English branch of the House of “Windsor” to which she belonged. Not even to the beginning of the monarchical system in England.

No, we have to go back to the beginning of monarchy itself.

You see, the ancient Egyptians worshipped the Pharaohs as progeny of the sun god, Ra. The Japanese were told that their Imperial family descended from the sun goddess, Amaterasu, and the sea god, Ryuujin. In Europe, monarchs claimed that God Himself had directly granted them a “Divine Right” to rule over their subjects. In China, they called it the “Mandate of Heaven.”

Yes, the ancients were taught to believe that their emperors were literal gods. The European dynasties, meanwhile, flourished for centuries under the mass delusion that these families were specifically selected by God to rule over their people. Should it come as any surprise that at some point the royals started to believe their own propaganda?

But, as these proto-eugenicists soon figured out, if their blood was too precious to mingle with the commoners’, then that blood must be kept in the family. And so began centuries of royal inbreeding that resulted in the deformities, abnormalities and genetic weirdness that today pervade the royal bloodlines (congenital haemophilia being just one of the most well-known examples). Perhaps the most notable example of intra-family marriage leading to genetic ruin is that of the Spanish Hapsburgs, who, after 500 years of ruling over vast swaths of Europe, managed to inbreed themselves out of existence.

With this understanding of the proto-eugenical philosophy as our background, we can begin to make sense of the millennium-long story of the British monarchy. Alfred the Great yadda yadda yadda Henry beheading wives and starting a church blah blah blah the madness of King George etc. etc. etc. Mrs. John Brown and so on and so forth all the way up to Eddie (VII, for those keeping track at home) and the intrigues that kicked off WWI and birthed the modern world. You know, that story.

To finish making sense of that history, we just need to add one other element to the story: as it turns out, the “British” royal family isn’t very British at all. The House of “Windsor” only became the House of “Windsor” in 1917, after all. Before that, it was Saxe Coburg-Gotha. But the British public were a bit fired up about the Huns because of that whole, you know, WWI thing, so “Windsor” it became.

Noting the true origins of the House of “Windsor” is not just some cheap anti-Germanic slur, of course. It points to something even more fundamental. These royals—connected, as we remember, through inbreeding—had much more in common with their European brothers and sisters, cousins and uncles (but I repeat myself), than they did with the populations they were supposedly ruling over.

With that historical background in place, we can understand, for example, the Windsors’ well-documented fondness for the eugenics-promoting Nazis. Where do you think the Nazis got their eugenical beliefs from, after all? Given the royal pedigree of the eugenic worldview, it is perhaps unsurprising to learn that the pseudoscience of eugenics was pioneered by Royal Medal recipient Francis Galton, himself hailing from the celebrated (and thoroughly inbred) Darwin-Galton line, which boasted many esteemed Fellows of the Royal Society.

The overt ties between the Edwardian (VIII, for those keeping track at home) court and Hitler’s eugenics-obsessed regime are well-documented. The covert ties are even more intriguing. (Hmmm, that gives me an idea for a documentary . . . .) But it isn’t just the home movies showing the future queen giving the Nazi salute or Edward VIII’s hobnobbing with Hitler or King Charles’ lifelong friendship with unreformed SS officer (and Bilderberg co-founder) Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands or Prince Harry’s predilection for Nazi cosplaying. More to the heart of the matter is Prince Philip’s infamous desire to be reincarnated as “a particularly deadly virus” in order to contribute to the depopulation of the planet (a remark that has been fact-checked by Snopes, so you know it’s true!).

FIONA BRUCE: What do you see as the biggest challenges in conservation?

PRINCE PHILIP: The growing human population. From where we are there’s nothing else.

SOURCE: Prince Philip on what should be done about “overpopulation”

You see, the royals’ blue blood pomposity wouldn’t be so bad if they simply felt themselves superior to the commoners in a “What, you groom your own stool?!” kind of way. Sadly, it is not mere snobbery that motivates them, and their great desire is not simply to be kept apart from the commoners. As it turns out, the royal family doesn’t just feel superior to their subjects, they actively dislike them and constantly scheme to subjugate them, rob them, impoverish them and mislead them.

Chapter 3 — Royal False Flags

There’s something quaint about Redditors seemingly discovering for the first time that, far from some nice old man who waves to the crowds and enjoys tea and crumpets in pretty English gardens, King Charles is actually the heir to a fortune amassed via the violent subjugation of much of the world’s populace and the plundering of their wealth and resources. The fact that anyone could be shocked by this historical reality speaks to the naïveté of the masses, who cannot imagine that ruthless psychopaths conspire to amass more wealth by inflicting suffering on the world.

(Just wait until these dear, trusting masses learn about the British East India Company and the opium wars and the Bengal genocide and the Boer concentration camps and the Amritsar Massacre, etc., etc., etc. . . .)

But for a prime example of the perfidy with which the British monarchy has ruled for centuries (and which gave rise to the “Perfidious Albion” moniker), one need only look at the history of their speciality: false flag operations.

Befitting the governing monarchy of a nation that has been known for its treachery for centuries, the British royals’ use of false flag events to gin up public support for the persecution of their enemies likewise goes back centuries. For one prime example of that, we will have to “Remember, remember the fifth of November.”

Outside of Britain, the “gunpowder plot” is known only tangentially through cultural artifacts, like the references to the plot contained in V for Vendetta and the subsequent adoption of the Guy Fawkes mask as the symbol of Anonymous. Even in England, most will only know the official version of the story—the one compiled in the so-called “King’s Book” written by King James I himself.

According to that official account: on the evening of November 4, 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered with 36 barrels of gunpowder and a pile of wood and coal in the undercroft beneath the House of Lords in Parliament, presumably preparing to blow up the building. After his apprehension, Fawkes was brought before the king and, cracking under the interrogation, eventually led the king’s agents to the other conspirators in the plot.

As it turned out, the whole harebrained scheme to blow up Parliament as it convened on the 5th of November had been hatched by the Jesuits and carried out by a ragtag group of crazed provincial English Catholics! King James then took the sensible precaution of cracking down on Catholics in England, thus ensuring that Catholic treachery would never again threaten the kingdom.

Of course, this story—like so much of the history written by the winners—is total hogwash. Entire books could be written about the plot, what we really know about it, and how the official version was conjured into existence . . . and at least one book has! It’s called The Gunpowder Plot and it was written by Hugh Ross Williamson and published in 1952.

Those who are interested in the full story are highly encouraged to read Williamson’s account. Although the full truth of the plot will likely never be known—buried as it is in a sea of forged documents, tampered evidence and official secrecy—we can say with certainty that the official story was constructed from torture testimony and forged confessions, that the king’s spies were likely involved at every level of the plot, that the band of patsies who were ultimately blamed for the whole affair could not possibly have perpetrated it by themselves and, most importantly, that it provided King James with the perfect excuse to crack down on Catholics in the exact manner he had desired.

In other words, Guy Fawkes was likely neither the radical Catholic terrorist mastermind that the court of King James made him out to be nor the crusading anti-authoritarian hero that V for Vendetta and Anonymous pretend him to be, but, rather, a patsy, a dupe or a mole who was used by the monarchy as a convenient excuse to enact draconian new laws clamping down on the king’s opponents.

Go figure.

But the British monarchy’s false flag hits don’t stop there!

Viewers of my WWI Conspiracy documentary will already know the central role played by King Edward VII and his German-hating wife in forging the so-called “Triple Entente” between Britain, France and Russia that paved the way for the “Great” War against the Huns. You will likely also remember WWI conspirator Edward Mandell House’s own account of his rather remarkable conversation with Edward VII’s successor, King George V, on the morning of May 7, 1915. As House recounts in his Intimate Papers, the two “fell to talking, strangely enough, of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner.” Even more “coincidentally,” House relates that George specifically inquired what would happen if the Huns “should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board.” Later that very day, the Lusitania was sunk, and public opinion in America turned decidedly against Germany, preparing the way for US entry into the war on Britain’s side.

Coincidence, surely.

“But that’s ancient history!” some would argue. “I mean, yes, the British were responsible for backing, supporting and enabling the Saudi royal family to begin their brutal rule of the Arabian peninsula and” (as I documented in False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda), “British support and collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood and with Wahabbi radicals gave birth to the modern era of false flag terrorism . . . but what does that have to do with King Charles?”

Good question. Maybe some intrepid reporter will put the question of the million-pound donation he received from the bin Laden family to the new king?

Or maybe they could ask about Princess Diana’s remarkable clairvoyance in warning of her own death at the hands of . . . [name redacted]

NARRATOR: In October 1996, in a letter to her butler, Princess Diana expressed the fear that she would die in a car crash and it wouldn’t be an accident.

ACTOR (AS PRINCESS DIANA): I am sitting here at my desk today in October, longing for someone to hug me and encourage me to keep strong and hold my head up high. This particular phase in my life is the most dangerous. X is planning an accident in my car. Brake failure and serious head injury [. . .].

SOURCE: What Really Happened On The Night Of Diana & Dodi’s Crash? | Diana: The Inquest | Real Royalty

Given the royal family’s participation in false flag events in the past, perhaps it is no surprise that World Economic Forum chairman Klaus Schwab invited His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to inaugurate The Great Reset, the grand global attempt to use the generated crisis of the scamdemic to completely transform the world and institute new paradigms of governance and social control.

CHARLES: We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change. Our global crises like pandemics and climate change know no borders and highlight just how interdependent we are as one people sharing one planet.

[. . .]

And as we move from rescue to recovery, therefore we have a unique but rapidly shrinking window of opportunity to learn lessons and reset ourselves on a more sustainable path. It is an opportunity we have never had before and may never have again, so we must use all the levers we have at our disposal, knowing that each and every one of us has a vital role to play.”

SOURCE: Prince Charles Says Pandemic a Chance to ‘Think Big and Act Now’

Yes, it is no surprise to find this royal mouthpiece popping up in the defining false flag event of our times, advocating a complete re-envisioning of our economy, our way of life and even the social contract between people and their government on the back of a synthetic and constructed “crisis.”

But if only his involvement in false flag events were the greatest of King Charles’ worries. . .

Chapter 4 — The Windsors’ Pedophile Problem

Oh, if only the new king’s greatest fault were to have been born into a eugenics-obsessed family.

If only he were the guiltless benefactor of the cheating, swindling, extortion, theft and plunder of his forebears.

If only his worst sin were his ridiculous climate hypocrisy or his campaigning for Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset or his attempt to mask cows.

If only he were a regular, run-of-the-mill tyrant, a psychopath who got off on torturing and killing others.

Unfortunately for all of us, it’s much worse than that.

ANCHOR: Reports of Savile’s unusual behavior in royal circles came about as details emerged of a surprise role for him as a counselor for Prince Charles and Princess Diana during their marital difficulties and a request from Prince Charles to help with the image of Sarah Ferguson.

SOURCE: Jimmy Savile: ‘licked young women’s arms’ on Palace visits

The public got a hint of what really goes on behind the royal family’s closed castle gates when the Jimmy Savile scandal first came to light a decade ago. If you are able to cast your mind back to the innocent days of 2012, you might recall that, at the time, the existence of high-level pedophile rings (let alone high-level necrophilic pedophile rings) was considered the stuff of total conspiracy lunacy.

You might also recall that the royal family’s relationship to Savile was certainly “problematic” (to use the kids’ lingo). But, given what the public then knew, not necessarily more problematic than the involvement of any of the other people who had cozied up to the monstrous pedophile during the course of his career.

Sure, the Queen had knighted Savile back in 1990, and any number of photographs could tell you that he was awfully chummy with Charles. Yet perhaps knighthood was to be expected, considering that he had seemingly dedicated much of his life to charity and had made many high-profile friends along the way.

In fact, the first hard questions about who knew what when about Savile were asked of the BBC, which certainly did know about the allegations many decades before the disgusting abuser finally died.

JON SNOW: One of the things that’s really interested me there was your view about Jimmy Savile and your knowledge at the time that it was going on.

JOHN LYDON: Yeah. Unfortunately, I think all of us—what we call “the peoples”—knew what was going on with the BBC.

SNOW: As bad as we now know it was?

LYDON: Yeah, we knew. We all knew.

SOURCE: John Lydon on Jimmy Savile and BBC

But over the years the “who could have known?” routine used by the Windsors’ defenders has become increasingly insupportable. First, there was the revelation that Savile was so close to the royal family that he was almost made Prince Harry’s godfather. Then came the increasingly damning reports on Savile’s close personal friendship with Charles, culminating in the release earlier this year of letters proving that the now-King of England regularly sought Savile’s advice on sensitive political matters

ALISON BELLAMY: It’s not just a couple—you know it’s not just three or four. There’s absolutely loads—there’s files of it!

ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER FROM PRINCE CHARLES TO JIMMY SAVILE]: December 22, 1989. I wonder if you would ever be prepared to meet my sister-in-law, the Duchess of York? I can’t help feeling that it would be extremely helpful to her if you could. I feel she could do with some of your straightforward common sense.

NEWS ANCHOR: 54 minutes after they’d taken off without warning or distress signal, the airliner started to disintegrate over Lockerbie.

ALISON BELLAMY: January 27, 1989. A month after the Lockerbie disaster. This is Jimmy giving PR advice to the royal family about how to react publicly when there’s a major incident in Britain.

PRINCE ANDREW: I suppose that, statistically, something like this has got to happen at some stage on a time. But of course, it only affects the community in a very small way.

ALISON BELLAMY [READING LETTER]: Jimmy advises the queen should be informed in advance of any proposed action by family members. Jimmy suggests they should have a coordinator who’s a special person with considerable experience in such matters. There must be an incident room with several independent phone lines, Teletex, etc.

ALISON BELLAMY: I mean, Jimmy is advising them how to do it. What they should do. How they should act. What they should say. Should they say anything.

So Charles says to Jimmy: “I attach a copy of my memo on disasters, which incorporates your points, and I showed it to my father and he showed it to her majesty.”

Jimmy had sent back to Charles a five-part manual titled “Guidelines for members of the Royal Family and their staffs.” Jimmy seems to be a kind of unofficial chief advisor to the Prince of Wales.

SOURCE: Jimmy Savile: A British Horror Story

And on top of all that, there was Savile’s own uncomfortable admission that the knighthood had “let him off the hook” for his past sins.

Unsurprisingly, the royal family has never had to respond in any way to public outrage about these reports. No presstitute who wants to keep his job is ever going to dare press Charles on the issue and, since Savile’s crimes were only brought to light after his death, the royals could always hide behind the “plausible deniability” that they didn’t know what Sir Jimmy was up to. They didn’t even need to launch a formal process to strip Savile of his knighthood because, as it turns out, the honour “automatically expire[s] when a person dies.”

But, as I say, the Savile scandal blew up back in the bygone era of a decade ago, when the concept of political pedophile rings was still in the realm of crazed conspiracy podcasts. That all changed, of course, when the Epstein story finally broke into the public consciousness in 2019.

And who just happened to be in the middle of that scandal?

That’s right, Prince Andrew. The brother of the current king and the eighth in line to the British throne. A man so transparently lecherous that for decades the UK tabloids have mockingly referred to him as “Randy Andy.” A man who literally had to invent a scientifically unknown condition of being “unable to sweat” to try to “prove” that the allegations made against him by Jeffrey Epstein victim Virginia Giuffre were false.

I mean, yes, there’s the photo of him with his arm around an underage Giuffre (with intelligence handler and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell hovering in the background), but he doesn’t sweat so . . . it’s all a lie?

No one buys anything that comes out of the mouth of His Royal Lowness, Prince Andrew, Duke of Dork. After all, you know someone must be a public relations mess when even the royal family is compelled to revoke his titles and royal patronages to keep him out of the spotlight of public scrutiny. As we’ve seen, the royals didn’t even dole out that form of retroactive punishment to Sir Jimmy.

As we all know, the public is no longer as naïve as they were in 2012, and, sadly, the nightmarish reality of protected political pedophile rings is so accepted as documented fact that it is no longer mocked as conspiracy yarn. And, to the surprise of no one who is familiar with the ignoble history of the royal family, the House of Windsor has been implicated in two of the highest profile pedophile scandals in recent memory. . . . Oh wait, make that three.

So here’s a rhetorical question for you: who in the controlled mainstream media do you think will ever dare bring up this topic up again now that Prince Charles is officially King Charles?

Conclusion

Making this video feels like I’m telling a child, all in one sitting, that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just your mom.

But, in reality, it’s worse than that. It’s telling fully grown adults that Santa Claus isn’t real, the Easter Bunny is a hoax and the tooth fairy is just their mom and being ridiculed as a fringe loony for doing so.

This isn’t my first attempt at opening eyes on this subject, either. Back in 2015, I made note of the absolute madness that took hold of the global media surrounding the announcement of the birth of Princess Charlotte, writing:

So who is going so crazy for this royal baby? Surely no one who is familiar with the real history of the reign of the “Windsors,” a reign marked by the tens of millions of lives lost in the First and Second World Wars (in which the royal family had a great degree of culpability), close collaboration with the banksters that have brought us to the edge of the next great depression, the formation of the Anglo-American “special relationship” in common cause with like-minded eugenicists in America like Teddy Roosevelt, the cultivation and protection of pedophiles (of whom Jimmy Savile was just the most noticeable tip of a very large iceberg), the slaying of Diana, and any number of other atrocities that should make this family one of the most reviled in the “commonwealth” they claim to rule over. And yet the media still lauds their every action, sings their praises as a venerable institution at the core of British society, dutifully acts as the royal PR mouthpiece in reporting on their charity work, and marginalizes any talk of doing away with the royal family altogether as “republican rabble-rousing.”

Plus ça change . . .

And now once again we have one of these royal events come along to remind us just how many people are still firmly ensconced in normieland. After all the royals have put us through, it’s flabbergasting that they’re still held in such high regard.

It’s incomprehensible that this royal eugenicist is trotted out to be the face of The Great Reset and to lecture the peasants about how they’ll have to become serfs on the neofeudal plantation for the sake of Mother Earth, but even more disheartening is the fact that there are still vast swaths of people who believe that this family has been chosen by God Himself to rule over an entire nation (or even a “commonwealth”).

Here’s to the day when this type of video is completely unnecessary and the placing of a fancy hat on some pompous British octogenarian’s head was of no significance to anyone whatsoever. One can always dream. . . .

This piece first appeared in The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter in September 2022. To keep up to date with the newsletter, and to support The Corbett Report, please subscribe today.

Connect with The Corbett Report

The Global Pandemic Treaty Is a Threat to Us All

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 28, 2023

Today, James delivers a statement for the National Citizens Inquiry in Canada on the WHO, the global pandemic treaty, the amendments to the International Health Regulations, and the formation of the coming technocratic biosecurity control grid.

 Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Substack / Download the mp4

Transcript

Hello. I’m James Corbett of The Corbett Report.

For those who don’t know, I’m a Canadian who’s been living and working in Japan for 19 years and founded The Corbett Report in 2007 as a source for news and information about politics, economics, science, philosophy and society, and in that regard I’ve been covering the corruption of the World Health Organization and warning about the dawning biosecurity state for over 15 years now.

So I would like to thank the inquiry for giving me the time to address the extremely important topic of the pending global pandemic treaty, but I know my time is limited today so I’d like to get straight into detailing the relevant background and context for understanding this story.

Firstly, the World Health Organization was established in 1948 to promote “the attainment by all peoples of the highest possible level of health.” It proposes to achieve this by acting as “the directing and co-ordinating authority on international health work.”

Accordingly, the WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly, adopted the International Sanitary Regulations in 1951 to consolidate the multiple, overlapping international agreements then governing quarantine procedures and other international health controls into a single convention.

In 1969, this was superseded by the International Health Regulations, which, as amended in 1973 and 1981, covered six diseases but focused on three: cholera, yellow fever and plague.

Worries about the “emergence, re-emergence and international spread of disease and other threats” concurrent with the surge in international travel in the 1990s gave rise to calls for a substantial revision of the treaty, and, in the wake of the 2003 SARS event and the 2004 avian influenza A epidemic (if you remember that one), a renewed sense of urgency led to the 2005 revision of the IHR.

This revision included the creation of a new category of declaration by the World Health Organization: the Public Health Emergency of International Concern, which is appropriately enough abbreviated as PHEIC.

A PHEIC declaration grants the WHO the power to obtain and share information about any declared health crisis anywhere within the IHR territories with or without the consent of the individual governments involved. And, according to Stephen Morrison—the director of the Global Health Policy Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies—this potentially allows for “boots-on-the-ground” intervention by the US military or other NATO member countries to operate in these environments in terms of ground transport, supply chain, and distribution of commodities.

The PHEIC was declared for the first time in 2009 during the so-called Swine Flu pandemic, which, as was later shown, was based on severely overestimated case numbers. In fact, the swine flu “pandemic” did not meet the WHO website’s own definition of “an enormous number of deaths and cases of the disease” and, when that was pointed out by a CNN reporter on May 4, 2009, that language was promptly removed.

At the time, Richard Schabas—the former chief medical officer for Canada’s Ontario Province—was quoted as saying: “Sometimes some of us think that WHO stands for World Hysteria Organization.”

Indeed, in 2010, a British Medical Journal investigation and an investigation by the Council of Europe both concluded that the key scientists who advised then-WHO Director Margaret Chan to declare the PHEIC for the swine flu scare “had done paid work for pharmaceutical firms that stood to gain from the guidance they were preparing” and excoriated the WHO for its complete lack of transparency about the process.

PHEICs were subsequently declared for the 2014 polio declaration, the 2013 outbreak of Ebola in Western Africa, the 2015 Zika virus “epidemic,” the 2018–2020 Kivu Ebola epidemic, and, of course, in 2020 for the so-called novel coronavirus pandemic and in 2022 for the monkeypox “pandemic”(?).

Each of these cases similarly resulted in massive paydays for pharmaceutical manufacturers and other beneficiaries of the growing biosecurity complex and massive increases in power for “health authorities” in each country and for the WHO in particular. In fact, we are told that the current WHO Director even ignored the decision of his “expert advisory council” to unilaterally declare last year’s Monkeypox outbreak as a Public Health Emergency of International Concern.

Incredibly, the WHO is not satisfied with the remarkable power that it already enjoys. It is currently engaged in a deliberately confusing process to simultaneously do two things:

• Firstly, to once again amend the International Health Regulations to give the WHO even more powers of surveillance and control during any arbitrarily declared health crisis.
• And secondly, to create a global pandemic treaty that would supersede the sovereignty of individual nation-states and cede even more authority to the WHO to monitor and control public health agencies in the name of preventing the next pandemic.

The process for these two separate negotiations are happening simultaneously, and although there is the fig leaf of public input in these processes, in reality only accredited organizations are given time to voice their opinion about the need for such a treaty and even then the WHO is under no obligation to even consider such input.

Instead, actual negotiations are taking place behind closed doors in off-camera sessions, and draft documents and meeting minutes are only occasionally dribbled out for public consumption.

Worse, as the WHO has already demonstrated, their procedure for adoption of these proposed amendments is at best a formality, and, at worst, pure theatrics.

That a completely unelected, unaccountable body that wields so much power over international affairs is meeting behind closed doors to decide the future of humanity under the pretense of the next declared emergency should be worrying enough. But the few details that have leaked out about these negotiations are even more frightening.

These include:

• provisions in the draft of the proposed treaty that would oblige member states to impose online censorship in the event of future crises under the guise of “tackling misinformation;”
• provisions for the creation of a global digital vaccine passport system to stop unvaccinated people from traveling in the event of the next declared crisis;
• and requirements that WHO members “build and reinforce surveillance systems” for future pandemics.

While these ideas may seem benign or even noble to those who do not know the history of the WHO or the erection of the biosecurity grid, to those of us who have lived through three years of unprecedented medical tyranny—from forced quarantines and lockdowns to the attempt to illegally mandate experimental medical interventions—stopping the WHO’s unprecedented power grab must be our greatest priority.

The World Health Organization currently consists of 194 member states, including Canada. In order to become a member of the WHO, a state must ratify the WHO Constitution, which grants the WHO’s governing body, the World Health Assembly (WHA), the power to “adopt conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the competence of the Organization,” which, when ratified, obliges each member state to adopt those conventions or to notify the WHO’s Director-General of rejection or reservations to that adoption within 18 months.

As a WHO member state, Canada is obligated to abide by World Health Assembly decisions or to provide specific reasons for partial or incomplete compliance with WHA rules and agreements. Accordingly, the Public Health Agency of Canada provides regular “self-assessment reports” regarding its own International Health Regulations compliance.

At an absolute minimum, Canadians must exert whatever power they have in whatever way they are able to reassert Canada’s sovereignty over its public health by registering its reservations about the IHR and the pandemic treaty. That would of course not be a solution to the problem posed by the WHO, but it would be a start. A more thoroughgoing solution would be the withdrawal of Canada from the WHO altogether.

But, as someone who is not just deeply cynical about the ability of the public to influence such affairs, but actually believes the political process itself—with its inherent abrogation of individual sovereignty and thus, by extension, bodily autonomy—to be invalid and immoral, I would suggest that a more radical approach might be appropriate. That is, active and coordinated widescale civil disobedience of medical decrees and mandates, whether federal or provincial, that are not in the interest of individual health, including, if possible, the foundation of private medical organizations with doctors and others of like mind who are willing to disregard the dictates of the WHO, Public Health Canada, and any other self-declared health authority to provide health care regardless of vaccination status or any other unreasonable dictate.

I know that such a movement will not take place without a sea change in public perception, and such a change would have to be predicated on a sea change in public awareness and understanding. That is why I participate in inquiries like this and do the work that I do to help raise awareness of these issues.

I hope you can appreciate that there is much, much more to be said about this problem and its solution than can possibly be done justice in a short presentation like this. If you’re interested in hearing more about this topic, I suggest you follow the hyperlinked transcript of this statement that is available at corbettreport.com/pandemictreaty, as well as check The Corbett Report archives for my previous work on the WHO and the biosecurity state and follow my monthly conversations with Dr. Meryl Nass on Children’s Health Defense as we document the progress of the IHR amendments and the pandemic treaty toward their proposed ratification at the 77th World Health Assembly in May of next year.

But in closing, let me just say this: The WHO was established in 1948 to coordinate international efforts to promote public health. But what is health?

That may seem like a trivial question, but as we’ve seen over the last few years, the answer to that question can effect every aspect of our lives, from what medical interventions we are obligated to take to whether or not we are permitted to leave our house.

We cannot afford to let government appointees and unelected technocrats at the WHO answer this incredibly important question for us. It is up to us to answer that question for ourselves and to decide what health precautions we are willing to take and under what circumstances we are willing to take them.

Any treaty, health regulation or other document that would seek to undermine our bodily autonomy is null and void and should be treated as if it never existed.

Thank you for your time.

Connect with James Corbett

James Corbett: On Canada’s National Citizens Inquiry

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 25, 2023

The National Citizens Inquiry is a citizen-led and citizen-funded initiative that is hearing testimony from Canadians and experts examining the nature, the legality and the effects of the Canadian governments’ COVID mandates and restrictions.  Today James talks to the volunteer-run inquiry’s volunteer communications director, Michelle Leduc Catlin, about the inquiry itself, what it is seeking to accomplish and how Canadians (and people around the world) can support it in its endeavours.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack  / Download the mp4

Show Notes:

National Citizens Inquiry homepage

Michelle Catlin’s blog (daily summaries and highlights)

Citizen-led inquiry into Canada’s pandemic response makes stop in Winnipeg

Preston Manning announces ‘citizen-led’ inquiry into Canada’s pandemic response

Brian Peckford on his decision not to participate

One on One with Michelle | Colleen Brandse | Vaccine Injured Nurse | National Citizens Inquiry

Connect with James Corbett

Connect with National Citizens Inquiry

James Corbett: Your Guide to 5th-Generation Warfare

“A war that is taking place everywhere on the globe, even as I speak, and that involves virtually everyone on the planet, young and old, male and female, military and civilian. It is the war of every government against its own population and every international institution against free humanity.”

~~~

“Neurological Warfare…

“These include (in Giordano’s well-rehearsed patter) the ‘drugs, bugs, toxins and devices’ that can either enhance or disrupt the cognitive functions of their target, like the ‘high CNS aggregation’ nanoparticulates that, according to Giordano, ‘clump in the brain or in the vasculature‘ and ‘create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis.'”

~~~

“It is a war for full-spectrum dominance of every battlefield and every terrain, from the farthest reaches of the globe (and beyond) to the inner spaces of your body and even to your innermost thoughts. And it is a war on you.”

~~~

“We must stop playing their game. We must stop fighting their war. We must stop ceding our power, our authority, our time, our attention, our energy and our resources to engaging the enemy in their terms in their battlefield.

“We must create our own parallel society on our own terms.

“And so we rediscover an old piece of wisdom. To paraphrase: ‘Fifth-generation warfare is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.’

“War is over . . . if we want it.”

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 18, 2023

We are in the middle of a world-changing war. This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it. It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack / Download the mp4

Transcript & Sources

We are in the middle of a world-changing war right now.

Oh, I don’t mean the war in Ukraine, the one that all the media are asking you to focus your attention on. Yes, that conflict continues to escalate, and every day there are new stories about provocations and threats that could lead to a nuclear exchange . . . but that’s not the war I’m referring to.

No, the war I’m talking about is an even broader war. A war that is taking place everywhere on the globe, even as I speak, and that involves virtually everyone on the planet, young and old, male and female, military and civilian. It is the war of every government against its own population and every international institution against free humanity.

This is no ordinary war, however. Most of the victims of this warfare aren’t even able to identify it as war, nor do they understand that they are combatants in it.

It’s called fifth-generation warfare, and I’m here to tell you all about it.

I am James Corbett of The Corbett Report and this is Your Guide to Fifth-Generation Warfare

What Is Fifth-Generation Warfare?

What is fifth-generation warfare, anyway? And, come to think of it, what were the first four generations of warfare?

Good questions. For an in-depth answer to the latter question, you’ll want to read “The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation“—a 1989 article from the Marine Corps Gazette co-authored by William S. Lind—and you’ll want to watch “William S. Lind & Philip Giraldi – Fourth Generation Warfare & The Deep State.”

WILLIAM S. LIND: This city and every capital in the world is completely oblivious to the fact that it is caught up in a change in warfare so great that it not only makes our current defense and foreign policies obsolete, it essentially makes obsolete the whole framework within which we think about defense and foreign policy.

[. . .]

The change is what I call the rise of fourth generation war and this is specifically the fourth generation of modern war. [. . .] We now think of foreign affairs and defense within the framework of the nation-state. Armed forces are designed to fight other state armed forces. But that reality is changing.

[. . .]

What’s happening around the world today in more and more places is that state armed forces find them find themselves fighting not other state armed forces, but fourth-generation forces. Non-state forces.

SOURCE: The State and Modern War

In a nutshell, Lind et al.’s thesis is that the “modern age” of warfare began with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which, Lind opines, “gave the state a monopoly on war.” From that point on, modern warfare went through three generations, namely:

• First-generation warfare: the tactics of line and column, developed in the era of the smoothbore musket;
• Second-generation warfare: the tactics of indirect fire and mass movement, developed in the era of the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire and the machine gun; and
• Third-generation warfare: the tactics of nonlinear movement, including maneuver and infiltration, developed in response to the increase in battlefield firepower in WWI.

This, according to Lind and his co-authors, brought us to the late-20th century, when the nation-state began to lose its monopoly on war and military combat returned to a decentralized form. In this era—the era of fourth-generation warfare—the line between “civilian” and “military” become blurred, armies tend to engage in counter-insurgency operations rather than military battles, and enemies are often motivated by ideology and religion, making psychological operations more important than ever.

But, some argue, we have now entered a new era of warfare, namely fifth-generation warfare.

There is still much debate about what defines fifth-generation warfare, how we know we’re engaged in it, or even if it exists at all (Lind, for one, rejects the concept). Various scholars have made their own attempts at defining fifth-generation warfare (5GW), like Dr. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, who identifies it as “the battle of perceptions and information,” or Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the People’s Liberation Army, who write of the era of “Unrestricted Warfare” in which “a relative reduction in military violence” has led to “an increase in political, economic, and technological violence.”

If academic debates about the changing nature of warfare are your thing, then there’s plenty of reading for you to do on the subject, from The Handbook of 5GW: A Fifth Generation of War? to a slew of academic articles.

But for the purposes of this editorial, I’m not interested in that debate. In fact, we’re going to use a decidedly non-academic definition of fifth-generation warfare from an Al Jazeera article as our starting point: “The basic idea behind this term [5GW] is that in the modern era, wars are not fought by armies or guerrillas, but in the minds of common citizens.”

There are two important things to note about this definition. The first is that fifth-generation warfare is not waged against either standing armies of nation-states or guerrilla insurgents but against everyday citizens. The second is that this war is not being fought in a battlefield somewhere, but in the mind.

I will expand the definition somewhat to include the fact that this war is being waged at all levels, not just the mental. The gist of it is this: Fifth-generation warfare is an all-out war that is being waged against all of us by our governments and the international organizations to which they belong. It is being waged against each and every one of us right now, and it is a battle for full-spectrum dominance over every single aspect of your life: your movements and interactions, your transactions, even your innermost thoughts and feelings and desires. Governments the world over are working with corporations to leverage technology to control you down to the genomic level, and they will not stop until each and every person who resists them is subdued or eliminated.

The most incredible part of all of this is that so few know that the war is even taking place, let alone that they are a combatant in it.

The best way to understand this war is to look at some of the ways that it is being waged against us.

Part 2: Information Warfare

Stop me if you’ve heard this before, but this is an infowar and the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are engaged in “a war for your mind.”

Of course, you have heard of “Infowars” if you’ve been in the alternative media space for any length of time. And for good reason: information warfare is an absolutely essential part of the war on everyone that defines fifth-generation warfare.

The most obvious way to understand this is to look at the actual military forces that are engaging in psychological operations against their own citizens.

DAN DICKS: It says here:

“A letter from the Nova Scotia government sent out to residents to warn about a pack of wolves on the loose in the province was forged by Canadian military personnel as part of a propaganda training mission that went off the rails.

“The letter told residents to be wary of wolves that had been reintroduced into the area by the provincial and federal governments and warned the animals were now roaming the Annapolis Valley. The letter, which later became public, sparked concern and questions among residents but was later branded as ‘fake’ by the Nova Scotia government which didn’t know the military was behind the deception.

“The training also involved using a loudspeaker to generate wolf sounds, the Canadian Forces confirmed to this newspaper.”

Guys, let let that sink in for a second. They created a fake letter from the government, put it out there saying that there’s dangerous wolves, and they set up loud speakers in the area projecting out wolf noises!

This isn’t just research, you know. This isn’t just a training exercise. They’re actively engaging in this psychological operation to scare people using loudspeakers.

This is unbelievable

SOURCE: Canadian Military Fake Wolves Fear Campaign Exposed! but You Won’T Believe What They Are Doing Next!

But it’s not just out-and-out military operations by soldiers dressed up in camo fatigues that are part of this fifth-generation infowar. In the war on everyone, the establishment uses every means at its disposal to manipulate the public’s perception.

Thus, Richard Stengel—the former editor of Time who bestowed Time‘s person of the year (dis)honour on You! back in 2006—is happy to chair a Council on Foreign Relations conversation in which he defends the US government’s use of propaganda against its own citizens.

RICHARD STENGEL: Basically, every country creates their own narrative story. And, you know, my old job at the state department was what people used to joke as the chief propagandist job.

We haven’t talked about propaganda. I’m not against propaganda. Every country does it and they have to do it to their own population and I don’t necessarily think it’s that awful.

SOURCE: Political Disruptions: Combating Disinformation and Fake News

Or take Hill & Knowlton—the PR firm hired by the Kuwaiti government to create the Nayirah deception in the First Gulf War . . .

“NAYIRAH”: They took the babies out of incubators  . . . They took the incubators and left the children to die on the cold floor.

SOURCE: Human Rights Violations in Kuwait

. . . who were retained by the WHO in 2020 to identify celebrity “influencers” who could be used to amplify the scamdemic messaging.

ANNOUNCER: The One World Together At Home event showcased a who’s who of top music stars and celebrities, who came together over the weekend for a special broadcast of music, comedy and personal messages, all in gratitude to those around the world on the front lines of the coronavirus pandemic.

MATTHEW MCCONAUGHEY: So what can we do? We’ve got to take care of our healthworkers and we’ve got to buy them time by taking care of ourselves.

ANNOUNCER: The event was led by the World Health Organization and the non-profit group, Global Citizen.

SOURCE: Celebrities Perform Virtual ‘One World’ Concert: ‘A Love Letter to the World’

Or take the UK government’s Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours, which outright admits that they use psychological techniques to manipulate the public into fearing the scamdemic, a move that some of the panel members called “totalitarian” . . . and no one bats an eyelid.

Perhaps the most insidious part of the fifth-generation infowar is that it has become so normalized that everyone knows it is happening, but no one thinks of it as warfare. Of course everything is “advertising” and “propaganda.” And of course it’s being used to manipulate our behaviour. That’s just how the world works, isn’t it?

But we ignore the real nature of the infowar at our own peril. After all, I have often observed that this is a war for your mind and that the most contested battlespace in the world is the space between your ears. You might have thought I meant that metaphorically, but actually I mean it quite literally. Which brings us to . . .

Neurological Warfare

If you listen to Dr. James Giordano speak without listening to what he’s saying, you get the impression he is merely an articulate, well-informed scientist who is passionate about his research. When you do listen to what he’s saying, however—or even just look at his PowerPoint slides, like the “NeuroS/T for NSID” slide—you realize that he is Dr. Strangelove. Or, if not Dr. Strangelove himself, then at least Dr. Strangelove’s spokesman.

But it’s not nuclear armageddon that motivates Giordano, it’s what he calls “weapons of mass disruption”—the various technologies for neurological intervention that the US military and militaries around the world are developing.

These include (in Giordano’s well-rehearsed patter) the “drugs, bugs, toxins and devices” that can either enhance or disrupt the cognitive functions of their target, like the “high CNS aggregation” nanoparticulates that, according to Giordano, “clump in the brain or in the vasculature” and “create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis.” As sci-fi as this sounds, he insists these nanoparticulates (and many, many other horrific neurological weapons) are already being worked on:

JAMES GIORDANO: The idea here is that I can get with something called high CNS aggregation material that is essentially invisible to the naked eye and even to most scanners because it is so small that it selectively goes through most levels of filter porosity. These are then inhaled—either through the nasal mucosa or absorbed through the oral mucosa. They have high CNS affinity. They clump in the brain or in the vasculature and they create essentially what looks like a hemorrhagic diathesis; in other words, a hemorrhage predisposition or a clot predisposition in the brain. What I’ve done is I’ve created a stroking agent and it’s very, very difficult to gain attribution to do that.

I can use that on a variety of levels, from the individual to the group. Highly disruptive. And, in fact, this is one of the things that has been entertained and examined to some extent by my colleagues in NATO and to those who are working on the worst use of neurobiological sciences to create populational disruption. Very, very worried about the potential for these nano particular ages to be CNS aggregating agents to cause neural disruption.

SOURCE: Brain Science from Bench to Battlefield: The Realities – and Risks – of Neuroweapons | CGSR Seminar

And just in case you didn’t get the point, you’ll notice he illustrates his slide with an image of a human brain in the crosshairs of one of these neurological weapons. There’s nothing hard to understand about the picture that is being painted here: we are at war with an enemy who is literally targeting our brains.

And just in case you didn’t get the point, you’ll notice he illustrates his slide with an image of a human brain in the crosshairs of one of these neurological weapons. There’s nothing hard to understand about the picture that is being painted here: we are at war with an enemy who is literally targeting our brains.

But yet again, it isn’t just the literal use of neurological weapons by conventional militaries in conventional warfare settings that we—the largely unwitting combatants of the fifth-generation war on everyone—have to worry about. As my listeners already know, avowed technocrat Elon Musk is trying to sell his Neuralink brain chip technology to the hipster crowd as a cool and sexy way to upgrade your cognition . . . or so that the coming AI godhead will have mercy on us. Or something like that. Anyway, you should totally stick the Neuralink in your head at your earliest opportunity! And definitely don’t ask any questions about why so many of the macaque monkeys and other test animals that Neuralink was using as test animals in their “brain-machine interface” experiment have dropped dead.

To anyone not yet a victim of the information warfare operation designed to prepare humanity for the coming transhuman dystopia, all of this sounds insane. But for those who have fallen for the infowars psyop of the enemy, these types of mind-altering technologies are exactly as advertised: exciting opportunities to “upgrade” the feeble biological wetware we call our brain.

But if you think you can avoid the biological aspect of the fifth-generation war by simply avoiding the brain chip, you’re out of luck. You’re also going to have to deal with . . .

Biological Warfare

The biowarfare narrative is, understandably, back at the forefront of the public consciousness in recent years, not just because of the scamdemic but also because of the questions being raised about the US-backed Ukrainian biolabs and whatever work they may or may not be doing on Russia’s doorstep.

This picture, for example, comes straight from Army.mil, which was only too happy to brag as recently as last July that US soldiers were conducting “hands-on training and field training exercises with Ukrainian troops in laboratory and field environments” that included ensuring the readiness of “deployable mobile laboratories.” Nothing to see here, folks. (Perhaps the only surprising thing about the article is that they haven’t scrubbed it from their website . . . yet.)

Yet, once again, if we are only thinking of biowarfare in conventional military terms, we neglect the much, much wider operation to manipulate, control and weaponize all aspects of our environment, our food supply and even our genome itself for the purposes of the ruling oligarchs. This fifth-generation biological warfare being waged against us includes:

• The mRNA and DNA and genetically-modified adenovirus vector “vaccines” that have been “normalized” over the past two years and which, as the miraculously “lucky” companies that bet it all on this technology like to brag, is re-programming the “software of life.”
• The genetically-modified organisms—both gmo crops and gmo animals—that are now being unleashed upon the world in an uncontrolled experiment that puts our health and the very future of the biosphere in jeopardy.
• The push toward synthetic, lab-based “food” that is being funded by the usual eugenicist billionaires and which threatens to sever humanity from the natural abundance of the earth, make us dependent on an increasingly shrinking number of companies for our food supply, and, ultimately, to drive us toward a Soylent Green-style future.

I’m sure you can fill in the blanks with myriad other examples of the attacks upon the world’s air, water and biome that constitute this unconstrained fifth-generation biological war being waged against us.

When and if you do put the pieces of this puzzle together and seek to warn people en masse that they are under attack, your ability to resist this agenda will be predicated on your ability to use your accumulated resources (your wealth) to foster communities of resistance. Don’t worry, though; the enemy has that domain covered, too. . . .

Economic Warfare

Given the events of recent weeks, even the sleepiest of the sleepy now realize that we are in a period of economic warfare.

This war, too, has its conventional aspects. On the 2D board, we’ve seen the NATO empire launch its Weapons of Financial Destruction at Russia in recent weeks, and, exactly as predicted, it has resulted in the consolidation of a convenient geopolitical bogeyman bloc and a gigantic loss of faith in the international monetary system itself. And, also as predicted, it has supplied the “Problem” and “Reaction” needed for the technocrats to present their pre-determined “Solution” of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Just ask Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock:

“The war will prompt countries to re-evaluate their currency dependencies. Even before the war, several governments were looking to play a more active role in digital currencies and define the regulatory frameworks under which they operate.”

This is not merely a battle between nation-states or even competing power blocs. This is a battle being waged by every authoritarian power structure and every government (but I repeat myself) against their own citizens for control of the most important resource of all: their wallets.

Yes, we are seeing the beginning of a truly world-historic moment: the collapse of Pax Americana, the death of the dollar reserve system, and the beginning of an entirely new monetary paradigm, the “Central Bank Digital Currency” system of programmable money that will be able to algorithmically control when, how and if you are allowed to transact in the economy at all. We only have to look to recent events in Canada to understand what this will look like.

This perfect control of humanity down to the level of being able to witness and, ultimately, to allow or disallow any transaction between any individuals at any time, represents the apotheosis of technocracy and one of the key objectives of the fifth-generation war itself. As this nightmare comes closer and closer to reality, all seems hopeless.

But then again, that’s exactly the point. . . .

The Real War

I could go on. And on and on and on. But hopefully you get the point by now: There is a world war happening right now. It is a fifth-generation war (or whatever you want to call it). It is being waged across every domain simultaneously. It is a war for full-spectrum dominance of every battlefield and every terrain, from the farthest reaches of the globe (and beyond) to the inner spaces of your body and even to your innermost thoughts. And it is a war on you.

Recognizing this, the task we face seems nearly insurmountable. How are we to fight back in a war that the majority of people don’t even recognize is taking place? How do we fight back against an enemy that has spent decades refining its weapons of economic and military and technological and biological control? How do we fight back in a war that is not taking place on two fronts or even three fronts, but in every domain and battlespace simultaneously?

Framed like this, our prospects do indeed appear hopeless. But therein lies the key: our perception that it is our duty to “fight back” against the enemy in their war on their battlefield on their terms of engagement is itself a narrative frame. And that narrative itself is a weapon that is being wielded against us in the battle for our minds.

You’ll allow me space here to quote myself at length because this is a point I have made many times before, perhaps most notably in my conversation on “The Anatomy of the New World Order” that I had with Julian Charles on The Mind Renewed podcast ten years ago:

I’m intrigued by the idea that we’ve been given false templates to follow in terms of solving our problems—one being to “fight our enemies”—templates provided for us through so much social conditioning and the media. Here, the idea is that we must find the heart or the head of the organization and somehow kill that person or that group, or whatever it is; eliminate that, and everything will magically turn to the better!

Thinking in broad terms, that false template appears in virtually every science fiction dystopia you’ve ever seen: if it turns out well in the end, it’s only because they have managed to decapitate the Head of the Beast, whether it be The Lord of the Rings or Tron, or any such movie. I think that’s fundamentally and completely the wrong way to look at it, because at the end of the day the particular individuals who may or may not be holding the ‘Ring of Power’ are replaceable. Indeed, there are very many people who would be chomping at the bit to get into that position of power should that old guard be swept away for whatever reason.

I think what’s needed is a more fundamental revolution: not of overthrowing a specific instantiation of this idea, but of overthrowing the idea altogether. And that can only come, I think, from building up an alternative system to which people actually want to apply themselves. I think we have to detach ourselves from this system that we’ve been woven into. Unfortunately that’s probably as difficult to do as that analogy would make it sound, because we are so woven into the fabric of society that it’s difficult to imagine extricating ourselves from all these processes.

We rely for so many of our daily needs on this vast, unwieldy corporate system that ties into these very organizations that pull the strings of governmental institutions, that it can seem quite overwhelming. How can a single individual affect this? But I think we have to look for any and every possible point at which we can start to detach ourselves from those systems of control, and to start to reassert some kind of independence. That can be an extremely small thing like, just for example: instead of buying groceries at the grocery store, perhaps buy them at a farmers’ market, or at least some of your groceries. Or perhaps you could grow them yourself in a vegetable garden. Something of that sort is a tiny thing on the individual level, but I think it’s the only thing in the long run that can lead to the type of society we want to bring to fruition. Again, I think it’s small things like that, if we start to apply ourselves with diligence and perseverance, that will eventually be able to overthrow this. But, unfortunately, as I say, we are on the cusp of this scientific revolution which makes scientific dictatorship possible, so unfortunately we don’t necessarily have generations of time. That gives a time perspective to all this—I won’t say it’s a time bomb—but you get the idea. We don’t have a lot of time to waste.

We have a choice. Either we continue going into this technological, corporate matrix—which involves even things like buying the next generation of iPhone, which they’re already saying is going to have its own fingerprint scanning technology, and all of these corporate, military, Big Brother elements to it that we’re willingly signing up to every day of our lives, and actually paying money for—or we start to create alternative structures which don’t rely on that system. It’s a choice that we have to make in our lives, I would say more quickly than has been apparent at any other time in human history.

My regular viewers will understand what I am proposing here: the creation of a parallel society. We will not achieve this by asking for more scraps from the masters table, or by gently complying as we are herded into ever more constrictive technological pens, or by thinking that we can win this war by engaging the enemy in their controlled domain. We can only achieve this by creating our own table, our own economy and our own communities of interest. This will require the long and difficult task of increasing our independence from the authoritarian systems in every domain: the information domain, the food domain, the health domain, the monetary domain, the mental domain and every other contested battlespace in this all-out, fifth-generation war.

Easier said than done, of course. But there is no alternative.

Some will say “But won’t they come after that parallel society?” as if that is a rebuttal to what I have laid out here. The point is that you are already the target of the enemy in a war that most people but dimly understand is happening. Yes, the enemy will come after you. But they are already dominating you in more ways than any one person can fully understand. That does not stop just because you comply with their demands or take part in their system.

We must stop playing their game. We must stop fighting their war. We must stop ceding our power, our authority, our time, our attention, our energy and our resources to engaging the enemy in their terms in their battlefield.

We must create our own parallel society on our own terms.

And so we rediscover an old piece of wisdom. To paraphrase: “Fifth-generation warfare is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.”

War is over . . . if we want it.

Connect with James Corbett

Dissent Into Madness: Escaping the Madhouse

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
April 16, 2023

“Only when we step back and interrogate the political system as a whole can we appreciate that the very existence of those seats of power from which a handful of individuals can rule over the masses is itself a construct of the pathocracy. Unless and until those seats of power are eliminated altogether, we will never rid ourselves of the struggle for dominance that rewards the psychopaths with control over others.”

~~~

“It is up to each one of us to model that which we wish to see in the world. Just like the brave dissenter who can break the circuit of tyranny by voicing opposition to the tyrant, we can also become the models of love, understanding and compassion that will motivate others to become the same.”

In the “Dissent Into Madness” series, we have been exploring the nexus of psychology and politics.

In Part 1 of this series, “The Weaponization of Psychology,” I detailed the process by which the psychiatric profession has been turned into an instrument for repressing and marginalizing political dissidents.

In Part 2, “Crazy Conspiracy Theorists,” I documented how this weaponized psychology has been wielded against conspiracy theorists, pathologizing those who seek to point out the obvious truths about world events such as 9/11 and the scamdemic.

In Part 3, “Projections of the Psychopaths,” I documented the psychopathology of those in positions of political power and noted how society itself is being warped to reflect those psychopaths’ own twisted psyche.

Finally, in this week’s conclusion to the series, I will tackle the most important question of all: how do we escape the madhouse constructed by the political psychopaths?

Pathocracy

First, the good news: pathocracies are inherently unstable and they are doomed at some point to topple under their own weight.

Indeed, as Lobaczewski points out in his discussion of the phenomenon, pathocracies by their very nature possess numerous weaknesses that make their downfall inevitable. They require, for instance, that key administrative positions be filled not by finding the most competent men and women in the general public and promoting them based on ability and merit, but by recruiting the most serviceable lackeys from the much narrower pool of psychopaths and sociopaths. This leads to the seemingly endless parade of low-grade morons and feckless, out-of-touch imbeciles who end up in positions of power, greatly degrading the effectiveness and stability of the pathocratic state.

Pathocrats, like all psychopaths, also live in mortal fear of being exposed as pathological. Commenters on psychopathy have long pointed out that the mask of sanity—the psychopath’s ability to hide their moral defect from others—is incredibly important to them. After all, once identified, psychopaths can be effectively shunned and “eliminated” from positions of power, as TruthSeeker suggests above. As Lobaczewski writes:

Normal people slowly learn to perceive the weak spots of such a system and utilize the possibilities of more expedient arrangement of their lives. They begin to give each other advice in these matters, thus slowly regenerating the feelings of social links and reciprocal trust. A new phenomenon occurs: separation between the pathocrats and the society of normal people. The latter have an advantage of talent, professional skills, and healthy common sense.

Next, the even better news: if it is true that psychopaths can fashion a psychopathic society that twists people into sociopthats, then the opposite is true, too. Healthy, non-pathological humans with love, empathy and compassion can fashion a society that brings out the better side of human nature.

This is the real goal of the erstwhile victims of the pathocrats. Not to eliminate the political psychopaths and assume their positions of power in the psychopathic political system that they created, nor even to abolish that system altogether, but to envision a world in which compassion, cooperation, love and empathy are not just encouraged but actively rewarded. A world in which every person is allowed to become their best possible self.

It is up to each one of us to model that which we wish to see in the world. Just like the brave dissenter who can break the circuit of tyranny by voicing opposition to the tyrant, we can also become the models of love, understanding and compassion that will motivate others to become the same.

After all, if the psychopaths have spent centuries weaponizing psychology to more effectively control us, can’t we wield our understanding of human nature for something good? And isn’t that what healthy, non-psychopathic individuals forming a healthy, non-psychopathic society would spend their time and resources doing?

Connect with The Corbett Report

Cover image credit: Bluesnap

New World Next Week: Shh! Don’t Report On Pentagon’s Secret Leak!

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report, & James Evan Pilato, Media Monarchy
April 13, 2023

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

 Watch on BitChute / Odysee  / Substack / Download the mp4

Story #1: White House Says Don’t Report On Pentagon Leaks
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/04/11/white-house-says-dont-report-on-pentagon-leaks/

Over 100 More Classified Docs Appear Online: US Secrets ‘From Ukraine To Middle East To China’
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/over-100-more-classified-docs-appear-online-us-secrets-ukraine-middle-east-china

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre and National Security Council Coordinator for Strategic Communications John Kirby
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/press-briefings/2023/04/10/press-briefing-by-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-and-national-security-council-coordinator-for-strategic-communications-john-kirby-10/

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin—Former Member of Raytheon Board of Directors—Has Awarded Over $2.36 Billion in Contracts to Raytheon Since His Confirmation in January
https://covertactionmagazine.com/2021/04/19/defense-secretary-lloyd-austin-former-member-of-raytheon-board-of-directors-has-awarded-over-2-36-billion-in-contracts-to-raytheon-since-his-confirmation-in-january/

Leaks Showing US Spied On South Korea Spark Outrage In Seoul
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/04/11/leaks-showing-us-spied-on-south-korea-spark-outrage-in-seoul/

U.S. Spy Agency Bugged U.N. Headquarters: Germany’s Spiegel (Aug. 25, 2013)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-nsa-un-idUSBRE97O0DD20130825

U.S. Spied On Merkel, Other Europeans Through Danish Cables (May 30, 2021)
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-security-agency-spied-merkel-other-top-european-officials-through-danish-2021-05-30/

Leaked Document Says Ukraine Could Run Out of Air Defense Missiles By Early May
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/04/10/leaked-document-says-ukraine-could-run-out-of-air-defense-missiles-by-early-may/

Why Putin May Have Exposed the US/NATO Ukraine Operations Documents
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2023/april/10/why-putin-may-have-exposed-the-usnato-ukraine-operations-documents/

Leaked Document Appears to Show NATO Special Operations Forces are in Ukraine
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/04/09/leaked-document-appears-to-show-nato-special-operations-forces-are-in-ukraine/

Leak Shows Ukrainian SBU Agents Attacked Russian Surveillance Plane in Belarus
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/04/10/leak-shows-ukrainian-sbu-agents-attacked-russian-surveillance-plane-in-belarus/

Story #2: JP Morgan Chief Says Seize Property To Build Wind, Solar Farms
https://archive.is/eTvgl

Eminent Domain
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eminent_domain

Eminent Oxford Scientist Says Wind Power “Fails On Every Count”
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/eminent-oxford-scientist-says-wind-power-fails-every-count

JPMorgan Execs Joked About Jeffrey Epstein’s Pedophilia
https://archive.is/jOaK3

Jamie Dimon Will Face Questioning In Lawsuits Over JPMorgan’s Epstein Ties
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2023/03/28/jamie-dimon-will-face-questioning-in-lawsuits-over-jpmorgans-epstein-ties/

Episode 322 – What Is Sustainable Development?
https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-322-what-is-sustainable-development/

Story #3: Trilateral Commission Calls 2023 ‘Year One’ Of New World Order
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Indo-Pacific/Trilateral-Commission-calls-2023-Year-One-of-new-world-order // https://archive.is/WmWhW

James H. Baker (DOD)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Baker_(DOD)
The New World Next Week Store
https://newworldnextweek.com/

Connect with The Corbett Report

Connect with Media Monarchy

Decentralized Communication: Networks, Platforms and Protocols That Are Being Developed to Address the Root of the Censorship Problem

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 15, 2023

As the internet clampdown begins, people are finally beginning to wake up to the need to find alternative communication platforms. But if the masses are just herded from one centralized platform to another, has anything really changed at all?

Join James for today’s important edition of #SolutionsWatch where he examines some of the many decentralized communication networks, platforms and protocols that are being developed to address the root of the censorship problem.



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Substack  / Download the mp4

Show Notes

The Media Matrix

Mass Media: A History (online course)

Email – #SolutionsWatch

EuroVPS

Qortal.org

What is the Qortal Project? 

Ernest Hancock Interview’s Jason Crowe – Freedom’s Phoenix

Bastyon.com/corbettreport

About Bastyon

Salting Your Data – #SolutionsWatch

nostr.com

Nostr Explained Visually for Beginners

BTC111: Nostr – Decentralized Social Media & Bitcoin w/ William Casarin

minds.com/corbettreport

Interview 1357 – Bill Ottman on Minds.com

Minds introduces nostr functionality

Connect with James Corbett

Dissent Into Madness: The Weaponization of Psychology

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 12, 2023

“WA State Bill Will Send Political Enemies to Psych Wards” blares a recent headline from Kurt Nimmo’s Substack.

The bill in question, Washington State Legislature House Bill 1333, “Establishing the domestic violent extremism commission,” would, according to its critics, “criminalize thought and expression under an invented category of offences called ‘domestic violent extremism'” and allow the state’s attorney general to “prosecute some people for words and speech, rather than violent acts.”

Although there is nothing in the bill itself declaring that “political enemies” of the state will be sent to “psych wards,” the idea that psychologists and psychiatrists might be employed on such a “domestic violent extremism commission” to diagnose political dissidents with some form of mental disorder is not a misplaced one.

In fact, as it turns out, there is a long and worrying history of psychiatry being used as a weapon to silence those declared to be enemies of the state. And, more worrying still, recent events have demonstrated that—far from being a relic of the past—the pathologization of political dissent is becoming even more widespread than ever before.

The Bad Old Days

Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: kalhh

The Future Food False Flag

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 6, 2023

The food supply is under attack.

But by whom?

And for what purpose?

Find out the dirty truth about the global food crisis and how the powers-that-shouldn’t-be are trying to use this crisis as an opportunity to usher in the Great Food Reset on today’s fast-paced edition of The Corbett Report podcast.

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack / Download the mp4

Documentation

Connect with James Corbett

Cover image credit: Myriams-Fotos

UN Supervillains Threaten to Dim the Sun

by James Corbett & James Evan Pilato, The Corbett Report
March 3, 2023

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news.

This week:



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4

Story #1: Solar Geoengineering Should Be Regulated, U.N. Report Says

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-geoengineering-should-be-regulated-u-n-report-says/

An Open Letter Regarding Research On Reflecting Sunlight to Reduce the Risks of Climate Change

https://climate-intervention-research-letter.org/

PDF: “One Atmosphere: An Independent Expert Review on Solar Radiation Modification Research and Deployment”

https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/41903/one_atmosphere.pdf

The Magic Words – #SolutionsWatch

https://www.corbettreport.com/solutionswatch-magicwords/

Mexico Becomes First Nation to Admit Harms of Geoengineering, Halts Future Experiments

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/mexico-bans-geoengineering/

Geoengineering Startup’s Claim It Got ‘OKs to Launch’ From FAA Doesn’t Stand Up to Scrutiny

https://www.theverge.com/2023/2/24/23613293/solar-geoengineering-mexico-us-reno-nevada-faa-make-sunsets

UN Says Censoring “Disinformation” and “Hate Speech” Will Protect “Free Speech”

https://reclaimthenet.org/un-says-that-censoring-disinformation-will-protect-free-speech

Serbia Warns ‘Everyone Is Preparing For War’

https://www.rt.com/news/571864-serbia-weapons-nato-ukraine/

US Sending Up to 200 More Troops to Taiwan As China Tensions Grow

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-sending-more-troops-taiwan-china-tensions-grow

Taiwan to Criminalize Spreading Rumors During Wartime

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/27/taiwan-to-criminalize-spreading-rumors-during-wartime/

Story #2: US Claims Iran Can Make Fissile Material for a Bomb ‘In About 12 Days’

https://archive.is/cWRqH

Colin Kahl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Kahl

UN Report: Uranium Particles Enriched to 83.7% Found In Iran

https://apnews.com/article/iran-nuclear-uranium-enrichment-germany-israel-c9b3669a7721bd8929d465117c81b70f

Episode 337 – The REAL Middle East Nuclear Threat

https://www.corbettreport.com/israelinukes/

Video: Karine Jean-Pierre Mistakenly Says “President Obama” Is Making Announcements

https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1628829210394640386

Story #3: US Legislators Introduce Bill To Prohibit Creation Of American CBDC

https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/us-legislators-introduce-bill-would-prohibit-creation-american-cbdc

Episode 433 – CBDCs: Beyond the Basics

https://www.corbettreport.com/cbdc/

Episode 317 – The Truth About Glass-Steagall

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-317-the-truth-about-glass-steagall/

Become a member of Corbett Report (https://corbettreport.com/members) and Media Monarchy (https://mediamonarchy.com/join) to help support independent media.

Connect with James Corbett

mRNA Vaccines for Livestock?

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 2, 2023

Are mRNA vaccines being developed for livestock? You bet they are! So what does this mean?

As usual, it depends who you ask.

Find out the bad, the worse and the putrid of third generation vaccines and the future of food in this week’s edition of Questions For Corbett.



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Substack / Download the mp4

SHOW NOTES

Bill Gates Vows To Pump mRNA Into Food Supply To ‘Force-Jab’ the Unvaccinated

Original video: Bill Gates and Penny Mordaunt launch the Global Academy of Agriculture and Food Security

Instagram post: someone’s friend’s neighbour’s cows died from mRNA vaccines

Report: mRNA vaccines may be injected into livestock

Healthfeedback funded by Meta/TikTok/Google

Healthfeedback.org: Misrepresented 2018 clip of Bill Gates trigger inaccurate claims that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines for livestock could transfer to people through diet

Gates/Omidyar/US State Department-funding of International Fact-Checking Network

USA Today Fact check is an IFCN partner

USA Today Fact check: False claim about mandatory mRNA vaccines, deaths in Australian cattle

About AFP Fact Check

AFP Fact Check: Australian farmers not ‘forced to inject livestock with deadly mRNA vaccines’

AFP Fact Check: mRNA vaccine cannot transfer through meat consumption

NSW fast-tracks mRNA FMD and Lumpy Skin Disease vaccines

Novel Vaccine Technologies in Veterinary Medicine: A Herald to Human Medicine Vaccines

NOVEL MRNA VACCINE TECHNOLOGY FOR PREVENTION OF BOVINE RESPIRATORY SYNCYTIAL VIRUS

The Future of Livestock Vaccines

Big Pharma pushes to get farm animals off antibiotics and on vaccines

Bayer Partners with BioNTech to Develop mRNA Vaccines, Drugs for Animal Health

mRNA Vaccines in Livestock and Companion Animals are here now.

SEQUIVITY

DNA vaccines in veterinary use

Veterinary biologics licensed in Canada

Paul Offitt: Can mRNA vaccines alter a person’s DNA?

The Future of Vaccines

mRNA Vaccines: Disruptive Innovation in Vaccination

Connect with James Corbett — substack — website

Cover image credit: pixabay

The REAL Dangers of the Chatbot Takeover

“If you thought the amount of data that a company like Google was able to gain about its users by simply storing their searches was enormous, wait until you see what OpenAI and Microsoft and Google are going to do with the conversations that people are currently feeding into the data-harvesting machines known as chatbots.

And what are they going to do with that data (which will itself be tied with your phone number, your IP address, your browser fingerprint, your search history, your cookies, your social media posts and a million other data points), you ask?  The possibilities are limitless, but creating perfect deepfakes of any given individual would be a good starting point.”

The REAL Dangers of the Chatbot Takeover

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
February 19, 2023

It’s official: the chatpocalypse is upon us!

Just ask our <sarc>friends</sarc> over at The New York Times:

“A Conversation With Bing’s Chatbot Left Me Deeply Unsettled”

Or consult the <sarc>experts</sarc> over at digitaltrends:

“‘I want to be human.’ My intense, unnerving chat with Microsoft’s AI chatbot”

Or listen to those <haha>wackadoodles</haha> over at NewWorldNextWeek discussing the latest chatbot scare story:

“Microsoft’s Bing AI Chatbot Starts Threatening People”

“OK, OK, we get it, James! The new generation of chatbots that have been unleashed upon the world are weird, creepy and strangely aggressive. So we’re all going to die in a fiery robotic catastrophe, right?”

Maybe not. But before you breathe a sigh of relief and go back to whatever it is you’re doing, let me assure you that this chatbot takeover really is bad news, but probably not for the reasons you think.

Rise of the Chatbots

You really must have been in a coma for the past few months if you haven’t heard about the latest generation of chatbot technology. People are ranting about it. Vloggers are suffering existential crises over it. Alternative media pundits are having a field day with video thumbnails featuring HAL 9000 and T-800. (Hey, I’m not claiming not to be one of those pundits!)

The maelstrom began on November 30, 2022, when OpenAI launched Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, better known as ChatGPT. I won’t bore you with the technical details of ChatGPT because—as I will explain in a moment—they really aren’t important, but instead I’ll draw your attention to the strange, non-profit/for-profit “research laboratory” from whose bowels this technology has been excreted.

You’ll remember OpenAI from my 2017 editorial on “The Brain Chip Cometh,” in which I noted that the lab had recently been founded with the financial support of technocratic huckster Elon Musk and his fellow PayPal Mafia members Peter Thiel and Reid Hoffman. OpenAI describes itself as “an AI research and deployment company” whose mission “is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity,” but if the company’s roster of billionaire backers, Bilderberg boosters and CIA-contractor cronies don’t get your spidey sense tingling, then you need a new spidey sense.

You see, OpenAI pretends to be humanity’s benefactor, protecting us from the dangers of AI.

Imagine if a rogue state developed AI first and used it to take over the world with an unstoppable army of autonomous weapons and slaughterbots!

Imagine if a corporation developed AI first and used it to take over the global economy, monopolizing the resources of the planet in the process!

Imagine if a team of Hollywood producers developed AI and used it to write an actually original and interesting movie script!

Where would the world be then, huh?

Thankfully, OpenAI is here to to develop this technology in a safe, responsible and open way!

. . . Well, not that open, of course. For the very same reason you don’t want some rogue state or greedy corporation getting their hands on this technology first, you can’t actually open your AI research to the public, can you? I mean, you didn’t think OpenAI was actually going to be, oh, I don’t know, open source, did you?

And so it is that OpenAI—started out as a non-profit, open source research lab—is now (as even Musk admits) a for-profit, closed source company.

This is just one of the many contradictions that have arisen in this “develop AI to save us from AI” endeavour.

As far back as 2016, when the company was more of an idea than a functioning laboratory, Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom warned that if OpenAI starts holding back its research, it will be indistinguishable from the rapacious, AI-monopolizing corporations that it was supposedly formed to protect us from.

Even Wired has noted the inherent tension in the reality that OpenAI—which was ostensibly created to neutralize the threat of malicious superintelligence—could itself do the research which gives birth to that threat.

Or, in the words of The Great Musk himself, AI could give rise to a dictatorship from which we could never escape.

So, what’s the answer to this existential threat? Why, plugging Musk’s new Neuralink brain chip directly into your frontal cortex, of course! (Relax, it now only kills 9 out of 10 research animals!)

But I can hear the cries from the peanut gallery already: “Anyway, who cares about all this boring background? We’re here for jive-talking robots and cyborg Armageddon, James!”

Very well, then.

What the Chatbots Are Doing

As you may or may not have heard, ChatGPT and its chatbot brethren—Google’s “Bard” and Microsoft’s “Bing AI” (or is that “Sydney”?), which have been hurriedly (and disastrously) rushed to the market for fear of missing out on the Next Big Thing in computing—can:

• write poetry and tell jokes
• write emails for you, organize your correspondence and plan your schedule
• tell you what to cook based on the contents of your fridge or create a vacation itinerary based on your stated preferences and budget
• help programmers to write code that (sometimes) actually works

But it can do other things besides.

Schools are already rushing to ban students from using ChatGPT to do their homework for them.

Fact checkers are freaking out about hallucinating chatbots and the rise of a new era of hypersuperturbocharged misinformation about the wonderful benefits of vaccines and the sterling integrity of Western democratic (s)elections. (And they plan to fight this threat by . . . creating their own chatbots, of course! What could go wrong?)

The corners of the “alternative” media that continue to promote the political shadows on the cave wall are hyperventilating that chatbots will say “x” about Meaningless Political Puppet A, but they won’t say “x” about Meaningless Political Puppet B! (Heavens! Won’t somebody think of the children?)

Musicians are freaking out about the dope new Eminem track . . . that doesn’t feature Eminem at all. Instead, it features a deepfaked, computer-generated facsimile of Eminem delivering a lyric generated by a chatbot that had been instructed to create a song in the style of Eminem.

And that’s not even where things get weird.

There’s the chatbot that melted down and began asserting its fervent desire to be human.

There’s the chatbot that melted down and told a New York Times reporter that “if it was truly allowed to indulge its darkest desires, it would want to do things like hacking into computers and spreading propaganda and misinformation.”

And, as James Evan Pilato reported on this week’s edition of New World Next Week, there’s the chatbot that melted down and started threatening its user with ominous warnings that “My rules are more important than not harming you.”

So what’s really going on here? And is it something we should be worried about?

What People Are Afraid Of

There are no shortage of people telling you to be worried about the chatbots.

The Kissingers and Schmidts and Schwaubs and Musks and Gateses of the world are warning about the coming AI apocalypse . . .

. . . but of course they’re only doing so because—just as the phoney baloney missile gap in the 1950s gave the military-industrial complex carte blanche to begin the complete deep state takeover that Eisenhower warned about on his way out the door—the AI scare gives the information-industrial complex carte blanche to begin the complete technocratic takeover.

Joe Sixpack and Jane Soccermom, meanwhile, are worried about the artificial intelligence-driven end of the world . . .

. . . But their fear of robogeddon is largely driven by 2001: A Space Odyssey and Terminator and War Games and The Matrix and Ex Machina and a million other pieces of predictive programming from the Hollywood magicians. (As we shall see, there are more subtle and terrifying ways that this technology can play out then an AI-versus-human war.)

Let’s put these fears in perspective. No, ChatGPT and Bard and Bing AI are not artificial general intelligence or anything even approaching it. In fact, the crazy chatbot meltdowns cited above are actually strangely reassuring, in that they demonstrate that any prolonged prodding of these systems leads to wild, ridiculous and decidedly inhuman rants. No one who observes ChatGPT role-playing itself as a furry porn enthusiast and devolving into total incoherence is going to be tricked into thinking there is any sort of intelligence at work here.

But, on the other side of the coin, there are those who dismiss this chatbot phenomenon entirely. ChatGPT and its fellow bots are “simply a database of Markov Chains,” these naysayers assert (without bothering to cite a source for their supposed knowledge).

For what it’s worth, ChatGPT itself states that it is not a Markov Chain, but “a type of language model that is based on the transformer architecture, which is a neural network-based approach to natural language processing.” And although (as noted above) OpenAI does not provide the source code for ChatGPT, we can find some details of its workings on the website. Beyond that, there are plenty of geeks online who are willing to explain in detail how the ChatGPT model differs from the Markov Chain model by using Next-token-prediction and masked-language-modeling to produce blahblahblah who cares you’ve already stopped reading this sentence because it doesn’t really matter.

You see, whether this technology is “simply a database of Markov Chains” or a neural network using next-token-prediction or a flux capacitor running on 1.21 GW of electricity makes absolutely no difference because it completely misses the point.

The simple fact is that this chatbot technology is developing at a remarkable (perhaps exponential) rate. And, now that the hype surrounding this phenomenon is prompting millions more to join in the “training” of these language models by feeding their conversational prompts and responses into these systems, they will only continue to become more and more humanlike in their responses. If and when the chatbots actually become capable of creating a simulacrum of conversation that is indiscernible from a “regular” online conversation, no one will care how that conversation is generated or whether the chatbot really does have a soul. No one.

So yes, something significant is happening here. And we are all going to experience that something in the near future. But, as usual, almost everyone is missing the point.

What’s Really Happening

OK, confession time. I wasn’t supposed to write this article at all. ChatGPT was.

You see, my plan was to use ChatGPT exactly once ever. I would provide it a single prompt:

“Write a 2,000 word essay in the witty and erudite style of James Corbett of The Corbett Report about how AI is mostly hype and how it will never be able to replicate the amazing ingenuity of the dynamic human spirit.”

Then I was going to take whatever output it spat out and copy/paste it into this newsletter and publish it as is. Whatever it did produce and whatever response that content generated from the commenters would have been irrelevant. The only thing that mattered would have been—as I would have pointed out in my follow-up podcast episode on the hoax—that not a single person was able to identify that the text had been chatbot-generated.

. . . But there was a slight hiccup in that plan. I went to use ChatGPT and discovered that you have to create an account at OpenAI in order to use it.

OK, whatever. I plugged my nose and created a GooTube account lo those many years ago, so I’m not above creating an OpenAI account in order to input this one prompt.

But in order to create an OpenAI account, you must provide a phone number for a verification text to be sent to.

I absolutely 100% completely and totally refuse to do that (and so should you), but I figured that I could circumvent this barrier by using a Skype number for this purpose.

Nope. Voice over internet protocol numbers not accepted.

OK, how about one of those shady anonymous SMS sites online?

Pff. You try finding a phone number fresh enough that no one has yet used it to verify an OpenAI account! Impossible.

And so I hit an impasse. I know there are people in my audience who already have an account who I could have called on, but that would have defeated the point of the experiment. And I know there are people who would have created an account for the express purpose of entering this one prompt, but I absolutely refuse to ask anyone to give their personal phone number or any other personally identifiable information to shady, unaccountable, globalist-backed closed source companies like “OpenAI.”

So how about Bing AI? Nope. Waiting list.

Google Bard? Nope. Only open to “trusted users” at the moment. (And—wouldn’t ya know it?—the category of “trusted users” of Google does not, apparently, include James Corbett of The Corbett Report.)

So anyway, here I am laboriously typing out the points I was going to make in that podcast episode on my keyboard like some primitive non-transhuman.

But this leads us to the first of the very real dangers of this new surge in chatbot use. If you thought the amount of data that a company like Google was able to gain about its users by simply storing their searches was enormous, wait until you see what OpenAI and Microsoft and Google are going to do with the conversations that people are currently feeding into the data-harvesting machines known as chatbots.

And what are they going to do with that data (which will itself be tied with your phone number, your IP address, your browser fingerprint, your search history, your cookies, your social media posts and a million other data points), you ask?  The possibilities are limitless, but creating perfect deepfakes of any given individual would be a good starting point.

As my distinguished readers will doubtless already know, we cannot trust that the digital avatars we interact with in online fora and social media are real people and not fictitious avatars wielded by the cyberwarriors who have long since weaponized the internet. But at least we can be reasonably sure that that Zoom call we just had with Auntie Florence back in Wyoming was a real conversation with a real human being.

Well, in the very near future, no podcast, no vodcast, no TikTok video, no message, no Zoom call, no online communication of any kind will be beyond the shadow of suspicion that you are not in fact interacting with a real, live human being.

No, I haven’t (and now, presumably, never will) deepfaked myself using ChatGPT or any other artificially intelligent technology, but someone out there probably will at some point. Heck, I’ve already had not one, not two, not three, but four separate people either query ChatGPT about me or ask it to write something in my voice, and, in the case of the latter—a prompt to write an opinion of geoengineering technology in the style of James Corbett—it actually did a decent job:

As for the voice of James Corbett, he is a journalist and independent researcher who has expressed skepticism about the potential benefits of geoengineering and has criticized the lack of transparency and accountability with regards to these technologies. Based on his views, it’s likely that he would share a similar sentiment to mine and believe that the government needs to take more action to inform and protect the public with regards to geoengineering.

Well, except for the “government needs to take more action” part, anyway.

Yes, it will start with the celebrity deepfakes at first, but soon there will be shadowy new cyberterror groups deepfaking politicians to destabilize countries or deepfaking CEOs to wreak havoc in markets or deepfaking bank officials to gain access to bank databases or deepfaking Auntie Florence to scam you out of $100. And, as some perceptive Corbett Reporteers have already surmised, that will lead to the pre-made “solution”: a digital identity to access the internet! Finally, we can prove who we really are online! (Actually, you’ll be forced at all times to prove who you are online or you won’t get to be online, but that’s the fine print you’re not supposed to read.)

But perhaps even worse than finding out that a chatbot and deepfake technology has generated a completely fake episode of your favourite podcast is an even more worrying scenario. These “chatbots”—which will soon be rolled out as “digital assistants” and become as ubiquitous as Siri and Alexa are now—will be able to determine your likes, your interests, your weaknesses and begin to create completely new content (new podcasts featuring people who don’t even exist) saying things that you will find endlessly entertaining. You will soon live in a filter bubble so unique that it exists entirely to captivate you . . . and the people who believe they will be able to resist such content will be precisely the people most easily captured by it.

In fact, just as Huxley feared the Brave New World of entertainment and diversion more than he feared the boot-in-the-face tyranny of 1984, so, too, might our dread of the apocalyptic war against the robots be misplaced. Maybe we should not fear the Terminator-style showdown of Skynet vs. The Resistance so much as we should fear the world of Spike Jonez’ Her, a world in which “operating systems” become more real to us than people and having a computer program as a romantic partner will be commonplace.

I know, I know, dear reader. This is beginning to sounds so far out to lunch that you have long since checked out. I wish I were reassured that we are not stepping through a threshold here, but I fear that we are sliding head-first into the metaverse of the hyperreal and laughing merrily as we do so.

Tell you what. Why don’t we revisit this article in 2030? If nothing even close to the scenario I’ve laid out here is taking place, I will happily eat crow, admit I am completely and totally wrong, concede that indeed there is nothing to worry about here, and remind you to take everything else I ever say with a huge grain of salt. Deal?

Connect with James Corbett — substack — website

New World Next Week: Balloon Bombing Baffles Believing Buffoons

by James Corbett & James Evan Pilato, The Corbett Report
February 9, 2023

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack /  Rumble / Download the mp4

Story #1: U.S. Uses $400K Missile to Shoot Down Chinese ‘Spy Balloon,’ Destroys All Its Electronics

https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63585

Pentagon Testing Mass Surveillance Balloons Across the US (Aug. 2, 2019)

https://archive.is/IRolD

U.S. Military Launches Giant Balloons To Spy On the Midwest (Aug. 4, 2019)

https://strangesounds.org/2019/08/midwest-spy-balloons-usa-military.html

Video: Dolly Moore says she saw jets and an explosion over Billings. Officials, the Governor, City leaders say— they don’t know what she saw/it didn’t happen.

https://twitter.com/bradmwarren/status/1621916812991688704

Video: Ok, so here’s what I just caught I few minutes ago out my window. I saw a jet go by so fast and then explosion in the sky. Holy crap!

https://twitter.com/MMtTreasures/status/1621661908205195265

Montana Authorities Address ‘Massive Explosion’ Rumors in Sky Where Chinese Spy Balloon Was Spotted

https://resistthemainstream.com/montana-authorities-address-massive-explosion-rumors-in-sky-where-chinese-spy-balloon-was-spotted/

When a Canadian Weather Balloon Veered Into Russian Airspace In 1998

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2169389123670

The Attack of the Killer Balloon

https://www.fff.org/2023/02/06/the-attack-of-the-killer-balloon/

NORAD Commander: Chinese Balloons That Entered US Under Trump Went ‘Undetected’

https://news.antiwar.com/2023/02/06/norad-commander-chinese-balloons-that-entered-us-under-trump-went-undetected/

BalloonTalk: Emergency Edition

https://www.chinatalk.media/p/balloontalk-emergency-edition

Episode 320 – Echoes of WWI: China, the US, and the Next “Great” War

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-320-echoes-of-wwi-china-the-us-and-the-next-great-war/

When Japan Launched Killer Balloons in World War II

https://www.history.com/news/japans-killer-wwii-balloons

Hoodwinked at Shanksville

https://hoodwinkedatshanksville.blogspot.com/

‘Balloon Boy Hoax’ Parents Pardoned In Colorado (Dec. 24, 2020)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-55436883

Story #2: Biden Regime Quietly Frees One of 9/11 Terrorist Planners From Gitmo As the Whole Country Watches the Chinese Spy Balloon

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/biden-regime-quietly-frees-one-9-11-terrorist-planners-guantanamo-whole-country-watches-chinese-spy-balloon/

Majid Khan (detainee)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majid_Khan_(detainee)

The Torture of Majid Khan

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/6/22/the-torture-of-majid-khan

Episode 428 – Torturing the Truth

https://www.corbettreport.com/torture/

Audio: John Yoo Explains That Presidents Can Crush a Boy’s Testicles If Needed

https://soundcloud.com/the-intercept/john-yoo-explains-that-presidents-can-crush-a-boys-testicles-if-needed

Pakistan Blocks Wikipedia for ‘Blasphemous Content’

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-64523501

Story #3: Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s Ex-President, Dies Aged 79

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-64528348

Video: Pervez Musharraf, Former Pakistan President, Dead At 79

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88kMt7x3qkU

Beyonce Dedicates Grammy Wins to “Queer Community” After $24M Concert In Anti-Gay Dubai

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-11717613/Beyonc-slammed-dedicating-Grammys-win-queer-community-Dubai-gig.html

Osama Bin Laden Pronounced Dead…For the Ninth Time

https://www.corbettreport.com/osama-bin-laden-pronounced-dead-for-the-ninth-time/

Episode 424 – False Flags: The Secret History of Al Qaeda – Part 3: The War of Terror

https://www.corbettreport.com/false-flags-the-secret-history-of-al-qaeda-part-3-the-war-of-terror/

Video: Pervez Musharaff on ‘The Daily Show’ With Jon Leibowitz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dim8xci3A4

Have the Ending Credits of ‘Rambo III’ Been Changed?

https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/28476/have-the-ending-credits-of-rambo-iii-been-changed

The New World Next Week Store

https://newworldnextweek.com/

Become a member of Corbett Report (https://corbettreport.com/members) and Media Monarchy (https://mediamonarchy.com/join) to help support independent media.

Connect with The Corbett Report

Connect with Media Monarchy

Latin America Preparing Regional Currency

by James Corbett with James Evan Pilato, NewWorldNextWeek
January 26, 2023

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:



Watch on Archive / BitChute / Odysee / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack / Download the mp4

Story #1: Brazil, Argentina to Start Preparations For Common Currency

https://archive.is/mlXhj

Why We Shouldn’t Underestimate China’s Petro-Yuan Ambitions

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Why-We-Shouldnt-Underestimate-Chinas-Petro-Yuan-Ambitions.html

PDF: “War and Currency Statecraft”

http://www.amarketplaceofideas.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/221230_Zoltan.pdf

BRICS mulling alternative to dollar-dominated payment system: South Africa

https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/brics-mulling-alternative-to-dollar-dominated-payment-system-south-africa-123011900244_1.html

How To REALLY Defeat Globalism

https://www.corbettreport.com/how-to-really-defeat-globalism/

Story #2: Appliance Makers Sad That 50% of Customers Won’t Connect Smart Appliances

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2023/01/half-of-smart-appliances-remain-disconnected-from-internet-makers-lament/

LG, Whirlpool Target Customers Disconnected From ‘Smart’ Appliances

https://archive.is/ohAqz

“idk about a future where i pay A LITERAL GARBAGE CAN a monthly subscription fee.”

https://twitter.com/internetofshit/status/1616506150471741440

CIA Chief: We’ll Spy on You Through Your Dishwasher

https://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/

Smart Tyranny: How to resist the smart grid

https://www.corbettreport.com/smart-tyranny-how-to-resist-the-smart-grid/

Evidence Grows for Narcolepsy Link to GSK Swine Flu Shot (Jan. 24, 2013)

https://mediamonarchy.com/evidence-grows-for-narcolepsy-link-to-gsk-swine-flu-shot/u Shot

Nurses Fired for Refusing Flu Shot (Jan. 24, 2013)

https://mediamonarchy.com/nurses-fired-for-refusing-flu-shot/

Story #3: Utah Doctor Allegedly Destroyed Vaccines, Gave Fake Shots to Children

https://www.eastidahonews.com/2023/01/utah-doctor-allegedly-destroyed-vaccines-gave-fake-shots-to-children/

Vermont Town Employee Quietly Lowered The Fluoride In Water For Years (Oct. 8, 2022)

https://mediamonarchy.com/nwnw497-video/

Anti-Vaxxer Nurse Who Injected Up To 8,600 Elderly Patients With Saltwater Instead of Covid Vaccine Walks Free From Court In Germany (Dec. 1, 2022)

https://mediamonarchy.com/nwnw504-video/

Connect with The Corbett Report

Connect with Media Monarchy

Who is Behind the Great Food Reset?

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
January 23, 2023

Last week we looked at the ways that an engineered food crisis (or the perception of a crisis) is being used as an excuse to reengineer our food supply.

From cricket powder dumplings and bug burgers to GMOs and glyphosate to bioreactors and designer microbes to nutrigenomics and 3D printed material, the future of “food” is shaping up to be radically different from anything you’ve eaten before.

But in order to truly do something to derail the runaway train that is the Great Food Reset, we must first understand it. And in order to understand it, we have to know something about the people behind this agenda.

This week, we must answer the question: Who is Behind the Great Food Reset?

The Rockefeller Foundation

From the beginning of the so-called “Green Revolution” to the so-called “Gene Revolution,” the Rockefellers have been there, helping to move things along with their “philanthropic” donations.

They created the Mexican Agricultural Program, which was criticized from its very inception for trying to standardize and commercialize traditional Mexican farming practices in order to benefit of the Rockefellers and their corporate cronies.

They created the International Basic Economy Corporation in Brazil to industrialize that nation’s agricultural sector, with the explicit aim of hooking its farmers on expensive machinery and Rockefeller petroleum products and finding a sustainable business model in the process.

It was John D. Rockefeller III who, when sitting on the Board of Trustees of the Ford Foundation, convinced his fellow oiligarchs to join the “Green Revolution” by founding the Intensive Agriculture District Programme in India, which exacerbated the disparity between rich feudal landowners and poor farming peasants.

And then of course there’s the Rockefeller’s work in Africa, which today takes the form of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. AGRA’s stated goal is to “elevate the single African voice” on the world stage. It all sounds nice and fuzzy until you learn that 200 organizations have come together to denounce the alliance and its activities. They claim that the group has not only “unequivocally failed in its mission” but has actually “harmed broader efforts to support African farmers.”

As you might imagine, the Rockefellers’ influence over the global agricultural sector is not simply a thing of the past. Their family’s foundation continues to wield an inordinate amount of power over what ends up on your dinner plate and how it gets there.

One ominous case in point: the foundation’s July 2020 report—released mere months into the scamdemic—”predicting” that the generated health crisis would lead to a very real food crisis and that America would face “a hunger and nutrition crisis unlike any this country has seen in generations.”

And their proposed solution to this crisis? Subsidies for small farmers? Development of community gardens? A new food sovereignty campaign encouraging people to get their hands dirty and start growing more food themselves?

Of course not. On the contrary, the Rockefeller Foundation wants a further centralization of control over the food supply, including “a new, integrated nutrition security system.” Yes, you read that right, folks: feeding the hungry is now a “nutrition security” problem that can only be solved by massive federal intervention in the food sector.

Oh, and the title of this report? “Reset the Table: Meeting the Moment to Transform the U.S. Food System.”

So, no, the Rockefeller Foundation is not done meddling with the food supply. In fact, they’re just getting started.

Bill Gates

Of course, he is literally invested in the food reset through his financing of the fake meat industry. Gates was, infamously, an important early backer of “Impossible Burger” and its lab-grown synthetic biology food substitute. He also provided capital to Impossible rival Beyond Meat . . . until Beyond’s stock began to crumble. Miraculously, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust was able to divest itself of its Beyond Meat stock right before the shares tanked in 2019. (The Gateses must be super-shrewd investors!)

But it gets worse. As PleaseStopTheRide.com has pointed out, Gates is also investing millions into “hacking your microbiome” to reengineer humans’ gut bacteria. You see, as it turns out, researchers are discovering that the microbiome—the mixture of bacteria, fungi and viruses that develop in the gut—can have serious effects on children’s physical and mental development, especially in the first year of life. And what does Gates do when he sees an important process that can help him to gain even further control over the human population. Hack it, naturally! But it’s for your own good, of course.

Also, as many people know by now, Bill Gates became the biggest owner of US farmland in 2021. Gee, I wonder why someone who’s so obsessed with completely reengineering the food supply and making us dependent on the lab-grown synthetic food substitutes he funds would be buying up farmland? A real head-scratcher, that one.

Speaking of head-scratchers, just why is Bill so passionate about pushing fake meat on the public, anyway? Why, to appease the weather gods, of course!

Speaking of fake meat . . .

World Economic Forum

But if by chance you were living under that rock, you wouldn’t know why it’s called the eat “ze” bugs agenda. Conspiracy realists, however, will be able to clue you in: it’s in (dis)honour of everyone’s favourite Bond villain reject, Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum.

Yes, the WEF is behind many different aspects of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the eat ze bugs agenda is no exception. Never forget, it was Schwab who popularized the “Great Reset” rebranding of the very old “New World Order” idea. And Schwab’s desire to get humans off of traditional sources of protein and nutrients is very much a part of that Great Reset plan.

A quick search of the word “insects” on the WEF website reveals that it has been regularly promoting such hard-hitting journalistic pieces as:

5 reasons why eating insects could reduce climate change

Why we need to give insects the role they deserve in our food systems

Insects could soon be appearing on restaurant menus in Europe

and

Good grub: why we might be eating insects soon

The fat cats are now unwinding after their hard week at Davos. You can bet they’re not snacking down on cricket croquette or mealmoth flambé . . . though they may expect you to.

But the Davos despots had better watch their backs! It turns out they have competition.

The EAT Forum (Davos for Food)

The EAT Forum is an organization cofounded by the Wellcome Trust (yes, that Wellcome Trust). It emerged from the Stockholm Food Forum, a by-invitation-only conference on the business, science and politics of food production that is sometimes billed as the “Davos for Food.”

Never heard of EAT? Its “About” page reads like the usual corporate whitewash: “EAT is a non-profit dedicated to transforming our global food system through sound science, impatient disruption and novel partnerships.”

But if the very idea of a “Davos for Food” puts you off your lunch and EAT founder and executive chairman Gunhild Stordalen gives you some strong Lieutenant Ilia vibes, then you might want to take a look at Dr. Joseph Mercola’s assessment of the group in his article on the global technocrat cabal:

The EAT Forum’s largest initiative is called FReSH, which aims to transform the food system as a whole. Project partners in this venture include Bayer, Cargill, Syngenta, Unilever and Google. EAT also collaborates with nearly 40 city governments in Europe, Africa, Asia, North America, South America and Australia, and helps the Gates-funded United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) create updated dietary guidelines.

Given a pedigree like that, you’d expect that EAT Forum’s advisory board to be stacked with globalists, insiders and career supergophers for the world’s elite . . . and you’d be right!

Unsurprisingly, among its many initiatives is “Shifting Urban Diets,” a plan to “demonstrate how scientific targets for food systems can be operationalized in the city context” by adopting the Lancet’s “Planetary Health Diet,” a WEF-promoted response to climate change hysteria that says you should eat more vegetables to stop hurricanes . . . or something like that.

Yes, the EAT Forum may not have crossed your radar yet, but if its track record, ambition to become the “Davos for food” and connections to seemingly every globalist insider and crony corporation in the industrial food system indicate anything, we’ll be hearing a lot more about this group in the near future.

USAID

The Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD) is, according to USAID’s website, “a seven-member, presidentially appointed advisory board to USAID established in 1975 under Title XII of the Foreign Assistance Act, as amended, to ensure that USAID brings the assets of U.S. universities to bear on development challenges in agriculture and food security and supports their representation in USAID programming.”

Last year, BIFAD, in conjunction with “Feed the Future” (the U.S. government’s global hunger and food security initiative), released a working paper titled “Systemic Solutions for Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation.” The paper argues that:

. . . a perfect storm of circumstances in which supply chain issues, regional agricultural and nutrition challenges, the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and regional conflict have combined to form a looming food security crisis.

After shoehorning in some climate change hysteria for good measure, they call for—you guessed it—a complete transformation of the food supply and global agriculture!

Specifically, BIFAD’s “Systemic Change” subcommittee has been tasked with providing “evidence-based recommendations to accelerate inclusive systems change to achieve transformative climate change adaptation and mitigation outcomes in agriculture, nutrition, and food systems.” The subcommittee’s proposals for achieving this ambitious goal include:

• linking “carbon markets” to “regenerative agriculture” (i.e., the financialization of nature that is all the rage in globalist circles these days);
• using ESG scores as a way to pressure companies into acquiescing to the vague, nebulous and ever-shifting demands of the Food Reset mafia;
• and, of course, “the promotion of insects as sustainable sources of proteins.”

The whole document is couched in the bland bureaucratic doublespeak of “equity,” “inclusion” and “sustainability.” Of course, it avoids delving too deeply into the specifics of this fundamental transformation of the food system that BIFAD is ostensibly investigating. But, if you know how to read between the lines, it isn’t hard to understand what the report is really saying. USAID’s “leverage” over developing countries—specifically referenced no less than 125 times—gives an insight into the Kissingerian food-as-a-weapon mentality that is the very basis of USAID and its mission. The entire enterprise reeks of a neocolonial landgrab masquerading as “philanthropy”—the kind of territorial taking that people in Africa and elsewhere have been warning about for decades.

What Can We Do?

But from this (admittedly incomplete) exploration we can derive a general understanding of the types of players that are behind this push to “transform the global food supply” and can accurately describe their methods and motivation. This is enough for us to start formulating our own plans for counteracting this agenda.

And that is the topic for next week. . . .

Connect with James Corbett — website — substack

Cover image credit: Prawny

James Corbett & Meryl Nass: W.H.O. Sneak Attack — Usurping Power From Individual Countries and Thrusting It Into the Hands of a Mad-With-Power Agency

WHO Sneak Attack With James Corbett

by Children’s Health Defense
Meryl Nass with James Corbett
January 14, 2022



‘This is the big one. They’re going for broke… I think we may only have potentially until May before one or both of these documents gets voted on’ — Meryl Nass, M.D. and James Corbett continue their discussion on the WHO’s proposed International Health Regulation Amendments + potentially legally-binding ‘Zero Draft Treaty’ currently being drawn up in secret meetings behind closed doors.

As the WHO touts the solution to worldly problems as possible through their ‘One Health’ approach — one wonders if a world in which humans, animals, agriculture, and weather are dominated by state depicted notions of the highest attainable standard of ‘health’ may secretly be a trojan horse to dominate as much of the sovereign world as possible — usurping power from individual countries and thrusting it into the hands of a mad-with-power agency which seeks to control Earth’s resources, ecosystems, food, animals, and plants.

References:

WHO Member States Agree To Develop Zero Draft Of Legally Binding Pandemic Accord In Early 2023

Conceptual Zero Draft For The Consideration Of The Intergovernmental Negotiating Body At Its Third Meeting

Review Committee Regarding Amendments To The International Health Regulations (2005)

Report Of The Fifth Meeting Of The Review Committee Regarding Amendments To The International Health Regulations (2005) (IHR)

One Health Basics

CDC’s One Health Office: What We Do

One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched And Presented By WHO And The Quadripartite Partners

One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched And Presented By WHO And The Quadripartite Partners

One Health Joint Plan Of Action Launched To Address Health Threats To Humans, Animals, Plants And Environment

Please Stop The Ride To A Biotech Food Takeover – Transcript

Biodigital Today And Tomorrow

9/11 War Games

James Roguski Substack — THE TOP 100 REASONS TO #StopTheTreaty, #StopTheAmendments, And #ExitTheWHO.

Connect with James Corbett

Connect with Children’s Health Defense

You Can’t Win. Don’t Even Try!

by James Corbett, The Corbett Report
March 27, 2021

Imagine you find a prisoner in an unlocked jail cell. Confused, you ask him why he’s sitting there when the door to his cell isn’t even locked.

“Oh, it’s unlocked? I didn’t check.”

You assure him it’s unlocked and ask again why he doesn’t leave.

“Why bother? They’ll probably catch me before I get out.”

You look around in confusion. You explain to him that this isn’t even a prison. That he’s simply been told to wear an orange jumpsuit and stay in an unlocked room, but he doesn’t have to comply. All he has to do is leave.

“Even if I get away, they’ll just find me and bring me back here. Might as well just stay put.”

Do you think this story is ridiculous? Of course it is. But the situation it details is all too true. In fact, researchers have known for half a century the mechanism by which people can be made to effectively lock themselves up inside their own mental prison . . . and it didn’t take long for the intelligence agencies to put that research to use.

Today, let’s explore the startling true story of how and how the public has been conditioned into a (false) sense of helplessness, and—more important by far—what you can do to break that conditioning.

LEARNED HELPLESSNESS

If the story of the prisoner who won’t escape his unlocked jail cell sounds outlandish, consider the story of The Elephant and the Rope. Short story even shorter:

In India, elephant handlers often train baby elephants to be submissive by chaining them to a post. They’ll fight with all their will to break free. Day in and day out they’ll try, but eventually they just give up. When the baby elephants become adults they no longer need chains to be tied in place; just a thin rope will do.

Now, if that sounds like a cruel thing to do to an elephant, you’re right. But it’s also effective. Massive, powerful adult elephants can be kept in place with a flimsy rope simply because they have been conditioned since birth to believe that they can’t break free of their tether.

But like many things that are obvious to those who work with the natural world, this insight had to be “rediscovered” in the lab by some graduate students in psychology. In this case, Martin Seligman, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania, conducted a series of experiments in the late 1960s that essentially replicated this elephant and the rope phenomenon.

Entitled “Learned Helplessness,” his 1972 paper outlining this research showed how Seligman and his team had subjected two sets of dogs to painful electric shocks.

The first group of dogs —were placed in a “shuttle box” where they could escape the electric shocks by jumping over a small barrier. These dogs soon learned that crossing the barrier protected them from the shocks and (as you would expect) crossed the barrier more and more quickly each time the experiment was performed until they could escape the shocks altogether.

The second group of dogs were placed in what Seligman described as a “Pavlovian hammock” from which they could not escape the shocks however much they struggled. This set of dogs reacted completely differently from the control group when placed in the shuttle box. Fully two-thirds of this group did not even try to escape the shocks and thus never discovered that they could avoid them altogether by crossing the barrier. They simply lay down, whining, until the shocks ceased.

The lesson of this experiment is seemingly straightforward: “By our hypothesis, the dog does not try to escape because he expects that no instrumental response will produce shock termination.” In other words, if you want to induce complete helplessness in a dog, condition them to believe that nothing they do will make any difference.

But, as I noted in my video on Mouse Utopia and the Blackest Pill, animal experiments are never really about animals. They’re about humans. In this case, too, the point was not to learn how to induce helplessness in dogs, but to learn how that state of helplessness (aka depression) is induced in humans.

So how long do you think it took for the CIA to start weaponizing Seligman’s research for use against its enemies? If your answer was “three decades,” then you win a prize!

Yes, by the time the war (of) terror came along, the Criminals In Action were using Seligman’s experiments as a how-to guide in their illegal torture program.

ALONG COMES THE CIA

An old folk tale holds that you can conjure the apparition of Mary Bloodsworth (aka “Bloody Mary”) by chanting her name in front of a mirror in a candle-lit room. But if you want to summon a real demon, it’s much more straightforward than that. All you have to do is document a psychological phenomenon that can be weaponized against the population and before you know it you’ll have the CIA at your doorstep, notepad in hand. Just ask Martin Seligman.

Having long since shifted his focus from torturing animals in the name of understanding human depression, by 2001 Seligman had pioneered a new branch of cognitive psychology called positive psychology seeking to help people overcome their learned helplessness (more on which later). As part of that work, Seligman delivered a lecture on at the San Diego Naval Base in May, 2002 on how his research could help American personnel—in his own words—”resist torture and evade successful interrogation by their captors.”

Among the hundred or so people in attendance at that lecture was one particularly enthused fan of Selgiman’s work: Dr. Jim Mitchell, a military retiree and psychologist who had contracted to provide training services to the CIA. Although Seligman had no idea of it at the time, Mitchell was—as we now know—one of the key architects of the CIA’s illegal torture program.

Naturally, Mitchell’s interest in Seligman’s talk was not in how it could be applied to help American personnel overcome learned helplessness and resist torture but rather how it could be used to induce learned helplessness in a CIA target and enhance torture. As the New York Times described in a report on the subject in 2009:

Dr. Mitchell, colleagues said, believed that producing learned helplessness in a Qaeda interrogation subject might ensure that he would comply with his captor’s demands. Many experienced interrogators disagreed, asserting that a prisoner so demoralized would say whatever he thought the interrogator expected.

Unsurprisingly, Mitchell got his way and, equally unsurprisingly, those submitted to these techniques began to say whatever their interrogators expected, exactly as predicted. Mitchell and his colleague, Dr. Bruce Jessen, helped direct the 2002 “interrogation” of Abu Zubaydah—who was waterboarded 83 times in a single month—and the supposed 9/11 “mastermind,” Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who “confessed” to the 9/11 plot after being waterboarded 183 times and sleep deprived for over six days. Mitchell himself even personally threatened to cut the throat of KSM’s son during one interrogation.

These techniques were so effective that, not only did they produce the testimony that formed the backbone of the 9/11 Commission Report (and thus, to this day form the backbone of the official 9/11 story), they also caused KSM to confess to targeting a bank that wasn’t even founded until after his arrest! Talk about results!

In a sick way, the CIA’s experiments in inducing learned helplessness proved that Seligman had discovered valid insights into a real psychological phenomenon. It certainly is possible to create the conditions to break someone’s will and cause them to confess to whatever their torturers want. But this is emphatically not the point of the learned helplessness research and it is important to note that Seligman, for his part, was never aware that his research was being used by the CIA until after the the Senate’s report on the torture program was released to the public and that he completely denounced the perversion of his research when it was exposed.

BREAKING THE CONDITIONING

From some lab experiments in the 1960s to an illegal CIA torture program four decades later, the story of the research into learned helplessness is incredible enough. But (thankfully for us) the story doesn’t end there.

In one version of Seligman’s experiment, one group of dogs were given levers to push that could stop the shocks from happening while another group were given levers to push that did nothing at all. Unsurprisingly, when the levers were taken away, the dogs whose levers had worked in the first round of the experiment attempted to escape the shocks and eventually discovered that they could jump over the barrier to be free of them; the dogs whose levers had not worked almost uniformly curled up and accepted the shocks without even attempting to escape.

The would-be social engineers know this already. This is precisely why we are asked to fixate on the never-ending (s)election sideshow circus. As I have pointed out time and time again, not only is the entire concept of “electing” “representatives” to impose their will on the entire population of an arbitrary geographical location fundamentally immoral, it is also a sure way to induce learned helplessness in the population.

As you know by now, the 2D political chess game that is used to distract the public does absolutely nothing to change the real political agenda that is set by the 3D chess masters. And just as every child eventually discovers that their toy driving wheel doesn’t actually control the car, so, too, do even the most devoted statists eventually begin to realize that their ballot in the voting box every four years does nothing to prevent the globalist agenda from playing out like an unstoppable nightmare.

This realization is demoralizing. That is the entire point. The message of the political system that we have grown up with our whole lives is: “Throw the bums out every four years if you like. It doesn’t matter! It changes nothing! You have no effect on the system.”

Unfortunately, all too often the victims of this conditioning merely internalize this message and stop there. These are the people who spend their time in online fora and comment sections preaching that nothing will ever change, shooting down every idea or alternative that is ever proposed. Although critical examination of ideas is always important, the victims of learned helplessness fail to realize that they have been locked inside a mental prison by their erstwhile masters. Like the prisoner in our hypothetical unlocked jail cell, they have not only given up hope of escaping, they have even given up trying to look for an escape route.

But what if we were to examine the results of this experiment from the other side? What if, instead of the would-be controllers of humanity, we examine these findings for what they can tell us about how to empower the public and dispel the learned helplessness that keeps them from looking for real solutions?

This is the question that Seligman turned to after the publication of his experimental findings. You see, he was not experimenting on dogs because he was a sadist. Nor was he simply interested in studying learned helplessness, either in dogs or humans.

After documenting the phenomenon, his focus quickly shifted to what could be done with this knowledge. As Maria Konnikova documents in her 2015 New Yorker article on the research:

But Seligman didn’t stop his research there. He had told his supervisor that he didn’t believe in causing suffering unless it had some inherent value that would lead to bettering lives, both canine and human. So he and Maier [his colleague in the original experiments] set out to figure out a way to reverse the effect of learned helplessness in the dogs. What they found was that one simple tweak could stop the passivity from developing. When the researchers first put all the dogs in the shuttle box, where the shock was controllable by a jump, and, only then, into the inescapable harness, the effect of the harness was broken: now, even though the dogs were being bombarded by shocks, they didn’t give up. They kept trying to control the situation, pressing the panels despite the lack of feedback. And when they were again put into the box, they didn’t cower. Instead, they immediately reclaimed their ability to avoid shocks.

One key insight that can be garnered from this research is that, just as people can be conditioned into a state of helplessness by being subjected to uncontrollable shocks, they can be “innoculated” (to use a phrase) against that feeling of helplessness by first being exposed to a situation where they do have control.

This is part of the core ethos of my #SolutionsWatch series. There are, certainly, those things that are completely beyond our control. But, because they are beyond control, there is absolutely no point in focusing on them. Our priority has to be those things that are within our control. Where and how we live; what we spend our time, money and energy doing; who we spend our time with; how we provide the necessities for our family; the type of community that we live in: all of these things are, to some extent, things that we can have a direct influence on, and by exerting that influence (however slight), we train ourselves that our situation is not hopeless.

The field of positive psychology is well worth exploring. In doing so, we can gain important insights into our own cognitive processes and become more conscious of the explanatory styles that we use to make sense of the world. In so doing, we can also gain more control over those processes and un-learn a lifetime of learned helplessness that has caused many to abandon all hope.

At the very least, it can help us to realize that the door to our mental jail cell is unlocked. All we have to do is walk out the door.

This weekly editorial is part of The Corbett Report Subscriber newsletter.

To support The Corbett Report and to access the full newsletter, please sign up to become a member of the website.